Watch out folks, for the slippery slope to that 'Wood Guthrie patriotism' that combines with proletarian internationalist I mentioned a few weeks back, that set off several string of debate. It's catching!

Here's Bruce and Tom Morello with another set a while back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzRbeHyIomk&feature=youtu.be

Yeah i liked the performance but it's also a slippery slope from even'' Woody Guthie Patriotism ''(Ie Nationalism ) to protecting '' American jobs'' from ''illegal aliens ''.
One recently especially ridicilous example was the stance of the '' International '' leadership of the United Steel workers union against importing steel from Canada . Canada . Where a significant % of their members live !

How is this any different from the Zionist idea of "a land without people for a people without land"? This land wasn't "made for you and me." It was stolen and as long as the left refuses to recognize that at the core of its politics, it remains part of the settler-colonial social structure. There needs to be a deep understanding of this, meaning the recognition and publicizing of ongoing struggles by indigenous peoples *today* to reverse settler-colonialism and take back land and resources, not some tokenizing history of tragedy. These struggles don't get as much publicity as something like what is happening in Wisconsin, but we need to figure out what is the actual principal contradiction in significant parts of this country and this continent, and why there should be no place in our movements for these backwards, and frankly racist, remnants of white Popular Front culture.

i have

... i have always had great respect and admiration for guthrie the poet, a man who made great strides forward in his understanding of people and whose cross-cultural sympathies were genuine, if imperfect. i also have had great sympathy for those caught up in wwii popular frontism, since it must have made so much sense to try to defend the ussr using whatever tools of tradition were available to connect with friends and families.

but we are supposed to learn from history, not pretend. guthrie is not reincarnated in the person of springsteen, who has never taken the risks or stands guthrie did, and while a decent popular musician with left tendencies, has been nothing more than a liberal democrat in practice.

and to brag about the 'contagion' of this cultural backwater is to brag about the 'contagion' that afflicted so many in their bluster over obama's popular front victory. hail to the chief.

Morello is part of SoundStrike, right? I don't see him heading away from solidarity with all people in struggle any time soon.

me, i'm not familiar with morello and i'll take your word for him. and i don't think This Land is a bad song - i think guthrie wrote it to be inclusive of all working people.

It is a populist song. It claims this land was made for you and me. And if we are talking about Guthrie's intent -- I suspect that it is to stress a kind of native populist democratic view of the United States. How inclusive his intent was is hard to establish... and I'm always wary of reading backwards -- JP says "inclusive of all working people," but on what basis do you assume he was only including working people (a lot of populism seeks equality between working people and the less-working classes)? And certainly someone close to the CP in the 1930-40s was quite possibly not "inclusive" in ways we would assume today (the CP was remarkably racist towards Native people in their histories of the U.S., their approach to gay people speaks for itself, their view of women was Hemmingway-esque, and so on...)

I am also wary of judging a piece of art (a song, poem etc.) by simply a literal read of its text... because that is (at best) only a part of what defines its meaning. This song obviously gets its meaning in part in CONTRAST to the other patriotic songs (God Bless America, and that "Bombs Bursting in Air" travesty) -- and so its meaning (words aside) is to reclaim America from the jingoists, Manifest Destiny types and militarists.

And that is a project of reclaiming that many progressive people want to pursue -- and one that I think is not radical in conception.

But, if we WERE to look at just the words for a second, let's just ask the question about the central idea expressed here: If "this land was made for me and you" who made it that way?

It is deliberately ambiguous on several levels.

First it can be talking about either "country" or "the land."

If it is "the land" itself (i.e. its "purple mountains majesty" as the other song put it), then it implies a making by god -- i.e. the land of North America was "made" for us all. (And that religious theme is echoed by the words "while all around me a voice was sounding, saying 'this land was made for you and me.'") I don't think Guthrie literally meant to imply that god's voice was heard, or that he believes in god. But he is poetically and metaphorically tapping into a whole way of thinking -- by having a pantheistic voice take up his chorus. Again, we should not take poet's literally, or think they mean precisely what the words say -- these are themes that echo from and back against a cultural tradition (which in the U.S. includes a bit of divine specialness -- as manifest destiny, or "America, god shed his grace on thee..." -- that crops up in almost all its anthems, including this one.)

