National Anthem-gate is causing quite a stir in Denver. Has anyone caught drift of this controversy yet? It seems jazz singer Rene Marie really pushed the limits during a civic event in the Mile High City. My old friend Steve Chavis offers some great thoughts about it over at his excellent blog, The Old School (and I’m not just saying that because of his kind words about my blog—well, maybe I am a little). Anyway, I already chimed in over there about the issue. I’d encourage you to log in and let Steve hear your thoughts.
‘Oh, say, can you … Lift every voice?’
July 3, 2008 by Edward Gilbreath
Posted in Culture, Diversity, Music, Politics, Social Issues | 10 Comments
10 Responses
Leave a reply to Shlomo Cancel reply
Recent Comments
Stuart on Rebel Songs BEEKAYTEE on Remembering a Different T… (@moorby_l) on ‘Twas the Night Before J… Bob dog on Rebel Songs Gail on How ‘Hee Haw’ Chan… Gail on How ‘Hee Haw’ Chan… Glenna on ‘Twas the Night Before J… About Ed G.
Friends & Links
- A Musing Mom
- Al Hsu
- All About Race
- Anthony Bradley
- Anthony Smith
- Ariah Fine
- Arloa Sutter
- Bald Blogger
- Barby Zuniga Ward
- Ben Byerly
- BloggingHeads.tv
- By Their Strange Fruit
- Chanel Graham
- Chris Brooks
- Chris Rice
- ChristianityToday.com
- Christine A. Scheller
- Daniel Hill
- David Swanson
- Denise Wilmer Barreto
- DJ Chuang
- Edward Carson
- Efrem Smith
- Eric Redmond
- Erika Haub
- Eugene Cho
- Exploring Race
- Ginger Kolbaba
- Gospel Gal
- H-n-T
- Helen Lee
- Holly Anne Williams
- HuffPost Religion
- Introspections of a Black Wasp
- Jason Oliver
- Jazz Theologian
- Jelani Greenidge
- Jennifer Parker
- Jeremy Del Rio
- Jesse Curtis
- Jo Kadlecek
- Joel Hamernick
- John Michael De Marco
- Joy McCarnan
- Kathy Khang
- Kevin Gwin
- Knightopia
- L.L. Barkat
- Leslie’s Journey
- Life As We Know It
- Life in the Slow Lane
- Linda Leigh Hargrove
- Llama Momma
- Malcolm Gladwell
- Margaret Feinberg
- Mark Galli
- Musings of a Christian Psychologist
- National Public Radio
- Next Gener.Asian Church
- Phil Marcelo
- Politics Daily
- Professor Rah
- Prophetik Soul
- Racialicious
- Rebecca Lee Frederick
- Religion in American History
- ReNew Partnerships
- Robert Thompson
- Romenesko’s Media News
- Scot McKnight
- Seth Tower Hurd
- Shlomo’s Hideout
- Sojourners
- Soong-Chan Rah
- Spiritual Politics
- Stan Guthrie
- Thabiti Anyabwile
- The American Race
- The City Rooftop
- The Kitchen Table
- The Link Between
- The Loudmouth Protestant
- The Mommy Revolution
- The New Culture
- The Old School
- The Point
- The Root
- The Soul Theologian
- Todd Burkes
- Typical American Mom
- Tyson Aschliman
- Urban Ministries, Inc.
