How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Hasta Cuando?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Hasta Cuando?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


50 posted 01-15-2008 09:38 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Political correctness (adjectivally politically correct, both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen as seeking to minimize offense to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. Conversely, the term politically incorrect is used to refer to language or ideas that may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy.

The term itself and its usage are hotly contested. The term "political correctness" is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense.[1][2], while "politically incorrect" is commonly used as a self-description, as in the series of "politically incorrect guides', produced by conservative publisher Regnery.[3]

Some commentators have argued that the term "political correctness" is a straw man invented by conservatives in the 1990s in order to challenge progressive social change, especially with respect to issues of race, religion and gender.[1][4]Ruth Perry traces the term back to Mao's little red book. According to Perry, the term was later adopted by the radical left in the 1960s. In the 1990s, because of the term's association with radical politics and communist censorship, it was used by the political right in the United States to discredit the political left, including liberals and Democrats.[2]

The term can also be used to describe any form of political orthodoxy whether the orthodoxy is from the left or the right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

This thread was about politics, leftness, and rightness from the very beginning.  All I did was make a comparison -- but, I know you and Bob don't like comparisons apparently.    

Shall we hazard a guess at the political identity of the sole Floridian representative?

More wiki;

quote:

Right wing political correctness
Allegations of political correctness have been directed against the political right.

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, several weeks after their Grammy success the country band the Dixie Chicks performed in concert in London on March 10, 2003, at the Shepherd's Bush Empire theatre. During this concert, the band gave a monologue to introduce their song Travelin' Soldier, during which Natalie Maines, a Texas native, was quoted by The Guardian as saying, "Just so you know, [...] we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."[8] Though this is the official circulation of the comment, the full text of the statement Natalie Maines made was as follows: Just so you know, were on the good side with yall. We do not want this war, this violence, and were ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.[citation needed]

The resulting backlash against the band was described by Don Williams as an example of enforcing politically correct views from the right. Williams wrote "the ugliest form of political correctness occurs whenever there's a war on. Then you'd better watch what you say." Williams noted that Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly called it treason. [36]

In 2004, then Australian Labor leader Mark Latham described conservative calls for "civility" as "The New Political Correctness" [2].

Similar examples include attempts to rename French fries as Freedom Fries and to boycott French wine in retaliation for France's decision to not support the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Right_wing_political_correctness

[This message has been edited by Ron (01-16-2008 06:04 AM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


51 posted 01-15-2008 10:57 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

This thread was about politics, leftness, and rightness from the very beginning.

Actually, when I began this thread I didn't even know the party affiliation of the person who entered the complaint. I didn't consider it important. Following your suggestion, though, I did look it up. The initiator was a Democrat and the state government that acted on it is Republican. I still don't see where that is relevant.

[This message has been edited by Ron (01-16-2008 06:06 AM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


52 posted 01-15-2008 11:08 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Actually,after reading more about "political correctness" from your quotes I find that PC must not be what I'm referring to. What I call pc has nothing to do with politics or right wing/left wing interactions, the Dixie Chicks or freedom fries. It has to do with the few being able to change the rules the many have no problem with. Perhaps my views should be call social correctness instead to eliminate the confusion.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


53 posted 01-16-2008 12:01 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Note the word I emphasized, Mike? Perhaps you'd like to rephrase this part of your complaint?

Point taken, Ron. The man IS a representative, however that does not mean that everything he says or does is a representation of his constituents. Upon lodging his complaint, he made no mention of any fact that his view was representing anyone but himself.

I'm not sure guilt is the word I would choose to use, Mike. Responsibility, perhaps?

I can't change what happened, but neither can I pretend I don't share responsibility for what others before me did. Unless I'm willing to reject everything they did, I can't reject just the parts I don't like.

