Freedom of Expression and the National Anthem

I watched the Super Bowl last night. I watched the game from kickoff to final play, saw the much touted halftime show, and watched the presentation of the trophies - heck, I don't think I even missed any of the commercials. The one thing I tuned in a little late for, and didn't see until this morning, was the rendition of our National Anthem, "The Star Spangled Banner", by Christina Aguilera. I'll be honest - the only reason I even looked for it this morning was because of numerous news stories telling me that she muffed it, that she confused the words and sang one line twice. It is of course true: when she got to the "O'er the ramparts we watched" line, she repeated the earlier "what, so proudly we hailed" line. A pretty classic screw-up and not at all excusable from a seasoned performer asked to sing this one very important song at the start of the biggest single televised sporting event all year. It was a real shame to be sure, and there are those who are calling for her head on a platter and those who are excusing the whole thing as a simple mistake, a case of nerves, something, ANYthing but a national tragedy. I guess I find myself somewhere in the middle.

No one died, to be sure. No one was left homeless; no one is in the hospital recovering this morning. It was a song before a game and there are many much more important things to be concerned about I admit. No, the actual offense itself was inexcusable for a completely different reason, one that I'm not sure anyone has considered yet. I need to build my case to my own satisfaction, so bear with me for a moment....

By an amazing coincidence there was a story out of Martinsville, Indiana last week that is very closely related. A young lady - 16 years of age, a student at Bloomington High School North – was asked to sing the national anthem before sporting events there. She did so in her own style and fashion, one that was not appreciated by several members of the crowd. Complaints were made and the school authorities requested at this young lady - Shai Warfield-Cross by name - sing the song in a more traditional manner. It seems that Shai's style is quite similar to Ms. Aguilera's and trills, extra notes, sliding up and down scales, etc. that are normal for this style were considered a bit outside the realm of what the school wanted before the game. So far, so good. Shai was given a guideline, and the next time she followed it and sang and everyone was happy. Well, everyone except Shai and her stepmother. They complained to the news media; specifically that Shai was being denied her "rights of expression and individuality". They even wrote a letter to the school asking for an apology, claiming that she was "being denied her right of artistic expression as a result of her natural voice and cultural heritage"

Horse droppings.

You can get a better idea of what's going on by looking at their subsequent comments."The situation really makes us question the staff and leadership there, and what their representation of diversity is," her stepmother said. From another source, Khalil Muhammad, who is an Indiana University history professor, listened to the version of the anthem sung by Shai and said it was "a fairly traditional rendition." He also pointed out that many artists, including Jimi Hendrix, Marvin Gaye and Jose Feliciano, have done the same basic thing: sung it "their way" without much controversy. He also pointed out that others have performed the song using traditional Jewish musical styles.

Now, let me stop and say that I have seen the video on the ‘Net of Shai singing, and I think she’s got an nice voice and with some professional training might well have a very real chance at a career in music. In this I wish her well and would love to see her succeed. I’m also not sure that the rendition I heard was all that far off the beaten path and I personally think that the complaints were kind of picky: she sounded pretty good to me. But let's look at this for a moment. This is not a question of anyone’s read on “diversity” and has very little to do with anyone’s personal culture. No, this has more to do with the current feeling of personal entitlement so many live in these days.

First of all, nobody was telling Shai that she couldn't sing it her way: they were simply telling her that if she wanted to do it in an official capacity she had a guideline to follow, otherwise she wouldn't be given a microphone plugged into the gym's PA system and allowed special time before the game to do it in front of the fans. She could go outside and do it all she wanted. She can rent an auditorium and wail away. She can find someone who wants her version and let them foot the bill - anything else she wanted. The school simply wanted it done a certain way and they were giving HER the honor of first shot instead of asking one of undoubtedly several other students in the school chorus program that would probably have been thrilled to be asked. She - or more likely her stepmother - decided that she was going to do it her way whether the school liked it or not. What's more, somehow it was decided that the school's asking for a certain style was somehow offensive.

As for the comparisons of others who have “done it their way”, Jimi Hendrix did his version on a guitar in front of a crowd of screaming rock fans in one of his concerts. He was not doing it at an Indiana high school basketball game by invitation. Interestingly, when one listens to his rendition it is actually quite traditional, albeit on a distorted guitar and with one pretty wild solo in the middle. Still - it was in HIS concert. In October of 2009 legendary Kiss guitarist Ace Frehley played the national anthem before a Kansas City Chiefs home game. Here again, he played what was a relatively traditional version. Frehley is a competent shredder: had he chosen he could have played a version that would have been all over the fret board and would have shown incredible talent and been very impressive, but he chose to use his talent to elevate the SONG, not his ABILITY or STYLE and therein lies the crux of the matter. I can point out the problem in one simple word.

Performance.

