»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Hasta Cuando?
| The Alley |
|
Hasta Cuando? |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
Florida is running a contest for songwriters to submit new songs to be the state anthem. Until now it has always been "The Old Folks at Home" (Way down upon the Suwanee River) by Stephen Foster but, since that song contains the following line... Oh darkies, how my heart grows weary ..it is now considered too racially biased to retain that position of honor. Hasta cuando?....or, for non-Spanish speakers, until when? How long will this nonsense go on? |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, Are you actually asking a serious question? Not only are you unbothered by this straightforward racist stuff, but you're actually standing up for it. I'm fond of the Foster song, too, but that line is a terrible insult. I ask you to remember my comments about your Villanelle. I ask you to remember my request actually to ask rather than passively accept silence as agreement about my perception of a bias in that case. I do not ask about whether you have followed up. In fact, I would rather not know; that's your business, and I otherwise enjoy you and your stuff, and I respect your skill. I would now simply ask you to notice that the same sort of material has come up again, and once again you have taken a (certainly defensible, by the way) too easily characterized position. Simply notice, that's all. Sincerely yours, BobK. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I am not familiar with the term "darkies". It seems informal and rather coarse, but I don't see how it should be automatically made out as "racist". |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, I'm not sure what your meaning is there, Bob, but if it's any reference to the possibility of my being biased or racist, you could not be more wrong. I sincerely hope you do not have that impression or you would be sadly mistaken. Apparently, Foster used the term "darkies" in his song as a descriptive word, possibly because their skin was dark (just a wild guess). To call that line.. Oh, darkies, how my heart grows weary straightforward racist stuff and a terrible insult is one heck of an exaggeration. I see nothing racist there at all, certainly nothing demeaning. It was written a century ago. I've heard of no black marches decrying the fact that someone called them darkies, have you? I've never even seen the word used anywhere else before. How far does social correctness go? Shall we rid the libraries that contain any such material written in the 1800's? Do we burn Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn? Demolish Uncle Tom's Cabin? What do you call racist? If you mean descriptive words that distinguish one race from another, is that racist? I've always considered a word or comment racist when it was an intentional insult or degrading remark against a specific group based on race. Do you see that in that line of the song? I find it incredible that anyone would protest against that line to the point of removing it as a state song. Straightforward racist? Well, you are entitled to your opinion, sir. Obviously we have progressed to the point where it is and I think that's sad. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Balladeer: Re" "What do you call racist? If you mean descriptive words that distinguish one race from another, is that racist? I've always considered a word or comment racist when it was an intentional insult or degrading remark against a specific group based on race. Do you see that in that line of the song?" Yeah, that's racist as in demeaning or a slur. Granted, there was a context and time when folks like Stephen Foster through Al Jolson could get away with that and have it chalked up to the tenor of the times. Melville, Mark Twain and Joseph Conrad were something else altogether. They "worked" with the nature of their times, which involved accepted, foolish hatred. They neither condoned or accepted it. Times have changed a bit. We don't refer to "darkies" so much as we do to "Blacks." "Black's" is a less repulsive term, perhaps, but it is still a PC way of being racist and mean. Again, striving for that PC-ness, racists have adopted more mellow terms, still equally fraught with hatred for the "other." This goes on and on. Where does "dink" come from, or "sand ( )? You couch your inquiry in terms of "political correctness," which I think is just a jab to generate responses. Personally, I don't think you've ever demonstrated that you are either dedicated to PC or it's antihises. What's wrong with accepting that some outdated views and words are no longer useful or effective? Personally, I think Floridians should nominate Jimmy Buffet's "Cheese Burger in Paradise." Is their a slur for Haitian sugar cane workers in Florida? Does it add anything to use it? You are brighter and more reasonable than this, Balladeer, and I don't know what makes you gravitate towards such ideological nonsense. On the other hand, your presumably faux outragenousness keeps things hoppin'! Best, Jim  Umm. I had to delete per PiP's sensibilities a word frequently associated with Vietnamese combatants. Interesting. Darkies, chinks, dagos, spics, bohunkus, yids, sheenies, micks, dykes, and queens didn't seem to offend PiP sensibilities. Don't know what to make of this, other than some nastinesses may be more acceptable than other nastinessess. Is it PC rules, or is PC higly selective? Jim, again [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (01-13-2008 09:34 PM).] |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
