Standing during the Pledge or National Anthem

[No Excuses]

4 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

After Democrat Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights bill, and lynching law for over 20 years.

 

And then he signed the most comprehensive civil rights act and voting rights act in the history of this nation. And the liberal Democrats officially signaled to the bigots and racists in their party to take a hike. And all the rural and southern confederate Dems took their racism from the Democratic Party and found a nice, comfortable home in the Republican Party.

The modern Republican Party could learn a thing or two from LBJ on changing and taking principled stands, rejecting racists and bigots at the cost of losing their votes. But alas, I doubt that happens. Go Trump!

Edited August 30, 2016 by No Excuses

[Popeman38]

I just love it when you get both parties lobbing "Nu-uh, YOU'RE the racists!" insults at each other. Really accomplishes moving a debate along and promoting healthy dialogue. Congrats, you have accomplished both of their stated goals: to remain in power at any cost.

[Rskins06]

3 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

And then he signed the most comprehensive civil rights act and voting rights act in the history of this nation. And the liberal Democrats officially signaled to the bigots and racists in their party to take a hike. And all the rural and southern confederate Dems took their racism from the Democratic Party and found a nice, comfortable home in the Republican Party.

The modern Republican Party could learn a thing or two from LBJ on changing and taking principled stands, rejecting racists and bigots at the cost of losing their votes. But alas, I doubt that happens. Go Trump!

but didn’t all the old segregationist senators leave the Democratic party and become Republicans after 1964? No, just one did: Strom Thurmond. The rest remained in the Democratic party — including former Klansman Robert Byrd, who became president pro tempore of the Senate.

Thought you may have missed this part of my response.  Your statement is factually incorrect.   Also, you missed the part of the ONLY Democrat to switch to Republican was Strom Thurmond, who, later went back to the Democratic Party.

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Good Lord, anti-black racism was the paradigm of the US at the beginning of the 19th century.  It'd be easier to list the four white people who weren't racist by the norms of today than the ones who were.  Nevertheless, attempting to redefine the semiotics of the national anthem as racist is not a good tack.  I hope that people aren't actually trying to do that.

and?

This country was founded on it, made money off it, and still will not confront any of that. Will not even give an apology. So if you are confused by that, you should probably look into why you are confused as opposed to shouting me down for answering your question.

 

1 hour ago, Popeman38 said:

Define a lot. Because if 5%* of whites feel this way, the number is big, but it isn't "a lot" by any stretch. A lot needs to be a majority, and I just don't think the majority of whites feel that Kap is assaulting their whiteness.

It exists though, and there is no disputing we, as a country, have many miles to go. 

* random number, not my number.

A lot needs to be significant number, hence why I did not say majority. Lets go with 5% for your sake. 5% is 9.85 million white Americans. Thats a lot.

And for the record, its way more than 5% of white Americans.

 

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Well the constitution was written by a majority of racists so I guess you want to throw that out also?  Hell, the country was founded by mostly racist so I guess we should just burn it all to the ground.

and in that, they did not offer equal voting rights, and outlaw slavery. Thankfully, the constitution can be amended. #dobetter

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Who exactly have you been talking to?  Because most of what I have seen/heard/read doesn't even come close to this. 

Ive seen it in both the threads about Kaepernick. I have been clear about that.

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Now there is something I can get behind.  Though I will note there is a lot of people calling for action on this.  It's just the crooked politicians getting in the way. 

I am happy about that. Ironically, a lot of people have been fighting to do something about Chicago, yet crooked politicians get in the way, yet I have read on here many times "What will Kaepernick (or any black person who is protesting) do about Chicago?"

I dont know if you have or have not.

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

But what I have noticed is that the loudest voices against Kapernick are white Americans, including the usual "he should find another country," or "this country has afforded him x,y,z." Many of them are also the ones who like to drop racial slurs against him as well, and those who are protesting for this country to do more for their people.

 

 

15 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

Ive seen it in both the threads about Kaepernick. I have been clear about that.

 

 

Please quote where in both threads you have seen instances of what you said before.  I even went back and quoted what you said to help.  I haven't seen anyone drop racial slurs.  And remember it can only be white people that you quote since that is who you said was saying it.  And I'm sure you are 100% positive about the racial identity of everyone in here that posted what you are saying they said.

 

[DogofWar1]

42 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

http://blackquillandink.com/?p=6082

If you tell a lie long enough, people will believe you.

Really?  Someone should have told Ken Mehlman before he apologized for it in 2005.

[Predicto]

35 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

but didn’t all the old segregationist senators leave the Democratic party and become Republicans after 1964? No, just one did: Strom Thurmond. The rest remained in the Democratic party — including former Klansman Robert Byrd, who became president pro tempore of the Senate.

Thought you may have missed this part of my response.  Your statement is factually incorrect.   Also, you missed the part of the ONLY Democrat to switch to Republican was Strom Thurmond, who, later went back to the Democratic Party.