- Urban Onramps
- Urban Shepherd
- UrbanMinistry.org
- Wayne Park
- Wayne Stapleton
- Wendy Murray
- Wheat Among Tares
- Wide Open Spaces
- WordPress.com
- WordPress.org
Ed G.’s Tweets
Tweets by edgilbreath- Apology Asian Asian American Barack Obama Bill Cosby black church Bob Jones University Chicago Chris Rock Christianity Today Christmas Civility civil rights movement Conservatives Culture Deadly Viper Democratic National Convention Democrats Diversity Divided by Faith Election Eric Holder Evangelicals faith family film Forgiveness George Ryan Glenn Loury gospel music Grace I Have a Dream Illinois John McCain Jordan Peele Jud Wilhite justice Martin Luther King Jr. Michael Emerson Michael O. Emerson Mike Foster movies multiethnic church NBA Newsweek NPR Obama parenting Philip Yancey Politics prayer President Barack Obama Presidential Election President Obama Race Race Relations racial reconciliation Racism Reconciliation Religion Rod Blagojevich Roger Ebert Sarah Palin Saturday Night Live Sexism social justice Soong-Chan Rah Soul Children of Chicago stereotypes Thanksgiving Todd Burkes UrbanFaith UrbanFaith.com war Zondervan
Blog Categories
Blog Archives
Blog Calendar
Meta
So they got what they paid for – anti-American lyrical sentiments. What else could they reasonably expect from a person who – while enjoying the benefits of this wonderful nation – carries a hatred of it in her wizened heart.
Ah well, they were stupid and Ms. Marie took advantage of that. While I may loath and detest her beliefs, I must applaud her initiative. Carpe diem!
Well if African Americans are seeking for social and racial justice, and racial harmony there’s indeed a better way to pass on the message and make their voice heard. I’m all for racial justice and reconciliation but Marie’s historic, deviated performance will not advance such goals.
This brings up again a thought I always wrestle with… I’m curious if “reconciliation” carries the same definition for all. This goes for members of all sides of “The Racial Divide”…
It seems that to some, “reconciliation” has more to do with “retribution”, or at least “making my point”, regardless of what bridges are burnt in the process. Then again, I guess this is a likely counter-balance, of sorts, to those in the “other” camp who would just assume not really try to understand. To these “others”, reconciliation has more to do with ignorant denial and institutional segregation. Specifically, was this Ms. Marie’s best way to make known her passionate animosity for the history of racial injustice in this country? Or was there a better way, whereby she might be more understood AND appreciated, even bringing some insight to some on “the other side”?
While I can appreciate Ms. Marie’s passion, and even her platform to some extent, I need to agree with CJ. For those of us whose definition of “reconciliation” includes the phrase “building bridges”, this type of incident is quite detrimental.
I’d be interested in responses to the contrary… Is there any angle to this that could suggest any good or progress might result from it?
B”H
Hey Ed,
I don’t think I could top your words over at Steve’s Old School site. You consistently speak in a clear and even tone, whether agreeing or dissenting. This is exactly the kind of effort we need in a forum which seeks to advance the work of reconciliation.
Tyson & Celucien, I agree with you both that Ms. Marie’s performance won’t advance the goal of racial justice and harmony, but I didn’t understand that to be her goal in the first place. From the info I gathered in the Denver Post article, Ms. Marie is an activist and self-proclaimed rabble rouser. She seeks to bring issues of injustice and racial inequity to light, but I don’t know what solutions to these problems she is offering. I think that Ed is right that she was out of place in taking advantage of a public platform designed to advance unity (the singing of the National Anthem) and instead “tricked’ the Mayor’s Office with a “switcheroo.” My point here is that I think Ms. Marie was deceptive and the effect of her work will prove to be detrimental to the cause of reconciliation, but I don’t see her as working towards that goal at all.
Jonolan, I’m not sure how you see the words of “Lift Every Voice and Sing” as anti-American and hateful. As I have already said, I don’t condone or agree with Ms. Marie’s deceptive use of the platform to share her activist agenda, but neither would I say that she was being hateful or anti-American. Perhaps you could revisit and reconsider your assessment of her performance?
Blessings,
Shlomo
Shlomo.
Actually Lift Every Voice and Sing is – on its own merits – a wonderful hymn. I could quite well enjoy it if it were freed from its current context. It became associated with anti-Americanism and hatefulness when it when it was appropriated as the “Black National Anthem” by a bunch of anti-American, hateful, racist agendists.
I was less referring to the lyrics of the hymn than I was to what it has been perverted into representing.
To my mind anyone who espouses the concept of “White America”, “Black America” or any other separate, arbitrary division of our great land is anti-American.
