|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The only reason I responded to the statue tweet, wasn't even about the statue, it was about how some racist toolbag made an idiotic and ignorant point about protests in Baltimore that Danglars thought was a suitable way to introduce his argument.
I didn't think the absurdity of his argument on tearing down statues (in the most extreme cases) was erasing history was going to come back around. If for no other than the ridiculousness of reminding America about it's racist past or how it still sings a song that doesn't apply it's heralded freedom to Black Americans is the exact opposite of the erasing of history that virtually all of these statues execute in their presentation of historical figures/symbols.
|
I don’t think people ever said the statue celebrating the anthem was racist. Only that racism and slavery cannot be separated from the anthems history.
|
On January 17 2018 08:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 08:39 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 08:27 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 08:07 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:57 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 07:50 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:29 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 06:59 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Can you elaborate on how this "erases history"? The idea of changing or removing the anthem doesn't really seem to change anything. We've got everything written down. What is being lost? Removing statues is removing public reminders of our historical past. These ought to exist in public to center the present between past and future. Removing the visible reminders is a strike for relegating history to libraries only for people who decide to seek it out. I would say the same for any Spencer types that want to take out a public monument calling attention to Selma or the fugitive slave act or the dred Scott decision. As someone who got a whole degree in history, statues do not preserve history. They have never done that. They do distort history to favor the political views of the people who put up the statue. But they in no way preserve our history. Books, records and historians preserve our history and its accuracy. But if you want to fight for the views of the people who put up the confederate monuments, feel free. Ask for your money back. You should have learned that public displays help the national consciousness. That includes celebrating great men that weren’t saints through-and-through, and also points of national embarrassment that we should learn from in other ways. Maybe you learned but now choose to forget or not apply lessons from history in complicated figures that should lead to investigation and examination. If you think some conflicted figure gets a bad rap, go argue for an accompanying plaque instead of calling shit racist and moving on. I did learn all of that and it’s all written down in books. It is where they wrote down the last two verses to the national anthem. Not in the national consciousness, which would rather forget the history of slavery and oppression in our nation. Not in the statues erected by people wishing to rewrite the history of a war fought to preserve the enslavement of an entire race of people. Historians want to preserve an accurate retelling of history as it was, not as people wish to remember it. Bring down all the statues. The historians will write down why there were put up and why they were taken down. We will never forget them. Then I really wish you would apply those lessons. You keep dancing back and forth on stupid Americans that are cursed to whitewash racism, but it’s all great if you bury the past in libraries where it has to be sought out. You show a great disrespect for history and its memorialization in the public square. You protest against it, for sure, but I’m starting to realize you’ll never recognize this aspect of your character. I have no problem with memorializing history. I just don't fear the memorial being taken down or changed. Statues are great if put up for the right reasons. But we are not slaves to them once they are put up. We are not required to endure the flawed monuments of a previous generation that wished to return to the days of slavery and oppression. The preservation and accuracy of history does not require that. But if getting rid of those statues causes people to read more history books, bring me the hammer. On January 17 2018 08:09 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 08:01 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 07:54 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:32 Sermokala wrote:On January 17 2018 07:29 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 06:59 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Removing statues is removing public reminders of our historical past. These ought to exist in public to center the present between past and future. Removing the visible reminders is a strike for relegating history to libraries only for people who decide to seek it out. I would say the same for any Spencer types that want to take out a public monument calling attention to Selma or the fugitive slave act or the dred Scott decision. As someone who got a whole degree in history, statues do not preserve history. They have never done that. They do distort history to favor the political views of the people who put up the statue. But they in no way preserve our history. Books, records and historians preserve our history and its accuracy. But if you want to fight for the views of the people who put up the confederate monuments, feel free. I mean there are statues of MLK but if they get torn down and defaced that would be okay because they don't preserve history and shouldn't be protected. Clearly. Spray paint over Rosa Parks? Nothing to see here, just a bunch of kids, why was this up in the first place? Everybody knows there’s public libraries where we inter history! That’s the enlightened view! I hear MLK cheated on his wife, so clearly any statues of him or boulevards named after him or holidays honoring him are problematic on women’s rights. This