No, I can't go with responsibility, either. I used guilt because that is what some expect us to feel. Responsibility? We were born into this world the way it is. We had no choice about accepting it or sharing or not what fruits were born of our ancestors' previous actions. You feel we are required to feel responsibility for actions we had no control over just because we live on land which was wrongfully acquired? Well, I suppose we could but we would have to leave the U.S. then. I can understand your meaning but I simply can't go with the sharing of responsibility part of it. A man is murdered and his widow sells me their house. Am I then partially responsible for his murder because I have reaped the benefits of his death by acquiring a house he would not have sold if he remained alive? Hardly. I CAN reject the actions of my ancestors' treatment of the Indians, even though I live on land that was taken from them. If the country was divided in two parts,  one part being land taken from the Indians and one part freely explored and civilized by settlers, I would have the choice to choose the latter as a protest against the crimes perpetrated against the native Indians...but that is not the world we live in, is it?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


54 posted 01-16-2008 12:52 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Mike (and Ringo), I sense that the real complaint here isn't the symptom being described, but rather, what you perceive to be the malady of political correctness?

Yes, you are right, Ron. Personally I don't care if the song is changed or not. My issue is the political correctness or, after seing LR's definition, perhaps social correctness would be more appropriate.

It's about one man issuing a complaint against a word so archaic and miniscule in meaning that even Webster's doesn't carry it and getting the government to change it.

It's about one or two families out of hundreds complaining about Christmas carols being sung in school plays and getting them banned.

It's about 80 year old grandmothers being searched in airports because no one want mid-easterners to feel picked on.

It's about a senator being condemned because he said "You people.." when speaking to  a black audience.

It's about a senator being chastized for using the word "nigardly" on the Senate floor, not because it is an improper word, but because it sounded to much like an improper word.

It's about a lot of things, Ron. You correctly stated that it's a PC topic like  the many we have had before and you are right. We HAVE had many because there are so many examples of it in so many different areas. Thus my title...hasta cuando? How long will things like this go on? Where will it show up next?

What happens if, one day, someone issues a complaint against Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn? What happens if they claim that the free use of the N word makes it unsuitable to be school material? It wouldn't happen? Oh, no? Ask Little Black Sambo,er, Little Sambo now. Ask Mr. MacGoo or Speedy Gonzales. It certainly could happen. Would the same people who have announced in this thread that Old Folks should be removed from its state song for containing one controversial word support the Huck Finn pull or would they then claim that the word is acceptable due to the spirit in which it is used? I know where my money would ride.

As I said before, these things do not break down barriers...they create more. That makes it Alley material to me.

[This message has been edited by Ron (01-16-2008 06:09 AM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


55 posted 01-16-2008 06:17 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Sigh.

There's a lot I want to say, but I'm a bit short on time this morning. What little I had available I had to spend going back over the last page of this thread and editing or deleting all the personal CRAP that has accumulated. This thread isn't about the participants within the thread, nor will it become about the participants.

I'll try to return to this when I have more time. And require less patience.


TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


56 posted 01-16-2008 10:35 AM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

My final words.
The issue was raised by Sir Balladeer and the word "darkies" was redefined from the general meaning of "Black people"  to merely means a "Dark skin"

If "darkies" is a racial slur, shall a State change it?
If it is not, Shall the song be changed.

Something is always there does not mean that it is right or it should be there at the very, very beginning when we were not there.

So, again, it is not a PC issue. It is an issue  that has long being ignored, and take for granted. (yes, I have did something wrong but In God name do please forgive me. The more important is my heart but not the slur or separated  drinking fountain.or is it true? I went to see a laser show with friends in Atlanta years ago. I was very surprised that general Lee was their Hero. All of them (200 or more?) cheered when Lee's profile was shown. I asked my American friend" He was lost, right? why people still treat him as a hero?" Now, this is American culture...  because he fought for what he believed. He might has lost his war but he has not lost his spirit which I totally understood their feelings and learned  something) But what then underprivileged  black people think? Does everyone need for freedom or only some?)

Talk about human heart. One of my best friend, A UK Obstetrician, worked in South Africa for 5 years until the Government changed. She went to Australia She could not stand to sit with my other friend who was from Bangladesh. Of course later she was changed. It was simply stupid to behave that way.

