Hello! Jack and Jill Politics is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.
Community Page
- www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- LMAO!
- I'm suffering from an overdose of teh stoopid. Maybe I should go back on vacation.
- Why does she have to have a hair stylist? She can wash her own head in the sink just like Eunice on Mama's Family.
- Great to see the Jackson family requested whom they wanted to contribute to MJ's service. Grammys' Ehrlich tells how Jackson tribute came together By Edna Gundersen, USA TODAY Tuesday's...
- lol
Jack and Jill Politics
A black bourgeois perspective on U.S. politics
Controversy over Black National Anthem and Star Spangled Banner
Started by baratunde aka jack turner · 1 year ago
Apparently this has become a big deal according to African American Political Pundit. Such a big deal that Obama had to weigh in. Black folks seem to be mostly uncomfortable or have mixed feelings around this move by a bold sister — see here, here and here for a few examples among black blogs.
Rene Marie, [...]SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ... Continue reading »
Rene Marie, [...]SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ... Continue reading »
1 year ago
1 year ago
Actually, my national anthem is a medley of Snoop Dogg's "Let Me Ride," and Tupac's "Cali Love."
This incident lets me know that I'm gonna have to order my DaShiKi in advance of the inauguration. I can't be standing on the Mall without authentic garb and kinte cloth.
1 year ago
1 year ago
You almost made me scream out loud and my director is like 4 feet away.
But, really Snoop and Pac do have some national anthem worthy stuff.
Please do another one, that was soooo funny.
1 year ago
1 year ago
Guess she won't get a "gig" at the next government event.
Formally, Lift Every Voice And Sing is entitled "The Negro National Anthem".
Happy 4th!
1 year ago
1 year ago
I love James Weldon Johnson and Lift Every Voice...but that's not our national anthem.
1 year ago
1 year ago
Noone is going to take her serious and hear anything she has to say. And it puts a beautiful song in a negative light...giving these right-wing idiots more ammunition.
When I was in grade school. We would sing the National Anthem and then sing Lift Every Voice. But it was a black school so it was understandable trying to instill pride in one's heritage like that. It was totally inappropriate in a government setting.
And on top of that, she butchered the song!!!
We need to stop making excuses for these idiots and come down on them like a ton of bricks.
1 year ago
1 year ago
“Well, ‘Lift Ev’ry Voice and Sing’ is a beautiful song that has been sung in African-American churches and other events for a very long time,” the presumed Democratic presidential nominee told the Rocky in a telephone interview on his way to North Dakota. “We only have one National Anthem. And so, if she was asked to sing the National Anthem, she should have sung that. ‘Lift Ev’ry Voice and Sing’ is a beautiful song, but we have one National Anthem.”
In interviews following the performance, Marie told reporters that the “Star-Spangled Banner” does not represent her, and that she felt it was important to sing the anthem the way she did in light of Obama becoming the first black presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. Obama will take that honor in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this August.
Denver Daily
She was just trying to help. It all makes sense now :-/
(why is Obama quoted as pronoucing/spelling the song that way?)
1 year ago
1 year ago
Option 1: Obama stays silent, thus leaving the door open for dumb questions like: "Does he sing the national anthem?"; "What does Obama have against the Star Spangled Banner"; "Does he really think that the NEGRO anthem is more important than the Star Spangled Banner?" "NEGRO-alert. . . NEGRO-alert. . . see, I told ya he's TOO BLACK."
Yeah. . . let's have a week-long news cycle where the media connects the words "NEGRO," "UNPATRIOTIC" and "Obama" in every sentence on every news station from Fox to MSNBC.
Option 2: Obama doesn't fall for the trap, but still creates enough headlines to feed the "He ain't black enough" crowd. Maybe. . . just maybe that'll be enough to get him on the bad side with the small (i'm guessing it must be pretty small) black population in a swing state for the general election.
"What? He didn't defend this black woman? He didn't defend the black national anthem????" "SELLOUT-alert, SELLOUT-alert!" See. . . I told you this uncle tom wasn't black enough."
Get ready folks. This is one of the many formulas his critics will use. It's easy pickings. . . take anything ANY black person says or does and get Obama's opinion on it. If it's black and say's "Obama" it must be a national story. Get ready, it's coming. Every preacher, every rapper, every actor. . . any criminal defendant with an Obama t-shirt . . . the media will be right in Obama's face asking his opinion.
Because we all know he's either "too black" or "not black enough." Doesn't have to make any sense . . .just has to fill a news cycle so the people on cable news can waste more time talking about another non-issue. The headlines will take care of themselves and the media will have little trouble painting the story as an attack on the "traditions of hard-working white folk" or an attack on "the experiences of the black community."
1 year ago
But it's not the end of the world. And I would hope the city wouldn't be opposed to having BOTH anthems performed if requested. Anyone who knows the Black National Anthem knows that it's just as "American" and uplifting as any other song. There's nothing racist about that song.
I say this because dillettante's "Denver Daily" article asks Marie if she was "promoting racism" by simply singing the Black National Anthem.
In the eyes of the media, "race-conscious" must somehow equal racism.
1 year ago
1) I agree with Obama. While Lift every voice and sing is a beautiful song with historical significance to Black people, that is NOT the song they asked her to sing. If she felt that the National Anthem didn't represent her, then why on earth did she agree to sing it? Instead, she thought she was going to make a political statement by inserting verses into a song? Sigh. Sorry, as usual there will be a uprising about this by the media trying to push the theme that all Black people hate America, but this was a dumb move.
2) Is Obama officially the Black ambassador now? Is he our new Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? Every time a Black person says or does something White people don't get or are uncomfortable with, will Obama be called on to break it down, so the white folks can understand? This is disgusting. And then people question why, many Black people don't trust the way we are portrayed in the media. Its ish like this!!!!!!!
3) Has anybody heard whether they asked McCain about this? I would be shocked, shocked I tell you if they did. McCain can show up in Memphis and apologize for opposing the MLK holiday for all those years because he didn't know about the "significance" of MLK, and the media will "commend" him for his "courage" and "humility" but other then that, nobody ever asks him about issues directly related to the Black community. Hmm, I wonder why? And then that fool has the nerve to put out an ad that Barack just discovered Hispanic voters? Please. Sorry, that was off topic, but I am just so angry about all of this I could spit.
1 year ago
1 year ago
Which is bullshit. Don't do something like that then try to back track.
Personally I think it was a publicity stunt. How many people had heard of Rene Marie before this (I had, but she's not exactly in the mainstream)?