is pretty ironic, because most people who talk about MLK bemoan how sanitized his history has become in service of making him palpable to whites uncomfortable with the realities of the civil rights movement. Most people I know would love it if MLK was celebrated for more than a couple lines in “I have a dream.” You would hamstring all attempts to even know the quick basics if all public monuments to him are subject to removal. You bemoan the ignorance, but advocate for a double helping of it. It’s sad. I taught history. It is the teacher standing next to the statue explaining the history to the kids, not the statue. All of the classes I taught did not require a statue to teach the basics. To be honest, preserving a historical figure's home is a better teaching tool than a statue. There are sections of the countries with no statues and they managed to learn US history. We will be fine. The movement is defacement and removal. I don’t care if you think you don’t have a problem with memorializing history, I have a problem with you actually seeing fit to remove them (not stand in the way of removing them). They ought to be preserved for what they are and reflected upon by young and old. Then when and if you’re inspired, go to the library or search online for the full story. Like my previous comparison, you don’t have to be Mao’s goons effacing the cultural past, to just stand by as its done anyways, content in your own innocence. I’m also in favor of teachers taking children to historical places about time including statues, graves, and historical buildings. You’re more at home with a teacher telling students where the statue used to stand, and the intricacies of the artistry from the past, than to actually stand next to the statue. Covered in spray paint. Unable to exist in history because of the puritanical present. Your argument is that all statues are sacrosanct and must be preserved regardless of the facts surrounded them or what they represent. But even you know that argument is bad. The reality is the confederate statues are going to come down some day and it will have no impact on our national history. But you want to cling to this argument because you cannot think of a better one. Or maybe you have not been provided with one. You attempts to moralize on the subject is puerile, like someone throwing a tantrum when they realizing they won't get their way or someone won't do what they want. I am unmoved by your faux outrage. But don't you see that it would be a weird whitewashing of history to see a bunch of statues everywhere except for the ones that people don't like anymore? Its always going to be in history that there were confederate statues and them going down will change absolutely nothing about them being there or what those people did. It just seems that people are protesting people pruning history to suit what they like with more pruning.
So does that mean that the people who put up the statues first get to decide for all time which people are memorialized in statue? Yea. You are right. This is a dispute about which people to canonize. It's always been about who should be canonized.
@Danglars
You are giving short shrift to Mao and his goons, Danglars. They needed to unite disparate peoples spread over massive distances. How to do it? Destroy divisive symbols of identitarian pasts and forge new symbols of a strong national identity. Think about what kinds of unifying public symbols we can erect to forge a new 21st American identity, free from the present divisive politics of difference.
|
On January 17 2018 10:14 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 10:11 Toadesstern wrote:On January 17 2018 10:04 zlefin wrote:On January 17 2018 09:58 Toadesstern wrote:On January 17 2018 09:40 zlefin wrote:
So, it's not a nazi one? It's not clear if you actually answered my question or not; it kinda looks like you didn't. please keep the answer clear. I intended the "There's obviously a point somewhere at which it just gets too extreme to keep something" to be your nazi-statue example. But that apparently wasn't clear, my bad. So no I wouldn't want to keep a nazi statue. But I'm not sure the statue about your national anthem is really on that level, hence me bringing up that munich example. Maybe I'm just not enough of a history buff to put it correctly into context but it strikes me as something I'd be fine with as long as you add a message to it. I completly agree that the tweet Danglars posted was garbage but I don't think it needs to be taken down. who was talking about taking down the anthem guy's statue? I don't recall anyone seriously discussing/advocating that; only the more general issue with confederate statues (aka the ones that were explicitly put up with racist motives/intent) well that's how the conversation started: >Danglars posted the tweet about the anthem statue >GH and others said it's a racist statue as well as the anthem >Danglars out of nowhere starts talking about why people would want to take it down (which yes, I agree was out of nowhere) but in the same post or somewhere around there goes on to say that he'd be fine with some kind of plaque on there instead >people argue that just a message like that would be too few. So yeah, Danglars made the jump to taking down that statue out of nowhere but if I'm not missing out on something the responses were still about that post Danglars made, no matter if it's out of nowhere or not. So that means the whole "no, a message wouldn't be enough" would be about it, no matter if people asked for the removal of the anthem statue or if Danglars made that up on the spot, no? the person I responded to seemed to be talking about the confederate statue issue (statues put up with racist intent), so that's what my statements were on; and i'm pretty danglars also made a point of seguing to it partially, but I try to ignore his nonsense, difficult as it is. the prior discussion on danglars' nonsense also brougth up the confederate issue, and people talked about it; or at least that's how it looked to me. a standard part of danglars (and others) nonsense is switching back and forth which of the issues they're talking about, to muddle the issue and let them claim cheap rhetorical points.