ESS: Do you truly live in a cave? Incredulous, Jim Aitken |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Jim, I must live in the same cave as Essorant. I assure you I have NEVER heard the term darkie used anywhere else in my entire life. I would even go so far as to say I'd bet Toerag's car that the vast majority of Americans have not, either.  I know what you mean about selective PC. Over in CA I tried to use the word gobbly**** and I couldn't because the last four letters spell out the slang name for what we called our Viet Cong friends years ago...go figure |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Balladeer, I have to admit you make me laugh and think at the same time. "Darkies" has a long history as a slur, going back to the "darkies" who unloaded freight in Louisiana, through political discourse in New York, Chicago, Newark, and Indianopolis. Whatever. If you haven't been exposed to "Darkies" before, well, that's just one less ugliness no one's life needs, but I don't think it can be dismissed as being something other than a perjorative. My only serious thought is "why should Florida go there?" when there are so many other places to go. PC PC PC PC! Maybe Obama will win the Democratic party nomination and the county will get to look at the notions of mixed race and "mullato" and what that's all about. I'm not sure whether we agree on much or not in general, but I've always enjoyed the reasoned conversations. Best, Jim |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Why should Florida go there?....my exact question. My guess is that one person saw it, decided to make an issue of it, demanded that the state change the anthem which has stood for over 100 years and the state figured it was better to go ahead and make the change and make it a big issue rather than making it a big issue.  Agreement is never a necessity, Jim. Reasoned conversations are and it's always a pleasure having your involvement  |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Mike? You've never seen nor read 'Gone With the Wind?' As unlikely as that is -- it brings to mind my favorite Rhett Butler quote; "With enough courage, you can do without a reputation." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
seen it...never read it. If you're stating that the word "darkies" is in it, i didn't see it or, if I did, don't remember it as being memorable enough to remember. Afraid I don't understand the point about the quote, reb... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Yep Mike -- It's in there. And the quote simply means that it's highly unlikely that anyone in the South (a)hasn't heard the word 'darkie' and (b)doesn't know that it is, in the spectrum of racial epithets, right up there with the 'N' word. 'Boy', 'Darkie', 'N' -- they're all interchangeable. You know -- you were there -- you saw the water fountains -- the seperate schools -- the balcony at the movie theater -- as we've slowly been wiping away the vestiges of racism from this land the question 'How Long?' should also be reserved to the African Americans to ask...  so... Courage man... |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Reb: Thanks for affirming I'm neither isolated nor nuts. Best, Jim |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
My copy of the New Oxford American Dictionary cites "darkie" as a varient spelling of "darky," a noun which is"informal, offensive a person with black or dark skin." I did not find it listed at all in The Webster's New World Dictionary. If anybody wants to check other dictionaries, why not? If the word is in The New Oxford American, it will be in the OED, should Essorant be interested in a more detailed history of this old american word. Balladeer, whom I seem to recall has dipped into various online dictionary sources seems to have oddly missed this chance to research this word that would set the teeth of a good 10% of our population on edge. As I said originally, Balladeer, I happen to have nice memories of the song from childhood and personally enjoy it. That doesn't mean the line from the song isn't racist. Stephan Foster was a part of his world, which was a racist world. Nobody said we have to throw the song out of every songbook in America, though some might wish to say so. But in a time when a substantial portion of the citizens of the state of Florida are African-American, that line makes the song extremely poorly chosen to represent them and the state of which they are a part. If they'd had a vote on the song originally being chosen, Balladeer, what's your guess? Balladeer, I went to a very liberal social work school, among other places, and had more than my share of run ins with political correctness. I found a