If the land means "this country" -- then it was made by its "founding fathers" and the song is a patriotic statement of THEIR intent.

And again, Guthrie is deliberately ambiguous -- so that he poetically taps into two different democratic mythologies: that the original god-maker is a democratic god who loves us all equally (and makes it hard as hard for a rich man to get into heaven as for a camel to get through the eye of a needle). Or the myth of the democratic American revolution conceiving of a country where we are all intended to be equal in its basic principles.

Poetically, such a song is (of course) not a historical analysis -- it is a historical claim intended to be a demand for the present. I.e. by claiming that "this land was made for you and me" Guthrie is protesting the fact that we are not equal now, and stating a political intent that this should be so.

And there is another implicit theme: I.e. that if this land was made for all of us, why is it owned privately? The singer sees that golden valley which was "made for me and you" -- and yet (as we all know) is carved up into jealously guarded ranches, farms, etc. There is a (subtle, wafting, unspoken) theme that perhaps "you and me" should own "this land" together -- as was (mythically) intended.

Anyway, that is my understanding of the themes.

So what to think about them...

Well, first it is a patriotic populism -- it accepts the United States (as such), but lays claim to it on behalf of an undifferentiated people. It is a call for a democratization of current America made by asserting an orginal intent for such a common, populist and democratic America.

In my view there are several problems with this.

First I think patriotism accepts too much (by far!) We do not accept the U.S. borders (and not just us communists, but the people broadly often do not and should not accept these borders). I just came back from southern Arizona -- and was impressed again with how much these borders are an open question (and always have been) -- among the Indian people of that area, among the Mexican and Chicano people of that area, and among progressive white people.

So all that talk of "from california to the new york island etc." -- why should we carve out a piece of earth according to those imposed borders and sing our love for it? And claim *it* "for you and me"?

Second, the mythical assumption of creation-intend (it was <em>"made for..."</em> invents a false history to assert a reformed and more democratic present. In fact this land was NOT "made for" you and me. It not made by god for the waves of settlers who came over two centuries. And (in the main) it was not made by its "founding fathers" for the unwashed popular classes.

This populism accepts the American rhetoric ("we the people," and "endowed by their creator by unalienable rights") in ways that radical and revolutionary people should NOT accept it.

The "we the people" was a lie -- and blatantly so. It explicitly excluded Native people and Black people -- and in many ways excluded white working people too. The establishment of the borders was obviously done without the slightest concern for the self-determination of people living within them (in Lousiana purchase, the white settlers of the United States "bought" the land of a hundred Native people from France (!) which had never controled those lands! In the Gadsden Purchase (1851) the border areas of today's southern Arizona and New Mexico were bought (under threat) by an expansionist U.S. from a bitterly defeated Mexico -- and "this land" was really the land of Tohono O'odham and allied people who lived there. (The O'odham people were cut in half by this new establishment of a U.S. border -- and today live on each side of that border.)

Just a simple question: If you say "this land was made for you and me" -- are you ignoring the experience of Tohono O'odham, or are you sending them a message that they should get over it (meaning their history, their identity, their grievances today) and think of themselves as just one of the "you and me" of modern United States?

In short:

I am really not a fan of the Guthrie populist patriotism. I think the CPUSA's turn to that kind of patriotism was virtually criminal (for so-called communists) -- and represented a turn away from their previous support for Black liberation, and Puerto Rican independence. It involved the invention-and-embrace of an almost volkish belief in an "American people" which cannot be declared <em>without</em> such denial of oppression of peoples.

It is (in our current context) very liberal ("Can't we just be Americans, and equal, and not have all those hyphens? I don't see color, we are all the same, can't this country just be for the people?") in ways that really deserve the words "white blindspots."

No this land was not "made for you and me" -- it was a land of hundreds of Native peoples who were massacred and driven off, it was populated by desperate immigrants and kidnapped slaves while it was "made" (structured, and socially crafted) for their most vicious exploitation. (Go to Bisbee, Arizona -- read its history, how "this land was made" -- and see how it was "made" as a machinery for the most heartless mistreatment of humans and extraction of minerals.)

It is a terrible song that grew out of terrible politics. Again: the word "white blindspot" really needs to be at the center of such a discussion.