 

The Democratic political machines of the old South didn't die overnight.  It took a couple of decades.  When the Civil Rights changes began, most of those conservative Dixiecrat Senators straddled the line for a while because all of their political connections were in the local Democratic Party, and without them, their political career would be over.  When those Dixiecrats got old and retired, they were immediately replaced by Republicans who stood for the exact same things that the Dixiecrats had stood for.  

Ever notice that in 1960, it was Southern Democrat conservatives fighting to put the Dixie flag on the state capitals - by 2000, it was Southern Republican conservatives fighting to keep those Dixie flags flying?  Why do you think that is?  Educate yourself somewhere else than conserva-blogs.  Read about the Southern Strategy.  Read about Lee At-water.   The Dixiecrat of the 1960s became the GOP Southern Base Voter of the 1990s.    None of this is a secret.

You really are heavily invested in the myths of the conservative movement, aren't you?    

ps- you are wrong about Strom Thurmond - he did not return to the Democratic Party.  He died in office, as a proud Republican President Pro Tempore of the Senate.  And plenty of prominent segregationists did jump to the GOP - they just didn't happen to be US senators at the time.   Ever heard of Lester Maddux?   Ever heard of Jesse Helms?  Ever heard of Miles Godwin?   

 

 

Edited August 30, 2016 by Predicto

[No Excuses]

35 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

but didn’t all the old segregationist senators leave the Democratic party and become Republicans after 1964? No, just one did: Strom Thurmond. The rest remained in the Democratic party — including former Klansman Robert Byrd, who became president pro tempore of the Senate.

 

You can continue to ignore the politics of the 60s and the ties of Southern conservative ideology to racial segregation. But I'm going to try one last time to explain it to you.

If you want to examine segregationists on simple party labels, feel free to do so. Do you think the South was once liberal and was voting for liberal Democrats? The segregationists in the Democratic Party were pretty much all conservatives. There is nothing in their policies that resembles what the modern Democratic Party is, which is a left-wing liberal party. And the liberal Democrats knew what they had done in 1964, which was an end of their control of Southern politics. The coalition of southern conservative Democrats and liberal Democrats was effectively broken in 1964, although it had been on its way already. The South didn't vote for Democrats in national elections again until 1976, 1992 and 1996. And bleedout of conservative Democrats at the local and state level that gained steam in the 60s was pretty much done by the 90s.

To pretend that the modern Democratic Party resembles its counterparts in the 60s is flat out stupid. And I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you truly did not know this part of our history.

And plenty of Southern Democrats switched to the Republican Party. No idea where you get this factoid that it was only Storm Thurmond. Thurmond never came back to the Dems either so you are wrong on that too.

And Robert Byrd eventually came around to civil rights, openly renounced his racist past and did a decent amount of outreach to minorities, was even honored by the NAACP at his death. Do you have a problem with people who held racist views but eventually changed and apologized?

Anyways, this thread seems to be super OT so I'm going to step back. Enjoy your history lesson for the day.

Edited August 30, 2016 by No Excuses

[The Evil Genius]

Not to mention that Robert Byrd was one of the most outspoken backers on Civil Rights from about the mid 1980s. Solid proof that my fellow backwoods WV brethren can evolve. It just takes 60+ years of living.

[No Excuses]

3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Not to mention that Robert Byrd was one of the most outspoken backers on Civil Rights from about the mid 1980s. Solid proof that my fellow backwoods WV brethren can evolve. It just takes 60+ years of living.

 

The Trump-supporting GOP has this weird new obsession with Robert Byrd. The Robert Byrd from the 50's and 60's was a racist prick with horrible views. Eventually, like much of the nation, his views evolved and he gave up his past racist ideology and actively promoted civil rights.

Except, the latter part of his career is almost irrelevant to the Trumpet GOP people and they pretend like it never happened. They are effectively stuck on how he was in the 60's. I wonder why. Ignorant of history, or mad that he changed? 

[BornaSkinsFan83]

The NAACP when Robert Byrd passed:

http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-mourns-the-passing-of-u.s.-senator-robert-byrd/

 

NAACP MOURNS THE PASSING OF U.S. SENATOR ROBERT BYRD

June 29, 2010

Longest Serving Member of Congress Became a Champion for Civil Rights and Liberties

WASHINGTON, DC - The NAACP is saddened by the passing of United States Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd, the longest serving member of congress was first elected to the U.S. House from in 1952 and was elected Senator in 1958. Byrd passed away this morning at the age of 92.

"Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation," stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. "Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country.

"Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda, doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card. He stood with us on many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation," stated Hilary O. Shelton, Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy. "Senator Byrd was a master of the Senate Rules, and helped strategize passage of legislation that helped millions of Americans. He will be sorely missed."

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure there's anything more frustrating than trying to have a conversation with someone who actively ignores historical facts and context. Props to some of you all.

Edited August 30, 2016 by BornaSkinsFan83

[Popeman38]

And if social media was around during Senator Byrd's early days, he would have been disgraced and labeled a racist forever....