fairly good guide to be a matter of ordinary politeness. If I was doing something that hurt somebody else's feelings, while what I was feeling was annoyance at being bothered, it wasn't political correctness. It wasn't always a perfect guide, put it worked pretty well. About Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, the last time I read either one of them, the objectionable N. word was used frequently, yes, and there is a pretty good reason that there's not a huge movement to get them off the shelves of libraries today. Even by African Americans. When you toss them into your list, I can't believe you aren't being disingenuous or spouting someone else's undigested propoganda. Let me give you a hint: Some people actually consider Jim to be the actual Hero of Huck Finn; or if not the hero then probably the most enlightened figure in the book. The use of the N-word simply underlines what dirt-wads most of the rest of the characters actually are. Twain was not only America's beloved humorist, he was a deeply disillusioned and saddened man who thought deeply about the racial situation in the America of his day. Anyway, Enough of this. Best to you, Balladeer, and to the rest of you there; affectionately your, BobK. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL! Well, you have either placed me in the wrong place or the wrong time era, reb I never saw the water fountains or segregated schools. My high school had blacks and whites and we all drank out of the same fountain and the local bijou had no balcony, but, then again, I grew up in Missouri. I know those things existed in our past, of course, and we have taken giant steps to rectify those times,with still a long way to go. Having said that,however, I think the IMPORTANT things are what need to be addressed...equal job opportunities, equal housing and educational opportunities, etc etc. I find that changing a state song because of the word darkie does not fall into that category. You may associate the word with equal importance that the N word holds but I consider that unlikely. I've heard blacks rebel against the N word, and with good reason. I've heard no such protests against darkie. There is a point where silliness takes over. Do we go back in time and eliminate all film clips of Boston Blackie..ban the Maltese Falcon because of the character Sam Spade? Kick out one of the song standards of our country because the singer sings to the field hands and refers to them as darkies? During one of my golf matches a young black fellow joined our threesome. At one point he hit a good shot and I called out "Nice shot, boy!' As soon as the words came out,I thought "Oh,damn!" but the kid looked at me and smiled because he knew that I hadn't meant it in a racial way. What a shame that we have progressed to that point where something like that could have provoked a racial incident or having darkie in a song from a century ago could ban it. You may group boy, darkie and the N word together as being equally abhorrent but I can't buy it. If darkie were being used today in a derrogatory manner as the N word is, then ok. I would doubt anyone has used it in over half a century. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Mike: You're being disengenuous. BokK: You're being polite. It's a filthy insult. Jim |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The use of the N-word simply underlines what dirt-wads most of the rest of the characters actually are. Bob,with all due respect, if you are not a politician, you should be That is an amazing piece of justification. Mark Twin (who is almost a god in my book) did not simply use the N word, he named one of his main characters with that same word.I must assume that, if there were a movement today to ban all Mark Twain books who used that word, you would be agreeing with them, along with Local Rebel. If not, I can't understand why you would not feel the same about "The Old Folks at Home". Thanks for your participation.. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Baladeer, you're a bit wrong here. Foster was born, raised, and lived much of his life in Pittsburg, PA. It is probably true that he had romantic/emotional notions about the "South," but he had no direct experience of it. Foster wrote lyrics for a living, which in those times, meant creating playable and singable music in sheet music form for the widest possible audience. "Authenticity" had nothing to do with it, it was a call to a romantic, emotional response that could be sung in middle class white parlors, by the white, sheet music purchasing public. He did what he did, and he did economically OK, if not fabulously during his lifetime. The point of the discussion has nothing to do with Foster, the popularity, or longevity of his song. I think it has more to do with, in a contemporary context, how can the State of Florida (and we haven't even gotten into "My Old Kentucky Home) cling to a sentimental racially loaded tune just because it is traditional? Racial insults against almost everybody are "traditional." Why should they be honored or perpetuated? Yappin', Jim |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, You have