All of the people involved keep using the word "perform". Not "lead", as in ‘leading the crowd in singing the song’. Always "perform", as one would do for an audience. Now, normally I would be slow to use the terminology as a clue, but in this case it is very telling. The folks backing Shai in Indiana didn't see this as leading the crowd in the singing – no rational person could because no one could ever expect that the fans would be able to follow a Christina/Beyonce styled version AND sing along. No – they saw this as Shai’s moment to shine and show off her talent, her style, whatever. She and her backers only see that she was given a chance to sing at the games: what it is that she was asked to sing appears to have very little impact on anyone’s thinking. The National Anthem of our country is now a vehicle for singers to show off, not to engage in a brief moment of patriotism to remind us what it is that makes us all free. To them it’s just a performance, nothing more or less. This I suspect is the same thing that infected Christina Aguilera’s rendition last night. She wasn’t leading and she wasn’t elevating the song or the meaning: her rendition was all over the map and she was simply performing. I have to wonder if either of these two young ladies has ever looked at the words they were given the honor to sing and really understood what they were singing about.

The song is set to the tune of an old drinking song, “To Anacreon in Heaven”, but the words were scribbled on the back of an envelope by a man held on board a British ship overnight to make sure he didn’t tip off his fellow Americans about the coming attack on Baltimore’s Fort McHenry during the War of 1812. It is a song about the anguish of not knowing if your country is going to be there in the morning, and of the relief and joy to find out that the onslaught of the enemy has been unsuccessful in its attempt to bring your nation down. It’s about watching and waiting fearfully and hopefully all night long, dreading to look but being unable to keep from looking to see in the brief flashes of light made by the enemy’s bombardment of your countrymen’s defenses whether or not the flag was still flying over the fort: if it is gone, they have had to surrender but if it still waves they have withstood the attack and still defend. The one thing it is NOT about is “diversity”, as Shai’s stepmother opined. It is not about seeing how many notes you can hit on one word in the name of your personal “culture”. And it is certainly important enough to at least remember the words. To many of those who sing this song it is simply a vehicle to get your voice heard in a public forum but for many of us it is priceless and we would very much appreciate it if these singers, even if they do not agree with us, would treat it as something special and elevate the song, not themselves.

The Art of the Apology

All of us at one time or another have been trespassed upon, stepped on, misused, or otherwise treated badly by a fellow human being. It has been for many decades, nay, centuries that the de rigueur course of action after such things is for the inflicter to make some form of verbal (at least) acknowledgement to the inflictee: we generally call this interaction an "apology". In many cases it is voluntary but there are instances in which the "apology" is forced, such as in the case of legal action where part of the settlement requires it, or simply when some form of authority mandates it for us. It has come to my attention in recent years - in some cases after having some really bad things pulled at my expense - that our society as a whole really has very little understanding of what an apology actually is.

If we had semi-responsible parents, as children it was ingrained in to us to "say you're sorry" to the person or persons to whom aggrieved, and while I strongly agree that it is a sound course of action to simplify such concepts to the childish mind I also assert that at some point the child must learn more adult and mature ways. Saying you're sorry for being mean while playing in the sandbox may suffice at age 6: it does not carry the same weight when you are speaking to the coworker you just threw under the bus in a staff meeting, the customer who you mistreated out of ignorance or lust for profit, or the friend whose feelings you disregarded in your pursuit of personal satisfaction. It certainly carries very little weight when spoken by a politician who has sullied the trust of the electorate or the person who has destroyed their spouse's faith. So what is an apology - and equally important - what is it NOT?

The dictionary defines "apology" as "A written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another." I notice three distinct parts to this definition:

1.) It is written or spoken.

2.) It expresses regret, remorse, or sorrow

3.) The reason for this expression of regret, remorse or sorrow is because the person apologizing has wronged someone else in some manner and is expressing their understanding and acceptance of that fact.

This seems all too easy, but it in fact seems to be very difficult for most people to figure out. Oh, not the spoken or written part: we can't very well weasel out of THAT. It's what we say and do when we begin speaking or writing where things all too often go terribly awry. Most of us still have "say you're sorry" echoing in the 6 year old section of our heads and therefore blithely believe this to be sufficient. I promise you that most of the time it is not. I submit to you that simply mumbling "sorry" to someone comes far shy of any kind of reasonable apology and may actually make things worse. Let's examine what I call "The Three Non-Apologies":

Non-Apology A: "Sorry." - This is the kind we see all too often on the playground, between our kids (or siblings) or amongst otherwise normal adults. It's the simple muttering of a couple of syllables - a pair of sounds - usually devoid of all meaning or sincerity and uttered primarily to get someone off our back or to satisfy social dictates. The problem is that it means nothing and if the recipient has any kind of working brain they know it means nothing. This fulfills the letter of the law - barely - and gets us in to a place where we hope we have met the minimum requirements and can go now, please. The really bad part is that the person who has been wronged now gets to deal with the fact that it is blatantly obvious that you don't care and probably never will. An apology should express regret, remorse or sorrow because you have wronged someone: if you do not admit that you did something wrong your 'apology' is worthless and you are lying: you're NOT 'sorry', at least not for anything appropriate. A more concise translation would be: "You're mad or hurt because you think I did something wrong. I don't think I did, but I'm probably going to look bad if I let you sit there crying or bleeding without saying something about it so to make myself look better and shut you up I'm going to mutter just enough to get me to where I at least think I've done enough. I don't give a rat's hairy backside whether it makes any difference to you or not, because after I say it I can protest that I've apologized and that you're just being unreasonable."

