Discussion: Irving Berlin & Woody Guthrie
Mark Jackson, author of the book Prophet Singer: The Voice and Vision of Woody Guthrie (University Press Of Mississippi, 2007) felt his work unjustly criticized by me and was so kind to write a comment:
“Sorry that it has taken me so long to respond to your article in which you made numerous attacks on my book, Prophet Singer. I have been rather busy with my teaching and research. But now I take a few moments to respond to some of your most extreme comments.
I do agree, as you write, that Berlin was not a "simple-minded flag-waver." However, his song is (or can easily be seen as) without a huge amount of context, which you do include in your article). But Guthrie--and the vast majority of those who encounter this song, past and present--do not have this information. They read the lyrics and see a nation of unblemished grandeur, one deserving of a blessing by God, reflected in it. As I make clear in my discussion of the song, the lyrics read like an anthem. But unlike you claim, a patriotic song does not have to merely praise. A true patriot--and by extension, a patriotic song--can condemn and question, just as Guthrie's original version of his song does. Do patriots in America now have to ape Bush's vision? Or can we stand up and question the rationality of attacking Iraq or even (perhaps) attacking Iran? You would tie the hands of patriots. But this point is getting off track.
Berlin's song does open with a fearful image, one he intended since he had recently come back from a European trip and knew that many in Germany and elsewhere were in danger. But you miss Guthrie's point--for he was discussing America separate from Europe. Here, we had a Great Depression that left millions starving and hopeless. These are the people that Guthrie is concerned about in the song. Can you criticize him for caring about those around him, his own countrymen and women? Isn't he a patriot in that he cares about their condition? At the time, Berlin did not have these same concerns, for he was a wealthy man who knew no want. He is rather unlike Guthrie and the dustbowlers who were denied the basic rights of the citizenry. Where is Berlin's song for them? You may think that Guthrie is a Stalinist, but he merely supported the idea that all could come together in a true democracy--he and many others were mislead by Stalin's rhetoric. Don't attack him for being an idealist if those ideals were the same ones that you argue that Berlin had--otherwise, you are being disingenuous.
Perhaps you are, for you fail to mention in your article that Berlin originally wrote "God Bless America" when he was in the army for a military fundraiser. The song was constructed to be a war song--so don't take me to task for noting that the beginning still has vestiges of this origin. Also, Kate Smith did in fact ask for a song to stir patriotic fervor--for it was to be used in her Armistice Day show. It was a victory celebration, a hurrah for the defeat of Germany in World War I. Berlin did say he wanted to "wake up America," but as I note in my book, he also said he wanted to write "a peace song." What exactly in it pushes for peace? You argue that it pushes in the opposite direction, for intervention in Europe. Also, people don't have to read the song as Berlin intended--they can take it in various directions, just as they have with Guthrie's song. Perhaps you should expend more effort explaining Berlin's perspective rather than unfairly attacking others for merely noting how the song is constructed verbally and how others have reacted to it based on what it explicitly says and how others have used it to mindlessly celebrate America without considering the entirety of this nation's history.”
I thank Dr. Jackson for his comments and his cooperation. As much as I'd like to I still can't agree with him. I refrain from commenting on every point he has raised. My arguments can checked and compared by reading the main text. But I think it's necessary to discuss four major points once again:
1.
Dr. Jackson claims that Kate Smith intended to "stir patriotic fervor" with Berlin's song. But Berlin's exact words (NYT, 28.7.1940) were: "Kate Smith wanted a song that would sort of wake up America [...] It's not a patriotic song, but rather an expression of gratitude for what this country has done for its citizens, of what home really means". That's something completely different. Not at least: Kate Smith Smith wasn't exactly a singer who was able to stir "fervor" of any kind. By the way, Armistice Day wasn't a "victory celebration, a hurrah for the defeat of Germany". I don't think anybody said "Hurrah" because it was a day to commemorate the dead, a quiet and serious day.
But now let's say Ms. Smith and Berlin indeed wanted to "stir patriotic fervor" (whatever that is). Why? Against whom? That's a question Dr. Jackson never asks. In fact Berlin was a Jewish immigrant who was - by all accounts - deeply troubled by what was happening in Europe, especially by German anti-Semitism. So maybe "God Bless America" qualifies as a anti-Nazi song. What's the problem with that? Wasn't Woody Guthrie an anti-Fascist too? Oh no, wait, in 1940 he had laid his anti-Fascism to rest, it was the time of the Hitler-Stalin pact. Maybe that was his problem? That is - I hasten to add - no criticism of Guthrie himself - a lot of people fell into the same trap - it's the political background. Berlin and his song did represent one political direction, Guthrie was part of another.
2.