1 year ago
1 year ago
From a quote I read above, it seems she brought Obama into it by saying she did it 'cause he's the first black nominee.
Now, Obama is prey for every self-promoting, borderline sociopath out there who decides to do something silly in his name.
I watched the news report, and when she speaks, and I'm not convinced. This is not an activist. This is a performer seeking promotion. What was funny was watching that black man behind her on her left while she belted out that song..his face was priceless! LOL.
1 year ago
Also, looking ahead, it makes me sad because I love "Live Ev'ry Voice" so much and really had hoped that it would be sung at Obama's inauguration. This little episode is going to make him want to shy away from the song and that is ridiculous.
I am White and I think White people should learn this beautiful anthem and understand that they need to embrace it, too. It speaks to a painful reality of American history and all people in our country can learn from the song and feel inspired by the song. When I sing this in my (predominantly Black) church, I feel a mixture of shame and pride, sorrow and hope. I would gladly replace the war song with this anthem---but I know that's not going to happen.
White people, as a whole, need to get to a place where they really understand that our history, our present and our future is fully entertwined with those of all other ethnic groups in the USA. I guess it's not news to anyone reading this blog that Whites tend to see their "own" history in one way----the way that makes them look good. And they tend to see what they are taught as "Black history" to be something that doesn't really have a connection to them. It's all OUR history. "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing" can be OUR national anthem, if we want, because its message transcends race---while brilliantly acknowledging the painful, shameful realities of living in a nation that was built on the backs of those in chains.
I don't know what the answer is---we live in a strange time with something beyond a 24-hour-news-cycle. It's a 24-hour-silliness/nonesense cycle. It makes it so hard for even the best of politicians to get a message out there and stick to the important topics at hand. It's like there is so much junk and so many distractions floating around that no one has a chance to truly be heard. Very frustrating---especially since I think Obama has a lot of great stuff to say, to move our country forward with hope and healing. But these distractions will keep popping up.
1 year ago
1 year ago
And who is this crowd? May I ask?
Is that what you boil down certain criticisms too, "he's not black enough". Explain that whole statement.
1 year ago
I am actually a bit offended because people were talking this crap to me about how i'm questioning Obama's blackness when I did not like some of his moves during this election season. If the people were smart enough to comprehend what I was saying then they would not have made such a shallow claim. Therefore, I will hand you the floo to ask you what you mean by that.
1 year ago
I am referring to the crowd that seeks to define black identity through "struggle" and "oppression," thus questioning Barack's "blackness" because his ancestors weren't enslaved and did not necessarily face jim crow segregation.
The crowd that thinks any black person has an obligation to jump through hoops to prove his or her "blackness" in the first place. The "brown paper bag," "comb through nappy hair" crowd that claims an ultimate truth to what it means to be black in America and would rather label acts of moderation and/or nuance as "accommodation."
The crowd that, ironically, has less focus on a particular issue, but a shared investment in sustaining an argument that parallels Pat Buchanan's philosophy that "he's not one of 'us.'"
The "Keep it real" crowd that wants a martyr, but not a winner. Those with the passion for "change", but who show little pragmatic appreciation for how social and political forces beyond one's control influence the manner by which such "change" can (or should) occur.
The crowd that, for reasons unexamined, appears just as threatened by an Obama victory as the "He's too black" crowd.
1 year ago
"Would Tim Russert waste such precious time on sillyness like this?" "What would Tim Russert say about such an obvious appeal to ignorance?" And so on.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
If I'm asked to read a poem about butterflies it's not my place to read a poem about tigers and bamboo sticks.
I understand her want to do what she felt was right, but this has only added (expensive) fuel to the fire. Ah well...
1 year ago
PERIOD.
And I do mean, PERIOD.
I agree with everything B-Serious wrote, because that's the whole reason this has actually ' blown up' as a story.
1 year ago
You apologize to the mayor in private but stand by your decision in public? If that reporting is true, that makes her an even bigger fool.
I have no patience for foolishness.
That all of this would happen in the city where the Democratic National Convention will take place, in a state that is a swing state the Democrats have a good chance of winning makes me wonder....
1 year ago
1 year ago
I wonder aloud but I'm inclined to believe Ms. Marie was trying to get more publicity on the coattails of the first black Democratic nominee, as she almost admitted.
She clearly didn't think through the consequences of her actions.
That's why I called her a fool.
If she did think it all through and still decided to act a fool, well, then...
I don't need to wonder at all.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
I think Rene Marie is a wonderful singer but she was hired to sing the national anthem. Her feelings about the national anthem were not part of the agreement she made with her clients. How anybody feels about the national anthem is not germane to a discussion about her behavior. Her talent and creative skills were purchased to deliver a product. She should have honored her contract.
1 year ago
1 year ago
I think you're onto something there, Craig. She's full of crap, trying to act like an activist. It was cowardly to inject Obama's name into it - knowing full well the press would make him somehow responsible for her actions.
1 year ago
1 year ago
However, I believe that she should have just sang the anthem. She is technically right about the song not representing her because frankly, it represents nobody. It's really just a nice song written during the War of 1812. Also yesterday on the July 4, 1776, black folks did not receive independence. Therefore for me, July 4th is bar-b-ques and yacht parties. You don't have to agree with my logic but I am a free person.
Nonetheless, she promised it. If she did not feel it represented her then she should have simply said no. I am not going to sing it. Whatever, I am still going to defend her. I like her as an artist. I refuse to come down on her like "a ton of bricks" when there is so much more that we should be coming down on like a "ton of bricks".
Anyways, we all know why its a national story. Black rebellion of any form gets you lynched. Whether its old school on a tree or high tech via the media. Its frightening.
What is just killing me is that all black people are now being used as pawns for the media's political agenda. We are free people (at least we wish we could be). Having to have Obama denounce and reject actions he has nothing to do with is and of itself-racism. Its so obvious. I am suprised that they did not go after Alicia Keys on various occasions but they know whose tree they can climb. At the end of the day, these people are artists, ministers....the whole afro-centric section of the race (which Rene Marie definitely is trust me) is not going to let it slide for an Obama presidency. They do not have to either.
We are all diverse and different. Obama is not our keeper and its sickening that he has now become that. This country is such a joke. This has nothing to do with him. He probably never even heard of the chick!