changed the subject at least twice, once to "Old Folks at Home," and once to try to put the polar opposite of my statement about Mark Twain into my mouth. It would be interesting to discuss either of your attempts to divert the discussion with you. I suggest that we do it after we get this unpleasant business about the word "darkie" out of the way. I notice that you haven't taken up my invitation to use your usual internet resources to check out the word yet. Nor have I. I am a man with a slight hearing loss in both ears, and I've heard the word my whole life. Of course the KKK was fairly common in Ohio, even when I was growing up. Later, when I moved to finish high school in Virginia, I spent my last year at a segregated white high school. We didn't have to worry about black and white water fountains; there weren't any blacks to share water with at all. They all got educated downtown using the texbooks that the school board thought were too beat up and obsolete for the likes of us white folks. Perhaps I am much older than you are, Balladeer. I'm 59; you're what, 45, 50? I really am glad you had that experience on the golf links. It shows me that you really do have some sense of what this is all about and that it's really supposed to be a human interaction between two sets of human beings who are trying to treat each other decently. I'm glad you felt that sense of having made the gaffe that everybody experiences sometimes. When it's an honest mistake honestly made, most times everybody can live with it without much of a problem. Mostly we'd all rather help each other out. If you didn't know about the word before, though, you know about it now. You know that there's a decent proportion of decent folks that are going to feel wounded and hurt every time you use it. You know there's a difference between a song that uses the word just floating around out there in the open, where it shouldn't be censored, and a song with a line like that representing a group of people that it smears and demeans. At the very least, you know that a lot of them feel that it does. At a minimum, Balladeer, that's pretty rude. And at least read what I said about Mark Twain before you turn it around 180 degrees. Maybe we'll talk about that after we get this other unpleasant business settled. When you keep changing the subject, it's like talking to a squid; you keep disappearing in a cloud of distractions. Yours in confusion, BobK. PS. I hope the material on the free verse was useful. That's very good stuff indeed. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Of course not, Mike. No more than we go back in time and eliminate Mein Kampf or Aryan supremacy. We necessarily accept the darker moments of human history (of which there are plenty), and hopefully we learn from them. We don't, however, honor them. We don't promote them as the way we want society to continue. Yes, equal job opportunities, equal housing, and equal educational opportunities are the "important" things. I don't think that means treating someone with respect is unimportant, though, and I suspect you don't either. Equal opportunity ends with jobs, housing and education, but it begins with respect and dignity. If you're really all that okay with the word, Mike, start using it in daily discourse. The next time you're on the links with a black man, call him darky a few times. In a non-hateful way, of course. Then, please, let us know how that works out for you? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You have changed the subject at least twice, once to "Old Folks at Home," and once to try to put the polar opposite of my statement about Mark Twain into my mouth. Sorry you feel that way,Bob. The name of the state song, the Suwanee river one, is Old Folks at Home, which is the topic of the thread, hardly a change of topic. I don't see where comparing to Mark Twain is off-course, either. You refer to the word "darkie" as straightforward racist stuff and a terrible insult, yet you take the N word abundantly used in another piece of writing and give it a free pass. There is nothing consistent there, sir. How you can condemn one, which was used one time, and support another which was used freely with a word that is widely still used and condemned today,makes little sense to me. I see no consistency in your protest. Also the only valid comparison to me and a squid is that we both use ink. If you didn't know about the word before, though, you know about it now. You know that there's a decent proportion of decent folks that are going to feel wounded and hurt every time you use it. Bob, I would never even consider using it under any circumstances, not because I consider it to be such a racial insult but because it sounds like such a silly word. If I were in an argument or something and in the heat of the moment and wanted to use a racial slur - which is hard to imagine me doing since i can be much more creative - would i scream out "Oh, you darkie!!!!"?. I find it unlikely even though it would probably stop the fight due to the other person doubling over in fits of laughter.  