Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Minorities made the ‘Star Spangled Banner’ what it is. Today’s progressives want to undo that.

Published

on

Both Brietbart and The Epoch Times ran different pieces about how the NFL was back in the day when Whitney Houston sung America’s National Anthem “The Star Spangled Banner” at Super Bowl XXV in 1991.

The long running syndicated radio program American Top 40 (which was hosted by radio personality and game show announcer Shadoe Stevens at the time) used Billboard’s Hot 100 chart long enough to play Whitney Houston’s “The Star Spangled Banner” for as long it was in the Top 40 of the Hot 100 coupled with Whitney’s record company Arista Records selling it as a single in record stores. Those broadcasts were from March 9, 1991 through April 20, 1991 for a total of seven weeks and seven AT40 broadcasts.

(March 16, 1991 broadcast below)

She is one of two artists who cracked the Hot 100 with their takes on our National Anthem. The other artist by the way was José Feliciano who peaked at #50 with his Latin tingled version of “The Star Spangled Banner” and the only controversial thing he did was not sticking to composer intent…unlike Houston’s version.

Both versions that did make the Hot 100 were performed by minorities. One was Hispanic/Latino, male and legally blind, and the other African-American and female. Today if Whitney were alive, I think she would get on the Black Lives Matters bandwagon. The progressives are doing a very successful job at promoting race hatred and getting the black community (and other minorities) to hate our nation and what it stands for. These minority groups regardless of pigmentation don’t understand the real history of who the Democratic Party was.

Lyndon Baines Johnson knew exactly what to do when he and the Democrats lost the civil rights fight. Got to admit, LBJ was not a sore loser, and he dusted himself off and let his racism hang while a media protected him of that ever being exposed. Grass Roots Conservatives and certain Republicans (especially those who are bucking the establishment) must speak out against this cover up that the Democrats and the overall Progressives have gotten away with for years. If we don’t then will all be heading for a much greater plantation…and this one will be run by Washington DC.

And then there’s Jimi Hendrix’s version…

Hendrix served in the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne. He wasn’t a particularly good soldier, but he understood his country and what sacrifice is.

Jimi Hendrix’s “Star-Spangled Banner”: The Epitome of the Countercultural Experience | Jennifer Liu

https://medium.com/@mimono.chroma/jimi-hendrixs-star-spangled-banner-the-epitome-of-the-countercultural-experience-3bd325fd9358The narrative that was subtly woven into the “Star-Spangled Banner” made visible the prevalent segregation of race in the nation and even within the counterculture and rock genre of music. JImi Hendrix was both revered and tormented for the fact that he was African American. During his time in Westminster, London, Hendrix came to the forefront of rock music with the Jimi Hendrix Experience, which included two other band members Noel Redding and Mitch Mitchell. Aside from Hendrix, the band and its audience was dominantly White. Interestingly, Hendrix had already disbanded from the Jimi Hendrix Experience persona and was in a transitional phase when the Woodstock promoters placed him on the lineup roster. He decided last minute to play at Woodstock with the Band of Gypsies, an all-Black band, and the way their set was played shows an obvious lack of musical unity due to inadequate practice as a group. However his “Star-Spangled Banner” solo sought to establish a kind of compromise among racial difference, suggesting that the anthem is an abstract but inherently “American” thing that many kids grow up singing (referring back to the Dick Cavett Show interview). Thus, “the ability of his music to cross the deep divide of race in America made the government fear him” (Cross 2005, 251). Following Woodstock the Black Power movement insisted that Hendrix join their civil rights cause, but he was neither nor on the situation, remaining pacifist while acknowledging the systematic oppression of Blacks in society. Instead, Hendrix preferred to associate himself entirely to his music with some respect for the fundamental aims of the counterculture.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Dr Paul Lim tells how he went from atheist to Christian… at Yale

Published

on

Dr Paul Lim tells how he went from atheist to Christian at Yale

Universities aren’t usually considered likely venues for people to turn to the Christian faith. Ivy League universities rife with atheist professors are even less likely than most to yield a conversions to the faith. If anything, they’re efforts are often directly focused on converting Christians into abandoning their faith.