Just looked up where this started, this is the first time he mentions a plaque specifically if my ctrl+f magic doesn't lie to me, in response to a post from me:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=9704#194065
And I specifically answer questions from him on that specific statue. The very next post is about how this [taking down a statue] (still in reference to the same post, so arguably still in reference to that very same statue) is erasing history.
So yeah, when he started talking about taking down statues noone was suggesting that statues should be taken down (at least not that specific one). But this specific one was definitly the one that started the discussion wether a message on it to put it in context would be enough.
|
On January 17 2018 10:18 Plansix wrote:
I don’t think people ever said the statue celebrating the anthem was racist. Only that racism and slavery cannot be separated from the anthems history.
I'll say it (sorry to spoil the mood). You can't sing a song about freedom while keeping slaves (plenty in the penal system[overwhelmingly black and PoC] going back to the chain gangs following chattel slavery in the US) and it not be racist.
I get that people aren't signing it like a themesong to the KKK, but it doesn't mean it's symbolic significance of US hypocrisy and white supremacy isn't there because people think of it as a pep song for the country.
I'm taken to Fredrick Douglass speaking about the 4th of July:
+ Show Spoiler +Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold, that a nation's sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish, that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the "lame man leap as an hart."
But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common.-The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fa thers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrevocable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people! Fellow-citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!" To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme, would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world.
|
On January 17 2018 10:21 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 10:14 zlefin wrote:On January 17 2018 10:11 Toadesstern wrote:On January 17 2018 10:04 zlefin wrote:On January 17 2018 09:58 Toadesstern wrote:On January 17 2018 09:40 zlefin wrote:
So, it's not a nazi one? It's not clear if you actually answered my question or not; it kinda looks like you didn't. please keep the answer clear. I intended the "There's obviously a point somewhere at which it just gets too extreme to keep something" to be your nazi-statue example. But that apparently wasn't clear, my bad. So no I wouldn't want to keep a nazi statue. But I'm not sure the statue about your national anthem is really on that level, hence me bringing up that munich example. Maybe I'm just not enough of a history buff to put it correctly into context but it strikes me as something I'd be fine with as long as you add a message to it. I completly agree that the tweet Danglars posted was garbage but I don't think it needs to be taken down. who was talking about taking down the anthem guy's statue? I don't recall anyone seriously discussing/advocating that; only the more general issue with confederate statues (aka the ones that were explicitly put up with racist motives/intent) well that's how the conversation started: >Danglars posted the tweet about the anthem statue >GH and others said it's a racist statue as well as the anthem >Danglars out of nowhere starts talking about why people would want to take it down (which yes, I agree was out of nowhere) but in the same post or somewhere around there goes on to say that he'd be fine with some kind of plaque on there instead >people argue that just a message like that would be too few. So yeah, Danglars made the jump to taking down that statue out of nowhere but if I'm not missing out on something the responses were still about that post Danglars made, no matter if it's out of nowhere or not. So that means the whole "no, a message wouldn't be enough" would be about it, no matter if people asked for the removal of the anthem statue or if Danglars made that up on the spot, no? the person I responded to seemed to be talking about the confederate statue issue (statues put up with racist intent), so that's what my statements were on; and i'm pretty danglars also made a point of seguing to it partially, but I try to ignore his nonsense, difficult as it is. the prior discussion on danglars' nonsense also brougth up the confederate issue, and people talked about it; or at least that's how it looked to me. a standard part of danglars (and others) nonsense is switching back and forth which of the issues they're talking about, to muddle the issue and let them claim cheap rhetorical points. Just looked up where this started, this is the first time he mentions a plaque specifically if my ctrl+f magic doesn't lie to me, in response to a post from me: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=9704#194065And I specifically answer questions from him on that specific statue. The very next post is about how this [taking down a statue] (still in reference to the same post, so arguably still in reference to that very same statue) is erasing history. So yeah, when he started talking about taking down statues noone was suggesting that statues should be taken down. But this specific one was definitly the one that started the discussion wether a message on it to put it in context would be enough.
