Black National Anthem - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: Black National Anthem (/Thread-Black-National-Anthem) |
RE: Black National Anthem - masonbengals fan - 07-04-2020 (07-04-2020, 12:49 PM)Benton Wrote: Having pride and recognition in your heritage is part of what makes this country great. At the same time, I think that comes secondary to the national identity. RE: Black National Anthem - fredtoast - 07-04-2020 (07-04-2020, 12:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This kind of ganging up condescension is exactly why the new rules are going to be implemented. No it isn't. It was because of comments like this. (07-04-2020, 12:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Don’t bother responding at all. Just cut this kind of junior high crap out. RE: Black National Anthem - Millhouse - 07-04-2020 (07-04-2020, 01:02 AM)samhain Wrote: People should do whatever they feel morally obligated to do. That said, I don't really get depriving yourself of something you enjoy over politics. The league definitely does not care. They're at a fork in the road where they have to choose who to piss off. They would be damaged immensely if they allowed themselves to be perceived as the league that's anti-brutality protest. They already know that they can survive pissing off the far right, as they did it in 17 and still make money hand over fist. Yeah it's kind of like Nike. I've liked their shoes, shirts, and other things over the decades. But I won't stop buying them because they decided NOT to put the Betsy Ross American flag on a special release shoe last year because of that commie* who told them they shouldn't because it is 'offensive' (oh boo hoo hoo). * commie is referring to the great kneeling patriot Kaepernick who wore PRO-Fidel Castro shirts. RE: Black National Anthem - Dill - 07-04-2020 (07-04-2020, 09:13 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: In the years prior to that dispute and ensuing war, a great many slaves fled their owners and plantations. Where did those people flee to? They didn't run to Mexico. They didn't travel West and claim their own territory to form their own Nation. They didn't take boats back to Africa, where their own people sold them down river into slavery in the first place. No, they fled to America, land of the free, home of the brave. A place where we live as "One Nation, indivisible". Just a quick addition to some of Bpat's points--clearly we weren't living as "one nation, indivisible" during the Civil War. Not Canada, not Mexico, but America, land of the free, was "home of the slaves" in North America until 1865. And then home of racial apartheid for another hundred years. Texas seceded from Mexico, the destination of some 30% of runaway slaves, precisely because Mexico outlawed slavery. And it was added to the Union in part to increase the number of slave state senators in Congress. Since the founding there has been an argument about what this nation was "principled upon." The author of our national anthem, Francis Scott Key, was a slave holder and ardent defender of "our peculiar institution" as he called slavery. Some people (nowdays you'd call them "liberals") began embracing the "melting pot" ideal in the last quarter of the 19th century. It's from that time that political cartoons and illustrations began circulating with an "inclusive" message. They only finally won this battle in the 1960s, or at least succeeded in getting a majority to agree that THAT was the principle upon which the US was founded, part of what made the US "exceptional." Now people speak as if racial inclusion was always the goal at the Founding. Every step of the way, advocates of civil rights and equality have been "divisive" only because there were people who opposed civil rights and equality. The latest round of civil rights protest has arisen because a sufficient number of people agrees that we are in fact not "one nation, indivisible" when it comes to police protection, even if we are in anthems, pledges and patriotic paintings. We need to consider closely why they should be suddenly cast as divisive in current debates, and most visibly by a president sliding downward in the polls. RE: Black National Anthem - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 07-04-2020 (07-04-2020, 01:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it isn't. I can't tell you how epic it is that you responded to that post. :andy: RE: Black National Anthem - Dill - 07-04-2020 (07-04-2020, 12:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This kind of ganging up condescension is exactly why the new rules are going to be implemented. While I don’t agree with OP’s point there are people actually debating this issue in a serious manner. Your condescending mocking of that position does absolutely nothing to contribute to the conversation in a positive manner. All done while nudging your buddy and laughing at the “others”. Parody has always been a part of political debate. And a "serious" one. So I'm not afraid to "admit" that I enjoy that genre of response. With it, one can highlight the extremism of a position by