Dr Paul Lim tells a different tail. His personal journey from South Korea to California, then Pennsylvania on to Yale, is an exception to the rule. His journey is not common, but then again who’s to say what sort of journey to embracing Jesus Christ can be considered common?

It’s not too long, clocking in at just over 48 minutes, and much better than your average network television hour. If you already believe, it may help you open the eyes of others. If you don’t believe, your eyes may be opened.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

How likely is it that a single protein can form by chance?

Published

on

How likely is it that a single protein can form by chance

To really answers the question of whether life was created or came about by random chance, we need to take a mathematical look at things. It may be easier to form our opinions based on something we read in a junior high science book, but there really is more to it than the surface questions asked and answered by scientists and theologians alike.

For the faithful, it comes down to faith. For the scientific, it also comes down to faith. Whose faith is more likely to be correct?

Part of the answer can be found in this short video. Those who think there’s no faith associated with scientific theories clearly don’t understand the mathematics behind the science they claim to hold dear.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

When will people be forced to apologize for anti-Christian Tweets?

Published

on

When will people be forced to apologize for anti-Christian Tweets

There’s a trend that has been growing for some time that is reaching a tipping point now. The trend is this: when someone becomes a big story in the news, their Twitter accounts are scoured from beginning to end in order to find Tweets that offend a particular group or protected class. In many cases, this offended group has been the LGBTQ comunity, such as the recent cases of Kevin Hart and Kyler Murray.

Hart was set to host the upcoming Academy Awards when it was “discovered” the comedian used anti-LGBTQ slurs in the past. He deleted the Tweets and apologized, but still felt it necessary to pull out of the Oscars after so much backlash.

Murray, the Heisman trophy winner, was forced to apologize after reports of his Tweets used the same slurs when he was 14- and 15-years-old.

Bigotry in all its forms is contemptible. But where do we draw the line between actual bigotry and unfortunate uses of words or opinions in the past that have been deemed unacceptable today?

Should President Obama (and for that matter, Hillary Clinton) be demonized by the LGBTQ community, mainstream media, and leftists for their perspectives a decade ago? Lest we forget, both announced sharp opposition to gay marriage when they were running for president in 2008. Which is worse, a potential head of state calling for marriage to be defined as being between a man and woman or a teenager in high school referring to someone as a “fag”?

Democratic politicians are apparently allowed to evolve in their beliefs, but comedians and college football players are not.

Anti-Christian Tweets

Sadly, some of the very people who demonize others on Twitter for using unacceptable terms in the past are the same people who also demonize Christians today. I’ve been combing through Tweets of many of the most outspoken proponents of LGBTQ rights, accusers of Islamophopia, and other anti-bigotry leaders. In many cases, these people who are against bigotry demonstrate their own bigotry towards the Judeo-Christian faiths without being big news stories.

I’m not posting the Tweets here. I will not participate in whataboutism, nor do I condone using someone’s past Tweets to highlight their alleged bigotry. There’s a difference between the militant and inexcusable posts by people like Louis Farrakhan and the posts be people like Murray, Hart, or the anti-Christian posts of their detractors. They might see it as okay to demonize people like Hart and Murray for their Tweets, but I will not participate in Twitter witch hunts on the opposite end of the spectrum. Both practices are wrong.

So the question really isn’t about when we start calling out anti-Christian Tweets. It’s about why we should openly debate each other’s perspectives without being condemned for our own perspectives. If someone Tweets something against the Judeo-Christian faith, I wouldn’t expect the Oscars to ban them from being their host. I would see it as an opportunity to share my own perspectives and hopefully show some who are against my faith that there’s something worth exploring.

Today, if you Tweet something deemed unacceptable by the LGBTQ community, you’re in jeopardy of losing much. If you Tweet something against the Judeo-Christian faiths, the left sees it as acceptable. Social media is the most hypocritical medium around.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report