Standing during the Pledge or National Anthem

[Burgold]

That may or may not be true, Semper. We don't know if it is. The thought has cynically crossed my mind too, but benefit of the doubt is fair to give. And it's easier to judge a man's actions than his heart.

[tshile]

I'm definitely dropping the "They're covering CK to avoid Hilary's poll numbers" over the weekend and seeing who bites.

That's great.

[Gamebreaker]

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

No, his message and actions were not clear.  People didn't know why he was sitting until he went on a convoluted explanation that seemed to bash the country, speak very generally of oppression, and make vague references about people getting paid leave for murder.  It was **** messaging and the result was he was immediately knocked off message and the public response was overwhelmingly negative.  But that's the media's and everyone else's fault?

Even now that he's trying to clarify himself, tying the protest to the anthem is a mixed message that is leading people who support him to flirt with a ginned up assertion that the anthem is racist that will absolutely alienate a majority of the country and cause his protest to wither on the vine.

 

You keep saying this, as if stating the anthem isn't racist will somehow make it not racist. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it is racist. The author was racist, and he was writing about a battle where former slaves fighting for their freedom were defeated. And he made sure to address them specifically. There is proof of this, continuing to state it isn't an effort to convince others will not work.

In regards to Kaep's message, you somehow believe people asserting things like "he hates this country" or "when has he been oppressed" when they completely made up that nonsense in their own heads as his fault. He can no more shut down every person with an agenda driven narrative on his actions than any other public figure in the spotlight. 

[Kilmer17]

How many games into the season will it be before someone gets their ass beat in the stands for not standing for the anthem?   And will it be in Philly, NY or Oakland?

[DM72]

I admit, I didn't know about the racist element of the national anthem. John Legend says that he didn't know either when he performed it.

My question is, will black singers now refuse to perform it? I would definitely refuse to perform it.

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

I dont think I agree with judging a person who lived in the 1800s though the lenses of 2016. 

[Burgold]

29 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

You keep saying this, as if stating the anthem isn't racist will somehow make it not racist. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it is racist. The author was racist, and he was writing about a battle where former slaves fighting for their freedom were defeated. 

This feels a bit off to me. The National Anthem is to most of us the song that all of us have sung since childhood. I don't see racism in that. The Anthem is different than the poem. It's a section of the poem and I think it's okay to separate the two. In fact, it's probably good that we do.

As for whether Scott Key was a racist. He probably was. Most Americans were by today's standards. I think that's useful to note, but not totally a fair view to view them holistically.

Finally, I think it's a bit spin-ny to call the battle one in which former slaves fighting for their freedom were defeated. While that may be true that some slaves joined the British side to fight for their freedom. That was not what the war was about nor was it among the reasons the Brits and Americans fought.

[Going Commando]

2 minutes ago, DM72 said:

I admit, I didn't know about the racist element of the national anthem. John Legend says that he didn't know either when he performed it.

My question is, will black singers now refuse to perform it? I would definitely refuse to perform it.

 

That's because it's never been used to express racist sentiments or thought of as racist before, except for maybe a few authors/academics trying to carve out a fiefdom for themselves somewhere in their African American studies department.  The racist angle has all been crapped out in the past few days to justify Kaepernick's protest of the anthem post hoc.  It's based on a pair of opaque lines from an obscure stanza that is never used that has the word slave written in it.  It isn't even clear that the stanza is a racist insult of black slaves, because the context indicates it was written about the "hirelings and slaves" that fought for the British in the War of 1812 and Key's attack was because of their treason.

Regardless, the attempts to redefine the semiotics of the anthem as racist are, frankly, stupid and distracting.  Has anyone ventured into the name change debate before?

[Bozo the kKklown]

18 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

I dont think I agree with judging a person who lived in the 1800s though the lenses of 2016. 

you should research why it was racist and then think again.

It was deeper than just the time period.

3 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Regardless, the attempts to redefine the semiotics of the anthem as racist are, frankly, stupid and distracting.  Has anyone ventured into the name change debate before?

Of course its stupid and distracting. Having to re-analyze something you thought was one way your entire life is a bit tiring.

 

A lot of American history is like that, and a lot of people hate that whole thinking again stuff.

[Gamebreaker]

9 minutes ago, Burgold said:

This feels a bit off to me. The National Anthem is to most of us the song that all of us have sung since childhood. I don't see racism in that. The Anthem is different than the poem. It's a section of the poem and I think it's okay to separate the two. In fact, it's probably good that we do.

As for whether Scott Key was a racist. He probably was. Most Americans were by today's standards. I think that's useful to note, but not totally a fair view to view them holistically.

Finally, I think it's a bit spin-ny to call the battle one in which former slaves fighting for their freedom were defeated. While that may be true that some slaves joined the British side to fight for their freedom. That was not what the war was about nor was it among the reasons the Brits and Americans fought.