But whatever I am far from embarassed. That was a silly statement. Of all the things to be embarrassed about, I think not. A 7-year black boy beats up his grandmother in Wal-Mart over chicken wings...thats embarassing not for me but for them. Rene Marie switiching the script like many non-comformist artists have done in the past (Kanye West, Sinead O'Connor..) ...old news. There is no story. It's not that serious. We know why this is a media story and its sickening. I will go to see her if she comes to NY...moving on...
1 year ago
I think that responding as he did is Obama's only defense for now. But, depending on the frequency and ridiculousness of these guilt by associate stories in the weeks ahead, surrogates - and maybe Obama himself - need to start calling out the press much in the same way Clinton did with NBC about Chelsea . As Obama's positives continue to improve in the polls, the public will become more sympathetic, and less likely to buy into these kinds of charges from the gop controlled media.
I've heard Ed Shultz (most vehemently) on CNN, and Rachel Maddow(more diplomatically) on MSNBC point out the discrepancies in MSM reporting on the candidates. In both cases they were outshouted at least two to one.
Hey, I"m waiting for reporters to ask McCain to comment on Jesse Helms' passing - after all he did represent the 'southern conservative" republican values forever.
PS: have been lurking around here for months. This is one of my daily stops each day - love the posts and resonses from commenters.
1 year ago
1 year ago
3 Questions:
1. What, exactly, is so inherently "white" about the Star Spangled Banner so as to deem Marie's performance anti-white and/or racist?
2. What, exactly, is so inherently "white" about America so as to deem Marie's alleged "unpatriotic" statement anti-white and/or racist?
3. What relationship, if any, exists between Rene Marie and Senator Obama to justify any use of this controversy as being germane to the 2008 Presidential race?
1 year ago
See reply below...apparently, I had hit wrong button.
1 year ago
1 year ago
Because from your statement, B-serious in regards to the "small black population in a swing state"....you seemed to refering to all black people. It came off as very condescending because what you just said was not what you initially said.
You also said this,
"The "Keep it real" crowd that wants a martyr, but not a winner. Those with the passion for "change", but who show little pragmatic appreciation for how social and political forces beyond one's control influence the manner by which such "change" can (or should) occur. "
Change does not have one definition. Change means something different to everyone. I know that Obama's change message is limited and many of those who criticize certain things that he says and does know that change rarely occurs from the oval office. They are quite aware of the political process but to them, change is complete transformation. Therefore for some, when Obama uses the words "change", they are thinking of complete transformation and not the limited superficial changes that are promised by a politican who is under the control of a limited system and a dominant community. Many of these people are transformationists who say this. Too many boil down black politcal thought to seperatists/nationalists and acommodationists/intergationists. When they do that, they miss and misinterpret the actions and words of many. Some of the greatest words of the like of MLK, DuBois and even James Baldwin have been losted, misinterpreted or never spoken about. Despite the fact that most people think that they have these people down to a science. Despite the fact that many feel that they can easily categorize these men into one or the other...it never works. When these words were spoken and written, they came off as shrill and angry. You cannot look at what people are saying in those terms. You have to actually looking at what they are ACTUALLY saying to be able to interpret it correctly. That has nothing to do with questioning one's blackness. I feel that these people are actually the ones with the foresight.
I heard someone say that Obama was a liability to issues of institutionalized racism because he looks at change and the betterment of the black community in symbolic terms. That person understood politics because they are actually currently running for public office. What that person was saying was that Obama saying that blacks have reached the promised land because of him when their is still pervasive institutionalized racism and economic disparity is disingenious. Obama has said this on multiple occasions. Obama views advancement in the way of symbolism and for these people, that cannot do. I would agree with those who disagree with this widely held sentiment. Change is not symbolism.
This has nothing to do with his "blackness". Of course for those who want to dismiss certain sentiments they use that because by using that, they can make the person seem hating, small-minded and ignorant. Its kind of like the whole black children avoid education because they think it is white and make fun of the those who pursue it as acting white. People just love repeating that.
Your analysis is dismissive of real concerns one may actually have. I doubt that anyone gives two licks about Rene Marie and the debacle that surrounds her. However many in NY did care about Obama's response to the Sean Bell verdict and I refuse to dismiss what they are saying like many did.
Now, for a black politican who is being looked at by White America and the news media as the gatekeeper of black folks....this is a liability because his responses are not viewed as opinion but as fact. He is not in the position to speak about certain things without it being political suicide. He is now all knowing. The naysayers are silenced. Haven't we been through this already?
Lastly, you are right. Some blacks could care less about what some would consider a "winner". Here is a quick story, My father was promoted on Tuesday after 20 years. Why because they ordered him to fire three men. All three men were black. My father fired them and lost the respect of his family. Of course he makes more money now and of course he is in a higher position however in my opinion, he has won nothing. I think some see it as that. Once again, it has nothing to do with being not black enough. It also goes back to the liability issue that some see. Those three men who range in age from 32 to 43 have families. They were not layed off. They were fired. My father even said that there really wasn't any substantial reason. Unfortunately, my father (a black man) did it so the men cannot say that it was discrimination when it technically was. The corrupt white corporate power brokers, presidents along with the corporation can hide their hands. This is what I think many are getting at. I think that this is the perfect analogy on a smaller scale. I love using analogies. I often hear repeated, "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" from the book of Mark. I think that this is how some see it.
It is not as simple as you make it. I once was saying the same things as you until I decided not to be so dogmatic. I was shocked to see that many of these people had a point and then I realized that they had more and more of a point. You cannot dismiss them as the "He's Not Black Enough" club nor can you compare it to Pat Buchanan.
1 year ago
My reference to "small" black population was not an attempt at condescension. . . .it was merely my assumption that there aren't that many black people in Colorado.
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
Well, what is Obama's "soul"? Who is the authority on that issue? How should he respond as a "black" politician to black issues? The mere assumption that Obama has "lost his soul," itself, seems to stem from a certain black orthodoxy. . .that there is some collective "black" soul to speak of.
I am not dogmatic. I have yet to define any one particular way in which Obama or any other black person SHOULD respond or react to the world around them.
I maintain that this is about "who's black enough" in the eyes of a lot of critics. This is about a black man responding to black issues and being criticized in a manner that his white counterparts seldom are.
I've seen little of Obama to conclude that he sees himself as the gateway to black America. He has never claimed to be running as the President of Black America. Yet some of us treat him as though he were. Some of us expect more from him than we would from similarly situated white politicians. And some of us give him powers that he does not have. The power to challenge institutional racism is a separate issue from whether or not Barack gets elected. Those issues will still be there after he's sworn in. Why? Because efforts at black empowerment must withstand white perceptions.