btw....bless you, my son, but I am 62 and more than willing to share my experiences with younger people like you  how can the State of Florida (and we haven't even gotten into "My Old Kentucky Home) cling to a sentimental racially loaded tune just because it is traditional? Jim, racially loaded? The word darkie, an archaic word at best used in one line in an inoffensive manner and you call it racially loaded?? Thank God neither one of us exaggerate! When I referred to the song being sung to blacks, I was referring to the lyrics. It reads, Oh, darkies! How my heart grows weary!...which means, if performed, the singer would be singing to field hands or plantation workers. I was not referring to the audience. If you're really all that okay with the word, Mike, start using it in daily discourse. The next time you're on the links with a black man, call him darky a few times. In a non-hateful way, of course. Then, please, let us know how that works out for you? That's my point, Ron. I would have never used it anyway...wasn't even aware of it. I could do it in South America, where negro, fatty, skinny and other descriptive words are used as terms of affection or respect....but not here. I'll do one better, Ron. On the golf course I'll call one of my black partners N... Jim or Bill or whatever, and then take Bob's advice and explain to him that N-word simply underlines what dirt-wads most of the rest of the players actually are and is acceptable. Think that one will fly?? Peace to all..... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Don't explain it to him, Mike. That's telling and it doesn't work. You have to show, not tell. As, of course, you very well know. If you can effectively show a deeper meaning, be it for unfeeling robots or wooden dummies, such that the story reveals something very different from what the raw, individual words otherwise seem to say, then yea, you will have pulled off something very similar to what Mark Twain did with his black characters and the bigots surrounding them. Show, don't tell, and the words matter less than the meaning when the meaning betrays the lie behind the words. That's what Twain did. That's what I've seen you do countless times in the past. That is not, however, what Foster did. And somehow, I think you're smart enough to recognize the difference. Mark Twain wouldn't be a suitable comparison -- even if we were trying to make Tom Sawyer representative of everyone in a state. Nobody is doing that, though, nor would it likely be suitable should someone try. So far as I can tell, no one is trying to demonize the song, Mike. But it sure as heck shouldn't be honored as suitable representation for the whole state. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Mike... how is it possible that you are (barely ) old enough that you could be my grandfather... (don't take it too hard, you're actually closer in age to my dad...) and I know the term darkie is offensive, yet you apparently don't. Do you like to be called whitey or cracker?I looked the song up on Wikipedia, and read the lyrics... I see that Foster intended for the song to be told in a black narrator's voice. I personally don't think it was meant in an offensive way, but you have to be able to recognize the potential for offensiveness. Wiki also noted that the word 'darkies' is often substituted with 'words like "lordy," "mama," "darling," "brothers" or "dear ones"'. So, is there a proper use for offensive words in music and literature? Is it possible to effectively explore a time and place by using the vernacular of the time? Of course. But do you want a song sung from a former slave's viewpoint in self-depreciating terms as your state song? For the sake of tradition? Really Mike? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, I acknowledge an error. I attributed the use of "My Old Kentucky Home" as an example to you. You did not use it. I then mistakenly called "My Old Kentucky Home" "The Old Folks at Home." You were upset by this, and it enabled you to attempt to confuse things even further. I think you were under the impression that I had listed all the attempts I had found of you trying to change the topic in an attempt not to have to deal with the use of that highly unpleasant word "darkie" in the State Song of Florida. I see now that you had seen my attempt to be respectful as a weakness on my part. That is just as well. Your use of either Boston Blackie or Sam Spade would serve as two additional examples of your willingness to attempt to use red herrings to draw attention away from a specious train of reasoning. Argumentum ad absurdum was considered suspect by Aristotle and everybody who's written on the subject since. The best reason for considering it, oddly enough, is that it's also a logical fallacy to disregard an argument based on the prior thinking of the person who's made it. They have to be considered one at a time. These still fail the sniff test. They have nothing to do in type or kind with a discussion about the morality of being willing to use racist language in a racially mixed state that sides with extreme elements of one faction against the dignity right to representation of the other. It is a simple obfuscation. You still persist in distorting my comments about