Looking back at ‘Never Been In A Riot’, the 1978 debut single by The Mekons that parodied and criticised the message of The Clash’s debut single ‘White Riot.
By Ben Forest
Overstating the importance of The Clash on the punk landscape of the 1970s is a virtual impossibility; for many people, Joe Strummer’s outfit embodied their ‘the only band that matters’ tagline in every aspect of their existence. It is worth noting, though, that not everybody was quite so bowled over by the output of the London outfit.
A couple of hours up the M1, in the musical haven of Leeds, one group of art school students were so perturbed by The Clash’s debut single ‘White Riot’, in fact, that they took it upon themselves to launch a response, in doing so sparking one of the most enduring outfits of the punk and post-punk age: The Mekons. Source: The 1978 Clash parody that launched a punk institution
For those whose memories have been destroyed by youthful glue-sniffing or pogoing accidents, ‘White Riot’ was an often misunderstood track by the Strummer-Jones songwriting partnership. In essence, the song bemoans the complacency of white working-class people, who are not as readily prepared to stand up against their oppressors as the Black population – “Black man got a lot of problems, but they don’t mind throwing a brick”.
While probably well-meaning, the sentiment of the song is more than a little naive. After all, white people in London weren’t being subjected to horrific racist abuse, institutionalised oppression, and police brutality on a daily basis. Even still, the single had a far more noble aim than many people gave it credit for at the time, with some misguided audiences assuming that the band were calling for race riots.
Luckily, The Mekons were intelligent enough to understand that Strummer and the band weren’t calling for race riots, but that didn’t mean they were any less offended by the track. According to Kevin Lycett, the band thought the song’s sentiment of “I want a riot for us poor downtrodden white people” was nothing short of offensive, and so they decided to write a satirical response to the song, in the form of ‘Never Been in a Riot’.
An endearingly DIY recording detailing a bloke who has, as the title suggests, never been in a riot or done much of anything else, the single lays bare the phoney machismo present throughout a lot of the early punk scene, as well as the rather naive message of that Clash single.
Within only one minute and 46 seconds, The Mekons had established the entirety of their sonic manifesto, arguably in a much more effective manner than The Clash had done with their own debut single.
‘Never Been in a Riot’ was The Mekons’ very first release, and it earned the Leeds band an immediate cult following, spurred on by the fact that it was listed as single of the week in the New Musical Express at the time, even if it was never in any danger of breaking into the singles charts. From there, the outfit’s reputation only seemed to grow, and the follow-up single ‘Where Were You?’ remains an indisputable classic of the early post-punk period.
Today, bordering on half a century later, The Mekons are still going strong with upwards of 25 albums under their belts and an audience that has largely followed them through that extensive discography. Right back at the beginning, though, it all started with a parody of The Clash.
Today Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Department of Justice Civil Division wrote to the lawyer for the National Trust for Historic Preservation demanding that the organization drop its lawsuit against Trump’s planned ballroom on the site where the East Wing of the White House used to be.
The letter claimed that there was “another attempt on President Trump’s life” last night at the Washington Hilton, where Secret Service agents apprehended a man carrying a shotgun, a handgun, and multiple knives on the floor above the room where the White House Correspondents dinner was taking place last night.
The man, whom police have identified as Cole Tomas Allen, 31, of California, sprinted through a magnetometer before authorities stopped him. Shots were fired, although it remains unclear who fired them. A Secret Service agent wearing a bulletproof vest was shot but has been released from the hospital. According to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, the government is charging Cole with two counts of using a firearm and one count of assault on a federal officer using a dangerous weapon.
Shumate said last night’s incident “proves, yet again, that the White House ballroom is essential for the safety and security of the President, his family, his cabinet, and his staff. When the White House ballroom is complete, President Trump and his successors will no longer need to venture beyond the safety of the White House perimeter to attend large gatherings at the Washington Hilton ballroom. The White House ballroom will ensure the safety and security of the President for decades to come.”
“Put simply,” Shumate wrote, “your lawsuit puts the lives of the President, his family, and his staff at grave risk…. Enough is enough.” He demanded the National Trust for Historic Preservation “voluntarily dismiss this frivolous lawsuit today in light of last night’s assassination attempt on President Trump. If your client does not dismiss the lawsuit by 9:00 AM on Monday, the government will move to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the case in light of last night’s extraordinary events.”