that may've been where dnaglars started the overall discussion; but it was not where I entered; and NOT what the person I responded to was talking about, and hence not what I was talking about. complicated discussions chains with related topics make for easy confusion 
|
On January 17 2018 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 10:18 Plansix wrote:
I don’t think people ever said the statue celebrating the anthem was racist. Only that racism and slavery cannot be separated from the anthems history. I'll say it (sorry to spoil the mood). You can't sing a song about freedom while keeping slaves (plenty in the penal system[overwhelmingly black and PoC] going back to the chain gangs following chattel slavery in the US) and it not be racist. I get that people aren't signing it like a themesong to the KKK, but it doesn't mean it's symbolic significance of US hypocrisy and white supremacy isn't there because people think of it as a pep song for the country.
Would you be fine with some kind of official statement that more or less gets rid of that part of the anthem? Like I said, we more or less had the same issue with ours and now we're only ever singing the 3rd verse.
Everyone knows that the first and second used to exist but it's acknowledged to be banned and not part of our anthem (anymore)
|
On January 17 2018 10:13 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 09:58 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 09:41 Leporello wrote:
I wish Danglars and the GOP were as concerned with 20th century history as they were with 18th century history. It's far more relevant to our country. A lot of America's greatest achievements and "superpower" came from that century, and those are the programs and traditions and alliances and ideals that are also currently being destroyed, as is reported on a near-daily basis.
But what we should talk about are statues.
This is like talking about kneeling NFL players. It's not the "subtext" that bothers me. It's that this is obviously a game you think you're playing. No one who actually gives a shit about American traditions, from the 20th or 18th century, is going to be more passionate about these fucking statues than any of the other ridiculous turn of precedents we're currently undergoing. But to even delve there, into these very real problems, to you would just be... I don't know... Trump-hate. Because if you care about 20th century America, which shapes what we are now, then hating Trump is at this point just a point of circumstance. Cause and effect.
But you're not a Trump supporter. And we're going to be told he is not a true Republican but the guy running in 2020 is. Play on, dude. This game is so old. I just don't know what you're doing, Danglars. Isn't it old? This is partisan bullshit and so old that it’s a cliche. The Democrats found political power in racializing every issue and proceeded to do so as much as they could. It wasn’t “right policy to address the problem” vs “wrong policy to address the problem.” No. Today it’s “the right way to frame the problem” and “the multiple racist ways to frame the problem.” Thus, identifying the problems in America, identifying their causes, and proposing solutions was handicapped. You’ve profited from it whether you realize it or not. It turns tough issues like the debt and budgetary priorities into emotional issues like “fight the racists” and “acknowledge your white privilege and believe as I do.” Along comes a blowhard, but he’s donated to both sides and he doesn’t play by the “please, Leporello, I’ll do anything you want just don’t call me a racist” game. He’s the fucking worst on so many dimensions, but he capitalized on a moment where the other side went too deep into “women and minorities are oppressed by whites in this country, and I’m the answer.” Identity politics is a cruel bitch. 21st century racialized politics is its brother. I’d like a return to rationality and maybe a little come-clean moment from the left in the wake of the 2016 election (It was Russia! Also, it was whitelash!), but we both can’t have what we want. What are you talking about racism? You're talking about it. Not me. Nothing in my post was about racism. When I'm talking about 20th century ideals, I'm talking about things like general welfare, social security, NATO, unions, labor rights. You, as was my point, are actually the one who wants to talk about the cultural issues, that often delve into race. And you're accusing me of racializing something? You post seems to say "Everything is racialized and it's the left's fault, so I have to talk about racism." Or something like that. I reject every premise of your post. The "liberals" didn't racialize everything, and I have never accused anyone in this thread of being a racist, ever. You should see my edit, btw. I tried to acquiesce, kind of realizing that this is just who you are, I don't share your bizarre values, etc. I never even mildly insinuated you're a racist. Do I ever even participate in those discussions? They tire the shit out of me. That was my whole point, and you just completely ignored it and act like I'm playing a race-card or something. I know I was rude, and I apologize for that. But I feel like you just... made my point instead of refuted it. Here we are talking about racism in a meaningless fashion and "the libs", instead of the destruction of the free press or something relevant. Play on.