Mark Twain. Are you doing so on purpose? Have I in some fashion been unclear about my admiration for Mark Twain, or are you simply attempting to distort my reasonably clear statements for some purpose that I don't understand here? Is there some third alternative I haven't mentioned, such as using a discussion about Mark Twain to change the discussion from one about the use of racist language in what should be , at least today, a reasonably bias free environment—should we take your statements at face value—and turn it to a discussion of something completely off the subject? Something worth discussion, no doubt, but once again, after we've finished our discussion of this reasonably unpleasant used of the word "darkie" in the State song of Florida. Which, need I remind you, you initiated. Did you expect silent acceptance? Not from me, and it looks like you've made a number of other folks wince as well. I still refuse to believe you have ill intentions. Best wishes, BobK. |
||
Ringo 
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
I just happened across this thread, and while I don't have anything to add to the current direction that this thing seems to be circling, I do have a couple of questions in the general neighborhood. Actually, I would like to begin with a statement about something that... irritates me (and not a few of my darker skinned brothers). 90% of the "African Americans" in this country have never been outside the country, much less have been to Africa. 99% of them are not African Immigrants. The majority of them are decendants of men and women who (forcably) immigrated here at least a century and change ago. If I ask to be called a British American, according to my heritage, then people's minds short circuitbecause they can't understand what I am talking about, yet if I don't use the phrase African American, then I am insensitive and racist..and there is no inconsistency. Anyhow... enough about that. On the subject of using the term "darkies" once in a song that was written a hundred and change ago by some guy who lived his entire life in Western and Northern Pa.and being a racist for it... The state legislature of Florida (or whomever is raising the dust around this)has decided that the use of this one term one time in one song was FINALLY offensive and racist after how many years, and we are forced to capitulate. Samuel Clemens uses a phrase that is universally accepted as offensive and racist, and he is required reading in every high school and university in the country... and there is no inconsistency. Someone uses the word "boy" and people are ready to lynch him in a manner to make the Sheets proud(oh... I apologize,was that an offensive term for the KKK?? Should I apologize in a genuflect for being so rude?), and yet Mel Brooks uses the almighty "N-Word" numerous times in his movie "Blazing Saddles" and is considered to be a movie making genius...and there is no inconsistency. Anyone who is not of the highly pigmented persuasion uses the "big one", and it is the gallows for them, yet young children are taught around the nation to root for the "Redskins", "Braves", "Chiefs", "Indians", and "Blackhawks".. not to mention the "Canuks" (all of which were used in a derrogatory manner at one time or another)... and yet there is no inconsistency. If I were to win the Powerball Lottery for $380 million and I started a college scholarship program for underpriveledged whites ONLY, I would be in front of the ACLU kangaroo court so fast, I wouldn't have time to cash the check, yet... and somehow, this doesn't stop my kids from being excluded from being considered for the United Negro College Fund... and there is no inconsistency. This, gentlemen, is a complete NON-ISSUE. Until EVERYONE is protected from so-called insinsitive and racially charged words (especially those used in songs that no adult remembers all of the words to any longer), then one particular racial group should not be protected while everyone else is left to swing in the breeze. I would stick around and add more, yet it is time to call my lawyer and sue the Cracker Barrel chain for using THAT word. I find it an insensitive and racially charged word that is insulting to fine white trash all over the country. What would you attempt to do...if you knew you could not fail?. www.myspace.com/mindlesspoet |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Mark Twain wouldn't be a suitable comparison No, Ron, he wouldn't. The only reason I brought him up was because we have two cases where popular writings of our past contain titles offensive to blacks. Three, actually, if you want to throw in LR's Gone With the Wind. I do not believe Mark Twain named his character with the N word as a derrogatory racial insult any more than I believe Stephen Foster did. There is another comparison. You may claim that the song is ok but not suitable to be a state anthem. Tom Saywer and Huck Finn are classics. If you buy a set of American classics for your son, they will be included. Don't know about now but, in my time, they were required reading in school. Well, if the song is not suitable to be a state anthem why should they be suitable to be