I say that if one wants  to correct wrong doing Do it in a consistent way.

many will ask what the meaning is "darkies". so It does has educational value (good or bad, or bad again).

To repeat again, again, again, and again in a state song of the past not so-bright history only brings hatred, and hatred again, to the least, uneasiness from both sides.

And I don't take it as one man or two men issue. What about majority?  It was the votes sending Jesus to the cross. Many have tired of the whole racial thing. Many colored people have used to the unfairness  because single voice is way toooooooo weak unless you were a politician to have a heart to correct it...At least make sure that government is not backing it.

Would being called a whitey, a cracker or a honky bother me? Not in the slightest

Have you been in one of the situation in your life time?  To a human heart, it means rejection by your fallow human being and it hurts.

PS. Dear Bob K, I admire your strength.
Dear Sir Balladeer, sleeping before 12 o'clock is good for health.        

TM (I can die peacefully now)

This forum is for flaming, complainin', and screaming your head off. Respectfully,
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


57 posted 01-16-2008 12:42 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Dear Balladeer,

         I've continued checking about dictionaries.  I see that you've noted and quoted my report of "darkie" not being present in my Webster New World Dictionary.  You should also note that it is not in my (somewhat old and battered) copy of The Webster's Collegiate Dictionary in any relevant form, though it is listed as a back-formation of "darkling," another word entirely as I understand it.  I don't own a Webster's Unabridged.  Somebody should check in there.

     As I mentioned in my earlier posting, it is mentioned in The New Oxford American and is cited as "offensive."  I see that you forgot to mention that in the same way that you forgot to mention that The New Oxford American and its parent are generally considered are generally considered more authoritative than either of the two Webster's citings I've given you or even the Wiki that I suggested you might check out.  Thank you for the follow up on that one.  

     Whilke I was poking around in my stacks, I checked out my copy of The American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language and found this listing under "darky:"  A Negro.  An offensive term used derogatorily.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


58 posted 01-16-2008 01:12 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Edited Bob, the next post you make that references the participants instead of the topic will be the last post you make here. Period. I sincerely hope I'm being clear this time. - Ron

[This message has been edited by Ron (01-16-2008 04:29 PM).]

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


59 posted 01-16-2008 03:17 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


I believe potentially racist terms in the fixed medium of the written word or when uttered verbally should be judged based on the intent and the social context at the time of use, not by reference to acceptable usage as they stand now.

Based on the above I dont believe the line is racist, I dont believe Twain is racist and I dont believe Snoop Dogg is racist when he uses the N word either.
TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


60 posted 01-16-2008 03:45 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

when I were a slave
I took in any titles
for my life were yours
in service of your recitals

Now I were the fiddle
with broken strings
and long being forgotten
suddenly made a wired note
escaped from your song
to make a riddle

[This message has been edited by TomMark (01-16-2008 09:09 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


61 posted 01-16-2008 05:33 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

It's about one man issuing a complaint against a word so archaic and miniscule in meaning that even Webster's doesn't carry it and getting the government to change it.



Blacks, and only Blacks have the right to determine what they define as offensive -- if it is just one word then one word it is -- however -- it's more than one man and more than one word -- Blacks find the ENTIRE song, as written, blatantly offensive --

the lyrics;

1st verse
Way down upon de Swanee ribber,
Far, far away,
Dere's wha my heart is turning ebber,
Dere's wha de old folks stay.
All up and down de whole creation
Sadly I roam,
Still longing for de old plantation
And for de old folks at home.

Chorus
All de world am sad and dreary,
Ebry where I roam,
Oh! darkies how my heart grows weary,
Far from de old folks at home.

2nd verse
All round de little farm I wandered
When I was young,
Den many happy days I squandered,
Many de songs I sung.
When I was playing wid my brudder
Happy was I
Oh! take me to my kind old mudder,
Dere let me live and die.
Chorus

3rd verse
One little hut amond de bushes,
One dat I love,
Still sadly to my mem'ry rushes,
No matter where I rove
When will I see de bees a humming
All round de comb?
When will I hear de banjo tumming
Down in my good old home?
Chorus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Folks_at_Home

Any of us has the right to click on any link, thread, read any book, go to any church or organization, or not do so -- if we are offended -- but the one thing that we can't do is get away from our government -- which is  why the Constitution of the United States guarantees us;

Equal protection
Separation of Church and State

So, Mike -- I hope what you find as non-sense goes on for a long, long, long, long, long time.