I have no problem with transformational thinkers. I DO have a problem with transformational thinkers who criticize others when they themselves have no plans on how to get from points A to B.
It's not hard to spot an issue. It's not hard to point out the problems facing our community. The challenge rests with those who are willing to be proactive in building means of black self-empowerment and self-determination.
Why do some claim such wisdom of "the system," yet act shocked and betrayed when the system disappoints? The knowledge is out there. It's not a secret. . . the system sucks. There are a lot of ways to say it and describe just how the system sucks. There are a lot of theories behind why the system sucks. There's nothing impressive about cynicism for the sake of cynicism alone.
Now what are we going to do about it? We've all got the books. Many of us have taken the courses and lived lifes' experiences. Some of us have degrees or have written books of our own. What good does it do to keep regurgitatiing the same list of complaints without an equally powerful list of solutions?
Where are the solutions? I'm not trying to make anything simple. If I were, I'd list all my grievances and assume the answers to be obvious. Instead, I'm asking for solutions. There's nothing condescending about that. What's condescending is limiting black poltical thought to theories of how one might "speak truth to power." Why limit our influence to "speaking truth to power"? Why not try and get some of that power for ourselves?
How does one expect to change institutional racism without first finding a way to influence the institution? Who is so powerful that they might transform society in any other way but incrementally? Short of declaring all out war, I've never seen a movement change the world without first taking baby steps.
Some critics say Barack is no savior like it's some kind of grand secret that's too high-minded for everyone to understand. Like we're all too dumb to realize that he can't fix all of black America's problems over night.
Obama was never going to fix all of our problems. I don't remember hearing him say he would. So why are we disappointed when he doesn't deliver on something he never promised to do?
It's easy to be a cynic. Just as easy as it is to think that everything is perfect with the world. The "he's not black enough" crowd and the "he's too black" crowd share the same goal. . . to maintain the status quo and sustain the same old arguments.
1 year ago
Happy (belated) 4th of July!
1 year ago
I love it how when people discuss this whole topic, those who want to dismiss the legit claims of others bring up this idea of a plan?
Obama is running for the oval office. Change does not occur from the oval office which means that change lies in the hands of those at the bottom-the grassroots. There concern are in the fact that if Obama and many in this country see his win as a win for all blacks and that everything is fine and dandy, it will leave certain truths, realities and progress that needs to be made in particular institutions further marginalized along with those who try and give a voice to certain things. I realized that recently. I often tell those with these concerns that it simply means that during an Obama presidency, one would have to be more vocal in regards to certain changes that need to be made. A blogger who wrote an excellent piece on this topic said that he was nervous. he felt as if many would become less vocal and tie in progress with symbolism. He said that he noticed many once progressive black bloggers backtracking and refusing to speak about many of the issues that they once were so adamant about giving a voice too. Well, that cannot work and I have said this in the past. I hear where he was coming from and it made sense. These are one of the concerns that I hear. It had nothing to do with him questioning Obama's blackness.
This also goes for the Obama as gatekeeper of the black community. I think that I made it clear that the dominant community and the media were doing it not Obama himself. I do however believe that many has misinterpreted some of his rhetoric and believed that he has acted as if he is. One person told me that she did not like that Obama has a paternalistic way of speaking to the black community. I guess in many regards she makes sense especially after his appearance at that church a few Sundays ago. This has nothing to do with the "black enough".
Also, the losing your soul comment is from the Bible as I indicated. It raises the question of if the means justifies the end. I have read some great blog posts which have based their discussions on this idea. Obama himself said that he did not believe that the means justified the end result. It is about the way in which someone goes about achieving something. It has nothing to do with his "black" soul or whatever else you were saying.
The rest of your comment was answered in my initial reply.
As I said before, people are being dogmatic in this regard. I once approached everything with that attitude until I realized that those who I was insulting were actually making sense. I realized that many had more foresight and have chosen to not look at it from a politically perspective.
I live in an apartment with four people who have not jumped into the Obama bandwagon. For the past year, I dismissed everything that they said as being small-minded, petty, questioning his blackness etc...I did it until I really actually decided to figure out were they were coming from. While I understand where they are coming from and while it is understandable, I understand why in some instances he has to do and say what he does (as many of them do) and that I am not really expecting visible changes with an Obama presidency. I hate politics. I hate government. I hate establishment. I hate institutions and I hate large corporations. I expect nothing. I feel that many AA's who have remained luke warm, cold and even freezing are those who are weary of government period and see a black face in a high place as the same ole same ole. For me, I believe that despite Obama's short comings. He is the best candidate and when I bring up certain criticisms, I am not looking at it in the framework of this election season but of the broader society and of the future. I also think that many AA's who have yet to support Obama or come down hard on him are doing it because they think that other AA's are blindly following him. I have heard that one too.
I am simply tired of people repeating the questioning of the "he's not black enough" thing whenever a black person has a legit concern. I know that it is done to either be dismissive of that particular person's concerns or because the reader or person in the conversation has a limited understanding of what the person is actually talking about and just slaps on assumptions and the usual rhetoric.
1 year ago
I just caught this. No! The reason why I am really not agreeing with you is because you are slapping on assumptions and creating groups. I believe that there are those who are doing what you are saying however the vast majority are not.
1 year ago
The status quo is not changing with an Obama presidency, is that what you think.
1 year ago
you said, "There concern are in the fact that if Obama and many in this country see his win as a win for all blacks and that everything is fine and dandy, it will leave certain truths, realities and progress that needs to be made in particular institutions further marginalized along with those who try and give a voice to certain things."
That sounds like a preoccupation with white perceptions. What evidence is there that those in power actually listen to the cries of the marginalized? We're already marginalized. Obama's victory won't be changing that any time soon. Some already see his nomination as a "get out of racism" free card. So what exactly do we lose if he gets elected?
Guess what. Those "institutions" already know all about the "truths" and realities of black angst. They're the one's who helped marginalize us in the first place.
It is an argument based on white perceptions; surrendering all hope of power and decision making to some outside group that might take pity on us or feel guilty enough to give us a few crumbs. . . a pity/guilt that might disappear the moment Obama gets sworn into office. We've been doing that for decades and it hasn't gotten us far.
Again, these "legit concerns" are not new. This is not some secret bastion of enlightenment where self-proclaimed cynics are the only ones brave or smart enough to know the truth. The "truth" is not a secret. People want answers. And Obama's critics are not immune from that challenge.