pretending to adopt it, without a long explanation/argument. It has never been excluded from "civil discourse" in the past, as personal attack has been for over two millenia. This is just a guy constantly flagged for direct, egregious personal attack--serious "junior high crap"--on the lookout for "condescension" in hopes of leveraging that into some kind of equivalent. If the moderators ban blatant personal attacks, which can be discerned pretty easily, discussion will flourish. If they ban "condescension," a label people can apply to most any poster who disagrees with them, as you do, then discussion will wither. I don't call people out, tell them to do as I say, then tell them not to respond. If you dispute the above or otherwise have more to say, then I'll be happy to respond, but not on this thread. Take it to the one recently started by Bengalholic, so people on this one can continue discussing the Black National Anthem. I won't respond to this topic anymore here. I urge others to follow suit; don' let yet another thread fall a series of sniping one liners off the topic. RE: Black National Anthem - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 07-04-2020 (07-04-2020, 01:51 PM)Dill Wrote: Parody has always been a part of political debate. And a "serious" one. So I'm not afraid to "admit" that I enjoy that genre of response. With it, one can highlight the extremism of a position by pretending to adopt it, without a long explanation/argument. Couldn't resist could you? You always have a superficial excuse for why what you do is fine but what others do is not. It's so predictable I called it in the post you responded to. The only person you're convincing is yourself. You consistently join in on group condescension of posts you feel unworthy of consideration. Maybe you, and the others who also participate, find some kind of solace in your gestalt clique? I don't know. What I do know is that I'm far from the only person who notices it, is sick of it and would ask that you kindly cease. RE: Black National Anthem - SunsetBengal - 07-04-2020 (07-04-2020, 11:30 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is actually incorrect. Fugitive slaves absolutely went to Spanish territories and Canada (an estimated 30% of escaped slaves in the 19th century went to Canada) as slavery was outlawed there. We annexed Florida from the Spanish after a war partially because it was where many slaves ran to. Many also did go to Africa as well. Sierra Leone's capital, Freetown, was one of those destinations. Thank you for the insight. I usually learn a little something from your postings. As long as we're on the topic of slavery and history, I did a little looking around and found this. Quote:‘Africa’s Role in the Slave Trade Has Been Deliberately Forgotten… They Created a Myth That We Were Innocent,’ African Historian Says RE: Black National Anthem - BmorePat87 - 07-05-2020 (07-04-2020, 03:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Thank you for the insight. I usually learn a little something from your postings. As long as we're on the topic of slavery and history, I did a little looking around and found this. Yea, slavery has existed throughout all of recorded human history. Nearly every region has struggled with it at some point in time. I would advise against using unreliable sources like Caldron Pool, however, if you are trying to learn more about history. For example, the quote from Thomas Sowell attempts to downplay the impact of the transatlantic slave trade and suggest that white Christians had it worse, but he's referring to a very specific figure: slaves imported into only the 13 colonies prior to 1776 versus a North African slave trade that existed hundreds of years prior. The transatlantic slave trade resulted in the largest forced population shift in all of human history: 10-13m African slaves taken to the Americas. It's estimated that maybe 500,000 to 1,500,000 white Christians were enslaved by North Africans in a 400 year period. It is estimated that there were up to a million more African slaves that died during the transportation to the US than there were white Christian slaves enslaved period. The claims made later are questionable as well. Attempting to portray abolition as a uniquely Christian invention is wrong. For one, abolishing slavery was not first done by Christians. Second, you won't find many historians treating European Christians as a monolith because they were not. Third, the transatlantic slave trade was a European invention, so it's weird to praise European Christians for getting rid of the terrible system they developed without properly giving them any of the blame. Further review of Caldron Pool reveals it to be a far right, Christian propaganda website that deals in pseudoscience and falsehoods, so I can see why the author wrote that, but there's far too many things taken wildly out of context or outright falsified to take it seriously. RE: Black National Anthem - SunsetBengal - 07-05-2020 (07-05-2020, 02:39 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, slavery has existed throughout all of recorded human history. Nearly