So there a 'Black National Anthem'

[Sidgaf]

Singer Opts for 'Black National Anthem' Over 'Star-Spangled Banner'
Wednesday, July 02, 2008


A jazz singer shocked some Denver residents after replacing the words to the national anthem with those of the "Black National Anthem" during the annual State of the City address this week.

Rene Marie was asked to sing "The Star-Spangled Banner" before Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper delivered the annual address on Tuesday. Instead, she sang the lyrics of "Lift Every Voice and Sing" — a hymn commonly referred to as the "Black National Anthem" — to the tune of the national anthem, MyFOXColorado.com reported.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,375164,00.html

disgusting. I wonder how she would feel if someone started to sing Dixie

[rjamortega]

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/16762609/detail.html

If you listen to the rest of this "artist's" comments, it is plain that she cares little of anything other than herself. The complete narcissist!

[Chosen]

Singer Opts for 'Black National Anthem' Over 'Star-Spangled Banner'
Wednesday, July 02, 2008


A jazz singer shocked some Denver residents after replacing the words to the national anthem with those of the "Black National Anthem" during the annual State of the City address this week.

Rene Marie was asked to sing "The Star-Spangled Banner" before Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper delivered the annual address on Tuesday. Instead, she sang the lyrics of "Lift Every Voice and Sing" — a hymn commonly referred to as the "Black National Anthem" — to the tune of the national anthem, MyFOXColorado.com reported.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,375164,00.html

disgusting. I wonder how she would feel if someone started to sing Dixie


Was Obama there?

[Dutch]

Another shining example multi-culturalism at work. ;)

[lord tammerlain]

Another shining example multi-culturalism at work. ;)

Really?

Is not Jazz an American created musical style?

Was not the song "Lift Every Voice and Sing" created by an American.

It is pure American culture, nothing multi cultural about it

[Bassman]

But the point is that there is only ONE National Anthem for the US.

[lord tammerlain]

But the point is that there is only ONE National Anthem for the US.


Well their is another unofficial one that is sung at atleast one arena (America the Beautifull?)

[Dutch]

Really?

Is not Jazz an American created musical style?

Was not the song "Lift Every Voice and Sing" created by an American.

It is pure American culture, nothing multi cultural about it

We aren't talking about jazz we're talking about supplanting the american national anthem with something else. Try to keep up will ya? ;)

[Sidgaf]

Was Obama there?
Come to think about it. He was in the state at the time. MY God do you know what thats means ?

He wants to changes the National Anthem.

[lord tammerlain]

We aren't talking about jazz we're talking about supplanting the american national anthem with something else. Try to keep up will ya? ;)

With something made in America, by American culture, by Americans.

Not by some British immigrant, with a song he/she created from a musical style created in the UK.

Which means it is not because of multiculturalism

[Dutch]

With something made in America, by American culture, by Americans.

Not by some British immigrant, with a song he/she created from a musical style created in the UK.

Which means it is not because of multiculturalism

Uhhhhh, no. The star spangled banner is the national anthem of the united states of america, not lift every voice and sing. Yer still not keeping up with the conversation. :cool:

[Atticus]

With something made in America, by American culture, by Americans.

Not by some British immigrant, with a song he/she created from a musical style created in the UK.

Which means it is not because of multiculturalismI'm no sure I agree with Dutch's sentiments, but he's not wrong to call this "multiculturalism." Part of the notion of multiculturalism, as I understand it, is to recognize and study cultural production that operates parallel to and often in resistance to the majority, dominant culture. Multicultural American Literature, for example, is the literature of African-Americans, Chicanos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and immigrant/first-generation groups (among others)--particularly where that literature constitutes a separate tradition from the dominant memes of "canonical" American literature.

So a song designated as a national anthem for a particular minority group would indeed be multiculturalism. Whether it's a good or bad thing is another question.

[rjamortega]

With something made in America, by American culture, by Americans.

Not by some British immigrant, with a song he/she created from a musical style created in the UK.

Which means it is not because of multiculturalism

The song she sang used that same "UK musical style".