[Predicto]

20 minutes ago, BornaSkinsFan83 said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I'm not sure there's anything more frustrating than trying to have a conversation with someone who actively ignores historical facts and context. Props to some of you all.

 

I imagine that it's like trying to talk with a Japanese nationalist about the Rape of Nanking, or a Turkish nationalist about the Armenian Genocide.   Or twa about global climate change.  

 

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.  - Mark Twain

  

[tshile]

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

 Do you have a problem with people who held racist views but eventually changed and apologized?

 

 

I'm not getting involved in the rest of it for a few reasons, but yes I have a problem with that. I just don't think racism is something a person can... change and apologize for. Seems deeper than that to me.

But i'm probably out of my depth on that one too.

[TheGreatBuzz]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I'm not getting involved in the rest of it for a few reasons, but yes I have a problem with that. I just don't think racism is something a person can... change and apologize for. Seems deeper than that to me.

But i'm probably out of my depth on that one too.

Haven't you seen American History X?

[Popeman38]

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I'm not getting involved in the rest of it for a few reasons, but yes I have a problem with that. I just don't think racism is something a person can... change and apologize for. Seems deeper than that to me.

But i'm probably out of my depth on that one too.

?? So a kid raised in a sheltered environment who only knows racist ways can't get exposed to the real world and formulate their own world views and acknowledge their earlier ignorance?

Edited August 30, 2016 by Popeman38

[tshile]

16 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

?? So a kid raised in a sheltered environment who only knows racist ways can't get exposed to the real world and formulate their own world views and acknowledge their earlier ignorance?

I was speaking more from the context of Robert Byrd et al that was being discussed.

Sure, a kid raised in an environment that ventures out on their own can absolutely have such a change of heart. There are probably a ton of people that go through significant changes when transitioning from childhood to adulthood, and start to venture out on their own. Criminal tendencies, religion, politics, racism, sexism, or any number of things can change in different directions.

When a 30, 40, or 50 year old makes comments... no, there's something deeper going on there. That's just my view on it though.

Edited August 30, 2016 by tshile

[twa]

2 hours ago, boobiemiles said:

We have always owned businesses.

 

You seem conflicted on that matter.

[The Evil Genius]

It's not like there was pressure on Byrd to change coming from his state. He grew up in an area that was lucky to have more than a 5% black population in it. He also lived in an era (til maybe his late 50-early 60s) where the notion of 2nd class citizentry was still predominant in many's minds for non-whites (nationwide). 

I'd like to think that Byrd had his come to whatever moment and decided that he needed to evolve (even despite regrettably using poor language choices a few times during that new era of his life). Who knows though.

I do know that there was no need for him to change - or as least no pressure come from his home constituency.  Not like there would be today - where he would have probably been forced out by the red that have taken over WV politics.

Edited August 30, 2016 by The Evil Genius

[Gamebreaker]

5 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Good Lord, anti-black racism was the paradigm of the US at the beginning of the 19th century.  It'd be easier to list the four white people who weren't racist by the norms of today than the ones who were.  Nevertheless, attempting to redefine the semiotics of the national anthem as racist is not a good tack.  I hope that people aren't actually trying to do that.

Have you read the full anthem? Not the just the part that is sung? Because the full poem has a couple of lines that speak ill of the Black Americans who fought for the British to earn their freedom. 

[Gamebreaker]

5 hours ago, grego said:

'systemic', as in, the government?

not to get off topic, but how do we feel about school vouchers?

 

Systemic doesn't necessarily mean the government, but at times the government has engaged in it. 

And I think school vouchers have either been used before, or are still in use in some places, I haven't researched how it's turned out in those cases although I believe it would be better for the students, but still a disadvantage if the student's home environment isn't conducive to allowing the child to grow. 

[CRobi21]

17 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

Have you read the full anthem? Not the just the part that is sung? Because the full poem has a couple of lines that speak ill of the Black Americans who fought for the British to earn their freedom. 

Strange how this hasn't been brought up in this PC world we're living in.

I've said for a while now that Ray Charles "America, The Beautiful" should be our anthem.

[skinsmarydu]

In that case, I'll cast my vote for Kate Smith's "God Bless America"...my dad's favorite, and mine.

[DogofWar1]

On the one hand, I think we can separate the verses of the Star Spangled Banner on the basis of history.  Basically, we disown the other verses while more or less adopting the mainly used verse as the whole thing.

Simultaneously, I get why some might be perturbed, and frankly, it ties Kaep's protest together in a much neater bow than before.

[Gamebreaker]

6 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

On the one hand, I think we can separate the verses of the Star Spangled Banner on the basis of history.  Basically, we disown the other verses while more or less adopting the mainly used verse as the whole thing.

Simultaneously, I get why some might be perturbed, and frankly, it ties Kaep's protest together in a much neater bow than before.

I'd rather just get a new anthem than try to ignore what the anthem stood for when it was created. I agree with @STBonecrusher21 on Ray Charles' "America, The Beautiful"