Standing during the Pledge or National Anthem

[Gamebreaker]

3 minutes ago, Burgold said:

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

Yes, that does make sense and I appreciate you sharing your opinion regardless of length. My question to you is, since you admit America has changed and continues to change, wouldn't a more modern representation of America be a more appropriate choice? Why do we need to keep "The Star Spangled Banner"? There are other worthy potential choices that don't come from a time period where many Americans are ashamed of some of their ancestors beliefs and actions, others are offended by it, and we need to edit the content to fit our current social climate. 

 

22 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Can I ask how you educated yourself on the matter?

In the past week, like most people who've changed their opinion on The Star Spangled Banner. I am not too stubborn not to change my opinion once new information has been presented. Now when I heard it, I didn't just take it for face value. I sought to verify what I'd heard and found pages from The Overthrow of Colonial Slavery, 1776-1848 by Robin Blackburn and Alan Taylor's American Blacks in The War of 1812. These are two historians who verified what I heard. I'm sure most people didn't even do that much, but we all shouldn't be so entrenched in our beliefs and opinions that we can't analyze new information and change our view. If not, what is the purpose of us even discussing these topics? 

Initially, I thought Kaepernick should still stand for the anthem and choose to fight against police brutality through other means, like some who've commented in this thread. But after knowing more about the anthem, I have no problem with him doing both. The socks I take issue with, everything else is fine with me. 

[Zguy28]

14 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.

So, you're giving him a hard time about it, then when he says "Ok, send it my way and I'll give it a fair reading" you get dismissive. This seems either intentionally obtuse or just lazy. Weak.

[tshile]

21 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

You wont, so why bother.

This is the high point of internet debating.

Refusal to provide supporting evidence solely under the guise of 'You won't read it anyways'

 

[mcsluggo]

my uninformed opinion of the "stanza" that cited, with out any further reading, was that FS Key was writing about a battle. the song could be summarized: "F-you brits, america rocks!"  The american slaves that fought for the british were part of that battle, and on the other side.  therefore the slaves that fought for the brits  are part of the "F-you" part .... for fighting for the brits.     they were evil collaborators with the enemy.   

he probably took the slavery question as a given, and didn't even bother to consider that angle in his writing.   that was the time he lived in.    

 

i think people that try to equate todays thinking with 1812 mentalities demonstrate a TERRIBLE job of actually comprehending how awful slavery actually was,... and how the mentality so thoroughly and dismissively permeated the thinking of the time. 

Edited September 2, 2016 by mcsluggo

[Going Commando]

1 minute ago, Zguy28 said:

So, you're giving him a hard time about it, then when he says "Ok, send it my way and I'll give it a fair reading" you get dismissive. This seems either intentionally obtuse or just lazy. Weak.

 

Benning and I butt heads in the NBA thread every single time we interact.  I now know enough to know that's his way of saying he's done with the discussion and no longer cares enough to fight about the issue any more.  It's fine.  Actually welcome TBH because I don't really have the time for the endless back and forth and getting nowhere, but I get sucked into a debate every time anyway.

[mcsluggo]

9 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

Yes, that does make sense and I appreciate you sharing your opinion regardless of length. My question to you is, since you admit America has changed and continues to change, wouldn't a more modern representation of America be a more appropriate choice? Why do we need to keep "The Star Spangled Banner"? There are other worthy potential choices that don't come from a time period where many Americans are ashamed of some of their ancestors beliefs and actions, others are offended by it, and we need to edit the content to fit our current social climate. 

 

same with the flag?  the constitution?   the concept, story, discussion of the founding fathers?   the federalist papers?   the declaration of independence?   the declaration of Washington DC as teh capital.....

should we throw it all out, and pretend that the country was founded in 1992?

 

[Gamebreaker]

27 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

same with the flag?  the constitution?   the concept, story, discussion of the founding fathers?   the federalist papers?   the declaration of independence?   the declaration of Washington DC as teh capital.....

should we throw it all out, and pretend that the country was founded in 1992?

The flag, itself, isn't racist. It's not like it's depicting a lynching. The Constitution and DoI do not have racist statements or words included, so there is no need to make changes to those. Despite the men involved not meaning to include AAs in those laws, they are applied now and nothing about those words need to be changed to include people of color. That is a separate matter than material with racist elements included. 