We will have decent and sincere allies in our struggle (largely white liberals and social democrats) who embrace that kind of populist patriotism (as Guthrie did, as a demand for a further democratization of America while not excavating the nature of its "founding principles). And so we will coexist with with these views and their expression for the foreseeable future. But we (meaning communists, revolutinaries, internationalists, anti-imperialists) should not be confused about what such views represent or the American patriotism (which inevitably means chauvinism despite intent) that it contains in every friggin line.

IN short, I agree with Boris when he says:

<blockquote>"How is this any different from the Zionist idea of “a land without people for a people without land”? This land wasn’t “made for you and me.” It was stolen and as long as the left refuses to recognize that at the core of its politics, it remains part of the settler-colonial social structure. There needs to be a deep understanding of this, meaning the recognition and publicizing of ongoing struggles by indigenous peoples *today* to reverse settler-colonialism and take back land and resources, not some tokenizing history of tragedy. These struggles don’t get as much publicity as something like what is happening in Wisconsin, but we need to figure out what is the actual principal contradiction in significant parts of this country and this continent, and why there should be no place in our movements for these backwards, and frankly racist, remnants of white Popular Front culture."</blockquote>

And i also think (speaking of allies who believe such things sincerely) that we should ask why it is that few strata in the U.S. wear and promote the flag as much as unionized workers. They do it for different reasons (some are rightwing patriots, others are social democrats who identify with "their" country). But really, it is worth thinking about different strata and their view of patriotism.

It is always complex. Among native people there is a surprising amount of military veteran talk of country. Among Black people the post-2001 events (including Obama) has produced an unprecedented spike in raw American nationalism. But really, those are generally contested by a sense that (as Malcolm put it): "We didn't land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on us!"

mike e., thanks for your critique. i intend to return to this, but for now i want to say i base my understanding of Guthrie's intent on reading more than one biographical source. i understand he had many limitations, part and parcel with his times, and these should be recognized not emulated.

i don't disagree with your overall argument, although i do disagree that pantheism is incompatible with the kind of revolution leading to the end of human (et al) exploitation.

Just a brief digression in regard to the Tohono O'odham. During the last week, we spent some brief time on the Tohono O'odham reservation (which is the size of connecticut and takes up a large part of the U.S. Mexico border in Arizona).

The Tohono O'odham are "the people of the desert" -- and their lands are part of the Sonoran desert.

So, tell me, what it means when Guthrie sings:
<blockquote>
"I roamed and rambled, and I followed my footsteps to the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts... while all around me a voice was sounding, saying 'this land was made for you and me.'"</blockquote>

Again, this is poetry, not history or analysis. It is myth-making. He is claiming "this land" for "you and me."

But in the desert there is a counter-myth: the Tohono O'odham think "this land" was made for them. They are a people fighting for their rights and culturee. Among American native peoples, their language is among the most used, which is a sign of the degree to which they have been isolated and non-integrated over time.

So, obviously, as communists we don't literally think this desert was "made" for anyone -- we are not participants in creation myths of that kind.

But what would it mean for us to sing (with gusto) that we had walked those deserts and a voice told us it was made for "you and me"?

When we stood on a peak high over those deserts, that's not what we thought. We were looking at the lands of a people we knew little about. We were saying to each other how much we wanted to understand this people. We were aware we were visitors on someone else's land. We went to an observatory high on Kitts Peak (where there are 27 telescopes on Tohono O'odham land. The astronomical students and observatory staff we met didn't say "this land was made for you and me" -- they said (respectfully and repeatedly) that they were grateful that the Tohono O'odham allowed them to have this observatory, and that they developed ways of working with the people there...

Again, what does it mean if we were to then stand in Wisconsin and tearfully sing that "her diamond deserts...were made for me and you"? What myth would we be promoting? What realities would we be denying? Where would we be standing? With "her" (meaning America and its historic claims) or with the oppressed (including the oppressed people and peoples within Wisconsin btw)?

JP writes:

<blockquote>"i base my understanding of Guthrie’s intent on reading more than one biographical source. ...although i do disagree that pantheism is incompatible with the kind of revolution leading to the end of human (et al) exploitation."</blockquote>

Thanks for replying. I look forward to reading what you have to say, when you get a chance.