every region has struggled with it at some point in time. So, we should reject and refute an article stocked with direct quotes from what many would consider to be reliable sources? One is a historian, author, and former Mayor of Ghana, one quote was cited from a Surgeon on a slave ship, another from a Nigerian who is a Professor of African Studies, one from an actual person who was held in slavery, another from an Assistant Professor of Ethnic Studies, one from a Nigerian author that was part of an essay posted in the Wall Street Journal, African-American economist and Social Theorist Thomas Sowell. and even a citation from The Washington Post? I completely understand the need to debunk disinformation and items falsely portrayed as factual. However, this particular piece appears to be legitimately resourced and written to shed light upon historical activities based on the opinions and accounts of people who have expanded knowledge of, and or actual participation in the actual slave trade process. RE: Black National Anthem - BmorePat87 - 07-05-2020 (07-05-2020, 08:40 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, we should reject and refute an article stocked with direct quotes from what many would consider to be reliable sources? One is a historian, author, and former Mayor of Ghana, one quote was cited from a Surgeon on a slave ship, another from a Nigerian who is a Professor of African Studies, one from an actual person who was held in slavery, another from an Assistant Professor of Ethnic Studies, one from a Nigerian author that was part of an essay posted in the Wall Street Journal, African-American economist and Social Theorist Thomas Sowell. and even a citation from The Washington Post? Citations from legitimate sources unrelated to the author's bogus claim do not inherently make the author's bogus claim legitimate. RE: Black National Anthem - fredtoast - 07-05-2020 The fact that the slaves come from Africa means as much as the fact that all our cocaine comes from South America I don't see anyone saying cocaine addicts in America are not to blame for their problem and instead it is all the fault of South America. RE: Black National Anthem - bfine32 - 07-05-2020 (07-05-2020, 10:57 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The fact that the slaves come from Africa means as much as the fact that all our cocaine comes from South America What? I've seen lots of folks blaming our drug problems on source countries. RE: Black National Anthem - bengaloo - 07-05-2020 (07-04-2020, 12:37 PM)Dill Wrote: Sad that protests demanding equal and just treatment for blacks are "pushing blacks away." It will register in the election results big time. Polls are totally worthless. Democrats want mail in voting for a reason. I think people, in particular black people are starting to look at who runs their communities and turning off the media narrative. The cop who killed George was a democrat, as was the police chief, as was the mayor, and the city counsel, the congress, senate, etc. I mean, that cop had over 15 complaints of abuse of force. It wasnt Orange Man who allowed him to stay a cop, it was a bunch of democrats. And then those same democrat leaders allowed protesters, many of which were a bunch of college age white liberals, burn their neighborhoods down and destroy businesses. Now they want to defund the police lol. This is a total clown show for democrats right now. Its really an absolute embarrassment for these elected officials, and this is backfiring on them ten fold, as it should. And Joe Biden? I mean he could be a stand up comedy act, except he's not trying to be. Wtf lol???!! Maybe down the road it will work itself out, but as it stands now, the Democrat party looks like its being run by a bunch of angry children. Its really an embarrassment. Yeah its going to show up when the real elections happen. No doubt in my mind. RE: Black National Anthem - Dill - 07-05-2020 (07-05-2020, 08:40 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, we should reject and refute an article stocked with direct quotes from what many would consider to be reliable sources? One is a historian, author, and former Mayor of Ghana, one quote was cited from a Surgeon on a slave ship, another from a Nigerian who is a Professor of African Studies, one from an actual person who was held in slavery, another from an Assistant Professor of Ethnic Studies, one from a Nigerian author that was part of an essay posted in the Wall Street Journal, African-American economist and Social Theorist Thomas Sowell. and even a citation from The Washington Post? These are excellent questions, and the right ones, I think. We ought to also pay attention to how some of these quotes were originally used and then how they are deployed in your article, and to what purpose, in contemporary US debates, and what those debates are really about. Regarding those debates, I think there is an effort by some scholars to make Americans more aware of the legacy of slavery, of the work that went into building US wealth without compensation, and the lasting international effects of that institution over 