So you see no issue in taking a portion of a poem that has racist elements to it, and creating a national anthem for our entire nation? Why is it ok to separate the two? The author didn't mean for it to be separated. I also take exception that since nearly everyone from that time was a racist, that Scott Key being a racist isn't that big a deal. I also don't believe that the standards of what is a racist has changed from then to today, it's just less accepted now. 

[Gamebreaker]

11 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

That's because it's never been used to express racist sentiments or thought of as racist before, except for maybe a few authors/academics trying to carve out a fiefdom for themselves somewhere in their African American studies department.  The racist angle has all been crapped out in the past few days to justify Kaepernick's protest of the anthem post hoc.  It's based on a pair of opaque lines from an obscure stanza that is never used that has the word slave written in it.  It isn't even clear that the stanza is a racist insult of black slaves, because the context indicates it was written about the "hirelings and slaves" that fought for the British in the War of 1812 and Key's attack was because of their treason.

Regardless, the attempts to redefine the semiotics of the anthem as racist are, frankly, stupid and distracting.  Has anyone ventured into the name change debate before?

There is nothing more ridiculous than someone declaring something stupid because they refuse to believe or understand it. 

The racist intent of a verified racist in a poem in which he writes about slaves dying while they fought for their freedom, somehow isn't clear enough for you....but plenty clear to anyone else who has been educated on the matter in the past week. Frankly, who is being stupid and distracting here? 

[Going Commando]

6 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Of course its stupid and distracting. Having to re-analyze something you thought was one way your entire life is a bit tiring.

 

A lot of American history is like that, and a lot of people hate that whole thinking again stuff.

 

Here's a challenge to you: find me some quality scholarship that demonstrates the racist intent and legacy of the star spangled banner.  Perhaps something from a historian?  Something peer reviewed?  Something published before the past week?  If you do, I promise I'll read it.  I looked myself and didn't find anything, maybe you'll have better luck.

[Burgold]

Just now, Gamebreaker said:

So you see no issue in taking a portion of a poem that has racist elements to it, and creating a national anthem for our entire nation? Why is it ok to separate the two? The author didn't mean for it to be separated. I also take exception that since nearly everyone from that time was a racist, that Scott Key being a racist isn't that big a deal. I also don't believe that the standards of what is a racist has changed from then to today, it's just less accepted now. 

This is a tougher question. Part of it involves looking at what the National Anthem is. It is several things. It is a poem. It is an artifact from a certain period of time. It is a symbol. It is also a living document.

When we look at a document whether it is Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Homer, or the National Anthem, it is smart to look at in terms of its historical context and intent. In this case, looking at the whole of the poem is fair, wise, and good in terms of scholarly research and in terms of societal discourse. Likewise, when we look at things that are symbolic, it is useful to look at them as they stand. The National Anthem is not the whole poem. No one to my knowledge (certainly not in my lifetime) has sung every verse. In school, I was only taught the verses which we all know (or should know). That's the Anthem. That's the song. So, the choice of which verses to include and which to exclude are also fair to analyze and judge. Finally, I would contend that the National Anthem stands as a symbol apart from Francis Scott Key. The poem's meaning evolved with America. When Whitney Houston sang it at the Super Bowl following 9/11 it had a different resonance and meaning than it did at a Pee Wee baseball game in 1993. We invest and reinvent works of art every generation. That's a very good thing. It allows us to have needed discussions and debates.

I don't believe that the Star Spangled Banner is understood in 2016 as it was in the 1800's. More, I don't think it necessarily should be. The thoughts I invest into the rockets red glare have a lot less to do with the War of 1812 than it does with the soldiers of WWII that saved a fraction of my family from the Holocaust. The flag being seeing through the smoke is more a symbol of our resilience against terrorists from the DC Sniper or Al Qaeda than it is what a prisoner saw from his window in a fort cell. I think it even makes sense to say that the flag's perseverance represents the dogged fight for civil rights against dogs, fire hoses, and worse. We still stand. We still struggle and fight the good fight.

I hope that makes sense. I gave a long answer, but even that isn't the full answer.

[Going Commando]

2 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

There is nothing more ridiculous than someone declaring something stupid because they refuse to believe or understand it. 

The racist intent of a verified racist in a poem in which he writes about slaves dying while they fought for their freedom, somehow isn't clear enough for you....but plenty clear to anyone else who has been educated on the matter in the past week. Frankly, who is being stupid and distracting here? 

 

Can I ask how you educated yourself on the matter?

[Bozo the kKklown]

15 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Here's a challenge to you: find me some quality scholarship that demonstrates the racist intent and legacy of the star spangled banner.  Perhaps something from a historian?  Something peer reviewed?  Something published before the past week?  If you do, I promise I'll read it.  I looked myself and didn't find anything, maybe you'll have better luck.

