Question: when did Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing--written in the 1930s 1900 by Harlem Renaissance men James Weldon Johnson and his brother John Rosamond Johnson and sung at functions far and wide since then--magically become a "Leftist patriotism song" and/or something akin to a black power anthem?
Answer: when Barack Obama exposed the dark underside (no pun intended) of hate that exists among a minority of black people. The fact that so many didn't see (refused to see?) what he was has made all too many white persons suspect anything that has the label black on it, with respect to the American subculture in question.
Yes Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing has been known as the 'Black National Anthem' and it has had that unofficial label for far longer that Black Liberation Theology and Barack Obama have existed. That it has been dubbed such does not mean that it takes the place of the National Anthem and it never has meant that. And no, this woman should not have sung the song without including the actual National Anthem or without giving The Star-Spangled Banner precedence over Lift. But I'm seeing characterizations of Lift that are just plain BS--just like I've read out-and-out lies about the Luo tribe of Kenya, the ethnic group from which Obama and I stem.
Few white Americans cared about this song until now and that's understandable, but not because there's some wrong with the song. This is what's wrong: there's a spirit in the air and it's different from that which existed in the previous epoch of time during which the song was penned, sung and cherished. It's the Spirit of Fear and you who are Christian know that this spirit does not have God as its origin.
People, you are letting you prior failure to recognize a charlatan and your fellow citizens' ongoing failure in this area make you even more blind. Open your eyes and recognize that this what Obama's purpose is; to Sow Discord between brethren. Stop making his job easier.
UPDATE: Have you ever apologized to someone else for taking out your frustrations on them and getting impatient with them because they wouldn't do something you asked them to do?
And then have you had that same person require you to apologize for something that you did not do? That was someone else's fault? Readers of the Hot Air comment thread will understand what I'm talking about.
UPDATE: In the comments, doubleplusundead (I just love that handle) asks:
Baldi, was this what you were trying to convey?Why, yes, this is exactly it.
I think what Baldi is trying to explain to people is that they need to tread gingerly [with the song], because not having a grasp on what exactly you're attacking can lead to problems.As I said in the Hot Air comments, I'm getting tired of having the subcultural totems of Americans who happen to be black 1) used by the haters of America and 2) held up by other Americans as "proof" that we're some sort of Fifth Column in our own country.Black Americans don't automatically associate Lift Ev'ry Voice & Sing with the sort of radical, aggro ideology of a Rene Marie, note again, in the 60's and 70's, and remember, Lift Ev'ry Voice & Sing was sung after the Star-Spangled Banner. What she did has not the norm by any means. Undoubtedly, many black American probably just associate it with the civil rights movement itself, or the fight to end segregation law in the early 20th Century, not the ridiculous Black Power characters we see dragged onto cable TV shows for the hosts to feign outrage and kick around every once in a while.
Hats off to you, ++undead.
THAT is the understatement of the year so far.
Posted by: Phelps | July 02, 2008 at 09:55 AM
Juliette -- do you ever feel like you're living in the End Times? (rhetorical question, I know)
Posted by: AProudVeteran | July 02, 2008 at 11:35 AM
"End times" sounds like defeatist talk. That if it were the "End times" you can't really do anything about it, so why try?
Posted by: ErikZ | July 02, 2008 at 11:50 AM
APV: Yes.
Erik:
Not for a Christian it doesn't. However, hard times are ahead. The phrase does signify that.Posted by: baldilocks | July 02, 2008 at 11:52 AM
A 56 year old, white product of the Midwestern ex-urbs, I had never before heard of "Lift Evr'y Voice and Sing," but to me it seems a wildly appropriate reaction to the past and the then-current era for ex-slaves and their progeny. I agree it was inappropriate for a city council meeting in the US, but I frankly thought it beautiful when I just read it.
Posted by: Sonny | July 02, 2008 at 01:37 PM
Confining myself to the issue of the event, this was an offensive stunt, steeped in race grievance nonsense, which is largely the domain of the far left.
This girl is some sort of knucklehead, and we of the right will happily pick her up by the ankles - figurately speaking - and use her to beat Bozo Hickenlooper and the DNC over their heads for the next few months.