Non-Apology B: "I'm sorry/I apologize, but..." - OK, Stop. Any time you say the word "But' in an apology you have automatically negated any good you hoped to do: everything before the "BUT is what you're SUPPOSED to say, everything after the BUT is what you really mean.”But" means " I just said what I'm supposed to say: I don't really mean it, and here's why", "Or more accurately "I didn't mean a word of what I just said and I now feel free to dump on you some more.". Here's a hint: don't give an apology with strings attached. A sterling example of this would be "I'm sorry if my actions hurt you, but you made me so mad that I had to hit you with a two by four to work off the stress you caused." Don't you feel so much better now, knowing that he apologized but it was really all your fault? I know he does.

Non-Apology C: "I'm Sorry YOU screwed up" - This is the worst and it is unfortunately becoming all too prevalent these days. Some of the most common ways to hear it is “I’m sorry if you took offense at what I said".... "I'm sorry that YOU feel that way", and the ever popular “I’m sorry you weren't able to (keep up, participate, do what I think you should have done, whatever)". This one is the most insidious because somehow many folks will accept this as some kind of apology and it therefore persists. Perfect examples would be "Well, I'm sorry you took my words to mean that - they really didn't" or "Well, I know we promised X: I'm sorry you misunderstood what we were saying". Do you see how meaningless those are? In both cases the whole purpose is to blame YOU for whatever happened. Here's a little hint: you can't apologize for what someone ELSE does: you can only apologize for yourself. "I'M sorry YOU misunderstood" is best translated "we stated our position in a way every reasonable person in earshot understood, yet somehow your simian-like brain managed to confuse things and now we all have a problem. I'll state this in such a way as to make it sound like I'm being gracious when in fact I'm simply calling you an idiot and hoping to get away with it because I used the magic phrase "I'm sorry" in the mix".

The reason we have problems with this concept is because an actual apology is an acceptance of guilt - and none of us want to be guilty. We fight against being guilty. Defense lawyers advise clients to never apologize for anything because it can be used in court as an admission of guilt or responsibility. Therein lies the problem: our egos don't want us to be guilty and therefore choke at the idea of accepting that guilt and apologizing. Our ultimate lack of humility tells us that it MUST somehow be the other person's fault! As a result our egos keep us from taking responsibility for our actions and doing what is right and the result of that is that friendships are broken, marriages are destroyed, trust relationships crumble and civilization as a whole suffers one more needless injury, one more needless blow in the cause of self-right and self-want.

It's not worth it.

A heartfelt apology will often do wonders to heal the rifts that develop over selfish actions, but to be a true apology it must have certain traits. First, you have to accept guilt for those things for which you are guilty. You don't have to accept more - that's lying - but you do have to accept your part. Second, you have to be sincere - you have to really understand that you are at fault, that you have remorse and you have to mean it when you express your remorse. Finally, you have to ask for the other person to accept your apology: simply expressing that you feel 'sorry' means nothing. You are asking them to recognize and accept your declaration of guilt and remorse. Part and parcel of this is an underlying understanding that you'll try not to repeat the offense: apologizing and then doing it again shows hypocrisy. REAL apologies will look like this:

Real Apology A - "It is obvious that I have caused harm/heartache/bad feelings/cooties and I am very sorry that my actions caused this: I never intended that and I'll try to never let it happen again: please accept my apology”. Simple, concise: takes responsibility, expresses remorse: you don't get much better than that.

Real Apology B - " I didn't think that I caused this much trouble/grief/psoriasis, but I was obviously wrong. Please accept my apology for what I have done and for failing to recognize it as quickly as I should have”.

Now, if you don't feel like there is a need to apologize, be honest about it and state your case. Do it honestly, openly, and above all without anger - anger only makes it worse. You may have to say something akin to "well, I didn't think I had done anything to hurt you, but if I am wrong then I'm sorry and I hope you'll accept my apology". Notice that you stated your case first, but ended with the fact that you didn't want to do harm and are sorry if you did. This is perfectly legit. Don't keep repeating it, or drive your side into the ground: just make it gets weaker with each repetition.

The world slides farther and farther into the abyss with each passing day: the abyss of self-centered, self-righteousness where everything I do is right and everything you do that I don’t like is WRONG. It is a terrifying prospect that there might actually be a day when no one understands the power of just a smidgeon of humility. I hope and pray neither I nor you ever see it.