Most certainly multiculturalism was a big influence that brought this song to replace the song the "artist" understood to be the requested version. The national anthem the "artist" chose to dump is a symbol of all americans. The one she sang only symbolizes a segment of America.

By her very statements, she admits to making that portion of the event about her need to promote her art and feelings;
"I wanted to express how I felt about living in this country as a black woman," Marie said.
Only muticulturalism and those who promote it can support her actions.

[Atticus]

At the risk of sounding like a multiculturalist or "one of its supporters"...The song she sang used that same "UK musical style".

Most certainly multiculturalism was a big influence that brought this song to replace the song the "artist" understood to be the requested version. The national anthem the "artist" chose to dump is a symbol of all americans.Really? Have you spoken to all Americans about this? ;)

Seriously, there are lots of reasons to dislike our national anthem:

1. It's hard to sing (you need a range of two octaves).
2. It glorifies war ("rocket's red glare, bombs bursting in air").
3. Some, particularly African Americans would dispute that we were the "land of the free" in 1814 (or even now).
4. It's central image/metaphor is not the Constitution or the geography of the nation or the variety of the nation's people, but a piece of cloth that is itself a symbol.

I think The one she sang only symbolizes a segment of America."The Star Spangled Banner" is our national anthem, by law. That doesn't mean everyone feels connected to it, and some would argue that it symbolizes only the dominant segment of America.

On the other hand, its pretty obvious which song they commissioned her to sing, and the responsible thing would be to do what she was engaged to do.

[rjamortega]

At the risk of sounding like a multiculturalist or "one of its supporters"...Really? Have you spoken to all Americans about this? ;)

Seriously, there are lots of reasons to dislike our national anthem:

1. It's hard to sing (you need a range of two octaves).
2. It glorifies war ("rocket's red glare, bombs bursting in air").
3. Some, particularly African Americans would dispute that we were the "land of the free" in 1814 (or even now).
4. It's central image/metaphor is not the Constitution or the geography of the nation or the variety of the nation's people, but a piece of cloth that is itself a symbol.

"The Star Spangled Banner" is our national anthem, by law. That doesn't mean everyone feels connected to it, and some would argue that it symbolizes only the dominant segment of America.

On the other hand, its pretty obvious which song they commissioned her to sing, and the responsible thing would be to do what she was engaged to do.

What is wrong with the mention of the war that was necessary for independence?

As for the rest of your post, you describe exactly what multiculturalism is! The common tradition is one of national identity. Modern progressive multiculturalism seeks to replace that tradition.

Individual citizens are not required to identify with the common national identity and its history. They are free to be what they want to be. But the "dominant segment" too has the right to maintain its national identity as it so chooses within our constitution. Afterall, this is what societal order is all about. So if the dominant segment organizes a state function with traditional regala, out of respect for the people the function represents-a city, state or nation-the traditions should be allowed to take place.

Multiculturalism is about the sub-group and the individual's feelings. It (foolishly) seeks to breakdown majority identity.

[Atticus]

What is wrong with the mention of the war that was necessary for independence?Well, I think you've got the wrong war. But more than that, an anthem that celebrates war solidifies in song the idea that war itself is central to our nation's identity. Interestingly, we have about half-a-dozen patriotic songs--"My Country 'Tis of Thee," "America the Beautiful"--our anthem is the only one that foregrounds war in this way.

As for the rest of your post, you describe exactly what multiculturalism is! The common tradition is one of national identity. Modern progressive multiculturalism seeks to replace that tradition.

Individual citizens are not required to identify with the common national identity and its history. They are free to be what they want to be. But the "dominant segment" too has the right to maintain its national identity as it so chooses within our constitution. Afterall, this is what societal order is all about. So if the dominant segment organizes a state function with traditional regala, out of respect for the people the function represents-a city, state or nation-the traditions should be allowed to take place.