[This message has been edited by Ron (01-16-2008 08:24 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


62 posted 01-16-2008 06:36 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

it's more than one man and more than one word -- Blacks find the ENTIRE song, as written, blatantly offensive --

Where is your verification of that fact? I've tried every google search I could think of to find any protest by any black in Florida demanding the song be changed or issuing  a complaint against the song since it was adopted as the state song over fifty years ago. Not even Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpeton, who make a good living by creating such controversies, have mentioned it. Your fact as stated comes from...where?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


63 posted 01-16-2008 07:31 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

A good place to start searching for anything Mike is at Wikipedia -- you could even click the link I provided above and find:

quote:

In 1997, former state representative Willy Logan presented an unsuccessful motion to have the song replaced.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Folks_at_Home

You might check the Orlando Sentinel and find the current effort is backed by your Gov. Charlie Christ, and sponsored by Sen. Tony Hill -- so that's at least three people -- and it will be decided next year by the entire state -- that's a lot more than one person.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2007/03/old_folks_no_mo.html#more

You could read up on Blackface at Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface

and learn that the NAACP has been trying to put an end to such stereotypes since the 1950's.

[This message has been edited by Ron (01-16-2008 08:24 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


64 posted 01-17-2008 07:27 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
A man is murdered and his widow sells me their house. Am I then partially responsible for his murder because I have reaped the benefits of his death by acquiring a house he would not have sold if he remained alive?

Your analogy is flawed, Mike, because you didn't buy your house from the widow. You bought it from the murderer. For pennies on the dollar and with full knowledge of why you were getting such a great deal. The murderer stole the man's life, then he stole the house from the widow. You and I helped him.

The widow's children, by the way, now live in the caves overlooking your grand house. Like you, they don't feel they should continue to pay for what happened long before they were born. What do we tell them about accepting the fruits of actions over which they never had any control?

quote:
If the country was divided in two parts,  one part being land taken from the Indians and one part freely explored and civilized by settlers, I would have the choice to choose the latter as a protest against the crimes perpetrated against the native Indians...but that is not the world we live in, is it?

So you're essentially arguing that now that you're in the widow's house, you have no where else to go? This country might not be divided into the two parts you describe, Mike, but the world certainly is. You may not like the choices left to you, but they are still choices.

Of course, I'm not really suggesting we should all pack up and move back to Europe, any more than I'm suggesting we should gather up all the descendents of slavery and ship them to their original homes. That's the thing about atrocities like genocide and slavery; they can't be reversed and you can never make up for the wrongs that have been done. That doesn't mean, however, that the wrongs should be ignored. That doesn't mean responsibility can be abrogated. That doesn't mean "done is done," and the widow's house is now free and clear of debt. It doesn't matter whether you stole your house yesterday, your cousin stole it last week, or your great-great-grandfather stole it three hundred years ago, the house is STILL a stolen house. So long as you choose to live under its roof, freely accepting the benefits of the theft, you will necessarily assume responsibility for the theft.

That responsibility can be denied, but I don't think it can ever be evaded.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


65 posted 01-17-2008 09:04 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

A man is murdered and his widow sells me their house. ....'deer

Your analogy is flawed, Mike, because you didn't buy your house from the widow. You bought it from the murderer. For pennies on the dollar and with full knowledge of why you were getting such a great deal.....ron

Ok, Ron. You have me totally confused now. Where did I state I didn't buy the house from the widow? Where did I say I bought it for pennies on the dollar??? Where did I say it was a stolen house or that I knew it was?  I have no idea what you mean by those comments, sorry.