These "legit concerns" have been made in judicial courts, in board rooms, at police trainings, you name it. The institutions know the truth . . . they're just not listening. And they'll continue to plug they're ears whether Obama gets elected President or not.
So, instead of worrying about how white folk will react, why not (as many have suggested) take this political movement and milk it for all it's worth. Network, communicate, plan, organize . . . come forth with a specific list of demands that you can lay on Obama's desk his first day in office. Use the same network you built to give him the nomination. See how far you get with that. And if he proves himself to be the fraud that some claim he is . . . organize to kick his butt out in 2012. It's clear that neither of the two parties are progressive enough. Come up with a plan.
The plight of Black America (which, by the way, does not subscribe to all parts of the liberal dogma) will persist whether we all jump on board the Obama train or flip him the middle finger.
These "legit concerns" were here before Obama, and will likely be here long after he's gone. THAT is a poor reflection on the progressive movement, not Barack Obama.
These were the same "legit" concerns we heard about in 2004, 2000, 1996, '92, etc. These were the same "legit" concerns we heard after the LA riots and Hurricane Katrina. These were not new arguments then and they're not new arguments now. It's not that people don't take the arguments seriously . . . they just don't take the messengers seriously.
Progressives (and I count myself as one of them) have failed to adapt to the changing times and an increasingly conservative America. But they still think 1990-style arguments hold weight in 2008.
As such they become obsolete. They're messages, predictable. They're methods, stale. And nothing changes.
I forget who it was, but someone from an earlier thread made a very good point: The "keep it real" crowd is not above criticism. . . the "critics" are not, themselves, above criticism. They should be able to get just as well as they give. And questions of fact, plans and strategy are not insignificant; indeed they are essential to issues of credibility and leadership. It's easy to criticize someone else when the critic has no plan. Just the same, its easy to IGNORE the critic when he or she has no plan.
These progressive critics are ignored for a reason. . . because they can be. Critics need a plan. It's the same standard they hold Obama to. They want strategy to affect their lives. They think they've got something better? Well tell me how to get there. Lead, follow or get out the way.
It's not enough to claim some grand (though unproven) understanding of the world and not expect to be challenged. Anyone can do that.
I love the picture painted by most progressives. . . now show me how to get there.
I'm not saying Obama's above criticism. And, rhonda, people shouldn't attack you for giving a different opinion (although I've seen others attacked for taking a position opposite of yours). But people will ask for solutions if Obama's critics claim to have something better. But, until that day, I'm gonna see where this Obama train takes me. Give me a viable alternative and I might get off at the last stop. But I haven't seen one yet.
This election isn't just a referendum on the Democratic party, it's a referendum on progressive politics as well. Each loss makes your progressive issue less and less significant in an increasingly conservative America. So, when it comes to Obama, I'm not saying we shouldn't speak truth to power. . . just get him in power first.
Otherwise we're asking him to be a martyr for the cause. We're asking him to get distracted for the sake of moral superiority. People know that there are certain things he can't say if he wants to get elected . . . but they want him to say them anyways. And no one gives a plan B, meaning a way in which Obama can both speak truth to power AND get elected at the same time.
Have you ever stopped to wonder just WHY Obama can't say certain things? Have you ever stopped to ponder the list of progressive activists and Democratic politicians before him who failed to create a space for liberal policies? The activists who failed to invest in educating they're communities? The liberal Democrats who spent so much time "keeping it real" that they forgot to build a well-informed and passionate constituency? I'd dare say that, in the past 10 years, the left has been "out-community-organized" by the evangelical right. Yet we expect people to take our liberal policies seriously?
The progress of today is determined by the strategy of yester-year. I've been a part of progressive groups throughout my adult life. They are great people. But they suffer from the same narcissism, short-sightedness and HNIC syndrome that one might find in the most conservative fortune 500 corporations in the country. Ego is just as big if not bigger. . . people carve out their little niche in your local non-profit and sit there for the next 30 years. New, fresh ideas are lost and old battles repeat themselves on a monotonous and highly predictable loop. . . we keep reinventing the wheel.
And that "status quo" of progressive orthodoxy persists in our national politics. Outdated methods to influence an increasingly conservative America. WHY? Because Ronald Reagan WAS more influential than Bill Clinton. Because the conservative stranglehold so felt in modern politics is a direct consequence of the battles and STRATEGY conservatives laid out in the 70s, 80s and 90s as a response to perceived excesses in the 60s.
We built the Civil Rights Movement on the foundation of moral superiority. Well, conservatives ceded that high ground decades ago. And we've since relegated ourselves from social engineers to the moral conscience of America. So yes, we can make power feel guilty, but the ultimate decisions of "change" are still left to them.
Anyone can claim moral superiority, change their party affiliation, get a green bumper sticker and pledge they're vote to Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader. That's the easy part. . . now go get him or her 270 electoral votes. Tell me how he or she will get liberal policies past a conservative Congress. In fact, I'd love to see Ralph Nader take his campaign half as seriously as his rhetoric. But he doesn't do that. . . because he's more comfortable simply speaking truth to power than actually trying to win.
I'd take third party candidates much more seriously if they started organizing and campaigning in November 2004 instead of June 2008. I'd take them much more seriously if they had a back-up plan. . . if more of them ran for Govenor, Senate, Congress (heck, even Mayor) in the event that they didn't win the Presidency.
Sure it's political. Yes, many are disaffected with politics. But the Presidency is a POLITICAL office. It doesn't help to complain about politics, yet shrink at the thought of beating them at they're own game. Liberals are not too cool or too smart for politics. That's like a small government conservative running the country on a half-hearted plan for privitization. It doesn't work well when you're heart's not in it. If we want to change government then we've got to jump in with both feet. Again, third parties need to come with a plan.
But they don't always do that. Instead, they come by every four years with a new college thesis and just enough votes to "teach Democrats a lesson" by handing the white house (as well as their progressive platforms) over to the Republicans for yet another term. (Sidenote: one would think the Democrats would have "learned their lesson" after 2000. It's apparent that some of these candidates take themselves way too seriously.)
I can't tell anyone how to vote. And if someone feels strongly enough then they shouldn't vote for Obama. But beggars can't be choosers. And the fact that we don't have a more progressive ELECTABLE candidate is a poor reflection on many of the same people who hold Obama to a standard they themselves never met: Don't talk about it, be about it.