This is an odd angle to take, since, as Bluesky user Tom Shafer pointed out, the Hilton ballroom seats 2,945 people and Trump says his proposed ballroom will seat only 999. And to be clear, a judge has permitted the construction of the secure facility under the ballroom to continue despite the lawsuit; it’s just the ballroom itself that’s currently at issue.
Attending the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is not an official requirement; this is actually the first time Trump has chosen to go as president. As Emily Davies, Isaac Arnsdorf, Jeremy Roebuck, and Joe Heim of the Washington Post reported today, the Trump administration could have provided a higher level of security last night as it has for other gatherings of high-ranking officials, but it did not designate the dinner as a “National Special Security Event.” Even so, Secret Service agents did indeed stop Cole before he could enter the ballroom.
Yesterday, David A. Fahrenthold, Luke Broadwater, and Andrea Fuller of the New York Times reported that the Trump administration has secretly awarded the company it chose to build the ballroom a no-bid $17.4 million contract to repair two ornamental fountains in Lafayette Park near the White House. In 2022 the Biden administration estimated the cost of the work to be $3.3 million. The journalists explain that the Trump administration dramatically increased the estimated cost by adding an additional 27% for inflation and then adding another inflation estimate of 24%, then increased its estimate by another 50% because it wanted to get the fountains fixed quickly, then simply gave the contract to Maryland-based Clark Construction.
While Trump claims the ballroom will be paid for by private donations, the government will pay for the fountain repairs. This means the contract should have been open for competitive bidding. To justify awarding the contract without that process, the journalists report, the administration cited an “urgency” exception to normal procedures meant for war or natural disasters.
The focus on last night’s event has obscured this upcoming week’s big story.
Trump has justified his refusal to seek congressional approval for his attack on Iran by claiming Iran posed an “imminent threat” to the U.S. While Trump’s own intelligence agencies contradicted that claim, it enabled Republicans to argue that Trump had authority to launch the strikes under the 1973 War Powers Act, which allows the president to act to counter an “imminent” threat.
But the War Powers Act says the president must notify Congress of any such action within 48 hours of its start. Then, by 60 days after that notification, the president has to stop using the military for that action unless the Congress either declares war or authorizes the use of the military for that specific action. Democrats have fought hard against Trump’s unilateral decision to go to war, but Republicans have refused to press him to get congressional approval, apparently hoping that Trump would find a way out of the Middle East crisis before hitting the 60-day mark.
But so far he has not, and the 60-day window closes on May 1.
Trump appears to believe the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports will hurt the country so badly that Iranian leaders will have to agree to his demands. But that pressure will take time to build. “I have all the time in the World, but Iran doesn’t,” he posted Thursday. He told reporters: “Don’t rush me. Don’t rush me…. So we were in Vietnam, like, for 18 years; we were in Iraq for many, many years.… I don’t like to say World War II, because that was a biggie, but we were four and a half, almost five years in World War II. And we were in the Korean war for seven years. I’ve been doing this for six weeks.”
If Trump doesn’t find an end to the conflict, Republicans must either vote to authorize what is already a deeply unpopular war or let Trump continue his war without congressional approval, adding fuel to accusations that he is becoming a dictator. After all, Trump claimed in January, after he had attacked Venezuela without congressional approval, that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and would “take away our Powers to fight and defend the United States of America.”
The idea that the president can use the military as he wishes without authority from Congress demolishes one of the fundamental principles of our democracy: that we have a right to a say in how our lives and treasure are spent.
Rather than enabling Trump, Republicans could reassert the authority the Framers of the Constitution put in Congress’s hands and stop his deadly blundering.
“We’ve heard a lot of talk from Republicans that they’ll give this president 60 days,” the second-ranking Democrat in the House, Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, told Mike Lillis of The Hill. “And this is a failed effort. And it’s long past time that he come to Congress and explain what the strategy is and what the exit is. Republicans have been saying that is a crucial timeline for them. So put your vote up on the board.”
Source: Heather Cox Richardson | Letters from an American