Great sport.
Posted by: Jaibones | July 02, 2008 at 02:57 PM
Hey JB!
Be my guest.
Posted by: baldilocks | July 02, 2008 at 03:06 PM
Baldi, was this what you were trying to convey? I noticed a lot of people aren't quite getting what you're trying to explain, so I thought I'd try my hand at it.
http://doubleplusundead.mee.nu/the_black_national_anthem
Posted by: doubleplusundead | July 02, 2008 at 03:07 PM
The Colorado Mormon Chorale has presented "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing" several times over the last few years, including community functions at a black Baptist church and a municipal Independence Day Celebration, where it was sung preceding "The Star-Spangled Banner." It is a beautiful, moving, and profound composition. However, I agree with Baldilocks: it is not the National Anthem, and the singer far exceeded the mandate of her performance. In addition, she has undoubtedly made city officials much more cautious about how they issue future invitations, and to whom. By her selfish actions, she has tarnished a brilliant poet's legacy.
Posted by: jann | July 02, 2008 at 03:15 PM
I read the lyrics of the song looking to be offended but couldn't find a reason. Like you say, the problem is in the context and the deception.
Posted by: John Smith | July 02, 2008 at 05:41 PM
Was this a "charity gig"...
Or did the singer get paid?
Posted by: Uncle Ralph | July 02, 2008 at 05:55 PM
I've got a version of that song by the Harmonizing Four and always enjoyed it, but I never understood the significance.
Thanks for filling me in.
Posted by: See-Dubya | July 02, 2008 at 07:30 PM
I'm with you here:
Few white Americans cared about this song until now and that's understandable, but not because there's some wrong with the song. This is what's wrong: there's a spirit in the air and it's different from that which existed in the previous epoch of time during which the song was penned, sung and cherished. It's the Spirit of Fear and you who are Christian know that this spirit does not have God as its origin.
I think you go way too far here:
People, you are letting you prior failure to recognize a charlatan and your fellow citizens' ongoing failure in this area make you even more blind. Open your eyes and recognize that this what Obama's purpose is; to Sow Discord between brethren. Stop making his job easier.
Emphasis added.
As a politician working to get elected, his task is to get as many votes as he can. Of those who he can't get, his task is to undermine his opponent as much as he can. Yes, that is sowing discord but that is part of politics. As I've read you use that phrase a few times now, I can't help but see that you assign something more sinister to it.
Am I reading too much into it?
As far as the song, in my area, it isn't something that is not unknown to older whites. But making an issue of this song will be more polarizing.
I'm sensing a frustration that I think Michael King started to get in the Freeper forum if I remember correctly.
Posted by: DarkStar | July 02, 2008 at 07:38 PM
Am I reading too much into it?
Nope.
Posted by: baldilocks | July 02, 2008 at 07:42 PM
OK, then you are way overboard IMO.
Posted by: DarkStar | July 02, 2008 at 08:49 PM
This seems to be the consensus, albeit for different reasons.
He's a Marxist. Sowing fear, division and discord out of proportion is one well-documented Marxist tactic.
Posted by: baldilocks | July 02, 2008 at 08:59 PM
"He's a Marxist. Sowing fear, division and discord out of proportion is one well-documented Marxist tactic."
You are spot on, and I agree completely with this assessment, but I don't understand why more bloggers & commenters aren't discussing this. Can you help me here?
Well maybe tomorrow, OK? You've had quite the day of it (I read the Whole HA thread....) and thought you acquitted yourself very well. :)
BTW, I understand very well your remarks regarding End Times....
Posted by: Maura | July 02, 2008 at 09:51 PM
He's a Marxist. Sowing fear, division and discord out of proportion is one well-documented Marxist tactic.
- - - - - - - - - -
... so this Rene Marie got her marching orders from the big O via secret decoder ring?
This is beginning to sound like the mirror image of the "Cheney is behind this" paranoia of certain Dems.
One thing we can learn from the primary races is that there are a *lot* of Americans who either believe this Marxism-lite, or are to distracted/apathetic to bother parsing it, or who sense something's amiss but can't fight their way out of the PC paper bag they find themselves in.