200 years as some Americans have tried to integrate blacks as equal citizens and others have tried to block this. This has been recently complicated by a demand for "reparations," setting off a round of questions about who owes what to whom, and how/whether that could ever be determined. People who currently compose "the other side" in these debates cast it as a kind of blame game, claiming whites are blamed for slavery as if it were alone their creation and responsibility. US whites may indeed feel "blamed," though most have never owned slaves. Hence the market for articles "proving" what no one has ever doubted, that slavery has existed everywhere from the beginning of human societies. Africans "sold their own," and the like. Some don't stop at "white folks are only as bad as everyone else," but go on to claim a special role for "whites" in ending slavery, an extra effort to manage any charge of guilt. What I find remarkable about the above article is how some of the sources are used in it. Equiano, for example, a former slave who published his autobiography in 1789 THE INTERESTING NARRATIVE OF THE LIFE OF OLAUDAH EQUIANO, OR GUSTAVUS VASSA, THE AFRICAN. WRITTEN BY HIMSELF (1789). https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15399/15399-h/15399-h.htm. This was published in part for its help UK debates over the slave trade. It was largely forgotten for almost 200 years, then "rediscovered" by US scholars studying the history of slavery. There has been some controversy over whether O was actaully born in Africa, but most accept his compelling account as authentic, if it if was cribbed from other slave accounts (I don't believe it was, but do want to mention the controversy). For present purposes, I'll mention Chapter II, in which he describes his capture in Africa as a child, by other Africans, and first held as a well-treated African slave by an African family, then sold to Europeans and eventually brought to Virginia. This is the part that might interest you, as it contrasts the institution of African slavery with that of British/American, in an economy based upon capitalism. O goes from being treated like a family member to being a piece of stock, a commodity chained and stacked below deck, in ship where every cubic foot is subject to a cost benefit analysis. (For those who love military history, check the naval engagement between British and French ships in Chapter IV--EXCELLENT description; O was a powder monkey on the HMS Namur.) It is odd to deploy this work in support of arguments that slavery has "existed everywhere in all ages" when its primary interest for scholars has been precisely its picture of the difference between the Atlantic slave trade and others kinds. The assistant professor of Ethnic Studies, Tony Hazard, is most noted for his work on "anti-racism," how that emerged in the US and played a role in US politics and foreign policy, as "liberals" began expunging racist terms and evaluations and language from government policy, setting off a backlash from social conservatives in the '40s and '50s. Citing his mention of African slavery in a TED talk conveys the impression that was the point of the talk, when if fact it was only a passing mention of what every historian already knows. Hazard's goal was to help non-historians understand how the European market for slaves altered African societies, making some suddenly economically dependent upon slavery for their livelihood, forcing neighbors to enter the slave trade and war for slaves to get weapons to defend themselves, depleting their own countries of manpower and destabilizing their economies anew when they collapsed after the trade was outlawed. Like O., his work contrasts the difference between slave trade practiced under capitalism, and other varieties which have existed. Duke, the Nigerian politician, is directly participating in African (Nigerian) debates about the legacy of the slave trade. He doesn't want contemporary Nigerians blaming Europeans for political dysfunction in Nigeria today. Same for the Ghanese historian Amarteifio and his claim Africans' role in the slave trade may be "deliberately forgotten" there, but is that a claim about the US? Sowell is a black economist who has for decades to support conservative economic policies; I do not disrespect his work, but I do say it is often slanted towards winning culture war debates with "the Left." So my complaint about the article is not that "this guy is no expert" or "that fact is wrong," but its slant, its selection of information to feed the impression that somewhere people are arguing that "Whites are all to blame," while the "truth" is that Africans were no angels and white Christians turn out to be anti-slavery heroes. ("9 milion in Africa still in bondage"! "It took Christianity" ) RE: Black National Anthem - CJD - 07-05-2020 I have a very complicated relationship with national pride... On the one hand, taking pride in a community you are a part of is important. It makes you work towards improving it and it makes you want the best for it. It helps you relate to others and build bonds with others that might not otherwise