classics? You may say that, if you read Twain's work you will see that there is nothing racial intended. I contend that,upon reading the words of the song, one would find the same thing. Of the few who have offered to submit the definitions they found for the word darkie, calling it an insulting racial name, a noun informal and offensive. Bob calls it straightforward racist and a terrible insult. Only Hush looked far enough to find that it can also be used in a friendly way, even as a term of endearment. Considering that the song was written in the manner of a black singing to other blacks, which definition would you consider to be more logical? Shouldn't be honored as a suitable representation of the whole state? It's not a representation of anything except for whichever state government at the time decided to choose it. It has been the state song for over a century and no one has had a problem with that. Now,however,that someone wants to make a ruckus over it, all of a sudden it's blasphemous? Please.... Personally, Ron, I could care less what the state song is. I didn't even know it was the state song and I venture to say that the vast majority of Americans have no idea what their state song is, either. Stop a few people and ask them what the Michigan state song is and see how many know. If I had to pick a state song for Florida it would be Send in the Clowns. The state song doesn't bother me...the new hubbub surrounding it does. I find it symptomatic of a much more serious illness. For over half a century many barriers have been broken down with respect to equality. Yes, we still have a way to go but progress is being made. This state song doesn't break down any barrier. Neither does my golf game. I say "boy" a lot on the golf course, partially because i am older than many of the people I golf with. I should be able to say "Nice shot, boy!","Good putt, boy!" with a smile or pat on the back to whoever did it. I can't. I'm now required to subconsciously check the race of the person I'm speaking to first to avoid insulting anyone. That's not breaking down a barrier nor is it promoting equality. It is CREATING a barrier where none need exist. Bob thinks it's good that I consider their sensitivities. Why??? Boy is not an insult. Why should it be taken as one?...because 70 years ago blacks were addressed with it? These are the types of things that damage equality, not strengthen it. With regards to the song, someone (doesn't say who) issued a complaint that the song was racist. Why? Probably because they felt they could get some blacks to claim that they were offended by it and they could also get other people, like ones on this thread to show outrage that that such a racial song to be a state anthem. There were no mass marches, No Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpeton in town leading marches for it's removal...just someone who felt they could push a few buttons and make people jump....and they were successful. There is no interest in equality here...only controversy. And the state of Florida responded to the puppet-string pull in a properly apologetic way and made it an issue after over a hundred years of existence. Just for kicks, I asked four black customers of mine today what they thought of it. They laughed, said it sounded like a kindergarten word and one summed it up well by saying, "Who gives a (fill in the blank)?" Eliminating racial barriers is good. Creating further racial barriers is not. This entire fiasco with the state anthem is indicative of the second. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Wiki also noted that the word 'darkies' is often substituted with 'words like "lordy," "mama," "darling," "brothers" or "dear ones"'. But do you want a song sung from a former slave's viewpoint in self-depreciating terms as your state song? Hush! My young friend! The grandaughter I always wanted!!! (you really know how to hurt a guy) Make up your mind.You show where the words can be endearing also and then call them self-depreciating. Why do you do that? Call me unpatriotic but the truth is that i could care less what my state song is....or the bird...or the flower. On my "Important things that Count" list they don't even show up |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You were upset by this, and it enabled you to attempt to confuse things even further. you had seen my attempt to be respectful as a weakness on my part. Bob, keep going and you are going to set a record for the amount of times you can be wrong in one reply. If you knew me better you would know you do not have the ability to upset me and I NEVER take a respectful attitude as a weakness. I mean, after all, you called me a squid and it didn't upset me so how much more could you do to me? You still persist in distorting my comments about Mark Twain. Bob, I see no distortion. We have one word in a state song one one hand and Mark Twain's use of the N word on the other. You condemn the song for the use of that one word and give Twain a pass based on his intentions, despite his abundant use of racially-biased language. I find that inconsistent, that's all. You will not find a more avid devotee of mark