encountered in concert halls and stadiums throughout Latin America” (Gienow-Hecht: p. 152). Of course, the United States learnt to exploit this distinction to great effect during the cold war, as is attested by Emily Ambrams Ansari’s fascinating essay on soft power, “Music Diplomacy in the Emergency: Eisenhower’s ‘Secret Weapon,’ Iceland, 1954–59.” So the mere fact that musical practice can introduce an internal distinction into political life is not a default cause for optimism. However, exposure to the strange slipperiness of music within the global context nevertheless presents us with a much-needed reminder that there are limits to the degree of politics’ colonization of discursive space, and that one of the things that has most effectively set up residence at such limit points is music, in all its strange political and ethical ambiguity.

中文翻译：

---

全球印第安人：南希·范德森 (Nancy Van Deusen) 的 16 世纪西班牙的土著正义斗争

在整个拉丁美洲的音乐厅和体育馆中遇到过”（Gienow-Hecht：第 152 页）。当然，美国在冷战期间学会了利用这种区别取得巨大的效果，正如艾米丽·安布拉姆斯·安萨里 (Emily Ambrams Ansari) 关于软实力的引人入胜的文章所证明的那样，“紧急情况下的音乐外交：艾森豪威尔的‘秘密武器’，冰岛，1954-59 。” 因此，音乐实践可以将内在差异引入政治生活这一事实并不是乐观的默认原因。然而，在全球语境中接触到音乐的奇怪的滑溜性仍然向我们提供了一个急需的提醒，即政治对话语空间的殖民化程度是有限的，而最有效地建立住所的事物之一在这样的极限点是音乐，在其所有奇怪的政治和伦理模棱两可。