"St. James Infirmary" is an old song of unknown origin, famously recorded by Louis Armstrong in 1928 and covered countless times since then. There have been several conflicting authorship and copyright claims. The song is sometimes called "St. James Infirmary Blues," although it is atypically eight bars, rather than twelve, and in a minor key. There are more than the usual number of audio-only clips, mostly at the bottom of this post, because I found some classic performances that I could not bring myself to omit. (h/t WSK)
UPDATED with clips of Jon Batiste and Jack Teagarden.
The Speakeasies Swing Band: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4CGQnSfRWk
Posted by: Alberto Bernabe | October 08, 2022 at 06:41 PM
Another version (better and longer) by Hugh Laurie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT2pL4FNlpI&t=4s
Posted by: Alberto Bernabe | October 08, 2022 at 08:42 PM
Time to close the comments! I think these additions are bordering on "whining" and "repetition," no? C'mon, a great man doesn't tolerate anyone questioning his judgment, does he?
Posted by: anon | October 09, 2022 at 12:43 PM
"Refuting Ron"
The irony, of course, is that you're not actually defending CRT either. It's well-established now that there's academic CRT - a school of thought with a clear genealogy, which relies on a fairly determinate set of (suspect) methods, assumptions, normative preferences, propositions, and partisan political aims - and a populist variety of CRT for which Kendi and others serve as examples.
Leiter and many others have written well on this distinction. But noting a distinction alone doesn't entitle you to police the boundaries between them so as to exclude the latter from the former being counted as "genuine" CRT.
The DeSantises of this world, who know little to nothing about either variety, are not not mistaken (albeit accidentally so, since they know nothing about it and do care not to learn) to criticize it and call people's attention to the political hijacking of education curricula by partisans who have a clear ulterior, authoritarian agenda.
A great many of CRT's defenders, not just the loudest and most prominent ones but also law professors, have little if any real knowledge of CRT scholarship (let alone the capability of distinguishing it from its totalitarian populist analog). The "story" (The context in which facts are being situated, as you say) today is that, to be opposed to CRT is to be hostile to the very teaching of and talking about American's unjust past. It simply means to try to silence discussion about the hard truths of American slavery, racism, and about states of affairs today. One MUST therefore defend CRT because America must confront these issues head on.
Except that's complete bullshit. Academic CRT is but one "conceptual lens" by which to address and confront them; nor is it a very credible or intellectually honest one, for that matter. Populist CRT in turn is indefensible totalitarian crap. There is no orthodox Marxist, fascist, liberal, conservative, libertarian, or anarchist who requires CRT in order to honestly and accurately address, analyze, and explain these aspects of American history or the country's current socio-eco-political state of affairs head on.
Posted by: A non | October 10, 2022 at 01:42 PM