This is laudable, though it could (and as we know, did)
lapse into narcissism and solipsistic thinking; the surest way to actually
appreciate what you have is to think of others, particularly their
history. And here is a song of
what happened to the Cherokee Nation, a century and a half before. Migration was common back then, especially as
(as taught to me in almost all my history classes) Europe was getting crowded
and there was a whole new continent out there, sans monarchy and religious
repression, waiting to be populated by anyone who showed up. And as this had been happening since the 1770s
or so, by the 1830s things were already starting to get crowded in the Atlantic
states, and farmers were itching for new pastures, literally and
figuratively. The US government (who had
been, shall we say, "kindly instructing" the Cherokee in how they should live –
i.e. in the American way – for decades) basically kicked the Cherokee out of
their homelands and drove them out, by force if necessary. Manifest Destiny was the claim of the US;
this act was one of many justified by it.
The fact that the Cherokee had been there for a very long time didn’t
matter; from the American perspective they were in charge now, and that was
pretty much that. The Cherokee Nation
continued the best it could, and even wanted their own state; a perfectly reasonable
request, all things considered, that got nowhere in Washington D.C. By the 1900s the Cherokee were segregated
against just like African Americans, and by the time Don Fardon recorded this
in 1968, they too benefitted from the civil rights movement and various laws
passed just years before.
Just what a freakbeat singer was doing recording this is
less clear; it had been written by John D. Loudermilk in the 50s and recorded
by Marvin Rainwater – himself ¼ Cherokee – but that recording (“The Pale Faced
Indian”) in 1959 didn’t really get anywhere.
Perhaps he had heard about the Red
Power movement; maybe he just liked the song. Why it only got into the charts at this point
is also a mystery, but it fits the general sense of unrest and injustice of
1970 better, I think, than the rather lachrymose charts of ’68, in
general. Fardon makes this a tough record; there is a
freakbeat stompiness and menace in the horns at the start; the intensity that
made his old band The Sorrows just a bit too much for the public is certainly
here, his voice quiet, the song building up and building up to “War” like
levels of disquiet. A whole way of life
is wiped out before the song ends, but the people stand strong, ready to
return. A guitar stings and “will return…will
return….” comes back with horns loud and a lone drum skiddering off, as if to
say, we will indeed return, and for that matter, we’re still here, dammit. If rock 'n' roll is all about rebelling against The Man, well, there's nothing like a song where The Man's actions against not just one person but a whole people is catalogued. That Fardon had no Native American roots to speak of may make some uneasy, but then neither (that I know of) did the song's writer, and rock always roots for the underdog, in any case. Fardon sounds sincere, angry even; and the song was a big enough hit for Paul Revere and The Raiders to cover it and take it to #1 in the US in '71 (lead singer Mark Lindsay was part Cherokee himself; thus his interest).
Historical perspective is a way of comprehending where we are now by looking at what happened then; the US was about to go through a turbulent decade wherein wrongs would be recognized and righted - through politics, through cultural shifts, through art itself. You cannot change things for the better if you don't know how they got messed up in the first place; that a UK singer brought this song back to the public's acclaim (it was an NME #2) and thence via a similar version to the US's attention is a good thing, almost a public declaration. Rock has grown up a lot here, able to make this a hit and become that public art that helps, if only in a small way, to give some perspective to what is really worth rebelling about, what is really at stake in life.
Next up: who needs a loaf of bread or a thou?
Historical perspective is a way of comprehending where we are now by looking at what happened then; the US was about to go through a turbulent decade wherein wrongs would be recognized and righted - through politics, through cultural shifts, through art itself. You cannot change things for the better if you don't know how they got messed up in the first place; that a UK singer brought this song back to the public's acclaim (it was an NME #2) and thence via a similar version to the US's attention is a good thing, almost a public declaration. Rock has grown up a lot here, able to make this a hit and become that public art that helps, if only in a small way, to give some perspective to what is really worth rebelling about, what is really at stake in life.
Next up: who needs a loaf of bread or a thou?
1 comment:
I had no idea the song was so old. Marvin Rainwater's version is several times better than his one major hit. Thanks for the tip-off.
Post a Comment