You brought up 18th century traditions. You brought up my concern for 18th century history. Why would you think I have all this concern I was talking about the anthem having merit beyond a racist song/poem written by a racist man. That was literally the only topic I was talking about. And you say I’m being so old about this stuff and talking generally. What else to presume lacking your own input, but that racism recently and racism in the past is your game.
So you want to compare to 20th century traditions? And you’re coming up with “general welfare, social security, NATO, unions, labor rights.” as traditions of the 20th century that should be cared to my defense of traditions from the 18th? I’m no mind reader. Perhaps you better start over.
|
On January 17 2018 08:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 08:28 Mohdoo wrote:On January 17 2018 08:05 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:55 Mohdoo wrote:On January 17 2018 07:50 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:29 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 06:59 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On January 17 2018 06:36 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 06:18 Toadesstern wrote:
[quote]
Is the anthem racist? - Probably not in it's entirety but the part GH quoted seems... a bit problematic nowadays
Is the author racist? - If what P6 wrote in here about him is true then yeah.
Does either make you want to call for that statue to be removed? - Not really. Unless that specific problematic part is on there? You can always change your anthem a bit to be more up to date with the current times if need be. We got rid of two of our stanzas (no idea if that's the word) in the german one as well because of all that... you know, “Germany above all else in the World” which does sound kind of hitlerish Well, I’ll take “a bit problematic nowadays” over “racist” as it goes. I’m all for plaques saying what salient features of this and that stand out (perserverence in the cause for freedom). I’m very much against erasing history because human beings do great things and wrong things. It also sends the wrong message about how adults should respond to the depth of individuals. Can you elaborate on how this "erases history"? The idea of changing or removing the anthem doesn't really seem to change anything. We've got everything written down. What is being lost? Removing statues is removing public reminders of our historical past. These ought to exist in public to center the present between past and future. Removing the visible reminders is a strike for relegating history to libraries only for people who decide to seek it out. I would say the same for any Spencer types that want to take out a public monument calling attention to Selma or the fugitive slave act or the dred Scott decision. As someone who got a whole degree in history, statues do not preserve history. They have never done that. They do distort history to favor the political views of the people who put up the statue. But they in no way preserve our history. Books, records and historians preserve our history and its accuracy. But if you want to fight for the views of the people who put up the confederate monuments, feel free. Ask for your money back. You should have learned that public displays help the national consciousness. That includes celebrating great men that weren’t saints through-and-through, and also points of national embarrassment that we should learn from in other ways. Maybe you learned but now choose to forget or not apply lessons from history in complicated figures that should lead to investigation and examination. If you think some conflicted figure gets a bad rap, go argue for an accompanying plaque instead of calling shit racist and moving on. You have still not said why any of this is positive. What do we gain by celebrating these men? I’m gonna sounds trite here, but those who don’t remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Considering today’s public school system, national monuments are a very good thing. Now, am I correct in assuming “public consciousness” is not a good for you. IE public ignorance of its history isn’t so bad? I pity your history programs. I really do. Mohdoo vs the Statue of Liberty I suppose. You’ve given me a great many reasons to believe you wouldn’t oppose the destruction or vandalizing of that one too. You've still yet to make an effective argument. What history are you saying people are being prevented from repeating from this statue existing? Overall, your entire argument is an appeal to tradition. You haven't actually laid out any advantages of these statues or showed why they prevent mistakes being made again. You are falsely equating the existence of written history with the erecting of statues. Listen, I think you’re shutting your eyes to the argument because you’re closed off to the line of reasoning. I never had high hopes of convincing you that you’re wrong on this or backwards. I endeavored to show it nonetheless for readers and for my own personal satisfaction. It’s interesting to note that you reject all value I assign to them, both in promoting discussions of history and noting them for what they should be remembered. It’s inspiration to find the larger story. If you don’t learn it in the public schools (ours suck, but maybe you missed that part), you need entry points into an appreciation for history. Statues are one of them. There is also a movement to brand some as racists and diminish their accomplishments apart from that (again, if you missed that, oh well, pay more attention in the next five years). Removing the statue serves the end to misremember the totality of their role in history. I’m not going to repeat myself forever to convince someone in zlefin-mode to actually faithfully examine the argument presented and not dismiss immediately with poor rationalizations.