For clarity on these two points you raise:

1) I am arguing that intent is hard to establish, and is really not particularly relevant. In regard to "inclusion" -- I assume that the old CP and Guthrie (and social democrats and liberals...) <em>intend</em> to be inclusive. Let's assume there is not intent to exclude. The question of white blindspot is that there are whole worldviews that make oppressed people invisible despite seemingly good intent. You can make (pose) statements of inclusion (this is for you and me) in a populist way -- which inherently <em>exclude</em> the experiences, needs, demands, and even existence of whole peoples. (That is my point on the border lands: If you say the desert was made for you and me, it is inclusive in form -- but really makes the <em>actual people</em> of that desert invisible.)

2) I did not argue that pantheism is incompatible with the kind of revolution we need. I was arguing against what that mystical, metaphorical voice <em>was saying</em> in Gutherie's ear -- i.e. that this land was made for you and me. This is not an untainted concept -- this idea of god as real estate agent. The white American settlers (from the pilgrims on) claimed that God had given them this land (because it was empty, or because they were more worthy than the heathens). And since then similar arguments have been made by Boers and Zionists (i.e. it is a common theme of settler states -- that those who actually live on the land have not right to it, because the god of the settlers "made" it for the settlers.)

Gutherie is not a crude proponent of Manifest Destiny, and I assume he was (on some level) sympathetic to Native people (their poverty, discrimination etc.) But he is poetically using themes which have deep roots in American culture -- and which have meaning (not just literal meaning, but cultural meaning) in ways that we can see better since the 1960s.

When I was a kid I read the book by Leo Huberman called "We, the People the Drama of America." It was a history of the United States written from this perspective that I call CP populism. (And it was an early example of telling history by describing the lives and conditions of ordinary people, not as a succession of macro-political events and wars.) Leo Huberman was part of the Monthly Review scene and his book was published by the leftist publishing house of Monthly Review. And it is (dutifully) a story of working people (farmers, workers, etc.)

But reading it in the 1960s, it was startling how it relegated slaves to the margins, and the only appearance of Native people was as "warlike" attackers on the yeomanlike farmer-settlers (who were central heroic laboring people in his account).

You can't tell the story of America in a populist patriotic way without confronting the fact that there were wars between peoples and the victorious nationality formed the core of white people today. There are countless ways in which the discussion of "the real America" ends up being racist and that includes the populist forms of that narrative who claim to be for the working people of that "real America."

Some people want to "take back the flag" (presumably away from the military and corporations).

Other people know they can't take it back because they never had it -- they were conquered and enslaved by it, and when they radicalize politically they understandably want something else.

Mike's writing "So, obviously, as communists we don’t literally think this desert was “made” for anyone — we are not participants in creation myths of that kind," got me musing about the idea that what we call the founding history of America is actually a creation myth that cements most Americans ideologically to this nation (progressive and conservative alike).

While communists eschew creation myths at one level of consciousness, anyone living in America (especially those born here) are imbued with the American creation myth at another, perhaps deeper and certainly unconscious (reflexive) level. I describe this as mythic dimensions because I believe this helps explain the staying power of American exceptionalism and its various iterations.

We may want to beleive that as communists, in a hyper-technical 21st century nation-state, we have rationality on our side when it comes to countering the ideology of bourgeois democracy and the American experiment, but if we fail to understand the depth of the psycho-emotional attachment and sense of safety, meaning, and orientation the American myth provides, we will surely miss the mark in terms of creating forces with communist and internationalist consciousness.

This is way bigger than the hold of nationalist propaganda, or simple-minded patriotism -- we have on our hands a powerful, mostly unconscious, force that indeed serves the same function as any indigenous creation myth throughout human social evolution.

Random late night thoughts in reaction to this thread...

Of course the territory comprising the U.S.A. wasn't "made" by anybody, there being no Creator-god. Maybe Guthrie was tapping into that belief in his poetry, just as Springsteen taps into it in his lyrics ("I believe in the promised land"...) Is it wrong to do that? To draw on the historic consciousness of the European settler, often in fact settling in North America in order to flee religious persecution and identifying with the (mythical) Hebrew arrival in Canaan?