have been built. I think having pride in something that is associated with hardship is incredibly important, as it further strengthens those bonds and keeps those hardships in the conscious memory of those people and, to a certain extent, the whole world. But the other side of that coin is so ugly. Nationalism and superiority complexes halt meaningful conversation and impede things that actively make your country better, like immigration. Especially a country like America that was literally built around diversity and immigration. It also assumes a single national identity, with that identity almost always implicitly tied to White, European and/or Christian roots. You could see that ugly side of the coin with Colin's protest. People were so blinded by their national pride that they couldn't even fathom listening to what he had to say. People thought he was being so disrespectful that, somehow, his real and meaningful point of protest was completely shrouded to the point that I've actually had conversations with conservatives who thought his protest was ABOUT our military. Like, not that they felt it was disrespectful towards our military. They thought his intention was to protest the military. You could see that ugly side of the coin when, in protest of the police budget increasing in Cincinnati despite the brutality that peaceful protesters experienced at their hands, American flags were burned and people were upset not about the brutality but the flags being burned. You could see that ugly side of the coin when Trump gave a speech about how we must stop the people desecrating some American statues when he was AT THE SITE of one of America's greatest historical acts of desecration even going so far as to, at the absolute pinnacle of irony, state that Mount Rushmore will never be desecrated. And now we're seeing it in the outrage surrounding the NFL playing an anthem intended to show black people that they stand with them in their fight against injustice. People seem to think singing a song that acknowledges black people is a form of division, for whatever reason (it sounds like the same basic argument behind supporting All Lives Matter as opposed to Black Lives Matter, which is incredibly flawed). Now, I don't have an in depth understanding of the black national anthem, but when I first heard it, at a black church that my wife and friends took me to, it was explained to me as a unifying song in a time that black Americans did not feel the actual national anthem was unifying at all. They said it's a song about remembering the past but pushing forward for the future. They said it is a song of solidarity for a truly united America, and they wished it would be adopted officially (just like they wish that Juneteenth would be adopted as a national holiday). The lyrics themselves are beautiful. I'm honestly pretty disappointed they're only playing it for 1 week. It should be played all season, in my opinion. RE: Black National Anthem - Trademark - 07-05-2020 I watch sports for sports not to have political agendas shoved in my face. Can’t believe there’s so many people defending this, I bet you all would bow down to blacks and kiss their shoes too wouldn’t you? I love every race don’t get me wrong, this is one nation under God! The NFL needs to stay out of politics, playing the black national anthem is segregation 101....The NBA is getting super political too. Honestly might be done with sports if this keeps up RE: Black National Anthem - Dill - 07-05-2020 (07-05-2020, 12:06 PM)bengaloo Wrote: It will register in the election results big time. Polls are totally worthless. Democrats want mail in voting for a reason. Well save this post. If your prediction turns out to be right then you have loads of cred from me. But "Mail in voting"? What?? Meantime, though, I just want to mention that the "Democrat" cop was protected for years not by a Democrat mayor and police chief but by a very pro-Trump union. I have not seen lots of evidence the rioters were "college-age white liberals." The riots were in "their" part of Minneapolis? Their businesses? I have seen a lot of black people protesting police violence. Is that the minority? RE: Black National Anthem - Dill - 07-05-2020 (07-05-2020, 01:20 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I have a very complicated relationship with national pride... Such a thoughtful 4th of July post. Double rep for the C-Dawg. RE: Black National Anthem - Dill - 07-05-2020 (07-05-2020, 01:23 PM)Trademark Wrote: I watch sports for sports not to have political agendas shoved in my face. Can’t believe there’s so many people defending this, I bet you all would bow down to blacks and kiss their shoes too wouldn’t you? I love every race don’t get me wrong, this is one nation under God! The NFL needs to stay out of politics, playing the black national anthem is segregation 101....The NBA is getting super political too. Honestly might be done with sports if this keeps up Sounds like "the blacks" are forcing their stuff on us again. Can they force us to grant equal treatment under the law, though? Do we have to bow down to them in everything? |