Imo, I think you're definitely misinterpreting white supremacy. Stating that blacks haven't been smart enough to control their own destiny has been an excuse since antebellum. You can go to pro-slavery tracts from the 1850's and find these exact quotes. This is straight out of white man's burden.

In the second quote, Wayne isn't advocating against tokenism. Imo, that's a complete misreading. He's saying that there are "certain" roles that blacks are suited for (i.e. slaves roles, servants, and butlers, common roles for blacks in the early days of cinema, but by 1971, the time of the interview, had been completely and utterly done way with), while there are others for whites. Their "proper" position? A "correct" number? There's a great quote from D.L. Hughley that says, "Any white guy who's counting how many black people have been in their house is a racist." (note, that's a joke). In the end, Wayne is hiding behind tokenism. Because the real question that has to be asked from the above interview, is what are the roles that aren't suitable for blacks? What is the correct number of blacks on a John Wayne film? Note: I went to Wayne's imdb to find the "black roles" in movies he's directed (he directed 3). He only casted 1 black person in a main cast (and I count main cast as up to 15 actors). To Wayne, their "proper" number was 1.

Lastly, I don't even know what the term "maliciously" racist means. If you mean, that he never killed or acted violently toward someone of color, or we don't have recordings of him saying the "n" word, I guess he wasn't "maliciously" racist. But not being violent doesn't make you a man of your time. Wayne was a racist. Wayne consciously decided not to give actors jobs based on the color of their skin, thereby stunting careers. He believed in white supremacy, and clearly the mental and problem solving inferiority of blacks.

I love John Wayne's films, everything from the Quiet Man to True Git, hell, even the Shootist, but the above quotes are quite frankly inexcusable and require and very lenient interpretation of them to even make them "passable."

For reference, other quotes from him:

"I don't feel guilty about the fact that five or 10 generations ago these people were slaves. Now, I'm not condoning slavery. It's just a fact of life, like the kid who gets infantile paralysis and has to wear braces so he can't play football with the rest of us."

"We can't all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the blacks."

I'm fairly sure DBTT was an album by the BAND (hint hint) Oasis, not solo artist Noel.

I have a soft spot for every Oasis record. Sure it's not their best, but i like that acoustic rock approach of DBTT. And i fucking love Lord Dont Slow Me Down, Mucky Fingers and The Importance of Being Idle. Also, the "demo" of Record Machine from those sessions is the best version we have of that song. Really way better than the one on NGHFB.

I wouldn't mind hearing Boy With The Blues from that session as well, if it is different fro the one that is on DOYS.

Looking back on it, Noel should have never opened to other songwriters, it really downgraded the quality of Oasis records.

What evidence is there to suggest Noel was full of brilliant songs at this point in his career? He's acknowledged he lacked inspiration after Be Here Now and I don't see much evidence that he had enough to produce 10 or 12 songs of outstanding quality through SOTSOG, HC and DBTT.

But you're going to remove I Can See A Liar and PYMWYMI right? Two songs Noel called "shit" on release.

HC had She is Love, Force of Nature and PAITM.

DBTT included a song that was 5 years old already.

Noel of course had great moments on all those albums but there is nothing to suggest to me he was in excellent form. I don't think if he was spewing out great songs he wouldn't have had them on there I also don't think Gem and Andy would have expected to stand in his way if they were hearing brilliant tunes.

I agree. Noel had enough songs between 2002-2008 to fill three albums worth of songs that were all his own. And while they may not have all been up to his usual standard, many of them were above the tracks that ended up on those albums, in my view. I think the main problem with Mk II is the lack of direction. I don't think they really wanted to know what kind of band they wanted to be. Or, maybe, Noel did but he didn't want the hassle of fighting for it.

Pretty much all the best from each album too. Barring maybe Importantance Of Being Idle.

You're only entitled to claim a number one album if you wrote most of it?

I've contacted the Estate of Frank Sintra with this news and they're currently boxing up all his framed gold records and throwing them in a skip.

Apple records have been asked to return the Gold disc for the Beatles UK number one album Live At The BBC but they've said they can't find it and they think Ringo has it hanging in his toilet at home.

Police were called to Bob Dylan's house to recover his gold disc for the Shadows In The Night album but said there only seemed to be an old whino living there who spoke mystical gibberish and refused to let them in. They said last time they picked that wacko up off the streets the police Chief let him go so they didn't bother this time.

Again, there is a difference between an artist choosing a song to cover, and an artist who has a team write them songs.

There's another way to look at the difference between the two too.

When someone covers a song, it can be a case of an artist creatively re-interpreting a work, putting their own touch on it so that it becomes something entirely different than what it once was, as in the case of, say, The Beatles' Twist and Shout, Nilsson sings Newman, Sid Vicious's My Way, or the many singers who re-interpreted jazz standards. When someone has a team write them songs, it can be a case where a corporation wants to ensure it makes a profit so it places writers-for-hire on a project with the sole goal of creating a commercially viable work, as is the case of say, most of the output of Britney Spears, Justin Bieber, Demi Lovato (though they are all generally given some kind of writing credit on each song). 

Anyway, we can both construct the differences to better suit our argument. At the end of the day, yes, of course, Liam can do whatever he wants. 

Noel just wrote the best ones