Comments on: Our Way of Life…or a Few Thoughts on Race, History and Josh Turner http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412 Thu, 09 Sep 2010 03:46:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0 by: Charles http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39789 Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:27:55 +0000 http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39789 I also want to point out that, as much as I'm concerned with the specific sentiments expressed in Turner's song, I don't think that the real issue here is whether or not Josh Turner is a white supremacist, or whether "South Carolina Low Country" is a condemnable piece of music, etc. I spotlighted the song, and the artist, because it seems representative to me of how far we ALL have to go, and how careful we ALL have to be in remembering the painful, complicated legacies that exist just below the surface of American life. Turner's personal role in this is important, and he should be called on it, but it would be a mistake to turn the issue into one about Turner, and *just* Turner. I also want to point out that, as much as I’m concerned with the specific sentiments expressed in Turner’s song, I don’t think that the real issue here is whether or not Josh Turner is a white supremacist, or whether “South Carolina Low Country” is a condemnable piece of music, etc. I spotlighted the song, and the artist, because it seems representative to me of how far we ALL have to go, and how careful we ALL have to be in remembering the painful, complicated legacies that exist just below the surface of American life. Turner’s personal role in this is important, and he should be called on it, but it would be a mistake to turn the issue into one about Turner, and *just* Turner.

]]> by: Barry M. http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39782 Sat, 02 Feb 2008 14:49:42 +0000 http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39782 Well, black-white interchange in American music goes back more than a little back before Elvis! And as any observer of the recent South Carolina primary may have noticed, some of the worst conceivable public schools in e country are in that state, especially (and boy, this will shock everybody) rural black community schools, which are hovels. But i do think it's wise to learn more about the specific context of Bad Stuff like Charles raises here as well as the general context. I don' say this because ignorance is an excuse for a record spreading ill myths and destructive suggestions, but because there are many asses to be busted, all around, and we also get to choose which ones to whack. It may be wise to err on the side f benefit of the doubt. What I know of Josh is that he's a tea-totaling church boy, in many ways mild but with enough required ego to be the star he's become, and that, in the blatantly suburban context in which he was raised (recently visited on his post-Opry induction CMT special).. you get the picture of a guy who's actual stay-at-home lifestyle leaves limited room for signifying he's just "one of the boys"--which, we all have probably noticed, is a sort of base line requirement in country music. Sometimes even for women. So he gets into-- a little,-- the "a white Southern boy can have some sort of positive identity too, can't he" ting, and maybe he's a little uncertain about where to get on and off with that--which a lot of people who feel like to have to prove something do. I would advise strongly watching out for mild boys trying to prove that they're tough in selections of President of the United States, in the choice of singers to pay attention to--well maybe somebody should just ask Josh about this some time, and point out the issue with ay leatst one name he dropped. My guess is that e will go and sin no more Barry Well, black-white interchange in American music goes back more than a little back before Elvis!

And as any observer of the recent South Carolina primary may have noticed, some of the worst conceivable public schools in e country are in that state, especially (and boy, this will shock everybody) rural black community schools, which are hovels.

But i do think it’s wise to learn more about the specific context of Bad Stuff like Charles raises here as well as the general context. I don’ say this because ignorance is an excuse for a record spreading ill myths and destructive suggestions, but because there are many asses to be busted, all around, and we also get to choose which ones to whack. It may be wise to err on the side f benefit of the doubt.

What I know of Josh is that he’s a tea-totaling church boy, in many ways mild but with enough required ego to be the star he’s become, and that, in the blatantly suburban context in which he was raised (recently visited on his post-Opry induction CMT special).. you get the picture of a guy who’s actual stay-at-home lifestyle leaves limited room for signifying he’s just “one of the boys”–which, we all have probably noticed, is a sort of base line requirement in country music. Sometimes even for women. So he gets into– a little,– the “a white Southern boy can have some sort of positive identity too, can’t he” ting, and maybe he’s a little uncertain about where to get on and off with that–which a lot of people who feel like to have to prove something do.
I would advise strongly watching out for mild boys trying to prove that they’re tough in selections of President of the United States, in the choice of singers to pay attention to–well maybe somebody should just ask Josh about this some time, and point out the issue with ay leatst one name he dropped. My guess is that e will go and sin no more