Also, let's look at our currency. Harriett Tubman will be replacing Andrew Jackson on the $20 dollar bill. I was surprised so many people agreed with the move, and once more of Jackson's history became known more and more began wondering why he was ever put on the $20 in the first place. Change isn't always a bad thing. 

Edited September 2, 2016 by Gamebreaker

[Going Commando]

9 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

Now when I heard it, I didn't just take it for face value. I sought to verify what I'd heard and found pages from The Overthrow of Colonial Slavery, 1776-1848 by Robin Blackburn and Alan Taylor's American Blacks in The War of 1812. These are two historians who verified what I heard.

 

Thanks for answering me, I know that I am overbearing and am glad you engaged with me.  I am genuinely curious to read the scholarship on the racist legacy of the SSB.  Alan Taylor is an extremely impressive historian.  Are their articles with the relevant passages from those books online by any chance?

[thebluefood]

Obviously, it's someone's right to choose not to stand for the pledge or the Star-Spangled Banner, just as the ensuing backlash and counter-blacklash is everyone's right (so long as it doesn't conflict with anyone's personal safety).

Personally - I do stand for both and I will probably remove my hat, but I've gotten out of the habit of putting my hand over my heart during either. That's reserved for:

1.) A reciting of the Nicene Creed, the Apostle's Creed, or any other creed recognized by the Church Universal (they're pretty much it right now)

2.) A rendition of "L'Internationale"

While I don't agree with every single word in those creeds/songs (though the Billy Bragg version of the later comes very close), they speak to things that (at least right now) have my unwavering allegiance - my faith and the International Labor Movement (as I've come to understand them and their goals). I love this republic and I love it more than I love myself, but it does not receive my full, total, and unwavering allegiance. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

18 minutes ago, tshile said:

This is the high point of internet debating.

Refusal to provide supporting evidence solely under the guise of 'You won't read it anyways'

 

 

21 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

So, you're giving him a hard time about it, then when he says "Ok, send it my way and I'll give it a fair reading" you get dismissive. This seems either intentionally obtuse or just lazy. Weak.

This is the problem with many debates on here. You don't follow a conversation, you just jump in where you think the starting point is and respond from there.

 

He said his mind was made up several times and even dismissed any scholarly work that was written, so why should I waste my time? Instead of looking at that, you looked at my post and think I was the one being dismissive for no reason.

[Gamebreaker]

5 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Thanks for answering me, I know that I am overbearing and am glad you engaged with me.  I am genuinely curious to read the scholarship on the racist legacy of the SSB.  Alan Taylor is an extremely impressive historian.  Are their articles with the relevant passages from those books online by any chance?

https://books.google.com/books?id=hjyvCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA193#v=onepage&q&f=false

The above link is for Taylor, I think I saw quotes from Blackburn through one of the articles linked in here some pages back. 

[Burgold]

On my phone, so I won't quote. On the issue of replacing the SSB I think in a way we constantly do. Each generation comes up with its own anthems whether it be You're A Grand Old Flag, God Bless America, etc. 

I am in favor of keeping them all. There are songs that go out of fashioned and disappear. Replacing an official anthem officially is tough though. I'm not sure it's warranted given the song we actually sing. There's really no negative message in those words. Were complaining about the verses that society has already edited out. Is that white washing? Maybe. But the song doesn't seem to be in question as much as its background and the poem it was based on. 

[Zguy28]

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

This is the problem with many debates on here. You don't follow a conversation, you just jump in where you think the starting point is and respond from there.

 

He said his mind was made up several times and even dismissed any scholarly work that was written, so why should I waste my time? Instead of looking at that, you looked at my post and think I was the one being dismissive for no reason.

Au contraire. I read quite a bit of it. It made it look like you argue because you like to argue.

[Bozo the kKklown]

21 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

Au contraire. I read quite a bit of it. It made it look like you argue because you like to argue.

If you say so.

[Going Commando]

15 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

https://books.google.com/books?id=hjyvCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA193#v=onepage&q&f=false

The above link is for Taylor, I think I saw quotes from Blackburn through one of the articles linked in here some pages back. 

 

Good find, thanks for doing that.  I think it's important to note Taylor's not really arguing here that the anthem is racist.  He states that Key was racist in regarding America as "properly a white man's republic."  But he follows that by saying Key merely expressed the consensus of his time, so he doesn't really condemn Key.