Sure, the Obama campaign has given people with these opinions, uh, Hope They Can Believe In.
But this does not look like part of an orchestrated campaign. It's more likely a "random act of lunacy".
And Mr. Waffle's feckless handling of serial scandals-by-association didn't give evidence of very much anticipation or advance planning by the campaign. Maybe now they'll start getting more serious.
Posted by: Ben-David | July 03, 2008 at 06:36 AM
Despite the fact that some people are attacking the song we all know it was the sentiment that is what is really the cause of this uproar.
It's a sentiment that keeps popping up in this election season--a sentiment that is starting to look less and less like the "dark underside (no pun intended) of hate that exists among a minority of black people." and more like the dark underside (no pun intended) of hate that exists among quite a large number of black people.
And it's worrying. How many black people who are currenting mouthing platitudes, smiling and saying 'this and that doesn't really mean anything bad' will be dancing in the streets when a brother runs the country?
On Frontpage, there's a Muslim, named Abdullah, who comments occasionally. He's a nice enough guy, claims to be patriotic, will probably be barbequing tomorrow and celebrating Independence Day, likes female circumcision(NOT female genital mutilation--you only cut off so much, no more--enough to 'calm' the female), supports the Holy Land Foundation, and got laws passed for the neighborhood around his mosque that make them comply with sharia prohibitions of alchohol.
Somehow, I think his 'patriotism' extends only as far as it can be used to hang us.
Things like this song being sung instead of the Star Spangled Banner make me wonder how many black people view patriotism the same way.
Posted by: jack | July 03, 2008 at 06:52 AM
That's exactly what the sowers of discord want you to wonder, jack. Again, don't be their tool.
BTW, is there a reason that you're conflating black with Muslim?
Posted by: baldilocks | July 03, 2008 at 08:04 AM
I'm not conflating them. I was using Abdullah as an example of my point.
Every time something like this happens--not the song itself, but what it's referred to as--there's an immediate chorus of 'this doesn't mean what it appears to mean'
We get the chorus of 'religion of peace', and we get the chorus of 'only a small minority of black people think like that'
And then we get an obfuscatory fog of 'attention' to the issue to muddy the waters.
The woman was making a statement in support of seperatism. And Obamas' church is not a tiny cabal of ersatz klansmen--it's a big church, a popular church. And there are a whole lot more like it. I can walk to three.
What I'm getting at it that Abdullah, for all his 'patriotism' wouldn't shed a tear if the US was to be supplanted by an Islamic sharia based state
And all the things that have come to the forefront since Obamas' racist church was outed put the same question over the black community. How many would really shed a tear if they suddenly found themselves holding the reigns of power? How much of Black Liberation Ideology is something a lot of black people really wouldn't mind implementing?
It's a scary thing to consider.
Posted by: jack | July 03, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Everyone must use that standard to make up one's own mind. It's a sign of clear thinking.
Then I apologize. The switch of subject needed a segue, however. This is the thing: when someone says that and presents evidence for it, it's up to the respondent to judge whether that's true or not. And the respondent must do that for every individual instance. If one tries to use it as a blanket excuse, then the chains of logic fall apart and suspicion (rightly) sets it.Posted by: baldilocks | July 03, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Obamas' church is not a tiny cabal of ersatz klansmen--it's a big church, a popular church. And there are a whole lot more like it. I can walk to three.
Dude, it's 8000 people; that's exactly what it is: a tiny cabal of ersatz klansmen. I have pointed to several other churches with larger congregations which are also predominately black, but whose pastors preach the actual Gospel of Jesus Christ.
See, this is what I mean.
Posted by: baldilocks | July 03, 2008 at 11:57 AM
BTW, jack, do these churches that you're talking about have websites? Most big churches do.
If you want to send the links via email, that's fine.
Posted by: baldilocks | July 03, 2008 at 02:49 PM
Be on notice, all forms of "you" is the general "you".
OK, let me start here: If you are offended by the mere existence of the song and thinking about "what it means", consider your reaction the next time there is a flair up over the confederate flag and what many Blacks think THAT means.
Division you say?