Of course we should point out that any notion of "my land" bestowed by a deity is irrational. And we should analyze the connections between the Old Testament concept of "promised land" and the colonialist mentality of Europeans in the New World. We condemn the record of vicious "Indian removal" and the demographic catastrophe produced by diseases.

But there is such a thing as "the American people" in the sense of the population of the U.S.

It's a fractured population. In 1941 a black taxi driver told a journalist, "I hear the Japanese have declared war on you folks." I know people in Hawai'i where I grew up who declare "I will never be an American." I respect that and personally would prefer that Hawai'i gain independence, as a socialist republic, altho I don't see that happening soon.

But in 1940 when this song was written there were among the 130 million US citiznes probably at least 100 million who thought of themselves as "Americans" and proud of that identity. Guthrie's song builds upon and encourages that identity, as a multiethnic one, and demands a fair and equal society. I don't see that as terrible.

Should we say that because the US was built upon colonialism and genocide (undeniable parts of the historical record) expressions of love of country are always reactionary?

Is there any country in the world that was created, to a less extent than the US, on brutal conquest? In France there is a specific patriotic tradition that has been embraced (appropriately I think) by the revolutionary left for a long time. When you listen to the beautiful ballad "Complainte du Partisan" composed by an anti-fascist during the second world war you hear the line "all France is behind me"---a moving statement of belief in national solidarity (even though much of the French population was collaborating with the Nazis). Was it wrong to try to construct a national identity at that time?

France is the product of Germanic invasions of Celtic peoples, and multiple invasions including the Vikings wh settled in Normandy. It's not just the U.S. but virtually all contemporary states are the products of invasions and settlements at some stage in the past. Should we therefore say that all patriotisms (expressions of love of country) are wrong---because the construction of countries has always involved displacement and repression of peoples at some point of times?

Internationalism is the highest ideal, for sure. I have zero patriotic sentiment myself. But I have no problem with Guthrie's song, which is plainly a demand for a freer USA.

Here is an example of the power of the AMerican creation myth at work: http://comehomeamerica.us/

"This land wasn’t “made for you and me.” It was stolen and as long as the left refuses to recognize that at the core of its politics, it remains part of the settler-colonial social structure."
Political purism .
Name any country in the world where that hasn't happened at some time or other.
Even the Aztecs were settlers from elsewhere in Mexico.
Resentment against them amongst the neighbouring peoples was such that they were prepared to forme alliances with the Spanish invaders against Aztec rule.

Working settlers are not synomymous with a colonial ruling class.
And while it may have distorted it, being a working settler in the USA has never stopped anyone from engaging in the class struggle.

Marxists are in favour of the unity of working settlers and "aboriginal" peoples, which of course requires the resitution of as many rights as is possible.

Good on Tom Morello BTW, from Irish and Italian Settler stock, a Kenyan Kikuyu and the nephew of Jomo Kenyatta!

I feel like I should weigh in on this because we use this song for our immigration rallies. I understand how it, to a certain extent, covers up certain aspects of national liberation, but I'd encourage all of you to remember the context. The Great Depression was still going on when it was written in 1940. One phenomena of that was migrant workers fleeing from the dust bowl to find work in California where the received poor treatment and even received the epithet "Okie." Guthrie himself was an Okie.

In this context, I read "This Land is Your Land" as a literal call to break down the regionalist and nativist barriers in favor of broader solidarity RATHER than a nationalist anthem about how great the United States is. One only needs to read the California chapters of the Grapes of Wrath to see how truly subversive this song can be.

Listen to this 1939 song, performed repeatedly by Paul Robeson, the greatest bass-bariton of his time, an African-American who was popular in the Soviet Union (and who publicly supported the USSR and the Chinese Revolution), and at some point joined the CPUSA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnXyGr668wg />
The "Ballad for Americans" combines an idealized view of the U.S. past, so much so that it was performed at the Republican party national convention in 1940 (AND the CP convention)! It has an unnuanced view of Washington and Lincoln, etc. On the other hand it is emphatically anti-racist and inclusive.