Perhaps you are trying to take my example and compare it to the topic of slavery and/or injustice. Ok, but you  can't just change the facts around to do it. IF I were to buy the house from the murderer or IF I were paying pennies on the dollar and knew it, you can make your argument but I stated none of those things. I simply stated that I bought a house in which the previous owner had been murdered by someone...that's it.

With you self-inserted changes or suppositions, I would agree with you completely. I am actually one of those rare birds that would not buy a new Rolex for  twenty bucks from a guy in an alley because I would know that it had to be stolen (if it were real) or a fake knockoff if it were not. Buying it WOULD put me in complicity with the crime and I would be rewarding the perpetrator of that crime.  In that regard, i would agree with you completely.

whether you stole your house yesterday, your cousin stole it last week, or your great-great-grandfather stole it three hundred years ago, the house is STILL a stolen house. So long as you choose to live under its roof, freely accepting the benefits of the theft, you will necessarily assume responsibility for the theft.

In which case every person living in the US should consider themselves responsible for living on stolen land. As long as I live in this country I must be willing to assume responsibility for that fact? they can't be reversed and you can never make up for the wrongs that have been done. True enough but then you are claiming that every white person born or living in the US has responsibility of slavery and genocide by the simple fact of living here.  You are making a good case for the doctrine of Original Sin. Well, what's one or two more  sins dumped or our heads at birth?  

That doesn't mean, however, that the wrongs should be ignored.

I agree completely and I certainly don't believe they have been ignored in the US. As I said earlier, great strides have been taken in the fight for equality for all...with still a long way to go, undoubtedly. If  you could resurrect a black who had lived in the 1860's and show them today, to say they would be shocked would be an understatement. Even blacks from the 1940's and  50's have seen an extremely major change in opportunities, benefits, and respect shown to them in the past only 50 years. I doubt that fact can be denied.

Valid claims are valid. Invalid claims conducted by those who seek to gain publicity by stirring a pot for the sake of bringing it to a boil are not. Those who scream racism or prejudice where none has been intended do harm to those who DO suffer from actual abuse. How far does the "accepting responsibility" go? There were blacks who applauded O.J.'s acquital of murder, not because they didn't think he wasn't guilty,but because they felt that,with all of the wrongdoings committed by the justice systems on blacks in the past, they  saw it as a way of getting a little even for blacks who have been wrongfully accused of crimes in the past.  Should we then put the thoughts of slaves in our minds and blacks hanging from trees and accept their logic? How far does it go?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


66 posted 01-17-2008 10:08 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thank you, reb, for the information,,,

you could even click the link I provided above

I did and did not find anything to support the fact that blacks hate the song at all, with the possible exception of Willie Logan. One line ws very interesting, however,.....Foster himself supported the North in the American Civil War and sympathized with black Americans.

the current effort is backed by your Gov. Charlie Christ, and sponsored by Sen. Tony Hill -- so that's at least three people --

Actually, Governor Christ is white and, to my chagrin, I don't even know the ethnicity of Tony Hill. Three people, yes, but not three blacks and two of them were responding to Logan's demands not initiating them. That still makes only one person doing the complaining. Nothing there about blacks hating the song.

and it will be decided next year by the entire state -- that's a lot more than one person.

Well, not really.  Read your second link more closely.... It's true that the public was invited to select a new song from a select group, but they did so because they were told to do so, because Florida was going to change its state song. There is nothing there to indicate that the song change was initiated by the public or blacks outraged at the original song....only that here was to be a change and they would vote on a new one. That hardly supports your statement that blacks hate the song. Here is what has happened so far...

And now the people are speaking their minds, after listening to the three songs.And it ain't pretty.What's a poor State Senator to do? As we see it, Mr. Hill has a few options.

One, he can say nothing and do nothing. One song will be selected through the website and the winner will be announced at the annual FMEA convention in Tampa on January 11th. Then he and Rep. Homan can present the winning song to the Florida state legislature where it will be quickly and quietly turned down, forever disappearing as a footnote in history.

Another option is to reject publicly the educator's choice and go with another. Sir Charles Atkin's ''Florida's Song'' would seem an obvious choice. The tune, written by a blind FSU professor who has his own blues band, was actually played at Governor's Crist's inauguration.