I would, and would even cite some but you dismissed any potential peer reviewed scholarship in your prior post about someone wanting to "carve out a fiefdom in their African American studies department," so whats the point when you don't care for the information anyway?

Edited September 2, 2016 by BenningRoadSkin

[grego]

27 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Regardless, the attempts to redefine the semiotics of the anthem as racist are, frankly, stupid and distracting.  Has anyone ventured into the name change debate before?

 

i feel the same. lots of similarities in terms of the difficulty of discourse. 

[SkinsHokieFan]

Does context matter? Especially context today.

I never knew of the racist elements of the National Anthem until this week. I have never thought of it as racist my entire life.

Now I am supposed to? 

[Going Commando]

4 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I would, and would even cite some but you dismissed any potential peer reviewed scholarship in your prior post about someone wanting to "carve out a fiefdom in their African American studies department," so whats the point when you don't care for the information anyway?

 

Do you have an article from an AA studies professor?  If so, I'll give it a fair chance and read it.

[DogofWar1]

Proposed solution.

John Legend rewrites the 3rd stanza.

Congress adopts it as the new National Anthem (by Francis Scott Key with 3rd Stanza by John Legend).

No one sings that stanza anyway, EXCEPT for the first time the whole anthem is performed, which would be during the Superbowl!  Performed by Legend himself.

From there on out we just keep using the first stanza primarily.

[Bozo the kKklown]

5 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

If so, I'll give it a fair chance and read it.

You wont, so why bother.

Here is a better challenge, look it up yourself and prove us all wrong like you want.

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

42 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

you should research why it was racist and then think again.

It was deeper than just the time period.

Of course its stupid and distracting. Having to re-analyze something you thought was one way your entire life is a bit tiring.

 

A lot of American history is like that, and a lot of people hate that whole thinking again stuff.

Benning, there is dirt under the rug of every nation or race from the beginning of time. America didnt invent slavery. You seem entrenched in your thinking. Are you willing to re-analyze what you think to be true or mortally right? 

[mcsluggo]

i think we should all be able to agree that EVERYONE (or at least over 99%) from the United States would look uncomfortably race-intolerant by today's standards...   and i doubt that people even ever used the word "racist", much less agreed with whatever todays generally accepted standards for racism.   Racism was so deeply ingrained, that most of it simply wasn't noticed, much less debated.  

the ****ing debate of the day was should black people be viewed as so completely non-human that white people should be able to own them-- putting black people equivalent to a dog or a horse.   if you didn't believe in slavery... you clearly defined as race tolerant for the day.   period.    But how many of those race tolerant people would welcome a black son-in law, or even have the very idea cross their mind as the realm of possibility?  or how many would want a black man as their lawyer, or their law partner, or their sheriff?   or whatever normal human interaction that we take as a given now.   maybe 1 in a thousand?   Thank god that there are different standards now, but don't pretend that things were not completely different then.... it cheapens the daily struggles that people went through then.   

[Going Commando]

7 minutes ago, SkinsHokieFan said:

Does context matter? Especially context today.

I never knew of the racist elements of the National Anthem until this week. I have never thought of it as racist my entire life.

Now I am supposed to? 

 

I found this interesting article from the NYTimes from 2014 about the anthem.  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/arts/music/the-star-spangled-banner-has-changed-a-lot-in-200-years.html?_r=1

The basic premise is that the SSB has been adapted to the cause of many different things since the birth of the country, and that it has operated as a sort of metaphor for the growth of the country itself.  For instance, it was used as a defense of John Adams during his administration and then later as a defense of the French Revolution.  The article mentions that it was used in the North during the Civil War as an abolitionist anthem, and then during prohibition it fell out of favor because of its origins as a fraternal song in the style of Anacreon, an ancient Greek poet famous for his odes to drinking.  Then in the last 40 to 50 years it's morphed into a song that great artists use to express their patriotism, and sort of put their own take on America.

So now I guess it's fitting that in the age of the SJW, we're going to have to go through a period of revisionism where we fight over redefining the anthem as racist.  It's frustrating to me because 1.) I think it's wrong and sourced in bad scholarship as well as a misguided impulse to sanitize history, and 2.) because I'm a Democrat and this is a bad hill to die on.  It's so alienating to a vast majority of people and it makes Donald Trump look right about the overreach of PC culture.  There is also a cry wolf effect from liberals calling everything racist to worry about.

[DogofWar1]

Please provide the source.

We need more sources cited in these threads.

Some things I won't cite because I've already cited them on the board a couple times ( for example, I'm fairly certain I've linked to that study on AA interview callbacks a couple times), but the first time something pops up, getting a source is good.

[mcsluggo]

11 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

You wont, so why bother.

Here is a better challenge, look it up yourself and prove us all wrong like you want.

 

that is a pretty weak answer.  

"i believe "x", therefore i expect you to go find the best arguments for "x" for me, and if you don't then you are dismissing my arguments"

really???