That same message goes to those who criticize Obama's lack of strength on traditionally black issues. Take the next four to eight years and give me a strong, ELECTABLE candidate in 2012 or 2016. Start working November 5, 2008. Spend the next years educating and familiarizing the nation with your issues. Run opposition challenges in local and congressional elections. Think up several ballot initiatives to drive your base out to the polls on election day. Then come see me the next time we elect or re-elect a president.
Stop speaking truth to power and work towards creating some power of your own.
Finally, I'm not creating groups or making assumptions. I didn't create the "he's not black enough" group any more than I created the "he's too black" group. They're not figments of the imagination. I raised the subject because I felt it was germane to the topic of this thread. And I made sure to juxtapose both groups: "he's not black enough" and "he's too black," because there are people from each group who exploit "legitimate concerns" for their own political gain. The only difference is that conservatives tend to compile the latter group while liberals make up the former.
And some of my fellow progressive friends prey on our liberal sensibilities of fairness and relativism to shield themselves from any criticsm.
So when I hear: "I also think that many AA's who have yet to support Obama or come down hard on him are doing it because they think that other AA's are blindly following him." I know that this sounds eerily similar to the "cult" meme that was spread by Clinton supporters and Tavis Smiley.
1 year ago
1 year ago
And you do be serious.
Please make this a main post on this blog and post it on every other community political blog there is.
Please.
1 year ago
I agree across the board.
1 year ago
Thanks.
1 year ago
Is it cool to put your dad out there like that? I don't think so. Being a grown-up can suck. If it came down to firing three men and keeping your job or being a member of the newly unemployed brigade, most people will do what they have to do now to keep their job especially if they have a family to feed or kids to put through college or newly minted graduates who may still rely on them for financial support from time to time. Best believe if the shoe was on the other foot and one of those men who were fired was given the opportunity to pinkslip your dad to save his own job he would.
I'm just saying.
As for Renee Marie, I think she should be able to sing the Negro National Anthem if she wants. What? Are we not supposed to sing our songs because Obama is a nominee for the presidency? Should we cancel our family reunions also, because gatherings of that many black people make Obama look bad.
We've already been asked to be less honest in our worship lest the white folk will hesitate in voting for a "black man". What next?
1 year ago
End of story.
1 year ago
I'm with the commenter who said that she wished that Obama would have had the chance to have it included and played during his inauguration.
I understand that Ms. Marie feels pride at this moment. However, she made herself notorious (and possibly may have lost some future engagements) in attempting to school everyone, rather than doing her job.
1 year ago
In regards to question #3: Many Americans did not realize that there was so much hatred and racism amongst 'African-Americans' until Rev. Wright and the TUCC showed up. What Marie did is therefore linked to Obama thru Rev. Wright and the TUCC, i.e. the 20-year close relationship he had with Rev. Wright. Obama has never explained his connection to the BLT, which was the basic message of Rev. Wright and TUCC.
1 year ago
1 year ago
How do you define, "racism"?
1 year ago
B-Serious, I replied to your first 3-questions, and was expecting you to reply back with something besides another question.
Anyway, to answer your 4th question, racism in regards to Rev. Wright and Rene Marie falls under "racial prejudice"...which leads to this definition: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.
1 year ago
This isn't about the "usual MO of Democrats." This is about a conversation where people ask and answer questions.
Using your definition, you should be able to point towards an example where Marie exhibits "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against" a particular group, individual or their supposed characteristics. Where is your example? What group are you talking about?
You seem to conflate "unpatriotic" with "racism." It's hard to be racist against America because this country consists of multiple colors, groups and ethnicities.
So, if I'm right, you seem to be saying that Rene Marie didn't sing the Star Spangled Banner because she harbors irrational attitudes of hostility towards __________? [complete this sentence. . . give me the point where she singles out a particular race or group].
If that's not what you mean, then I'm left to think you're referring to what you might deem a separatist attitude. Still, in that case, there's no mention of hostility toward any group or individual. The only group she might have mentioned is blacks. And, seeing as how she appears to be African-American, it would be hard to be hostile toward oneself (unless you're talking about black self-hatred).
1 year ago
"When I decided to sing my version, what was going on in my head was: 'I want to express how I feel about living in the United States, as a black woman, as a black person,'" said Marie.
She brought the issue of race into it. You apparently thought so to, since your first two questions were: 1. What, exactly, is so inherently "white" about the Star Spangled Banner so as to deem Marie's performance anti-white and/or racist? 2. What, exactly, is so inherently "white" about America so as to deem Marie's alleged "unpatriotic" statement anti-white and/or racist?
Apparently, she thought that the Star Spangled Banner was too WHITE for "black woman" her to sing. She is a racist...simple as that.
1 year ago
However -- the illogic here is screaming so loud and the lesson of what B-Serious is saying is really important IMO, so I am going to comment.
First comment from Karmi, from way above, on the thing: Well, she made her ‘statement’, and a lot of people saw it as a racist statement…me included.
So then under questioning from B-Serious, Karmi defines racism as falling under racial prejudice and so an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.
Karmi's supposed evidence is this statement from the singer: "When I decided to sing my version, what was going on in my head was: 'I want to express how I feel about living in the United States, as a black woman, as a black person,'" said Marie.
In actual reality, her identifying and speaking from her experience as a Black woman is in no way, shape of form automatically anti-any-other-race. It is exactly what it is, and that is what it is.
B-Serious called this out earlier: Using your definition, you should be able to point towards an example where Marie exhibits "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against" a particular group, individual or their supposed characteristics. Where is your example? What group are you talking about?
Karmi did not respond adequately or logically. Instead, s/he automatically equates a person speaking as a Black woman, speaking from her own perception and experience, with -- having hostility toward others.
This is extremely extremely disrespectful. Equating someone speaking directly from her own perception and experience with Karmi's definition of racism is sloppy and illogical in the extreme. It says more about where Karmi is coming from than any external reality -- so it is also self-referential in the extreme, as it substitutes an internal set of associations and assumptions for external reality.
B-Serious wrote: Still, in that case, there's no mention of hostility toward any group or individual. The only group she might have mentioned is blacks. And, seeing as how she appears to be African-American, it would be hard to be hostile toward oneself (unless you're talking about black self-hatred).
IMO one of the particularly ugly implicit assumptions Karmi is working from here (whether or not this is conscious) is that Black people only exist in relation to white people, and therefore have no actual real human experience base from which to speak directly.