Thanks for the great discussion, everyone. I suppose this is an appropriate time of the year to grapple with these issues. Some questions that come to mind: What is the purpose of any “national anthem”? What constitutes a “true” American? Does it require more than simply being born in this country? And if so, is it necessary for all “true Americans” to not possess any views that dissent from whatever the official views of our government are? Must we unconditionally embrace every policy, law, and belief espoused by our great land in order to keep our “American” card current? If we disagree with certain aspects of our nation’s policies or things it has done in the past that it has yet to fully own up to, does that make us somehow unpatriotic or anti-American?
I’m rambling, but you get the idea. I think there’s a lot of room for disagreement over things that our nation has done or is doing.
Without a doubt, I believe we live in the greatest land in the world when it comes to individual freedom and opportunity, but part of our freedom means we can freely disagree with our government as long as we don’t break any laws. And as MLK demonstrated, at times unjust laws may need to be conscientiously (but nonviolently) broken. I would suggest that it’s our freedom to dissent or disagree or sing “Lift Every Voice” that makes us Americans.
Of course, whether or not you’re an American or a patriot has very little to do with whether you’re polite or rude. There are plenty of obnoxious or rude Americans, and what Rene Marie did, in my opinion, was flat-out rude; however, it did not make her any less American than the next person.
Jonolan, thanks for your comments. As you can probably see, I disagree with your implicit definition of what it means to be an American. Plus, I think rather than labeling folks as racist or hateful or anti-American, it would be more helpful to try to understand what informs their particular perspectives. What in their experiences has led them to feel the way they do? In doing so, I think we go a lot further towards one day eliminating the need for distinctions such as “white America” and “black America,” which I would argue are not just reflections of some separatist agenda but rather a way of describing some of the natural divisions that have always existed in our nation. My hope is that we can one day get rid of those divisions, but pretending they don’t exist does nothing towards reaching that goal.
Edward.
I think you mistake my premise and beliefs. Dissenting from the government’s views is often quite American. I have not and will not say different. I only find such dissent vile when it is for the sole purpose of dissent or partisanship – say the last 20 years within beltway.
I find it non only un-American but anti-American when people try to divide our country and our culture into divisions based on race, ethnicity or whatever. The segregation and bigotry of the pre ’60s era was anti-American and this tendency of Black activists to describe a “White America” and a “Black America” is equally – to my mind – anti-American, and it stems from the same source, racism.
There are subcultures – what you call natural divisions – within America. That’s part of the “Melting Pot” concept and what makes us both strong and resilient. But the Black America concept is tantamount to apartheid and not part of what made America great. That’s a harsh and loaded statement but I could find no other that voiced my views on the matter.
One thing that’s great though – places like this where we can talk about and even rant about the issues. You’d have a hard time finding that in a lot of other countries.
Jonolan,
Good word. Thanks for the clarification. I share your frustration regarding social division that exists for the sake of partisanship, or even racial or cultural pride.
Where I think I still disagree with you is on this point of folks who use terms like “black America” and “white America” being automatically labeled as racists or anti-American. While there are no doubt racists from among all racial groups, or as you say “subcultures,” I think the majority of folks who employ those terms are simply performing the sociological task of naming the socially constructed phenomenon of race in this nation. In many cases, the very use of those terms–black and white–are in the service of exposing and ultimately erasing the fact that such divisions do exist. Without describing the reality, we cannot deal with it in a truthful and meaningful way.
The subtitle of my book Reconciliation Blues is “A Black Evangelical’s Inside View of White Christianity,” and I’ve certainly been accused of being a racist by some folks for having the audacity to undertake such a book. But I assure you, the book is not a racist diatribe but an honest, though very imperfect, attempt to describe the issues so that we can confront them in a more realistic way.
I would also add that the origin of many of the things in our nation today that have a “Black” or “African American” in front of them is not rooted in some separatist or nationalist agenda but in the historical reality that, once upon a time, black people were shut out from participation in the institutions of the majority culture. Consequently, we now have black churches, black colleges and universities, black magazines, black beauty pageants, etc. Not all instances of the “black” versions of things grow directly out of our nation’s period of legalized racism. But right or wrong, they are all connected, to some degree, to our nation’s sad legacy of racism and discrimination. So, simply writing off the impulse to describe things in racially terms as being “racist” or “anti-American” fails to get at the root of the issue.