I don't think the composers and performers of this song (incl. Bing Crosby) were necessarily turning a blind eye on the atrocities integral to U.S. history but were trying to bend a culture of patriotism to positive ends. One can maybe read this as the "little tradition" of the masses confronting the "great tradition" of officially manipulated patriotism. Is the overall impact of the song (as of 1939-40) to encourage devotion to the state as an imperialist, capitalist state, or to encourage tolerance, internationalism and defiance of oppression?

can't locate my guthrie biographical sources at the moment, but mike (at one point) says intent doesn't matter that much. i want to defend : 1) guthrie the poet; 2) the song; but not the popular front or 'popular patriotism' in itself; much less the cp's severe errors in its wartime approach.

arguments against the cp and the pop front are not arguments against this song, in my opinion.

guthrie was certainly a popular front guy (hear his 'dr. mrs. roosevelt'), but his personal journey from the casual racism of his youth to self-taught communism was impressive. reminds me of john lennon, whose left songs are full of theoretical holes ('give peace a chance'?), but powerfully moved culture leftward.

one of his later songs, 'deportee,' (his words but not his music)
is especially exemplary of guthrie's recognition of cross-border humanity. he liked to note the individual's role in history - in his pop front song remembering the sinking of the merchant ship 'reuben james,' guthrie wanted to list each person having died (seeger talked him out of it).

his feel for people was, to the extent we can know via historical method, apparently genuine, as was his folk music; although i agree with mike that the folk movement was not, and guthrie himself played the 'hick,' show business style, to certify his folk credentials.

i recommend his recently found 1949 concert recording called 'the live wire.' his later sickness precluded us from knowing if he might have further progressed in his journey, away from 'jap' bashing, etc.

the song? i don't hear the song the way the critics in this thread hear it, as if it exists only as a piece of the popular front and is therefore rejected out of hand. (on the other hand, the fact that it could be shamelessly sung at obama election celebrations demonstrates its malleability as a pop front weapon.)

i don't hear any problem in "this land/your land, california/ny island, [locations known to his listening audience] sparkling sands " [a beautiful image - that making this assertion represents taking the land away from its indigenous people does not make sense to me] or the songwriter hearing voices - these interior voices represent a 'god' in the same way all interior voices do. when someone quotes a god, they are quoting themselves, or asserting what they want for the world.


hearing this song without the pop front backstory, and knowing guthrie's cross-cultural sympathies (regardless of the cp), i hear "a multiethnic one," that "demands a fair and equal society" as gary said. not revolutionary enough? not many songs qualify there.

it does not acknowledge the savage inequities of history, nor does it excuse them; making all its value as a fighting song depend all on who sings it and where.

regarding the 'lost' verses: as i said, my sources aren't handy, but it think these verses may have been by son arlo, who said he received them telepathically from woody while woody was unable to speak. they fit, though.

sorry this response isn't nearly detailed enough. time out...

All forms of nationalism are bourgeois ideology - basically, nationalists seek to unite all people of a given race/ethnicity/nationality/citizenship in a particular state as one classless mass under the leadership of/subordinated to the bourgeoisie of that particular race/ethnicity/nationality/state.

The classical socialist and communist view was that <strong>the working class has no country</strong> - workers of all countries are our brothers and sisters, and all bosses of all nations are our enemies.

There is a partial exception - socialists and communists can critically support the nationalism of an oppressed nation to the direct degree that it is fighting against imperialism - but no further.

For example, we can support Irish nationalism when it is fighitng against British imperialism, but we oppose Irish nationalists who are racist against African and Asian immigrants in Ireland.

Or, we can support Shona nationalists in Zimbabwe when they fight against British imperialism or the legacy of White settler colonialism in their country, but we cannot support them when they persecute Zimbabwe's Ndebele minority.

Or, it would have been correct to support Zionists who were fighting the Nazis, but incorrect to support their colonial movement that led to the creation of the settler colonial state of Israel.

Of course, those are the nationalisms of oppressed nationalities.

When it comes to the nationalisms of <strong><i>OPPRESSOR</i> nationalities</strong> - in particular the nationalism of imperialist countries, we totally cannot get on board with them.

Obviously, this basic principle of proletarian internationalism has been honored far more in the breach than in the observance in our movement - the CPUSA's red white and blue "socialim USA" being but one extremely grotesque example.