Division you don't like you say?
Posted by: DarkStar | July 03, 2008 at 06:29 PM
I'll check on those churches--though they are not big(and I do consider a congregation of 8,000 to be big). They're popular neighborhood churches. And they say frightening racial things.
Being part of a family that has pretty much every race you can think of in it these things concern me greatly. And I talk to a lot of people about them.
I've talked to a LOT of black people about the church thing. Most have had experience with a Wright type church. Some leave and never go back--but a lot say 'that's just how they talk sometimes' and keep going. One of my daughters stopped attending after it just got to be too much.
Regarding the song versus the Confederate flag, I think both represent the same type of thing(not the actual song, but the phrase Black National Anthem). They both speak to a division that we don't need. But I think if black people in areas where that flag is an issue would stop voting for the party that created that flag we'd be shut of it a lot sooner.
Posted by: jack | July 04, 2008 at 09:22 AM
But I think if black people in areas where that flag is an issue would stop voting for the party that created that flag we'd be shut of it a lot sooner.
The party that you claim created the flag, isn't the party that now defends said flag. The party that defends the confederate flag is the party that was born out of abolition. The party born out of abolition is the same party that Black and white members state makes use of The Southern Strategy to gain votes.
Posted by: DarkStar | July 04, 2008 at 11:26 AM
jack:
I don't know anyone who has had an experience with a mainstream church with a predominantly black congregation in which Black Liberation Theology is preached. I couldn't tell you if there's one here in LA.Darkstar: dead on about the Stars and Bars analogy.
Posted by: baldilocks | July 04, 2008 at 08:18 PM
First, lets stop with the label, okay? There might be some fancy name that is easy to disavow--the Pentecostal church my daughter didn't go back to would probably not say they're preaching 'Black Liberation theology, but that doesn't change what they're saying.
From the pulpit.
It's an undercurrent--or maybe and overarching attitude that rears it's head all too often in churches all across the country.
Darkstar, I don't 'claim' that Democrats created that flag. They did. And they created the KKK, and Jim Crow, and they turned firehoses on people fighting for civil rights. And you probably vote for them. You vote for the party that has a Klan recruiter as their 'conscience'. All because he said he was sorry.
How much blood is on his hands? Blood shed by people whose only crime was having black skin?
You can go on all you want about Republicans being racist, but you know what? They were right on that whole slavery thing. Maybe they're just as right when they say that the party that tried to tear this country apart so they could keep slaves isn't a friend to the descendents of slaves.
Posted by: jack | July 05, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Darkstar, I don't 'claim' that Democrats created that flag. They did.
The confederate flag is the battle flag of the confederate states. Those states were in rebellion and had seceded from the union. Think about that for a few moments and what it means for any political party in the U.S.
And they created the KKK, and Jim Crow, and they turned firehoses on people fighting for civil rights.
People who may have been Democrats, created the KKK. Jim Crow was created by politicians in the South. Some of those who turned fire hoses on people were Democrats.
Some who voted against the Civil Rights Act were Democrats. Some who voted FOR the Civil Rights Act were Democrats.
Jesse Helms was a Democrat who switched to the Republican party and never renounced or apologized for his racist actions during the Civil Rights period and before.
nd you probably vote for them.
I've voted for Dems and Repubs and am currently Repub.
You vote for the party
I have never voted party.
that has a Klan recruiter as their 'conscience'. All because he said he was sorry.
VS Jesse Helms who never did say he was sorry.
How much blood is on his hands? Blood shed by people whose only crime was having black skin?
How much is on Jesse Helm's hands as people start to honor him in death?
They were right on that whole slavery thing. Maybe they're just as right when they say that the party that tried to tear this country apart so they could keep slaves isn't a friend to the descendents of slaves.
Actually, Lincoln agreed to keep slavery legal in the U.S. and only that new states would not have slavery. He also said that Blacks are not equal to whites, should not be considered equal to whites, and should be sent back to Africa.
If the GOP is so friendly to Blacks, why the existence of The Southern Strategy?
Here is something I wrote in April of 1999.
