[Glice]

Fair point. Agreed on the most part. A few exceptions/ diversions -

1. Artistic referencing of political events/ symbology is in a different category, by dint of its proposing to question the authority of said symbols.

2. There is a distinction between a generally accepted use/ manipulation of historical events (whether good or bad) within a society (for instance, sociolects admitting drinks named black and tan) and a company explicitly referencing a political event or history.

3. The swastika should be reclaimed in its pre-existing form - I know of a Hindu artist who uses it constantly in his art, and no-one bats an eyelid - but the nature of symbolism is open to amphiboly, historical events less so - please lets not conflate categories for our argumentative ends.

4. Again, Fugazi or Agent Orange referncing political events belongs to the realm of art, whereby the use of historical/ political events or items is used to open a dialogue with societies relationship - A large, multi-national company should never, ever attempt to involve itself in the artistic dialogue. Put simply, an artist can get away with saying, "I am questioning societies relationship with [item/ event x]". A company, whose premise is one of commerce, not art or social change, may not.

5. Your example of the Dukes of Hazzard prooves my point for me: American culture has a much higher threshold for when such referencing become offensive.

6. Censorship is again another issue - Again, America has an utterly contradictory relationship with this - you can't listen to RATM after Sept. 11th, but you can drink Black and Tans. The notion then being that the arts are capable of inciting radical thought (which is in a way giving the artists the power they demand) and that the people must be protected. But regardless, this is an instance of artistic censorship, which is to do with the State's relationship to art, not its relationship to commerce. What galls me most about this point is that no-one would think to ban Black and Tans ice cream unless enough people complained; The Dixie Chicks are banned in a pre-emptive strike against their anarchist values. America's relationship to capitalism vs America's relationship to art. 2 different categories.

7. Driving past the scene of an historical event is your choice - and you're more than welcome to it, and you're more than welcome to piss on the Alamo if you so choose, this really is a moot point. Your point is about personal liberty.

8. I don't really know the history of America/ Native Americans, but I suspect that the fact that you are aware that you are paying for a film with a symbol of American oppression of the Native Americans puts you far and away in the minority - And you seem intelligent enough to realise that your government is rampantly inconsistent with its censorship. Awareness and taking offence aren't really so far away - however, I suspect that the approach by Native Americans is one of let sleeping dogs lie, or rather, don't kick up a fuss, we don't want to go through all that horror again. Symbolic opression, many would call it. Ultimately, if people want to kick up a fuss, America is (allegedly) a free country.

Generally, I think you have a good point - people are taking too much offence at things that don't make any difference to their lives (AKA the PC brigade). In the instance of the Black and Tans Ice-cream, I think you've overshot the mark somewhat. But please be careful when you're using examples like those above, people can easily be bowled over by persuasive misceginations of categories like yours above.

NB - I'm not after a fight with you, I hope you're not thinking I'm laying into you particularly, I just think this is a political issue which is really quite important.

*EDIT - I'm not sounding like khcunt here am I?