Dr. Jackson claims that Berlin did not have the "same concerns" as Woody Guthrie, that he didn't care about the "millions [left] starving and hopeless" by the depression because he "was a wealthy man who knew no want. He is rather unlike Guthrie and the dustbowlers [...]". Really? That's exactly the typical simplistic interpretation that definitely needs to be questioned and revised. In fact it is some kind of circular argument: "God Bless America" is uncritical ergo Berlin is uncritical because he was rich ergo the song is uncritical. That's a cliché, a very unpleasant stereotype: the "rich" songwriter doesn't care about the poor.
Berlin was an ardent supporter of the New Deal who campaigned and voted for Roosevelt and other politicians like Lehman and La Guardia who fought against the depression. And if Dr. Jackson really insists on talking about the money: Berlin - and I really feel sorry that I have to mention it once again - did obviously care so much for the poor in his own hometown as all the money earned from this (and later other) songs was used for the support of poor children in New York City, something that surely has a symbolic value in this context and (if I dare say so) was a more effective means to help than to write another song. That means: wrong premises, wrong theory. "God Bless America" was never intended as a comment on the economic situation in the USA.
But Berlin in fact had other concerns that Guthrie: he was a member of an ethnic minority that still wasn't accepted completely. It was only 13 years after the National Origins Act in 1925. And this "wave of snide anti-Semitism" directed against him because of "God Bless America" speaks volumes. By all accounts (let's hope Dr. Jackson can forgive him) Berlin's major concerns were the integration of the immigrants into American society as well as the fight against anti-Semitism and racism. Maybe this may help to understand what his song was all about. And in this respect "God Bless America" also offered a dissenting voice otherwise Berlin wouldn't have received all this mean-spirited criticism from certain quarters.
3.
"Guthrie [...] merely supported the idea that all could come together in a true democracy". Yes, but is this in any way denied in "God Bless America" or by the songwriter himself?
4.
Dr. Jackson seems to believe that a purely text-based interpretation "without much context" is sufficient. I'm sorry but this idea will come as a surprise to every historian. I don't doubt that most of the people at that time (including Guthrie) knew perfectly well about the songwriter and his ethnic background and they surely knew what was happening in the world. Not at least every single idea expressed in that song was defined differently in the 30s and the rhetoric used can only be understood in the context of that era. Of course it's always difficult to discuss a song's meanings, the writer's intentions and its effect on the people. But it's for example very helpful to check the performance context: who sang this song, when was it sung, at which occasions was it performed, who criticized and denounced the song, who didn't sing it?
"They [i.e. "Guthrie and the vast majority of those who encounter this song, past and present”] read the lyrics and see a nation of unblemished grandeur [...]". Really? I do not read it that way. I must admit I'm somehow amazed that Dr. Jackson claims to know what so many different people since 1938 thought about this song. I wouldn't dare to be so courageous. But now let's quote Eleanor Roosevelt speaking to striking workers who were in fact singing "God Bless America" while being on strike (NYT , 6.2.1941):
"I know many parts of the country and there are many conditions that I would like to see changed, and I hope eventually that they will be changed, but in spite of that I hope that we all feel that the mere fact that we can meet together and talk about organization for the worker and democracy in this country is in itself something for which we can be extremely thankful. 'There are many countries in which there can no longer be any participation or decision on the part of people as to what they will or will not do, and so in spite of everything we can still sing 'God Bless America' and really believe we are moving forward slowly, sometimes haltingly but always in the interest of the people in the whole country'"
"H.H. Broach, general organizer for Local 3, said in introducing Mrs. Roosevelt that it was well that 'after twenty-four weeks of bitter hardship and in many cases extreme privation we are still able to sing 'God Bless America' with meaning and feeling'"
That sounds a little different, doesn't it? Did really all those many people at that time sing this song to celebrate America's "unblemished grandeur"? Nobody was that naive. Not at least this extreme simplification of a complex situation will be of no help explaining for example why so many people were so deeply touched by Berlin's song (maybe because it offered a glimpse of hope in dark times?) or why it was nearly exclusively criticized by the extreme right and the conservative establishment (and at the same time completely accepted by the democratic left) or why it was regarded as an "interventionist song" in 1941.
------------------------------
Dr. Jackson has sent me another extended comment:
“As I read over your response to mine, I again see you misinterpreting my comments and being incorrect in some of your own claims.