Posted by: DarkStar | July 05, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Too fast. Here's the quote:
You make excuses for some Democrats who have done the same thing as
Republicans, but you pound on the Republicans.
The disrespect shown by white Democrats in Florida is what happens
when Blacks excuse the garbage of Democrats. It wasn't Blacks not
taking part in the process, as you claim. It was Blacks acting like
you are acting --- defending Democrats at all costs --- that was the
reason.
It was Jesse Jackson's tendency to defend Democrats at all costs that
allowed Clinton to treat him like a punk without fear of retaliation.
Why the Republican party defends the Confederate Flag, I don't know.
Posted by: DarkStar | July 05, 2008 at 12:46 PM
When I commented on this, some days ago (as I sort of had to, having Denver connections), mostly what I said was, I liked the song and would vote for it for National Anthem because I think in many ways it captures the American Ideal of moving forward from days of error toward a better tomorrow -- without forgetting that one has made errors.
I also noted the song would probably never be considered as a National Anthem because it is too obviously a Christian hymn, and as such anathema to too many these days.
Posted by: Wry Mouth | July 07, 2008 at 09:51 AM
The confederate flag is the battle flag of the confederate states. Those states were in rebellion and had seceded from the union. Think about that for a few moments and what it means for any political party in the U.S.
People who may have been Democrats, created the KKK. Jim Crow was created by politicians in the South. Some of those who turned fire hoses on people were Democrats.
Some? So 'some' were Repblicans? Can you see that you're weaseling here?
Some who voted against the Civil Rights Act were Democrats. Some who voted FOR the Civil Rights Act were Democrats.
And without Republicans it would not have passed.
Jesse Helms was not a Klansman. Do we need anything else? When David Duke tried to run as a Republican the state Republican party in LA told Republicans to vote for the Democrat. Even though Duke, like Byrd, mouthed an 'apology'. But hey, let's deflect from the ACTUAL Klansman to someone who wasn't. After all, he didn't have the best interests of black people at heart.
I didn't like Helms much myself--but at least he didn't join a club that had lynching as one of their fun activities.
I have never voted party.
Me neither.
VS Jesse Helms who never did say he was sorry.
For....? He was never in the Klan.
Actually, Lincoln agreed to keep slavery legal in the U.S. and only that new states would not have slavery. He also said that Blacks are not equal to whites, should not be considered equal to whites, and should be sent back to Africa.
So there was no war? No Emancipation Proclamation? I really hate this anti-Lincoln stuff, y'know? Here's a question for you, what speaks louder, actions or words? I've seem things that refute a lot of this anti-Lincoln stuff--and I've said that any black person who believes the anti-Lincoln stuff is clearly a retard--because what he DID is what matters. Actions.
If the GOP is so friendly to Blacks, why the existence of The Southern Strategy?
The GOP should NEVER adopt a 'friendly to blacks' stance--I'd leave if they did. I'd leave if they adopted any stance that said 'We're friendly to 'race X' They should maintain their stance of friendly to the USA. And to BE effective at being friendly to the USA they have to get into office. And any legal strategy to get there is fine with me.
Small government, individualism, self-responsibility, liberty--there's no race required for any of that.
An ideal government is race unconscious.
Posted by: jack | July 08, 2008 at 08:41 AM
Can you see that you're weaseling here?
Facts are facts.
And without Republicans it would not have passed.
It wouldn't have passed without Democrats, either. Look up the numbers.
Jesse Helms was not a Klansman. Do we need anything else?
Jesse Helms gained fame with his television newscast opinion segment voicing opposition to Civil Rights. You can't say his commentaries didn't encourage the Klan.
When David Duke tried to run as a Republican the state Republican party in LA told Republicans to vote for the Democrat.
Finish the story. Duke lost. The parish (voting district) where he lived voted him the head of the Republican party parish.
I didn't like Helms much myself--but at least he didn't join a club that had lynching as one of their fun activities.
Given his commentaries, how do you know?
-and I've said that any black person who believes the anti-Lincoln stuff is clearly a retard--because what he DID is what matters. Actions.
Have you read it?
"That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
You are dismissed.
Posted by: DarkStar | July 08, 2008 at 08:25 PM