Taylor also seems to say that the focus of that stanza was to make a dig at the British for using mercenaries and escaped slaves in their armies.  I'm not sure he would argue that stanza itself is racist, but rather that it expresses a broader anger and anxiety at the British for invading and using indians and runaway slaves in their military that was commonplace.  And in this passage, I think he's mostly using that stanza of the anthem as a jumping off point for his discussion of the racial and class politics of the war, and to introduce the history of the Colonial Marines.

Also Taylor doesn't make an argument that the usage of the anthem has been racist.  That would require a narrower focus on the history of the usage of the anthem itself.  Taylor is more broadly focused on how issues of race played out in the war with the service of runaway black slaves in the Royal Navy.

Anyway this looks like a good book.  Probably going to either check out the rest of the book this text is excerpted from, or maybe Taylor's The Internal Enemy.  In fact, I think might suggest one of them for the ES Book Club.

[RonArtest15]

This is an absolute joke.  Keep doing your thing, Kap.  You've already exposed and KEEP exposing those you're protesting against. 

 

Santa Clara: Police union may boycott 49ers games over Kaepernick

 

 

Edited September 3, 2016 by RonArtest15

[DM72]

Talk about being thinned skinned. If the Santa Clara police boycott over this, that's exactly what they are. So in other words, public safety really isn't all that important to them.

[Bang]

So the police have LITERALLY said "if we don't like what you say, MAYBE WE WON'T PROTECT YOU".

Holy ****.

How can anyone defend THAT?
Yeah, Kaepernick is the threat to America.
 

**** those pigs.

~Bang

[Springfield]

1 hour ago, RonArtest15 said:

This is an absolute joke.  Keep doing your thing, Kap.  You've already exposed and KEEP exposing those you're protesting against. 

 

Santa Clara: Police union may boycott 49ers games over Kaepernick

 

 

Yeah, that is absolutely unacceptable.

 

Agree with Kaep or not, the police NEED to serve and protect the citizens of those games.

 

I am certain that some officers will take the paycheck to work the games though.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Springfield

[Aireskoi]

I thought everyone loved a good protest?  

 

The Santa Clara Police Department is the lead police agency at Levi’s Stadium. During 49er games, around 70 officers volunteer to work and are paid as security personnel. Now it is unknown whether more than half of those officers will show up at the team's next game on Sept. 12.

"I'm already hearing it this week that next week on Monday Night Football, some officers are not going to work," said Frank Saunders, president of the Santa Clara Police Officers Association.

According to the union, about one-third of the officers who work during 49ers games are from other Bay Area law enforcement departments. If Santa Clara's police officers refuse to work, others officers might be hired. But, Saunders said, that may create a conflict with the city’s contract with the police union.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Santa-Clara-Police-Officers-Association-May-Boycott-Working-49ers-Games-392214541.html

[Bang]

ah, **** it.

 

swirling down the toilet. 

~Bang

Edited September 3, 2016 by Bang

[zoony]

41 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Yeah, that is absolutely unacceptable.

 

Agree with Kaep or not, the police NEED to serve and protect the citizens of those games.

 

I am certain that some officers will take the paycheck to work the games though.

I disagree. They have a right to protest too

 

we can think less of them, but they absolutely have the right not to show up

[Bang]

As volunteers they do. If they were on duty.. nope. 

As it is, they've decided that one man's expression of his feelings is hurtful enough to allow 75,000 other people to be put at risk.

"think less of them" is putting it very very nicely.

~Bang

[Springfield]

1 minute ago, zoony said:

I disagree. They have a right to protest too

 

we can think less of them, but they absolutely have the right not to show up

 

They do have a right to protest.

 

The difference to me is that with Kaep protests, he just pisses off white folks like you and me.  When th police protest, they may allow lives to be endangered if violence breaks out at the venue.  That is irresponsible to me.  I hold the police to a higher standard than some guy who gets paid to play a game.. Somebody has to be the bigger man here, otherwise it's a race to the bottom.

 

I highly doubt that the 49ers will have trouble hiring enough security for their games though.  There's a paycheck in it, and I would assume it's better than a standard check.

[zoony]

It's a private event that doesn't need to take place. They can just cancel it if they cannot arrange security. We aren't talking about the police refusing to show up at the airport etc, in which case I would agree with you