There are others. Some of the state's folk musicians who make up the group Friends of Florida Folk actually have a few they could offer. ''I'm Florida, Need I Say More?'' by Bobby Hicks is an obvious choice on first listening. ''The Rose and the Gold (of a Florida morning)'' by Mem Semmes is a personal favorite.

Maybe something by Florida legends Will McLean? Gamble Rogers? Don Grooms? At this point Senator Hill may even be combing through his collection of Jimmy Buffett records, looking for something appropriate. Changes in Latitudes? Margaritaville? Cheeseburger in Paradise? What about the old ''Orange Blossom Special,'' a song about a Florida train? Or John Anderson's ''Seminole Wind?'' (The UF Gators may have a problem with that one).

A third option would be to copy Massachusetts and have more than just one song. Our good friends up north actually have an official state song, a state folk song, a state ceremonial march song, a state glee club song, a state polka, a state patriotic song and a state ode.

Or maybe we could take a cue from New Jersey. They have no state song at all!

So far the public, through web sites and community boards, telephone calls and e-mails, have responded to the three songs FMEA picked.

Awful.

Terrible.

Boring.

The problem was the judges at FMEA picked three songs written by, well, FMEA members. Teachers and educators all. And they sound like it. What's the old saying? Those who don't know, teach? The three songs have been described as ''mediocre at best'' and ''absolutely free of any distinguishable melody.''

''Try picturing a group of elementary kids singing any of these songs,'' a musician wrote on one of the folk music lists. ''Impossible.''

Considering the final three songs selected by the FMEA most likely aren't going to make the cut with the citizens and legislators, we suggest the Senator's best option is to keep the old song, with a few revisions.
Take out the line about ''Oh Darkeys'' and replace it with...brothers? Darlings? People?
Then, at least, Senator Hill can say he ''changed'' the racial context of the song and everybody else gets to keep the song they grew up with.
Frankly, it's quite the dilemma for the good Senator from Jacksonville.

http://www.jacksonville.com/community/cc/strings/stories/121407/12130792200.shtml

There is nothing there to support your statement that blacks find the entire song offensive. We still have the fact that ONE man made a complaint and created this minitiature fiasco over something no one had thought to complain about before.

Your final link is equally as interesting..

The songs of northern composer Stephen Foster figured prominently in blackface minstrel shows of the period. Though written in dialect and certainly politically incorrect by today's standards, his later songs were free of the ridicule and blatantly racist caricatures that typified other songs of the genre. Foster's works treated slaves and the South in general with an often cloying sentimentality that appealed to audiences of the day.

Guess they knew what they were talking about....politically incorrect....there's the burr.

the NAACP has been trying to put an end to such stereotypes since the 1950's.

In  that case would you explain to me why the NAACP has never issued a complaint about "Old Folks at Home" being Florida's state song? Surely if it is a song that all blacks hate and find offensive, it would be worthy of targeting, right?

It still all boils down to the same fact I have said previously....one man, with public access, creating a stir and demanding action over an issue in the name of political correctness over a topic no one had issued a complaint over before and - if you lived here you would see - is basically a non-issue, to whites and blacks alike.

I appreciate your research and links, reb, and the effort you put into your replies. I have found nothing, though, which supports your statement thatBlacks find the ENTIRE song, as written, blatantly offensive   Substitute Willie Logan in there and I'll agree.  


TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


67 posted 01-17-2008 01:38 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

The responsibility of the past wrong doing.

If I did it, I would take the consequence.
If my father or grandfather did it, I would say sorry if I have a chance but I certainly will not go to them to let them kill me for "eye for eye and blood for blood" kind of responsibility.  

Then what is the true meaning of "responsibility" I boasted? I don't know. I   have never said any decent "sorry" to any one in the world including my parents, my siblings and my lover(s). If I have not a humble heart for someone who has been nice to me or loved me, where do I get the sense of taking responsibility for some whom and whom I have no idea about? No. If I have ever been eloquent on this human responsibility then call me a CRAPTREE. I have never been that kind and I do not expect myself to have the gut to be that kind.