First, you state that you are "amazed that Dr. Jackson claims to know what so many different people since 1938 thought about this song" in´that I state that the majority take this song as a patriotic song that posits the nation in purely positive terms. But didn't the Republican and Democratic parties both use it during their 1940 conventions? Do these groups often use songs that represent the nation in any negative manner? Didn't the Republican party again use the song in 2000 when George W. Bush was coronated? Was the song seen as a negative there? Your criticism is absurd on its face--the song does celebrate America. Do you argue otherwise? Perhaps you need to read the lyrics again. Also, your attack on this one point is even more illogical in that your response is full of claims (without any supporting evidence) about how audiences respond to various events or people. For example, you claim that "Kate Smith wasn't exactly a singer who was able to stir 'fervor' of any kind." How do you know how her audience responded to her? Wasn't she one of the most popular singers of her era? Wasn't her radio show heard from coast to coast? Didn't she popularize the song, which became an unofficial national anthem right from the start? Another example is where you claim that Armistice Day wasn't a celebration of the defeat of Germany. How do you know how America respond to this event? You say that it "was a day to commemorate the death [sic], a quiet and serious day." But didn't Smith first sing "God Bless America"on her Armistice Day show? Didn't she belt out this and many other patriotic songs for her millions of fans? Weren't many of them already celebrating this day--just as they later did for V-E and V-J day?
Second, Smith ASKED for a patriot song. Yes, Berlin states that the song is one of gratitude--but Smith was using it as a patriot song, and her listeners (and later generations) have used the song as such. Berlin does not dictate the meaning of his material, which is my point about Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land." People will use art in whatever manner that they chose. But you seem to know how people should read Berlin's song as opposed to how they actually have read it. In effect, you want to dictate how people should understand this song. I applaud your efforts to contextualize the song; it is the same approach I use throughout my book. I never argue that we as critics should look at the work "without much context" (as you misquote me), but I do note that most people do not look for any historical/biographical material when singing a song. I have asked numerous people about Woody Guthrie, and the majority know little or nothing about him. But they do know and have sung "This Land." Should I tell them to stop until they have read a detailed biography of him? Should I demand that they read my chapteron the history of the song before attempting a single note? You seem to think that everyone knows all about Berlin. In fact, you state, "I don't doubt that most of the people at that time (including Guthrie) knew perfectly well about the songwriter and his ethnic background." Again, you make assumptions about the audience of the song, which follows my point above. But does the public always know the backgrounds of pop stars, let alone songwriters? Can you tell me the religious background of Brittany Spears or Alicia Keyes? According to you, everyone who hears their songs would know every little detail about them and then interpret their songs in the appropriate manner. But let me note that every Fourth of July, I hear Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA" blared out of truck speakers at picnics and fireworks displays. But even the lyrics of the song clearly state that all is not well inAmerica--let alone the author's many political comments. Yet countless people use the song to celebrate the nation. Just because you and I know the history and original purpose of a song doesn't mean that we get to control its meaning. We can push back against various other interpretations with our arguments, but we will still only be one voice against many.
Third, as for Berlin's concern for the poor, he did not give the proceeds from "God Bless America" to the down and out--instead he gave it to the Boy and Girl Scouts due to it being a non-sectarian patriotic group. I merely note this reality because you claim that "all the money earned from" this tune "was used for the support of poor children,"which is patently untrue. Berlin did give to charities--but he had long removed himself from poverty by the late 1930s. It had become more an abstraction for him at the time of the release of "God Bless America." However, Guthrie was still living a hardscrabble life, as were the Okies like him. These people had been stigmatized; they had been restricted in their movements and jailed. Perhaps you are acquainted with John Steinbeck's work? Like Guthrie, he had seen the suffering of these masses when he was working on his non-fiction collection" There Blood Is Strong," when reporting for a San Francisco newspaper. His novel "Grapes of Wrath" comes out of this experience. These people did not live in a nation blessed by God. Many of their fellow men saw to that. They had to live in Hoovervilles with disease and starvation. This is the reality that Guthrie included in the original version of "This Land" and many of his other songs. But Berlin doesn't address any of this negativity in his song. Berlin may have been the most wonderful of fellows--but his song contains only praise for this nation, unlike Guthrie's. His notes both positive and negative aspects of the country. He sees its magnificence even as he notes that it could be improved. Isn't this realistic portrayal? I don't condemn Berlin here--I only state the truth about the lyrics of the song.
Fourth, it seems that Berlin might also note the negatives of America in that you argue that it was a hotbed of religious intolerance toward Jews, a point that I affirm. This nation had many prejudices during 1938. For example, African Americans were still treated as second class citizens, a situation that still hasn't been resolved completely today. But in 1938, even the Roosevelt administration wouldn't even support any anti-lynching bills for fear of loosing southern support. Is this "the democratic left" that "completely accepted" the song "God Bless America"? Sure, Guthrie took Roosevelt to task in 1940, but so did the leadership of the NAACP. At the time of the writing of both Berlin's and Guthrie's songs, America did have many negative facets, but Berlin's work--almost to a song--does not note this reality. But a vast majority of Guthrie's do. He is the patriot who asked for positive change, thetype vision that Eleanor Roosevelt and the striking workers you mention were pushing for. But Berlin's songs do not demand this change.