Multiculturalism is about the sub-group and the individual's feelings. It (foolishly) seeks to breakdown majority identity.But the argument here is that:

1. The center of what constitutes that "dominant segment" changes over time to accommodate new ways of seeing things and demographic changes. We're a very different country than were were in the early Thirties when the anthem was adopted.
2. There's something essentially foolish about subsuming all those various groups into a single dominent segment. That's like mixing white and brown and red and yellow and black and so forth and being happy when the mix looks...well...white.

[lord tammerlain]

I'm no sure I agree with Dutch's sentiments, but he's not wrong to call this "multiculturalism." Part of the notion of multiculturalism, as I understand it, is to recognize and study cultural production that operates parallel to and often in resistance to the majority, dominant culture. Multicultural American Literature, for example, is the literature of African-Americans, Chicanos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and immigrant/first-generation groups (among others)--particularly where that literature constitutes a separate tradition from the dominant memes of "canonical" American literature.

So a song designated as a national anthem for a particular minority group would indeed be multiculturalism. Whether it's a good or bad thing is another question.

So by going by the above notion of multiculturalism

The US has been practicing multiculturalism as a nation from the begining of its creation. From different musical styles, to different literature, to different languages ( native American at the begining)

The US south east is very different then California culturally, New York City is very different culturally then Montana. The only really cultural commonality is the language (for the most part) and Hollywood produced entertainment.

[Atticus]

So by going by the above notion of multiculturalism

The US has been practicing multiculturalism as a nation from the begining of its creation. From different musical styles, to different literature, to different languages ( native American at the begining)

The US south east is very different then California culturally, New York City is very different culturally then Montana. The only really cultural commonality is the language (for the most part) and Hollywood produced entertainment.Yes, absolutely right. And no, not quite. There is a dominant and cohesive cultural center that the majority of Americans would recognize as their own--and the culture of the US south is different from California, but not nearly so different from each other as from Native American or Chicano or African American culture. This can be seen in the cultural production of those different groups. Steinbeck and Faulkner are rather different, but they have more in common with each other than they have in common with, say, Richard Wright or Langston Hughes.

[AgentM]

Some Americans like to claim that are a "melting pot" but really the US is as multicultural as Canada is. This "melting pot" idea is merely rhetoric. One cannot force ones cultural norms on another (at least after a point, i.e. people still have to obey the law and everything), the person of another culture must choose to adopt what he or she wishes.

[Atticus]

Some Americans like to claim that are a "melting pot" but really the US is as multicultural as Canada is. This "melting pot" idea is merely rhetoric. One cannot force ones cultural norms on another (at least after a point, i.e. people still have to obey the law and everything), the person of another culture must choose to adopt what he or she wishes.Actually, we practiced just that for a long time. Immigrants in the last great wave (1880-1920) found Americanization committees that went into their homes and taught the how to live like Americans. It was really rather invasive by contemporary standards.

[AgentM]

Actually, we practiced just that for a long time. Immigrants in the last great wave (1880-1920) found Americanization committees that went into their homes and taught the how to live like Americans. It was really rather invasive by contemporary standards.

Hm, well I wasn't aware of that. But to my knowledge that sort of thing doesn't happen in the modern age.

[Dutch]

Hm, well I wasn't aware of that. But to my knowledge that sort of thing doesn't happen in the modern age.

Of course not because it is very invasive. However, multi-culturalism has to have limits or chaos is the result.


source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1535478/Sharia-law-is-spreading-as-authority-wanes.html)
Sharia law is spreading as authority wanes
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
Last Updated: 1:54AM GMT 30/11/2006
Islamic sharia law is gaining an increasing foothold in parts of Britain, a report claims.

Sharia, derived from several sources including the Koran, is applied to varying degrees in predominantly Muslim countries but it has no binding status in Britain.



The Koran is one of the sources that Sharia derives from
However, the BBC Radio 4 programme Law in Action produced evidence yesterday that it was being used by some Muslims as an alternative to English criminal law. Aydarus Yusuf, 29, a youth worker from Somalia, recalled a stabbing case that was decided by an unofficial Somali "court" sitting in Woolwich, south-east London.

Mr Yusuf said a group of Somali youths were arrested on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager. The victim's family told the police it would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail.

A hearing was convened and elders ordered the assailants to compensate their victim. "All their uncles and their fathers were there," said Mr Yusuf. "So they all put something towards that and apologised for the wrongdoing."

Although Scotland Yard had no information about that case yesterday, a spokesman said it was common for the police not to proceed with assault cases if the victims decided not to press charges.

However, the spokesman said cases of domestic violence, including rape, might go to trial regardless of the victim's wishes.....

[AgentM]

Of course not because it is very invasive. However, multi-culturalism has to have limits or chaos is the result.

Ya, but my point is you guys have multi-culturalism. Americans who are against multiculturalism speak of balkanized communities, but America has those just as much as Canada. There are "Little Italies" and other ethnic bastions in American cities just as there are here and in other multicultural states.

[rjamortega]

Alright gang, here is a critique that should inspire plenty of feedback;
(towski, it's my old hero worship flaring up again)
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/07/08/why_a_black_artist_replaced_the_national_anthem
Why a Black Artist Replaced the National Anthem
by Dennis Prager

Last week in Denver, almost all the values of the post-1960s left were exhibited in one act.

It happened on the Denver mayor's most important day -- the one in which he was to deliver his annual State of the City Address. The day was to begin with the singing of the National Anthem by the black jazz singer Rene Marie. But Ms. Marie had, by her own admission, long had other plans. Instead of the National Anthem, she sang "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing," a song written in 1899 and often referred to today as the Black National Anthem.

What Marie did embodied a plethora of leftist ideals and characteristics: Ethical relativism, multiculturalism, the supremacy of feelings, the belief that artists are above normal ethical standards and group victimization.

We begin with ethical relativism. The left's opposition to Judeo-Christian values is first and foremost an opposition to objective, or universal, ethics. Ethics and morality are relative. There is no objective or universal standard of right and wrong. We are each the source of our own values.

These lessons were learned well by Marie. The notion that lying to the mayor of Denver (a Democrat, as it happens) when she agreed to his invitation to sing the National Anthem was unethical or immoral is foreign to Ms. Marie.

But how could she morally defend something so obviously immoral?

That is what ethical relativism made possible thanks to a number of values of the left.

One such leftist value is multiculturalism. Since the 1960s, a major goal of the left has been to weaken American national identity and replace it with other cultural, national, racial and ethnic identities (in effect, changing the motto of the United States from "From Many, One" to "From One, Many"). It has pursued this goal through bilingual education, election ballots in multiple languages, numerical guidelines in American history textbooks concerning the percentage of space allotted to given minorities, opposition to declaring English America's national language, and rendering the term "flag waving" a pejorative that implies quasi-fascist sentiments.

...

The idea of a Black National Anthem is a multiculturalist paradigm. A black freedom song, a black hymnal, songs that gave African slaves on American soil some comfort and hope in the midst of their suffering, and, for that matter, "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing" -- these all fit perfectly into an American national identity. Indeed, all Americans should know such songs. But a Black National Anthem, when substituted for the National Anthem, means that there are two nations on American soil, a black one and an American one.

The left's second contribution to Marie's value system has been its elevation of feelings above other values. For example, one determines right and wrong on the basis of how one feels (as opposed to, let us say, asking what one's religion, or God, or any moral law that transcends one's own feelings would say on a given matter).

Now, the elevation of one's feelings above other considerations is generally viewed as a form of narcissism. And while narcissism is as old as humanity, until the 1960s it was generally regarded as a character flaw. Since the 1960s, however, it was more often heralded as a virtue. From recreational drug use to recreational sex, acting on one's feelings, actions of self-centered narcissism, has been glorified.

The core of this attitude lies in the left's veneration of feelings. How one feels became all-important. It even determines morality, the rightness or wrongness of an action. Thus, a generation of young people has been raised with the question, "How do you feel about it?" not "Is it right or wrong?"

Thus, Marie justified what she did in terms of feelings: "I want to express how I feel about living in the United States as a black woman, as a black person," she said. Her feelings were what mattered, and they were more important than elementary decency. Continued...

[Oliphaunt]

It doesnt seem that bad to me.

Lift every voice and sing, till earth and Heaven ring,
Ring with the harmonies of liberty;
Let our rejoicing rise, high as the listening 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 chastening 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 hast brought us thus far on the way;
Thou Who hast 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.

http://www.ez-tracks.com/SongLyrics-Lyrics-125.html

Personally I care very little for anthems and pledges and flag pins. They're pretty meaningless to me. Theres real patriotism and then theres just "for-show" patriotism.

I dont have a problem with this.

[rjamortega]

It doesnt seem that bad to me.



http://www.ez-tracks.com/SongLyrics-Lyrics-125.html

Personally I care very little for anthems and pledges and flag pins. They're pretty meaningless to me. Theres real patriotism and then theres just "for-show" patriotism.

I dont have a problem with this.

Well I have two problems with the lyrics alone...
One, it was written to speak of the plight of the slaves and their following generations. As an anthem it doesn't speak for me.

Two, it makes pronouncements of God which the actual anthem does not do. That makes the actual anthem more fitting for all american citizens. The purpose of the anthem is to speak of the nation, not certain religious beliefs or ethnic groups.

And anthems are simply a tradition man has maintained for thousands of years. I hope you were as vocal a critic of your school anthems.

[MikeD4o7]

Two, it makes pronouncements of God which the actual anthem does not do. That makes the actual anthem more fitting for all american citizens.

Maybe with the God part it's just speaking to the "dominant segment" :p

[rjamortega]

Maybe with the God part it's just speaking to the "dominant segment" :p

I don't think the "dominant segment" ever had relatives who were slaves in the early years of the nation.

[MikeD4o7]

I don't think the "dominant segment" ever had relatives who were slaves in the early years of the nation.

No, but they're certainly religious. Maybe we should have a new national anthem that incorporates more of what most Americans are about. One that mentions at least God, the NFL, and the tv show Lost.

[rjamortega]

But all kidding aside, Mike...we have an anthem. The city asked the "artist" to sing it, and she accepted an agreement she couldn't honor.

[MikeD4o7]

But all kidding aside, Mike...we have an anthem. The city asked the "artist" to sing it, and she accepted an agreement she couldn't honor.

Yeah. I wouldn't ask her to perform again. She was asked to sing one song, and she sang another, so it was simply unprofessional and inconsiderate towards those that made the arrangement with her.

[AgentM]

Man, I have so many issues with this article...

We begin with ethical relativism. The left's opposition to Judeo-Christian values is first and foremost an opposition to objective, or universal, ethics. Ethics and morality are relative. There is no objective or universal standard of right and wrong. We are each the source of our own values.

Prager certainly likes to paint broad strokes doesn't he? I guess he knows all the people on the so-called "left" in America, and they all, all oppose what he calls "Judeo-Christian values". There's no Jews or Christians on the "left" at all, never. Re: Values, Prager is merely stating what he perceives the "leftist" values as, it doesn't sound like he actually knows. For one thing, he's acting like all people on the so-called left believe that. For another, who the hell is the judge of what is a "universal standard of right and wrong"? Every society has it's own cultural norms and standards, to say there is a universal Truth with a capital T is arrogant in the extreme.

One such leftist value is multiculturalism. Since the 1960s, a major goal of the left has been to weaken American national identity and replace it with other cultural, national, racial and ethnic identities (in effect, changing the motto of the United States from "From Many, One" to "From One, Many"). It has pursued this goal through bilingual education, election ballots in multiple languages, numerical guidelines in American history textbooks concerning the percentage of space allotted to given minorities, opposition to declaring English America's national language, and rendering the term "flag waving" a pejorative that implies quasi-fascist sentiments.

Multiculturalism does not necessarily weaken the American "national identity" as Prager puts it. Multiculturalism can in fact strengthen a national identity by having immigrants embrace the country that allows them to practice their culture freely without repression. Besides, what the hell is the American national identity and who is Prager to arbitrarily decide what it is for everybody?

The idea of a Black National Anthem is a multiculturalist paradigm. A black freedom song, a black hymnal, songs that gave African slaves on American soil some comfort and hope in the midst of their suffering, and, for that matter, "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing" -- these all fit perfectly into an American national identity. Indeed, all Americans should know such songs. But a Black National Anthem, when substituted for the National Anthem, means that there are two nations on American soil, a black one and an American one.

Well guess what, you guys did kind of enslave them and oppress them for hundreds of years. If you expect that to just turn around over night, you're fooling yourselves.

The left's second contribution to Marie's value system has been its elevation of feelings above other values. For example, one determines right and wrong on the basis of how one feels (as opposed to, let us say, asking what one's religion, or God, or any moral law that transcends one's own feelings would say on a given matter).

One could say that belief in a religion, or other moral code is based on one's feelings as well.

Now, the elevation of one's feelings above other considerations is generally viewed as a form of narcissism. And while narcissism is as old as humanity, until the 1960s it was generally regarded as a character flaw. Since the 1960s, however, it was more often heralded as a virtue. From recreational drug use to recreational sex, acting on one's feelings, actions of self-centered narcissism, has been glorified.

I would say that this started as a backlash against the somewhat repressive society that existed prior to the hippie-cultural revolutions that started in the 60s. Really society brought this on itself by not being more open and understanding in the first place IMO.

The core of this attitude lies in the left's veneration of feelings. How one feels became all-important. It even determines morality, the rightness or wrongness of an action. Thus, a generation of young people has been raised with the question, "How do you feel about it?" not "Is it right or wrong?"

Thus, Marie justified what she did in terms of feelings: "I want to express how I feel about living in the United States as a black woman, as a black person," she said. Her feelings were what mattered, and they were more important than elementary decency. Continued...

How do you decide what is right and wrong? Those things are social constructs anyways, many basic ones are central to the survival of society and go back as far as the creation of basic societies (don't kill, don't steal etc), but they are still social constructs. I'm not saying I agree with the actions that Marie took, but I just have many disagreements with this article that I wanted to express (I needed to express how I felt ;) ).

[Alvin T. Grey]

Only muticulturalism and those who promote it can support her actions.

"I wanted to express how I felt about living in this country as a black woman,"


Multiracial is not multicultural.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Of course not because it is very invasive. However, multi-culturalism has to have limits or chaos is the result.


source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1535478/Sharia-law-is-spreading-as-authority-wanes.html)

Although Scotland Yard had no information about that case yesterday, a spokesman said it was common for the police not to proceed with assault cases if the victims decided not to press charges.

If they want to settle it amongs themselves, fine. If two Irish guys wanted to do the same, then equally fine.
It's the way its done.

[rjamortega]

Multiracial is not multicultural.

If that is how you wish to categorize these sort of things.(?!?!)

[AgentM]

If that is how you wish to categorize these sort of things.(?!?!)

Alvin's right. For instance, France is multi-racial, but it's not multicultural. France expects immigrants to assimilate and live the "French way."

[rjamortega]

Alvin's right. For instance, France is multi-racial, but it's not multicultural. France expects immigrants to assimilate and live the "French way."

It is probably my mistake to do so, but when the "artist" speaks of her blackness, I am not relating it to her race, but rather the culture of victimization much of her song and message rely on.

[AgentM]

It is probably my mistake to do so, but when the "artist" speaks of her blackness, I am not relating it to her race, but rather the culture of victimization much of her song and message rely on.

Well, I wouldn't disagree that there is a culture of victimization, at least in some segments of the black population in the US. But that's to be expected. It's not going to change overnight.

You could say that the Quebecois separatists are part of a culture of victimization in Canada too (not that all Quebecois or Quebeckers follow that). Hell, some Quebecois are still bitter over the Battle of the Plains of Abraham it seems like for gosh sakes.