Barry

]]> by: Jim Haygood http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39743 Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:31:39 +0000 http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39743 Well, I listened to some cuts by both Josh Turner and Anthony Hamilton. Both are talented, but neither is really my cup of tea. Still, I love music that explores the intersection between country and soul, with their common roots. A good example would be Solomon Burke's 2006 album, Nashville. The African-African minister returns to his country roots, with duets by Patty Griffin, Dolly Parton, Emmylou Harris, Gillian Welch, and Patty Loveless. Producer Buddy Miller had a lot to do with making this album happen. Probably the original intersection between white and black folk music traditions was personified in Elvis Presley. His lyrics weren't political, but his crossing of formerly-enforced boundaries between [white] popular music and 'race' music certainly was. Elvis is one of those charismatic, enigmatic figures onto whom other musicians project their feelings, in the hundreds of songs written about him. One of my favorite such projections is the song 'Elvis Presley,' by the late singer-songwriter Dave Carter. In his dreamlike lyrics, the tragic figure of Elvis gets all confused with the Lost Cause: Then he took me over cracker malls and chicken shacks Where the lost souls prowl the lonesome oceanside They were waitin' on the shadow of the Merrimack Floatin' brave as Davis sabers on the tide But he said, Dixie slumbers in the cold cold ground And Lincoln molders in the clay And they've got John Wilkes Booth on the radio Singin' "Throw out the lifeline, throw out the lifeline 'Cause somebody's driftin' away.' http://www.tracygrammer.com/php/lyrics.php?uid=123 We all have our own memories and cultural traditions. And they don't necessarily have to conflict. Long live James Baldwin! Long live Dixie! Well, I listened to some cuts by both Josh Turner and Anthony Hamilton. Both are talented, but neither is really my cup of tea.

Still, I love music that explores the intersection between country and soul, with their common roots. A good example would be Solomon Burke’s 2006 album, Nashville. The African-African minister returns to his country roots, with duets by Patty Griffin, Dolly Parton, Emmylou Harris, Gillian Welch, and Patty Loveless. Producer Buddy Miller had a lot to do with making this album happen.

Probably the original intersection between white and black folk music traditions was personified in Elvis Presley. His lyrics weren’t political, but his crossing of formerly-enforced boundaries between [white] popular music and ‘race’ music certainly was. Elvis is one of those charismatic, enigmatic figures onto whom other musicians project their feelings, in the hundreds of songs written about him.

One of my favorite such projections is the song ‘Elvis Presley,’ by the late singer-songwriter Dave Carter. In his dreamlike lyrics, the tragic figure of Elvis gets all confused with the Lost Cause:

Then he took me over cracker malls and chicken shacks
Where the lost souls prowl the lonesome oceanside
They were waitin’ on the shadow of the Merrimack
Floatin’ brave as Davis sabers on the tide

But he said, Dixie slumbers in the cold cold ground
And Lincoln molders in the clay
And they’ve got John Wilkes Booth on the radio
Singin’ “Throw out the lifeline, throw out the lifeline
‘Cause somebody’s driftin’ away.’

http://www.tracygrammer.com/php/lyrics.php?uid=123

We all have our own memories and cultural traditions. And they don’t necessarily have to conflict. Long live James Baldwin! Long live Dixie!

]]> by: David Cantwell http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39729 Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:00:11 +0000 http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39729 Tater, Yes you are too arguing/debating. <g> And that's good, in my book. We need more of that--and not just at Living in Stereo. I agree, and think most folks here would too, that often trivial matters get more attention than substantive ones these days. But...I think we have to be careful what we dismiss as trivial. For one thing, part of what has led us to a place where urban school districts (not just in KC--and not just urban) are in the sorry shape they're in, and part of the story behind high black unemployment (not just in KC, or black) is America's founding in, and the persistance of, white supremacy. One of the big problems with fixing troubles like the ones you mention is that too many of us (and by us, I mostly mean white people) are so eager to believe that white supremacy is purely a problem in America's past--and that the real obstacle to progress is all these complainers who won't let the past drop. There's a great essay in our The Reading List page here (link to the right), "Unameable Objects, Unspeakable Acts," in which James Baldwin addresses some of the issues involved when someone like Turner sings lines like the ones Charles quoted in his post and what happens when we continue to feel pride for a past we've yet to confront honestly, even today. Baldwin writes: "[White] People who imagine that history flatters them (as it does, indeed, since they wrote it) are impaled on their history like a butterfly on a pin and become incapable of seeing or changing themselves or the world. "This is the place in which, it seems to me, most white Americans find themselves. They are dimly, or vividly, aware that the history they have fed themselves is mainly a lie, but they do not know how to release themselves from it, and they suffer enormously from the resulting personal incoherence. This incoherence is heard nowhere more plainly than in those stammering, terrified dialogues white Americans sometimes entertain with that black conscience, the black man in America. The nature of this stammering can be reduced to a plea: Do not blame me. I was not there. I did not do it. My history has nothing to do with Europe or the slave trade. Anyway, it was your chiefs who sold you to me. I was not present on the middle passage. I am not responsible for the textile mills of Manchester, or the cotton fields of Mississippi. Besides, consider how the English, too, suffered in those mills and in those awful cities! I, also, despise the governors of Southern states and the sheriffs of Southern counties; and I also want your child to have a decent education and rise as high as his capabilities will permit. I have nothing against you, nothing! What have you got against me? What do you want? "But, on the same day, in another gathering, and in the most private chamber of his heart always, he, the white man, remains proud of that history for which he does not wish to pay, and from which, materially, he has profited so much." I think this is especially eloquent and perceptive, even for Baldwin. I think too that Turner's song wants to be proud of a history for which it doesn't appear to want to pay and from which he and all of us have profited so much. And this is why I think the issues that Charles raises are far from trivial. Turner's song, and on this point his intent is mostly irrelevant, is an argument (and a false one, at that) not only about the past but about the way we should live in the here and now. Is some song by Josh Turner more important than the state of, say, American education? Of course not. But this song is a reminder of the unpaid debts that remains a part of our sad shared story and that impale us still like a butterfly on a pin. --David Tater, Yes you are too arguing/debating. And that’s good, in my book. We need more of that–and not just at Living in Stereo.