In the broader American labor movement, it's even worse - as Mike Ely pointed out above, few forces in American society do quite as much flag waving as the AFL-CIO unions (something I've witnessed close up during my years as a union member).

That actually makes sense - American trade unions are dominated by privileged White suburban labor aristocratic workers, who's privileges (as limited, partial and at risk to being taken away by the rulers as they are) are very much tied in to the fortunes of US imperialism - that also accounts for the militarism and jingoism of the American trade union movement as well. It actually makes a whole lot of sense that those forces would be ardent flag waivers.

That's really ironic, because (notwithstanding the current Wisconsin labor revolt) the future of the American labor movement lies in the hands of immmigrant workers, many of whom are undocumented. In other words, red white and blue nationalism will <strong>NOT</strong> save the House of Labor in this country.

i'd agree with all that - but for me, it doesn't reflect on the song, except when used as such.

i used it differently - it was a lullabye for my kids, and it did not prevent the development of an internationalist outlook.

apparently an original manuscript exists with the 'lost verses' of 'this land...' - i'm following that up.

here's 'deportee'

The crops are all in and the peaches are rott'ning,
The oranges piled in their creosote dumps;
They're flying 'em back to the Mexican border
To pay all their money to wade back again

CHORUS:
Goodbye to my Juan, goodbye, Rosalita,
Adios mis amigos, Jesus y Maria;
You won't have your names when you ride the big airplane,
All they will call you will be "deportees"

My father's own father, he waded that river,
They took all the money he made in his life;
My brothers and sisters come working the fruit trees,
And they rode the truck till they took down and died.

Some of us are illegal, and some are not wanted,
Our work contract's out and we have to move on;
Six hundred miles to that Mexican border,
They chase us like outlaws, like rustlers, like thieves.

We died in your hills, we died in your deserts,
We died in your valleys and died on your plains.
We died 'neath your trees and we died in your bushes,
Both sides of the river, we died just the same.

The sky plane caught fire over Los Gatos Canyon,
A fireball of lightning, and shook all our hills,
Who are all these friends, all scattered like dry leaves?
The radio says, "They are just deportees"

Is this the best way we can grow our big orchards?
Is this the best way we can grow our good fruit?
To fall like dry leaves to rot on my topsoil
And be called by no name except "deportees"?

OK, the original manuscript has the ‘lost verses’ of ‘this land…,’ regardless of how arlo says he learned them.

clearly, without those verses, the song can be (and is) sung by persons of diametrically opposed politics. that, and guthrie's cp/popular frontism make it understandably suspect to some, but to me it's great and honest poetry.

Guthrie never objected to his songs being adapted (although his estate does). I'd suggest some poets writing new verses that are more pointed.

me, i wasn't referring to writing an anthem 'for this country.' i wouldn't write any anthems for any country.

for me, it's a song about claiming common ownership of a land, as distinct from the principle of private property and exploitation by the few. it doesn't claim american exceptionalism, it doesn't wave a flag, and it's only about the usa in the sense that it was the land guthrie happened to be living in.

i was suggesting that the song could be made less ambiguous by new verses, as well as by including the lost ones. maybe it is not salvageable for some.

maybe i am just more sympathetic to the circumstances and intent of the popular frontists (despite my opinion that they have been shown to have been wrong) and so do not necessarily reject its product. in my life, i've been in that orbit and it took me a while to shake my head clear. many people have to make this journey.

Thank you, Gary. Your comments put "This Land..." in it's dialectical, historical, materialist context of motion and development. They stand in sharp contrast to Mike E.'s continuing, static, hyperventilating, 'fault' seeking, tour guide hunt for a "pure and simple" path to revolution. Perhaps Guthrie understood, unlike Avakian and Mike E., what Marx meant when he wrote that there are two sources of use value: labor and nature.

probably a little better than 'ballad for americans' above is 'the house i live in' with its original lyrics (edited in sinatra version); but still bound by pop front blinders:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3syulBjkng&amp;feature=related />
archie shepp covered this nicely - maybe that's the way out: no lyrics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMbBdNEjaFk

Mike: "This Land Is Your Island" does not include the words "USA". It says, "this land."

shepp's 'house i live in' can be previwed/bought here: http://itunes.apple.com/be/album/the-house-i-live-in/id161530471