But a hearty “amen” to your last point: The very fact that we can freely debate these ideas is a wonderful example of our nation’s greatness. Thanks for your willingness to engage this topic.
Let me share something I have written recently on a similar topic (White America vs Black America).
Language, racism, and racial reconciliation
One of the avenues of generating and maintaining racial preference, division and racism in particular is how we use language in every day conversation. Language is a performative tool, acting and embodying things we want to communicate. We have particular descriptions, images, attributes, and values when we say something is Black, White, Asian, Latino, through the use of language. Language is a function of culture and ideology. It is that instrument that primarily uses to exhibit our ideas, sentiments, and so forth. In other words, it is used to construct, deconstruct, and frame the ethics of identity. Language is a powerful vehicle that communicates one’s interest and ultimately expresses precisely what one wants to assert, of course, language has its own limits, certainly sometimes language is sufficiently powerless to declare some human thoughts and motives.
Maybe one way we can advance racial reconciliation is to revisit and reconsider how we use language, the manner which we address and identity people, and also identity and refer to things. For example, for some people, it is quite uncomfortable when people say she’s /he’s a black preacher, black professor, black student, or labeling something as black talk show, black churches, black colleges and universities, black magazines, etc. The moment one begins employing these terms, an inevitable racial (sometimes ethnic) distinction is created in the mind of the beholder/hearer. In fact, this description is relatively appropriate to Whites, Asians, Latinos, etc.
On the other hand, sometimes the best way to make something explicit is to give it an ethic of identification, but it is not necessarily supportive to offer a racialized performance.
Why is everything becoming gate all of a sudden? I only want to comment on the National Anthem situation. There are times I’m frustrated at the National Anthem being sung in it’s entirety.
Should contemporary versions of the National Anthem be done?
Some people are offended when contemporary renditions are done. Some people value the National Anthem, others I believe treat it like rote. A time passer at a sporting event.
I like the original Francis Scot Key version sung in it’s entirety, which I’ve never heard done outside of a church by the way.
I’ve only heard the Negro National Anthem a few times outside of a church context.
Marvin Gaye’s rendition of the National Anthem while very entertaining at the time, in hindsight however, I don’t feel it was appropiate in the sense that some value the National Anthem for what it is by definition.
Also, there were many that applauded a contemporary version of the Negro National Anthem back in the 80’s by various R&B artist, which back much like my earlier comments about the National Anthem, was entertaining, but again in hindsight, I think it was inappropiate as well.
Again in the same sense.
Jonolan – I appreciate the fact that you had comments that actually caused us (me) to think. I don’t believe intent of the Negro National Anthem, was meant as a black nationalist theme song.
I disagree with black nationalist philosophy myself as did many African Americans in the last century.
Also, Jonolan I like that fact that feel this is a forum in which you can discuss your thoughts and opinion.
And your avatar is off the hook! I was a fan of Sting, Ultimate Warrior, Vampiro, so for the most I can relate to the image. (And we had many face paint wars back in the 70’s P-Funk v.s. KISS) So, I’m not placating, just trying to relate a bit.
C. Joseph – I appreicate your comments. I wish there were other ways than using E.I., sometimes it’s unneccesary.
Oh, I’m sorry. Renee Marie was totally out line. You don’t bait and switch. Don’t lead with one song, and switch to another. In some contexts and I’ve been in both, people treat both the National Anthem, and the Negro National Anthem as hymns.
The decent thing to do in a sensitive situation would have been to fulfill the expectation of obligation, which meant singing the original National Anthem. There’s no excuse, for leading with the Francis Scot Key Melody, and then switching to the Negro National Anthem.
As an American I would have been outraged. Many that don’t know it, probably thought what’s that all about?
Those that know them both, should know they should not be intertwined. Ain’t that much artistry in the world.
As an American of African descent, I think there’s a time and place for the Negro National Anthem. And candidly I don’t know if that was the time or place.
For the record, I like them both. I don’t see them as opposed to each other.