I may die for saving a child for any color today but I do not allow my emotion, my heart, my spirit to dwell on the past.....on the other side This was me:
"I will never allow my children to marry a Japaneses...because my grandpa's sister was killed by them.
I will forever ignore my uncle because he did not give help when my family was in a difficult time because he thought political future was more important then human feelings and blood relationship.  
If I ever meet the children of someone who hurt my mother thirty years ago, I will slap on their faces many times with my life strength to do the revenge"

Do I wish that my uncle to say sorry to us, yes, of course. But since he pretends still today that nothing happened, Then I have nothing to do with him . Do I hate him? no. because I do not expect a strange to be nice to me. But my mother's feeling was hurt because he didn't want to come to visit his brother's children for his own self-interest.

Today, I am different. I pretend that I am more civilized But I shall not be provoked.

I am an average human. But now and then I am chained by Holy spirit.

Do I know a hurt heart craving for comforting?

[This message has been edited by TomMark (01-17-2008 02:17 PM).]

TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


68 posted 01-17-2008 02:35 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

and I believe that what Sir Balladeer's complaine is the 'word' and all those related kind of hypocritical things.

He is a man of action. But not everyone is like him.... history told us.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


69 posted 01-17-2008 03:12 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Ok, Ron. You have me totally confused now. Where did I state I didn't buy the house from the widow? Where did I say I bought it for pennies on the dollar??? Where did I say it was a stolen house or that I knew it was?  I have no idea what you mean by those comments, sorry.

It does get confusing, doesn't it?  

If you follow the quotes back far enough, though, Mike, we should find they start with your response to Amy when you said, "As far as the Indians are concerned . . . I did not sent them to reservations or infect them with smallpox. Why should I assume the guilt of those who did?"

I responded by trying to change your use of the word "guilt" to "responsibility," where upon you came back with buying a house as an analogy for what happened to the Indians and your personal involvement (or lack of involvement) for what happened. It really wasn't a bad analogy, either, which I guess is why I stuck with is for so long in my post, but it was badly flawed as you originally stated it. If the original owner of the house was the American Indian, then the European white man was his killer. You and I certainly didn't buy this country from the widow of the Indian, Mike, nor did we ever pay fair market value (pennies on the dollar).

quote:
With you self-inserted changes or suppositions, I would agree with you completely.

Cool. One could honestly expect no more. I wasn't suggesting we should find a solution to the injustice of the American Indian, only that we don't try to deny responsibility for it. We didn't do the crime, but as you said, we are complicit if we knowingly buy the Rolex on the cheap. And we bought the Rolex lock, stock, and barrel.

quote:
In which case every person living in the US should consider themselves responsible for living on stolen land. As long as I live in this country I must be willing to assume responsibility for that fact? they can't be reversed and you can never make up for the wrongs that have been done. True enough but then you are claiming that every white person born or living in the US has responsibility of slavery and genocide by the simple fact of living here. You are making a good case for the doctrine of Original Sin.

You noticed that, uh?

The victims of atrocities (a.k.a. sin) rarely get to say, "enough is enough." The children of Adam and Eve didn't get to go back into the Garden. The children of the convicts sent to Australia didn't get to return to Europe. The children of the Indians didn't get to reclaim their land or repopulate the dying buffalo herds. The children of the slaves didn't immediately get to stop being slaves or, later, make up for lost time due to systemic poverty and poor education.

Gross victimization rarely stops with the victim, but rather can often be born for countless generations to follow. Those children don't ever get to say, "That's history and it's not my fault." So why the hell do the children of the perpetrators think they should be able to skate? That's especially true, in my opinion, when the children of the perpetrators directly and continuously benefit from the crimes of their fathers.

Accepting responsibility for what your father did isn't a solution, of course. Denying responsibility, however, especially when the children of the victims are still hurting, means no solution will be sought and no healing ever found.

I still want to talk about political (or social) correctness. Soon?  


TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


70 posted 01-17-2008 03:42 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

The intention of political correctness is good...to take other's emotion into consideration...in principle or out of principle.

But WRONG correctness some times is unbearably unfair, and  tyrannical!!!!!!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


71 posted 01-17-2008 06:42 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thanks, Ron. I got more out of your reply than anything else on this thread. I doubt that we are that far apart. There are just a few things you mention I still have a problem with.

With regards to my example, I ask that you take it literally and not substitute indians and European white men, you will see what I was trying to say.  If I go to a real estate broker, am shown a house and buy it and am later told that the house was being sold because the owner had been murdered, should I then feel partially guilty or responsible for his death because, in a very roundabout way, I actually benefited by his death by being able to buy a house that otherwise would not have been on the market?  I don't think so.....We didn't do the crime, but as you said, we are complicit if we knowingly buy the Rolex on the cheap. We ALL know that the lands that we inhabit were taken from the Indians. Should that then make us feel responsible for the atrocities against them? Sorry, but I will not accept that....

So why the hell do the children of the perpetrators think they should be able to skate?   Perhaps because they didn't commit the wrong, did not have any participation in the execution of the wrong, did not applaud the wrong?  If a black man walks up to me and says, "Your ancestors made my ancestors slaves and you owe me...", he won't get a lot of satisfaction out of my answer. I am more than willing to be held responsible for my actions and I'm conscientious enough to be able to sympathize with those who were mistreated or victimized but I'm not going to take off my shirt so they can use a whip on me.

Accepting responsibility for what your father did isn't a solution, of course. Denying responsibility, however, especially when the children of the victims are still hurting, means no solution will be sought and no healing ever found. Sounds like we have no solution and no solution on both sides of that equation.

I will certainly acknowledge what happened to blacks and Indians. I will understand their feelings based on those actions. I will blame the whites and the government who committed them...but I will stop short of accepting personal responsibility for things that happened a century before I was born.

With regards to the song and this topic, if blacks as a whole (or even a  small amount) were to complain that they felt the song was detrimental to them and wanted it changed, I would have no problem with it. It's not my place to tell them what should offend them and what shouldn't. We don't have that here. We have ONE man, raising an issue no one had raised in over 70 years, one in which no black had publicly complained about, one in which none of the civil rights groups showed any interest in....ONE man demanding changes  and having that be enough to cause a government ro scramble to appease him. One man to stir the hive for probable personal motives to cause other blacks to complain about something they had never even shown that they cared about. That's what we have here........

TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


72 posted 01-17-2008 08:13 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

My dear sir Balladeer, if you had posted the last paragraph first in this thread, you would have saved me lots of time esp my edit time.  You may next time start your political view in a Villanelle.   So I can enjoy your beautiful poem if dislike your topic.

Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


73 posted 01-17-2008 11:42 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

Well, at least those Indians were able to leave that 'gator infested swamp and finally make it to God's country, Oklahoma, the land of the Red Man and the red dirt!


*Typo. That should have been swamp instead of sqamp. Fat fingers.

[This message has been edited by Not A Poet (01-18-2008 09:54 AM).]

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


74 posted 01-18-2008 12:41 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Mike, the point is that there are still inequities. That's what we have to take responsibility for. You didn't put the Indians on the reservation- but they are still there. You didn't whip the black slaves- but their great grandkids are still the ones that bear the scars- not you, not me. Our country still bears the burden of its history.

I'm not going to go on and on because, as usual, Ron said what I basically think but more succinctly and sensibly than I could. But one more thing:

'Foster's works treated slaves and the South in general with an often cloying sentimentality that appealed to audiences of the day.'

Mike, do you really want a state motto that resonates with cloying sentimentality for the days of slavery? Because the song does... the narrator misses his days as a slave. This is a narrator that calls the white man 'sir' while the white man calls him 'boy' or worse. And the narrator seems to have no problem with that. Does the song have a place in history? Sure... but as a state motto?

(And as an aside, calling anyone 'you people' is inherently offensive, and if you've never been referred to as 'you people' you can't really know how that one feels.)
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Hasta Cuando?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors