Renee Marie Sings Black National Anthem Instead
Civil Disobedience is an effective nonviolent means of protest.
“Civil disobedience, refusal to obey a law or follow a policy believed to be unjust. Practitioners of civil disobedience basing their actions on moral right and usually employ the nonviolent technique of passive resistance in order to bring wider attention to the injustice. Risking punishment, such as violent retaliatory acts or imprisonment, they attempt to bring about changes in the law. In the modern era, civil disobedience has been used in such events as street demonstrations, marches, the occupying of buildings, and strikes and other forms of economic resistance.
The philosophy behind civil disobedience goes back to classical and biblical sources. Perhaps its most influential exposition can be found in Henry David Thoreau’s On the Duty of Civil Disobedience (1849), in which he claims that the individual, who grants the state its power in the first place, must follow the dictates of conscience in opposing unjust laws. . . .
The philosophy and tactics of civil disobedience have been used by Quakers and other religious groups, the British labor movement, suffragists, feminists, adherents of prohibition, pacifists and other war resisters (see conscientious objector), supporters of the disabled, and a wide variety of other dissenters. In the United States, the most outstanding theoretician and practitioner of civil disobedience was civil-rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. During the 1950s and 60s he achieved international fame by leading numerous peaceful marches, boycotts, and sit-ins. Like Gandhi, he was jailed several times. The beatings, mass arrests, and even killings of civil-rights demonstrators pledged to nonviolent civil disobedience were important factors in swaying public opinion and in the ultimate passage of new civil-rights legislation (see integration). Civil disobedience in the United States traditionally has been associated with those on the left of the political spectrum, as were most participants in the anti–Vietnam War movement, but toward the end of the 20th cent. the strategy also began to be employed by those on the right, for example, by those involved in confrontational but nonviolent antiabortion activities.
read entire article
Shirley Buxton said Renee Marie highjacked the National Anthem. I say, she sure did. Renee Marie was trying to show us that racism is alive and well in the US. Let’s do something about it. White people, listen to what black people are saying.
All emphasis mine
26 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 9, 2008 at 12:30 am
Eve
Helen, I disagree. Real civil disobedience, as engaged in by Dr. King and many other great upstarts involves (1) refusing to obey a law, (2) so as to influence policy or law, (3) using nonviolent means. Nobody threatened to arrest her (they applauded), and she was protesting no law, breaking no law, and influencing no law. To call it “civil disobedience” is to trivialize what so many others have taken seriously and put themselves at risk for.
Why the need for such theatrics? Why not just say you liked the song?
July 9, 2008 at 5:20 am
renaissanceguy
She violated her agreement to sing the National Anthem. In my mind that was a clear cut ethical violation, and any professional musician would know better.
She purposely did something intended to offend her audience, which would have resulted in heavy consequences had it been the other way around. Imagine, for example, a white singer performing Dixie at a Juneteenth celebration!
She brought attention to herself instead of to the United States of America, as she was supposed to do. She has definitely become more well known, but the purpose of the gig was not to give her a platform for staging a publicity stunt.
========================
If African-Americans want their own nation and their own national anthem to go with it, more power to them. I mean it sincerely. If, however, they intend to remain a part of the United States of America, then they have the same national anthem that all other Americans have.
July 9, 2008 at 6:14 am
renaissanceguy
Oh, and Eve’s right.
No law says that she must sing “The Star-Spangled Banner,” and no law prohibits her from singing “Lift Every Voice and Sing.” Therefore, her action was not civil disobedience.
July 9, 2008 at 8:50 am
Josh Lanning
Is racism alive in individuals or in the over all nation? When you say, Racism is alive and well – what does that mean? I know that there is a lot of people who are racist and prejudice. But is america like this? Does america exploit people? YES! Exploit people of certain races? YES! Come to NYC and work in the food industry for just a week and you will see how hispanics work – and find out home much they make compared to other….exploitation…but racism?
It’s all about stereotypes. It’s all about being scared to change and scared to venture out of a comfort zone to get to know someone. Stereotype: white:rich; black:poor – not true. white:educated; black:uneducated – not true…
I think where the rubber hits the road is POVERTY. Inner-city’s become run down and projects become unsafe. People do anything to survive. Children become what they see around them. Some Hispanics are powerless against exploitation – only if they are illegal immigrants. (they have to stay quiet) –
I’m from the Midwest – Peoria, Illinois born in Iowa – I’ve see love and I’ve seen hate. It’s all a matter of personal ignorance which brings stereotypes which causes actions based on race.
July 9, 2008 at 10:21 am
helenl
Hi Eve,
I do like the song, but that’s not the reason I write. I feel as strongly about fighting racism as I do about anything. I have been called by God to fight it. And fight it I will. Here “on my very own blog.” It’s not a contest. Want something given up? Give up writing about adopted kids.
Victims of racism are every bit as important as adopted children.
Now I grant you there are degrees of action (Civil Disobedience). And I would hardly compare Renee Marie’s actions to those of Gandhi or King. But in many ways, her action is a continuation of what they began. Life ought to be lived in cooperation (as well as competition) with others. And this was was not artistic license but defiance of the “rule” – the precedent – (hardly a law) that says we hear the National Anthem at such events. It drew attention to racism in this country rather than to the speech to follow. That was her purpose. Rather than “trivializing” the martyrs of the Civil Rights Movement, it keeps alive the same hope for equality that they lived day after day. Marie’s defiance proves King did not die in vain.
**
Hi RG,
Of course, she violated her agreement; that’s what civil disobedience does. African Americans do not want “their own nation” ; they want equality in the one we have. Obviously, the work of the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s is not over.
The laws are already in place. Implementation is not.
As King said, What good is it for a man to have the right to eat at a lunch counter, if he cannot afford to buy a hamburger?
Equality means not only changing the law but redistributing the money. The work is not over.
**
Hi Josh,
Systemic racism is all over. Individual racism is wherever it is.
You seem to be using a different vocabulary. And I think it’s silly to fight about whose definition is best.
King said we would fail if we did not (do not) fight racism, poverty, and war simultaneously. Black does not always mean poor. White does not always mean rich. The stereotypes you suggest are not useful, because they do not describe people as they really exist.
What King was saying was that poor white people were just as hungry as poor black people and that they should battle together for equality. He pointed out the obvious: Money spent on (the Vietnam) war cannot be used to fight poverty. As long as the US is hell-bent on ruling (or, at least, advising) the world, we cannot even make our own poor people rich enough to stop depending on charity (or the gov’t, same difference). We must educate our young people so they can earn money and use our resources, not to fight the world, but to give our poor better lives.
Now with Hispanics, it gets even more complicated. But if we’d kept on in the 60s, the problem would be solved by now.
We can’t expect change without cost. And white people are scared it will cost them. It will. But a true redistribution of wealth should cost families who make $100,000 very little (in additional taxes). It’s RICH people who’d have to give up being richer than small third world nations. They’d have only one mansion. Think they’d survive? What it might mean for whites of modest means is sharing the education opportunities.
“Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.” Guess JFK was a socialist, too. That’s a Democrat for you.
This is not about whites and blacks being personal friends.
**
July 9, 2008 at 10:59 am
Josh Lanning
Thanks. Great insight! I completely agree.
July 9, 2008 at 11:18 am
helenl
Hi Josh,
It took years of study to know all of this, which is why I TRY to share my knowledge of racism with others. Others usually resist. Systemic racism affects our thoughts even when we are not personally racist.
July 9, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Sherry Chandler
Is this the lyric, Helen? I see nothing here that any patriot could object to. I wonder how many people actually know the words to “The Star-Spangled Banner.”
Lift every voice and sing,
‘Til 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 ’til victory is won.
…
Shadowed beneath Thy hand,
May we forever stand,
True to our God,
True to our native land.
July 9, 2008 at 4:47 pm
helenl
Yes, Sherry, That’s the words. It’s a hymn.
July 9, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Jana Allard
Helen, you know I admire your fight on racism, but I do feel ReneMarie was wrong. It wasn’t Civil Disobedience in my opinion. There is nothing unjust in America’s National Anthem and it wasn’t a law or policy she was asked to fulfill. She was requested to sing a specific song. She was disrespectful to substitute the song of her choice. As a singer, I have often been hired to sing songs that were not my favorites or necessarily songs I enjoy. Even so, I made the agreement to sing the requested songs and I should honor and fulfill my obligation. What if I sang for a wedding and instead of singing the bride and groom’s special song, I chose to sing my favorite love song? That would be really disrespectful to the bride and groom. ReneMarie chose the wrong venue to display her political position. If she wants the national anthem changed, she can lobby to do so. However, the blacks will forever keep the world segregated by having black anthems, black pledges, etc. They would be offended if we said it was the “white” national anthem. Why is there a double standard? Nothing in our country should be color driven. It should be an anthem. Not a black, red, yellow or white anthem.
July 9, 2008 at 8:45 pm
helenl
Jana, It isn’t black people who are keeping racism going. Renee Marie doesn’t want the National Anthem changed; she wants the hearts of white people to change, so that we want equality. “Nothing in our country should be color driven.” Ah, but it is.
July 9, 2008 at 10:40 pm
renaissanceguy
I was the pianist at my sister’s wedding. She asked somebody to sing a certain song. When the singer came to the rehearsal, she made all kinds of excuses not to sing it. She suggested some songs that she liked better.
I took her aside and told her that if she could not sing the song that my sister chose, I would find somebody else who would. I told her that it was my sister’s wedding and she would have the song that she wanted, one way or another. The woman sang the song, although not as enthusiastically as she might have.
As Jana said, a professional musician should do what he or she is asked. I didn’t even like the song that my sister asked for, but I would have one anything to make sure she got it, even if I had to sing it myself.
July 9, 2008 at 10:57 pm
helenl
RG, This was NOT a wedding (a private, church ceremony and the bride’s special day). This was at Denver, Colorado’s annual State of the City Address (a state function).
This had nothing to do with being a professional. This was an act of DISOBEDIENCE. As in, she was not obeying, and she knew she was not obeying. She was not singing what she was asked to sing and was expected to sing on purpose to draw attention to something that is wrong: racism in America.
When a person performs an act of civil disobedience, he/she expects to accept punishment, if it is forthcoming.
Renee Marie’s act was about bringing attention to racism not doing what she was asked to do. That’s what Civil Disobedience is.
What people are saying is that conformity matters more than justice, more than fighting for equality. Let’s all pretend that everything is fine now. Well, Renee Marie said no. And I say no, too. We must fight (nonviolently) to rid our nation of racism, poverty, and war. We must do this, because we love our country, because we are good Americans.
July 9, 2008 at 11:10 pm
renaissanceguy
One more thing. I’m trying to understand the phrase “Black National Anthem.”
If somebody mentions the “Czech National Anthem,” then I take it to refer to the national anthem of the Czech Republic. Based on that analogy, “Black National Anthem” must refer to a national anthem of some Black nation.
Help me understand.
July 9, 2008 at 11:41 pm
helenl
Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_Every_Voice_and_Sing
I don’t think anyone set out to make this hymn the Black National Anthem. That isn’t its name. And it certainly isn’t the American national Anthem. It is a hymn sung often in black churches so that that unofficial title just sort of evolved.
July 9, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Jay Burns
I don’t agree that this is actually civil disobedience, but fine, for the sake of argument I’ll concede and let you call it that for the moment. I remember when the Dixie Chicks made their fatefull comments regarding being “embarrased that GWB is from Texas”. After which the American people made their opinions known through keeping their money in their pockets. Album sales plummeted and all of a sudden I heard how it isn’t fair. No it is fair. So, when this performer can no longer get work for her antics I don’t want to see her wanting my tax dollars to support her rights. She lied. She will pay for it because the American people will make her. I hope she’s ready.
July 10, 2008 at 12:02 am
helenl
Hi Jay, Vote with your wallet, if that’s how you feel.
I never heard of Rene Marie before, but now I like her. She has values that matter: fighting racism, poverty and war.
And as for the Dixie Chicks, well, that was the day I started to respect them. They said that because Bush started a war. I think their popularity dropped but has risen as Dubya’s has dropped, as people began to see how ill-timed this war was (is).
July 10, 2008 at 12:09 am
Jay Burns
There cd Not Ready To Make Nice did okay. They are by no means the blockbuster stars they had been. While internet sales keep them afloat they can no longer pack out a concert venue the way they used to.
I hadn’t heard of this woman either, perhaps those who listen to her are okay with this, but I doubt it.
July 10, 2008 at 12:24 am
helenl
Taking an unpopular stand will cost you. But you sleep at night.
July 10, 2008 at 12:27 am
Jay Burns
I would substitute unpopular with moral, but okay.
July 10, 2008 at 12:41 am
helenl
On second thought, I would say unpopular moral stand.
That’s what I’ve taken here: an unpopular moral stand. The cheers are not deafening.
July 11, 2008 at 1:03 am
Eve
Wow, Helen. You wrote, “Want something given up? Give up writing about adopted kids. Victims of racism are every bit as important as adopted children.” What the heck does that mean? Are you trying to offend me or what?
I didn’t tell you to give anything up. You put those words right in my mouth (or from my keyboard). I asked why you are being so theatrical that you have to call this “civil disobedience” when even the dictionary definition (and I won’t even go into what Thoreau wrote) disproves your point. Another great resister, Ghandi, instructed his fellow civil disobedient to not even offend those in authority, but to act with respect. This is also something she didn’t do.
So here we are, and you’re asking me to “give up writing about adopted kids.” Hmm. very interesting, considering that all of my adopted kids are non Caucasian.
What did you think I wanted you to give up? And why, seeing as I wrote nothing about you giving anything up? Why try to hit below the belt, if that’s what you’re doing? Because it seems you’re attacking my personal experience. Why would you do that?
July 11, 2008 at 11:23 am
helenl
Eve, I did NOT mean to offend you. I meant this by way of comparison. Every day I get told what not to say. I, too, get weary, especially when God has called me to a ministry of reconciliation that most people (including many, many Christians will not accept). Just as they refuse to accept the words of Wright as prophetic, they refuse mine. No one has to be big and famous to perform a given act. Rene Marie does not have to be as strong or well known as King or Gandhi to participate in civil disobedience.
I meant everyone is important. Being wounded by racism is being wounded as surely as by rape or abandonment. Degree is another matter. Perhaps, I reacted too strongly.
I have what sociologists of religion (such as Andrew Greeley and Alton Pollard) call “thin boundaries.” I see connections others miss. I take knowledge from one discipline and juxtapose it into another place. I look for similarities not differences. I think everyone is more alike than different. I think this is civil disobedience.
Please accept my apology for what came across as a personal attack. I did NOT mean to hurt you. What you have done for those children is a ministry as surely as anyone has. What we do “for the least of these” is done for (and to) Jesus.
July 11, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Eve
Helen, oh please. I am not telling you what to say and what not to say. So please keep me out of that part of your collectivism.
You mis-used the words “civil disobedience,” and that is the only problem I have with your post. You can rant and bible-thump all you want, but I have a Merriam Webster dictionary and I’m being a purist here. That is my only objection. Fight racism all you want to; I am fighting wrong-wordism.
You didn’t hurt me; but you sure did irritate me. I do not consider what I write about adoption as a “calling,” just to clarify that. I have written some works related to child welfare or philosophy that I did consider something of an artistic call. However (still clarifying) I’m not as highly developed as you seem to be, and I don’t have a sense of a personal call from God to fulfill a particular task on this planet. I feel irritated about that, because I have a “should” in the mid- to forefront of my mind that says I should have that, and I do not. So when someone like you comes along knowing what she is doing, then I feel exasperated about it. I may feel passionately about any number of things, but it is feeling and it is not calling. I think there’s a difference there.
Now that I’m about to wax philosophical on a clearly political topic, I’ll stop. Thanks for your apology, but it wasn’t necessary. This is your writing home (or one of them, anyway), and you surely have the right to say whatever you like, and I’m a guest here. I do disagree with the way you see this situation with the singer. I think her behavior wasn’t meaningful or influential in the way the actions of great people are. It was not a great act, in my opinion; but you seem to think it was. I suppose that if it came out of the same place in the singer that it seems to come from in you, Helen (destiny; your gift to God), then yes, it would be great. However, nothing I have read from or about her leads me to think that she is a person who has that sort of depth.
You, on the other hand, seem to be sincere and passionate with a purpose. I think there is a big difference, and in my opinion, categorizing self-absorbed, narcissistic, silly people as great is a waste when there are and have been truly deep and great people in the world. I do not believe she is one of them.
July 11, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Eve
P.S. I hope my writing is comprehensible this morning; I’m tired. I hope I made it clear that any sense of outrage or irritation I felt about your answer to me is personal–not your fault. It comes from me. I actually ought to apologize to you for that. So I do: I’m sorry. That was my mistake.
But it was helpful. It’s true that I don’t know what the hell I’m doing, and I feel I should know. And you do know what you’re doing. Maybe sometime you can write about how you came to know what you’re doing. How did that happen in your life? Tell me a story when you can’t think of anything else to write (as if that will happen, haha).
I don’t really care much about what the singer did or didn’t do, but I do care about some of the issues it raises. I admire people who leave a good mark in the world and are intent about it; that’s one quality of depth. I had that before, but I lost it somewhere. I can’t pick it back up and as you know, this is bothering me lately. So my reaction was about my stuff, not your fault at all. And by all means, delete my responses if they get you too far off track. I don’t want that, as you’re making a point and I can see that.
July 11, 2008 at 1:50 pm
helenl
Eve, let’s not fight about words. And as to knowing what we are doing, well, life ought to be more about being than doing. People have to eat to be, but it’s the being that truly matters.
I’m not mad or irritated about anything. Life is too short.