What Are the Multiple Layers of Meaning in “I Got Shoes”?

I guess we’ll start with a version of that puzzle you’ve probably seen in which you’re asked to pick the item that doesn’t belong with the rest. Here’s one:

Which one of the following does not belong with the others?
Binoculars, eyeglasses, goggles, handlebars, jeans, pliers, scissors, shoes, tweezers
Answer: The word “shoes” is the only “pair” that actually has 2 separate pieces.
(I didn’t get this one right, picking “jeans.”)

So for this spiritual, which of the following does not belong with the others?

Shoes, harp, wings, robe, crown, song.

And, again, the answer is “shoes.” Why is that? Because all of the other items are specifically mentioned as being present in heaven, but there’s no reference to the righteous walking around in beautiful shoes as they traverse the streets of gold.

What’s going on here? Probably multiple forces are at work. As you probably know (and I’d encourage you once again to read my article on how we got the spirituals if you’d like a refresher on these ideas), Black spirituals are true folk music; that is, they have no known author or date of composition and were passed down orally for many years before being written down, and by that time multiple versions had grown up. (There are also compositions written “in the style of” spirituals, and they’re legitimate and beautiful too—but here I’m talking about the anonymous songs arising spontaneously from slaves in the American ante-bellum South.)

Many of these spirituals are work songs, composed on the spot as people labored in the fields, and they often use the “call and response” pattern: that is, one person with a strong voice would “lead out” with a line and then others would join in with a pre-set chorus. You can see that pattern clearly with “Shoes”—

I got a __________ (leader)
You got a ____________ (group)
All God’s childrun got a __________.
When I get to heav’n gonna put on my ___________
And gonna walk all over God’s heav’n, heav’n, heav’n.
Ev’rybody talkin’ ‘bout heav’n ain’t a goin’ there,
Heav’n, heav’n, gonna walk all over God’s heav’n.
(All voices sing the final five lines as a refrain; the verb “walk” may change to fit the item.
So, for instance, “wings” may have the verb “fly.” There can be a number of repeated lines in the refrain.)

I’m not going to go into a deep scriptural exegesis about each one of these terms (whew!), but I would like to touch on a couple of them, “wings” and “harp.”

As far as the wings are concerned, this concept must have originated from the belief that the righteous in heaven will become angels. In a couple of the Gospels Jesus was asked about the hypothetical situation of a woman who’d had seven (sequential) husbands: “In the day of resurrection, whose wife shall she be?” And his response was that in heaven there is neither “marrying nor giving in marriage” because everyone will be “like the angels in heaven.” But that comparison is being used only in conjunction with marriage. As Eugene Peterson says in his modern translation, The Message:

At the resurrection we’re beyond marriage. As with the angels, all our ecstasies and intimacies then will be with God. (Matthew 22:30)

Okay, so probably no wings. How about the harps? On this point, you may be surprised to learn, there’s a verse that says there will indeed be harpists in heaven, in chapter 14 of the book of Revelation in the Christian New Testament. Here are the relevant lines in the lovely old King James Version:

And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne. (vs. 2)

And you can also see in this verse the “new song” in heaven, so there’s another idea from Scripture in the spiritual. I’ll let you research “robe” and “crown” for yourself.

But back to the shoes. I’d venture to guess that this line crept in because, after all, if this spiritual originated as a work song then it came from the gangs of slaves laboring in the fields. While food and clothing allowances varied greatly, it seems to be the case that “house” slaves, who had to look presentable, were usually given some type of livery or dress and also shoes but that field hands weren’t typically given such luxuries. There were three main crops produced in the South largely with slave labor: tobacco, rice and cotton. All required relentless labor throughout the growing season; all had their own dangers and challenges. Rice fields, for example, were flooded at times, meaning that as slaves worked they were also dealing “snakes, alligators, and other vermin, . . Slaves had to plant, weed, and harvest in soggy, sickness-inducing fields.” (“The Varieties of Slave Labor”) The other two main crops were at least drier, but you can imagine the stones, roots, and general danger from constant use of hoes to get out the weeds. If you or someone close to you missed and hit your foot, well, there was nothing to protect it. And no workman’s comp, either.

Since these crops were produced using the “gang labor” system with close scrutiny from White overseers and Black drivers, singing ambiguous words was just about the only way to express unacceptable hopes and complaints. Maybe the “shoes” verse originated when the lead singer stubbed his toe just one too many times on a stubborn cotton root. And I get immensely tickled at the line “ev’rybody talkin’ ‘bout heaven ain’t a-goin’ there.” A jab, perhaps, at the folks up at the big house with their pieties and prayers—but no compassion for the people actually producing the crops that provided their luxuries? Just a thought.

My own choir, the Cherry Creek Chorale, has in its repertoire an arrangement of this spiritual by the great duo of Alice Parker and Robert Shaw. At some point I want to do a deep dive into that partnership, but this post has gone on long enough for now. (If you’re reading this post before May 6-7 2022 and you live in the Denver area, I’d encourage you to attend the concert at which we’ll be performing it.)

So a couple of performance videos here. First, a performance of the Shaw/Parker arrangement, by the Robert Shaw Chorale. My preference is always for live performances, but honestly–to hear this song directed by Shaw himself, even when we can’t watch him at work, is too good to miss:

And here’s a thoroughly delightful and charming performance by a choir in Nigeria. After you’ve watched it, I’d encourage you to read more commentary below the video about use of dialect in spirituals. (This choir has opted to use the most extreme form, so “heab’n” and “gwine,” for instance, which is being sung by speakers of British English.) They’re singing with great spirit, but their poses are very formal. Also, because I’m an incorrigible noticer of trivia, I  can’t resist pointing out that, while all of the girls have dresses in the same color and fabric they’re all different in style. I’m imagining that they were given the fabric and certain guidelines as to length, neckline, etc., and then made the dresses themselves or had them made.

Now, about that dialect question. Here I’m going to quote from an excellent blog post and encourage you to read the entire thing:

Words such as “de”, “dem”, “dose”, heb’n”, “chillun” and “gwine” should be changed to “the”, “them”, “those”, “heaven”, “childen”, and “gonna” or “going to”. Also, “dis” should be changed to “this”, “der” to “there”, “dor” to “door”, “jes” to “just”. And the word “heben” should be sung as “heaven”.

However, it’s appropriate and preferable to continue to sing dialectic or informal English words which are still used in general African American/American conversation. For instance, the word “ain’t” shouldn’t be changed to “am not” in the line “I ain’t gonna study war no more”. Also, the word “got” shouldn’t be changed to “have” in the line “I got shoes”.

from “Comments About Singing Spirituals Using 19th Century Negro Dialect” (Be sure to note in the article why the author is specifically using the term “Negro” here.)

© Debi Simons