All you are saying is "trust me, it really helps" without giving me any reason to think that is true. You are making a knee jerk argument and asking people to just assume appeals to tradition are really good arguments. Do you not see you haven't offered a shred of evidence?
|
On January 17 2018 10:27 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 17 2018 10:18 Plansix wrote:
I don’t think people ever said the statue celebrating the anthem was racist. Only that racism and slavery cannot be separated from the anthems history. I'll say it (sorry to spoil the mood). You can't sing a song about freedom while keeping slaves (plenty in the penal system[overwhelmingly black and PoC] going back to the chain gangs following chattel slavery in the US) and it not be racist. I get that people aren't signing it like a themesong to the KKK, but it doesn't mean it's symbolic significance of US hypocrisy and white supremacy isn't there because people think of it as a pep song for the country. Would you be fine with some kind of official statement that more or less gets rid of that part of the anthem? Like I said, we more or less had the same issue with ours and now we're only ever singing the 3rd verse. Everyone knows that the first and second used to exist but it's acknowledged to be banned and not part of our anthem (anymore)
Well my satisfaction point involves the end of US imperialism so we're not really going to get to "fine" with an official (empty) statement.
Would I consider an official rebuking and notation of it's origins and context to be a step in the right direction? yes.
I'd prefer an anthem that wasn't blind patriotic worship and one that told our story in a less obtuse way (as was outlined by P6)
|
To be honest, I dream of the day we could debate changing the national anthem in this country. The outcome wouldn't even matter. Of course we would need a song to replace it. That anthem is a hard album to follow up.
|
Bannon has been talking to HPSCI for 11 hours now. Wonder what is taking him so long....
|
Is that the record? I know Trump Jr was like 7 hours.
|
On January 17 2018 10:48 Plansix wrote:
To be honest, I dream of the day we could debate changing the national anthem in this country. The outcome wouldn't even matter. Of course we would need a song to replace it. That anthem is a hard album to follow up.
hmmm, nothing comes to mind as an obvious replacement that's suitable; assuming we would want to use American authored songs (too much good british music!). and discounting some stuff that's inappropriate for an anthem.
I wonder how it relates to copyright law and fair use and such. would we have to pay to get the rights to it?
|
On January 17 2018 10:50 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
Bannon has been talking to HPSCI for 11 hours now. Wonder what is taking him so long....
That is an unbelievably long time.
|
|
|
|
|
Since i actually don't know, is denial to answer questions under subpoena a criminal offense?
|
Bannon has no reason to comply because he won't be charged with ignoring the subpoena. Mueller still has way more use for Bannon. Bannon is just playing hard to get and wants a better deal. It's not like Mueller would really ever be willing to just throw away Bannon.
|
My money is on Bannon actually knowing jack shit, and only trying to seem important. I doubt he's refusing to answer because he could spill dirt, he's refusing to answer because that's the best shot he has at staying relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