I agree, and think most folks here would too, that often trivial matters get more attention than substantive ones these days. But…I think we have to be careful what we dismiss as trivial. For one thing, part of what has led us to a place where urban school districts (not just in KC–and not just urban) are in the sorry shape they’re in, and part of the story behind high black unemployment (not just in KC, or black) is America’s founding in, and the persistance of, white supremacy.

One of the big problems with fixing troubles like the ones you mention is that too many of us (and by us, I mostly mean white people) are so eager to believe that white supremacy is purely a problem in America’s past–and that the real obstacle to progress is all these complainers who won’t let the past drop.

There’s a great essay in our The Reading List page here (link to the right), “Unameable Objects, Unspeakable Acts,” in which James Baldwin addresses some of the issues involved when someone like Turner sings lines like the ones Charles quoted in his post and what happens when we continue to feel pride for a past we’ve yet to confront honestly, even today. Baldwin writes:

“[White] People who imagine that history flatters them (as it does, indeed, since they wrote it) are impaled on their history like a butterfly on a pin and become incapable of seeing or changing themselves or the world.

“This is the place in which, it seems to me, most white Americans find themselves. They are dimly, or vividly, aware that the history they have fed themselves is mainly a lie, but they do not know how to release themselves from it, and they suffer enormously from the resulting personal incoherence. This incoherence is heard nowhere more plainly than in those stammering, terrified dialogues white Americans sometimes entertain with that black conscience, the black man in America. The nature of this stammering can be reduced to a plea: Do not blame me. I was not there. I did not do it. My history has nothing to do with Europe or the slave trade. Anyway, it was your chiefs who sold you to me. I was not present on the middle passage. I am not responsible for the textile mills of Manchester, or the cotton fields of Mississippi. Besides, consider how the English, too, suffered in those mills and in those awful cities! I, also, despise the governors of Southern states and the sheriffs of Southern counties; and I also want your child to have a decent education and rise as high as his capabilities will permit. I have nothing against you, nothing! What have you got against me? What do you want?

“But, on the same day, in another gathering, and in the most private chamber of his heart always, he, the white man, remains proud of that history for which he does not wish to pay, and from which, materially, he has profited so much.”

I think this is especially eloquent and perceptive, even for Baldwin. I think too that Turner’s song wants to be proud of a history for which it doesn’t appear to want to pay and from which he and all of us have profited so much. And this is why I think the issues that Charles raises are far from trivial. Turner’s song, and on this point his intent is mostly irrelevant, is an argument (and a false one, at that) not only about the past but about the way we should live in the here and now.

Is some song by Josh Turner more important than the state of, say, American education? Of course not. But this song is a reminder of the unpaid debts that remains a part of our sad shared story and that impale us still like a butterfly on a pin. –David

]]> by: Tater http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39725 Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:53:47 +0000 http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39725 my intent isn't to be combative or extend this thread any longer than it needs to be. i am just always amazed how some people are offended or joyous by what others consider trivial. josh turner sang a ?country? song with anthony hamilton, white guy and black guy, nothing new there and no reason to view it as anything more than a duet in my book. now if you want to talk about the rascal flats jamie foxx duet on the CMAs that was something to talk about(one of them there guys couldn’t sing a lick, i’ll let you guess who). i personally believe the tuner/hamilton duet should be judged by it’s quality not by the race of the singers. articles that showcase and command outrage over issues that are “trivial” in my view(josh turners intent), I believe, draw attention and energy away from the “real world” issues. here in my neck of the woods I would rather hear people be “outraged” over the fact that the KC school district is one of the worst in the civilized world and/or that over 40% of young black men in KC are unemployed. these are issues worth being outraged over in my opinion. trying to unearth josh turners intent not so much. but just like in the “big” media, blogs now deal in “outrage” over every new “trivial” issue because the old issues(really important issues) are to boring to grab anyones attention and we’ve read about them a million times already, “give me something NEW to be offended by”. so that brings us full circle to barrack and hillary, so we can talk about race and gender rather than the important stuff. how about policy, qualifications and positions, nope the mainstream media and blogs would rather make race/gender/hairstyles/makeup/orator skills and the kennedy’s the hot topics – anything to keep our short attention spans pardon my grammar and spelling David, but I’m in a rush today just my 2 cents guys, i’m not arguing or debating my intent isn’t to be combative or extend this thread any longer than it needs to be. i am just always amazed how some people are offended or joyous by what others consider trivial. josh turner sang a ?country? song with anthony hamilton, white guy and black guy, nothing new there and no reason to view it as anything more than a duet in my book. now if you want to talk about the rascal flats jamie foxx duet on the CMAs that was something to talk about(one of them there guys couldn’t sing a lick, i’ll let you guess who). i personally believe the tuner/hamilton duet should be judged by it’s quality not by the race of the singers.

articles that showcase and command outrage over issues that are “trivial” in my view(josh turners intent), I believe, draw attention and energy away from the “real world” issues. here in my neck of the woods I would rather hear people be “outraged” over the fact that the KC school district is one of the worst in the civilized world and/or that over 40% of young black men in KC are unemployed. these are issues worth being outraged over in my opinion. trying to unearth josh turners intent not so much.

but just like in the “big” media, blogs now deal in “outrage” over every new “trivial” issue because the old issues(really important issues) are to boring to grab anyones attention and we’ve read about them a million times already, “give me something NEW to be offended by”.

so that brings us full circle to barrack and hillary, so we can talk about race and gender rather than the important stuff. how about policy, qualifications and positions, nope the mainstream media and blogs would rather make race/gender/hairstyles/makeup/orator skills and the kennedy’s the hot topics – anything to keep our short attention spans

pardon my grammar and spelling David, but I’m in a rush today

just my 2 cents guys, i’m not arguing or debating

]]> by: Charles http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39689 Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:07:18 +0000 http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39689 Peter's right. The point is not that Turner drops two names; the point is that he invokes a historical legacy, and a "way of life," which has very negative implications. Moreover, both Marion and (especially) Hampton were powerful figures in directly shaping this history. Jesse James and Mark Twain, though hugely important in American culture, had no such influence. Hampton's one of the major reasons that Reconstruction fell, and - regardless of what Turner does or does not know about that history - he deserves to be called on it. Peter’s right. The point is not that Turner drops two names; the point is that he invokes a historical legacy, and a “way of life,” which has very negative implications.

Moreover, both Marion and (especially) Hampton were powerful figures in directly shaping this history. Jesse James and Mark Twain, though hugely important in American culture, had no such influence. Hampton’s one of the major reasons that Reconstruction fell, and - regardless of what Turner does or does not know about that history - he deserves to be called on it.

]]> by: Peter Kohan http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39686 Fri, 01 Feb 2008 02:18:31 +0000 http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39686 Tater, It's not just the name dropping. It's the name dropping plus the line: "They fought for a flag, a state, and a way of life," Did they really fight for a flag... or did they fight to deny human rights and for pure economic self-interest? And didn't that "way of life" include owning other human beings? I'm not as hardcore as Charles is. I'll be able to listen to Josh Turner and still enjoy his music. Hey, Miles Davis personally beat up women, but I still find Miles sublime and can enjoy his music. And we all go to sports arenas and cheer when they play "Rock and Roll Part II" by Gary Glitter, a known child porn aficionadoand sex offender. These are far more heinous crimes than what Josh Turner is accused of here. Tater,

It’s not just the name dropping. It’s the name dropping plus the line: “They fought for a flag, a state, and a way of life,”

Did they really fight for a flag… or did they fight to deny human rights and for pure economic self-interest? And didn’t that “way of life” include owning other human beings?

I’m not as hardcore as Charles is. I’ll be able to listen to Josh Turner and still enjoy his music. Hey, Miles Davis personally beat up women, but I still find Miles sublime and can enjoy his music. And we all go to sports arenas and cheer when they play “Rock and Roll Part II” by Gary Glitter, a known child porn aficionadoand sex offender. These are far more heinous crimes than what Josh Turner is accused of here.

]]> by: Tater http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39683 Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:10:21 +0000 http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39683 I just don't get it (and I'm sure you'll agree with me). But do we know his intent? Did he make an error in judgement or is he intentionally pining to reestablish a slave state? I assume since both of these guys are considered "state" historical figures a Democrat Governor and Revolutionary War Hero (I mean both guys have a High School named after them). Could he view these guys as nothing more than historical SC leaders? If so, then I give the guy the benefit of the doubt and a break. It could be an honest mistake. If someone refrenced the good ole days in Missouri and named off Jesse James and Mark Twain should we be as offended. I wouldn't, but I'm sure someone could be. I just don't get it. It seems we are searching for ways to be offended and trying to assume peoples intent from "symbals" that represent different things to different people. I just don’t get it (and I’m sure you’ll agree with me). But do we know his intent? Did he make an error in judgement or is he intentionally pining to reestablish a slave state? I assume since both of these guys are considered “state” historical figures a Democrat Governor and Revolutionary War Hero (I mean both guys have a High School named after them). Could he view these guys as nothing more than historical SC leaders? If so, then I give the guy the benefit of the doubt and a break.

It could be an honest mistake.

If someone refrenced the good ole days in Missouri and named off Jesse James and Mark Twain should we be as offended. I wouldn’t, but I’m sure someone could be.

I just don’t get it. It seems we are searching for ways to be offended and trying to assume peoples intent from “symbals” that represent different things to different people.

]]> by: Peter Kohan http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39663 Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:54:33 +0000 http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39663 The Marion Fox reference could be excused. I remember reading positively about him while learning about the Revolutionary War as a kid up in New York. But it's obvious from some of the other references that the artist needs to be questioned about what he believes in. Because Country fans may be loyal, but they don't like to feel like an artist is showing them one face and believing something different. As the youngest inductee to the Grand Ole Opry Josh needs to realize that, regional and personal pride aside, recording songs like this will most likely only bring him ill will... or an audience made up of Civil War re-enacters. The Marion Fox reference could be excused. I remember reading positively about him while learning about the Revolutionary War as a kid up in New York.

But it’s obvious from some of the other references that the artist needs to be questioned about what he believes in. Because Country fans may be loyal, but they don’t like to feel like an artist is showing them one face and believing something different. As the youngest inductee to the Grand Ole Opry Josh needs to realize that, regional and personal pride aside, recording songs like this will most likely only bring him ill will… or an audience made up of Civil War re-enacters.

]]> by: Charles http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39617 Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:00:03 +0000 http://livinginstereo.com/?p=412#comment-39617 In reference to Mr. Haygood's characterization of the reasons for the Civil War, I'd advise him to look at South Carolina's "Declaration Of Causes" for seceding from the Union: http://history.furman.edu/~benson/docs/scdebate2.htm. As you can see, the issue of slavery was the central reason behind the departure of the first slaveholding state from the Union in 1860, and to claim that it wasn't is simply not historically accurate. In addition, the "other principles" that Mr. Haygood mentions - like tariffs and the agricultural economy - were deeply, even inherently tied to the preservation of slave states. (For example, South Carolinian John C. Calhoun based his 1848 critique of federal tariffs on the fact that any federal power which could impose tariffs on individual states could logically impose their will on the institution of slavery.) I'm not denying that there are multiple reasons why people (both in the South and North) fly the Confederate flag. I am, however, suggesting that a reckoning with ALL the things that the symbol means is necessary if we are to truly transcend our national legacy of white supremacy. In reference to Mr. Haygood’s characterization of the reasons for the Civil War, I’d advise him to look at South Carolina’s “Declaration Of Causes” for seceding from the Union: http://history.furman.edu/~benson/docs/scdebate2.htm. As you can see, the issue of slavery was the central reason behind the departure of the first slaveholding state from the Union in 1860, and to claim that it wasn’t is simply not historically accurate. In addition, the “other principles” that Mr. Haygood mentions - like tariffs and the agricultural economy - were deeply, even inherently tied to the preservation of slave states. (For example, South Carolinian John C. Calhoun based his 1848 critique of federal tariffs on the fact that any federal power which could impose tariffs on individual states could logically impose their will on the institution of slavery.)

I’m not denying that there are multiple reasons why people (both in the South and North) fly the Confederate flag. I am, however, suggesting that a reckoning with ALL the things that the symbol means is necessary if we are to truly transcend our national legacy of white supremacy.

]]>