1 year ago
First, as B-serious mentioned, can we define racism please? I looked it up and the definition that I found stated: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" or shorthand, an irrational hatred against another group of people because of their race. I may be missing something, but where in Marie's statement, song, or otherwise did she mention hating another group of people? Was she trying to make a political statement about her point of view as a Black woman in America, yes. But that doesn't automatically translate into "I hate X. " Making a political statement does not equate to racism, or anti-Americanism, unless there is something in her song/statement that I am missing.
2) Karmi, what is up with the mock quotes and italics around the term "African-Americans"? Do you just not like the term, don't believe in the term, or what?
3) And in regards to this statement: "Many Americans did not realize that there was so much hatred and racism amongst 'African-Americans' until Rev. Wright and the TUCC showed up." First, how are Rev. Wright and the TUCC connected to this controversy? Second, just because some Black people/African Americans have expressed dissatisfaction with this country does not make them racist (although I recognize that there are racists Black people who do hate this country), and the reason "many Americans" didn't know about this dissatisfaction is because they have not been paying attention, or don't interact significantly with people of color (that is a generalization, since I haven't met "many Americans" or all Black Americans for that matter)
1 year ago
I don't mind anyone jumping in. I'm watching the move "Glory" right now, so will make this short.
Have already covered most of you points and statements here, and I stand by them.
Ref: #2 - I am an American, and see all other Americans the same way. I don't like having to say that I am "white" and you are "black". I don't care to tell everyone that I am a 'Heinz 57'-American or Irish-American, etc...so to speak.
1 year ago
Good movie, btw. You feel that you have addressed most of the points in my post, I disagree, but that's fine.
But to address Ref: #2, just because you choose to identify yourself as an American without a hyphen doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with someone who does not choose to identify themselves in that way. It's about preference.
1 year ago
I should've bought it long ago, but have watched it so many times that I don't see the need to buy it now. You and I rarely agree on anything, other than we agree to disagree. ;-)
Never said anything was wrong with using African-American instead of American. Then again, for me, I might lose focus on being just a plain ole American if I started using a ‘something’ – hyphen with American. I have recently considered calling myself a ‘Caucasian-American’, and seeing if any politicians would be interested in starting something like a Congressional Caucasian Caucus (CCC), but that causes too much spelling, thinking, and work…so to speak whilst smiling.
1 year ago
Go ahead and buy it. It's a classic that would fit right in with a movie collection if you are into that kind of thing.
I guess this is another thing we can agree to disagree on. I'm not sure why it would be hard to chew gum and walk at the same time--to wit, identifying yourself as African-American and being able to fully appreciate your racial/cultural history, while at the same time appreciate/respect your citizenry in this country.
Personally, I don't care either way. I'm not one to get hung up on titles and categories, but I realize it is how we make sense of our world as Americans. We aren't comfortable unless everybody can be sectioned off into groups.
As far as your "Caucasian-American Caucus" idea, if that's your cup of tea, then I say put in the legwork and do it. Though your group might or might not have different goals and agendas than the other caucuses in Congress, I'm sure that you can use them as a model. :)
1 year ago
“We aren't comfortable unless everybody can be sectioned off into groups.” Great point! Since you brought it up, let me share what I think or theorize about it.
Identifying one’s self as a member of a certain group, with that identity being given more importance than being an American first, may…distract from one seeing what America is about. May…lead to statements like – “God Damn America!” Or, Michelle Obama’s statement of having never been proud of America before. Or, Rene Marie’s decision to sing a different song than the one she had been asked to sing.
America has come a long way since the 1968 Olympics “Black Power salute” protest. Such protests, forty years ago, were needed; such protests as the recent one by Rene Marie are counterproductive…at best. To me, Rene Marie is stuck in the past, and has become blinded by her own bigotry.
1 year ago
As far as your statements, I think that is about perspective. I personally, didn't have a problem with either statement, because I read and understood the context in which they were being given. To condemn something is to damn something, and throughout the Bible, God condemned actions that were contrary to his teachings. For Rev. Wright, that included killing of the native people in this country and taking their land, putting Japanese people in internment camps during WWII, and enslaving Black people and denying them full citizenship for 200+ years--treating people in this country as less than humans. Now, he mentions other things in sermon that I don't agree with, but the things that I listed above I would cosign on. It's a historical fact that we have one of the most violent histories in this country and there are several instances where the government has not treated its own citizens, or people they didn't consider human, in a way that is not Christian like.
As far as Michelle O's comments, I really don't see what people are so up in arms about. I read her full quote and she said that in the first time in her adult life she was really proud of her country, not because her husband was doing well, but because people were active and engaged in the political process. How is that anti-American? People have talked for years about the lack of participation and overall apathy of the American voters, and she comments on how people seem to be really excited/engaged and critics lose their mind. There have been record turnouts in the primaries, and you would think that would be a good thing. But I knew it was coming. We have stopped listening to each other and instead ingest any narrative the mainstream press gives us, and wonder why we continue to stay in the dark.
And for your last statement, I absolutely agree that America has come a long way since 1968, and I agree that Rene Marie's protest/statement, or whatever she wants to call it was not only counterproductive, but inappropriate. I'm still having trouble figuring out what exactly she was protesting. But just because someone speaks out about racism does not necessarily mean that they are stuck in the past, because unfortunately, racism, and other isms still exist. But I do think that people can speak out about it and acknowledge the ways in which we have changed as a country. And speak out about it in a way that doesn't exploit racial division, or make broad generalizations.
And, I don't know about that last statement, how do you figure she is blinded by her own bigotry? I didn't see anything where she illustrated a hatred/disdain for a group of people.
1 year ago
You know, this is why I've tuned out the three ring circus. Is this really worth debating?
1 year ago
This one's simple: if she was supposed to sing The Star Spangled Banner, that's what she should've sung. Period.
But, yeah, the right wing is having a blast with this one.
1 year ago
-The woman is a damned idiot.
SHE was asked to sing the National Anthem.
SHE decided to sing "Lift Ev’ry Voice " which was NOT what she was supposed to have sung.
She may have a wonderful singing voice, but she is still a damned idiot.
1 year ago
She was asked to sing the National Anthem. She should have sung the National Anthem. Period.
To qualify her actions and remarks is beneath this thread. She was wrong. Period. Let's start calling it like we see it instead of playing the victim/oppressed card to excuse the inexcusable.
And as I said before, she butchered the song. It was a pathetic publicity stunt.
I agree with the admiral. She is an idiot.
1 year ago
There I said it, and yes I brought up slavery.