Fifth, you constantly bring up Guthrie's pro-Communist attitudes when it comes to the Hitler-Stalin pact but then fail to note how he also denounced fascism and racism throughout his adult life. You fail to show how Guthrie sailed with the Merchant Marine, only to have two of his ships sunk under him by the fascists. Didn't he face the enemy forces of Hitler in a direct manner? Certainly, he was much closer to the action that Berlin ever got. Also, he wrote many anti-Hitler songs, including one where the German leader is dumped in a pot of boiling oil. Guthrie directly fought against Nazi actions, both in words and deeds”.
I refrain from an extended answer, but have to mention only these two points:
- How were the royalties from "God Bless America" used?
"At this time Berlin had already given all the royalties of the song to a trust fund. The money was to be “used among the youth of America for patriotic purposes” . The beneficiaries were the Boy and Girl Scouts of America selected because of their “completely non-sectarian work” (NY Times, 11.7.1940) and because “Scout training” was widely regarded as a major contribution “toward fostering a loyalty toward democratic principles among the youth of all races” (NY Times, 22.1.1941). Berlin specifically asked for the support of children in “districts with [a] large low-income population” (NY Times, 9.3.1941, see also NY Times, 16.8.1944, 23.4.1955 & 14.10.2001)"
- Yes, Berlin did in fact celebrate America, but by stressing its positive traditions and not by saying that everything is grand. That is a big difference. From my original text:
"On a personal level this song represents the immigrant saying “thank you” to his adopted country. I really don't know what's the problem. Berlin had every right and reason to do so and it should be noted that he only says “land that I love, my home, sweet home”. But in this respect "God Bless America" of course had a political potential: if it was just a harmless patriotic ditty there wouldn't have been so much criticism from the political right. Is "God Bless America" uncritical? That's simply not the point. [...] Really important and notable is the songwriting technique: he is celebrating the positive traditions of his country to paint the contrast to what was happening elsewhere".
Again my questions: why were so many people genuinely touched by Berlin's song , why was it nearly exclusively criticized by the extreme right and the conservative establishment, why this "wave of snide anti-Semitism", why was it regarded as an "interventionist song" in 1941? That's what I'm interested to know and Dr. Jackson doesn't even try to discuss these points.
--------------------------
A final comment by Dr. Jackson:
Once again, you miss my point. I agree with you that some (although not all) conservatives denounced "God Bless America" due to their anti-semitic attitudes. Also, I note in my book that Berlin's song was wildly popular, that "many people [were] genuinely touched" by it, as you note. But Guthrie did not denounce the song because he carried prejudices against the Jewish people. First, he married Marjorie Greenblatt, whose mother was the famed yiddish poet Aliza Greenblatt. The Okie balladeer and the elder Greenblatt even collaborated. Also, Guthrie wrote a number of Hanukkah songs, which have been recently recorded by the band the Klezmatics. You can find out more about these connections and other proof of Guthrie's positive support of the Jewish community at the Woody Guthrie Archives website. So don't try lumping him in with those meatheads who thought that a Jewish man couldn't praise America; don't conflate Guthrie's response to the song to a condemnation of the man who wrote it (or of his religion). What Guthrie had a problem with was not Berlin or his Jewishness--he found a problem with the sentiment of the song as it was celebrated in 1940. By that time, Kate Smith's version (sung by a whitebread Christian woman and identified with her more than Berlin at that moment) was constantly being played on the radio, on jukeboxes, in homes throughout America. It became an anthem that was embraced by many--and it projected a message that the nation had been blessed from above. However, Guthrie's America, that of the poor and the displaced, didn't seem blessed. You seem to want me to have focused my explorations on Berlin--but I was writing a book on Guthrie. I discuss his perceptions of "God Bless American" and how his own song "This Land" has been used in ways completely at odds with its creator's purpose (which also can be said of Berlin's song in contemporary America). You quote Berlin to establish his goals for "God Bless America." But I contextualize Guthrie's song through its creator's life. Can't Guthrie note that the image projected by the popularized "God Bless America" doesn't tell the whole story of the nation in 1940? Doesn't he have the right to respond with a message of his own? Or is Berlin the only songwriter who can make a statement--and all others have to keep their opinions to themselves?
I don't think I said that nor did I try to lump Guthrie with "those meatheads [...]" but I leave it that way and won't comment no further . Many thanks to Dr. Jackson for the discussion. I hope he regarded it as at least a little productive.
Back to This Land Is Our Land” - Irving Berlin & “God Bless America”
MoreRootsOfBob.com
20/21/22.01.2008