I mean, black and brown folk have been the victim of media "slights" and "misspeaks" for decades, and the one time the shoe is on the other foot, they want an apology--hell, tough luck.
Actually, I'm glad she did it, now that I think about it. She's a jazz singer, and who better than her to do it, she won't suffer any repurcussions from it, at least as far as industry is concerned like many of the rest of us.
Although, cross burnings seem to be on the rise, there was the one in the middle of Arkansas and the one in New Orleans....go figure.
JLL
1 year ago
Bill Clinton apologized for slavery or did I misinterpret that publicity stunt?
And what exactly does an apology for slavery have to do with this?
1 year ago
It begs to question if you all would be just as upset she actually sang a version of the national anthem like Marvin Gaye's at the 1983 NBA All-Star Game. Would that be too much of a deviation from the mainstream for you?
How about Jimi Hendrix's? Was that too black?
1 year ago
1 year ago
I'm sick and tired of it.
1 year ago
1 year ago
As for the singer...It wasn't professional but hell if it wasn't profound. We have another opportunity to discuss the disparate experiences of Black and White Americans. How many white people even KNEW there was a Black National anthem? Right, not many. [Terrorist fist jabs all around...]
1 year ago
karmi said: "Identifying one’s self as a member of a certain group, with that identity being given more importance than being an American first, may…distract from one seeing what America is about. "
I sincerely believe that most americans would love to be seen as "just americans." I think we really long for a post-racial society, but white supremacy won't allow it. The MSM identifies everyone by their race/ethnicity, unless they are white. We always hear, "a black man did it," instead of having to ask for the race/ethnicity. And, anyone who does not actively endorse white power &/or the continuation of white supremacy is called "anti-american" or racist, in a so-called reverse racism kinda way. WE really don't have a choice. Given the choice, I'm sure Obama would like the MSM to not refer to his race as often (we all know what it is by now), not inject race when it doesn't matter (which is most of the time), not use his race to suggest or imply that his race impedes his ability to govern the nation (as opposed to governing a group they say he represents more than a different group), and to desist with the racialy coded words and phrases to describe him, like "exotic," different & unknown. The real problem is that a Black (or other race) person's mere existance is seen as a threat to white supremacy, unless that individual proves over and over that they will work to maintain the current power structure. All this said, I do believe that God intended humanilty to be COLORFUL instead of COLOR BLIND, but no one wants their God-given racial or ethnic beauty used as a club to beat and oppress them.
BSerious, I also love reading your commentary.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
Say it again.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
I don't have a problem with you calling it whatever you want. I was giving my reasons for calling it what I want. I'm sure you know that. I think I've heard it called 3 different titles: Negro, Black & African American. I appreciate your proclivity for authenticity.
A lot of words used to be pejorative and now aren't and visa versa. James Weldon Johnson & Ralph Ellison used the words that were prevalent during their era, like we all do. When I was a kid, African Americans were called "colored people." Calling an African American Black was a fighting word back then. I don't think the upgrade disrespects our elders. I don't think they had a vision of contemporary life or society, or that our youth would be in such a desperate situation, but thats a whole other thread.
I respect you, PTCruiser & agree to disagree.
1 year ago
There have always been elements of our tribe who were quite cosmopolitan in terms of their outlook and what influenced and shaped their perspectives.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
Having said that, black folk have to think of the bigger picture instead of committing suicide by a thousand cuts. What she did was counterprodutive to the bigger picture. Then she compounded the error with her comments afterwards. Again, she lost sight of the 'bigger picture'. I'm half afraid some folks are subconsciously wanting him to lose.
BSerious is on point, as usual.
And Melinda, *I was thinking the same thing*. Dang.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
The truth of the matter is, unless there is someone working at these newspapers/stations that will call these reporters/journalists out on their BS, they will continue to harass Barack with every "Black news you can use" tidbit that pops up.
1 year ago
1 year ago
Ms. Marie says she loved singing both songs but felt a sense of segregation in each song. Her 3rd movement was an attempt to “marry” the two. See her answer to the question: “Weren’t you promoting racism by singing the black national anthem instead of the national anthem?” The 8th question on the page http://www.renemarie.com/qa.htm
OK: She was deceptive with Mayor Hickenlooper. True. But her love of America should not be in question unless you believe the merchants of fear and hate. Should she be condemned as Tom Tancredo wants to do? Not in my book, unless what you really want is an all white America.
1 year ago
I spent yesterday with an old friend of mine who is unarguably one of the world's best jazz trombonists. He told me that he no longer plays jam sessions on stage with other musicians, especially younger ones, because he does not enjoy the music that is made. Now, his position may be eccentric because jazz music relies heavily on improvisation but he and his wife, who acts as his agent, clearly make his feelings on this matter known to club owners and concert promoters before signing for a gig. If the prospective client is not comfortable with his position he declines the job. This is what it means to be a professional.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
This was the first time I heard of this song--and I am thrilled that she perturbed some of the corporate, fake-patriot sheeple by belting out this song when and where she did.
How many of the sheeple that are complaining have spoken out against the US lead terrorism that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqi children?
Again, I like it when the sheeple get nervous--they can't maintain their fierce poise when they have to endure an entirely different point of view, one that is not Wal-Mart/Exxon approved.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
i thinks whites need to have black totally on their knees and apologizing for their existance in order for them to feel "safe". people who are insulting this woman for what i think is a slick creative way of interpeting the both anthems are need to get a backbone.
Lift ev'ry voice and sing,
Till earth and heaven ring.
Ring with the harmonies of Liberty;
Let our rejoicing rise,
High as the list'ning skies,
Let it resound loud as the rolling sea.
Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us,
Sing a song full of the hope that the present has brought us;
Facing the rising sun of our new day begun,
Let us march on till victory is won.
Stony the road we trod,
Bitter the chast'ning rod,
Felt in the days when hope unborn had died;
Yet with a steady beat,
Have not our weary feet,
Come to the place for which our fathers sighed?
We have come over a way that with tears has been watered,
We have come, treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered,
Out from the gloomy past,
Till now we stand at last
Where the white gleam of our bright star is cast.
God of our weary years,
God of our silent tears,
Thou who has brought us thus far on the way;
Thou who has by Thy might,
Led us into the light,
Keep us forever in the path, we pray.
Lest our feet stray from the places, our God, where we met Thee,
Lest our hearts, drunk with the wine of the world, we forget Thee,
Shadowed beneath thy hand,
May we forever stand,
True to our God,
True to our native land.
1 year ago