Twain than me. As I mentioned before, I am from Missouri. Every summer, beginning when I was in the third grade, I spent two weeks in Hannibal,where my aunt and uncle lived. I went to all the places Tom and Huck spoke of - the cave,lover'sleap, you name it. I ate, drank and breathed Mark Twain and his creations for those two weeks. I WAS Tom Saywer during that time. You don't have to sell me on Mark Twain Did you expect silent acceptance? Bob, this is the ALLEY!!!! Silent acceptance doesn't play here. Your sincere thoughts and opinions do. That is what is respected here and you do that well. I still refuse to believe you have ill intentions. Well, thank you for that. I may come across as ill at times,but my intentions are not. My reasoning for introducing this thread can be found in my reply to Ron. I will argue until the blue face syndrome sets in but I will always strive not to be disrespectful to anyone.If you ever feel that I cross that line, please let me know and I will cover my face with my eight tentacles and apologize. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Blatant squidism! Squid have eight arms and only two tentacles, you‘re thinking of them slimy no good octopuses. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Heavens Balladeer, The subject is racism in the state song of Florida. You brought the subject up. As you look progressively more ridiculous, you try harder and harder to change the subject to anything where you can muddy the already disturbing waters. You are hoping if you say it often enough and loudly enough, people will forget your attempts to drag Mark Twain, Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn into this mess are absolutely baseless. Logic is based on a specific kind of reasoning. That reasoning is valid when it excludes "logical fallacies." I mentioned a few contributions back a few of the logical fallacies you persist on dragging into your discussion (the use of red herrings featuring prominently among them) as if the very use of them didn't discredit any pretense to reasoned discussion you might make. You ask why, if "Old Folks at Home" is unsuitable as a state anthem, would Huck Finn And Tom Sawyer be suitable as classics? Once again, Balladeer, you try to obscure the subject. You pretend I haven't called you out on this before, and that you don't know that you're using a red herring. You do know because you've been told. If you want to talk about why Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer should or should not be thought of as classics—I say "yes," by the way—I would happily talk about it with you. AFTER we finish this increasingly evasive discussion. Simple. The statement [IF] "Old folks at Home" is a racist song has no causal relationship with [Then] Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer should or should not be classics. The two clauses are totally independant of each other and unrelated. To confuse the two may amuse you for some disturbing reason, but it does not serve to cast any clarity on the discussion at all, only to drag another unhappy andf half-rotted herring across a perfectly straightforward train of reasoning. The first and third elements of the syllogism one might suspect you are trying to build are unconnected in the middle. It is false logic. It is defunct. It is no good. Balladeer, to quote Montey Python. "The parrot is dead!" I look forward to your next thrilling installment. I fully expect to hear how the whole thing was Bill Clinton"s fault. It won't work either, but at least it will be entertaining and new. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, Hadn't seen your last reply before I posted the above. Still on Mark Twain I see. I had hoped for some change. Twain's racially charged language was a strong indictment of the people whose mouths he put it in. Apparently you want me to take you one of those people who believe that an author believes every word that he puts into the mouth of every one of his characters. Perhaps you'd like me proudly to proclaim that Shakespeare said First Kill all the Lawyers, as though that was his personal opinion about all lawyers, and then forget that he put the phrase into the mouth of what was in Shakespeare's time one of the most wretched characters in English history, who then proceeded to follow it up with words to the effect of, then lets kill all the clerks and everybody who can read! Oh no. Twain's use of the word most sharply cut the people he had using it the most. I do believe you're a good enough reader to be entirely clear on that point. Or do you believe otherwise? As I said before, Should you wish to talk about Twain, by all means, let's. After this increasingly rancorous discussion is over. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Is this the proposition you’re railing against Mike? All words that can be construed as racist are racist. If so I think your logic is sound as far as the use of Reductio ad absurdum is concerned, you can legitimately use Mark Twain, Snoop Dogg or even slimy octopuses to show the absurdity of taking the above proposition to the extreme. I should add, from the safe shelter of the excluded middle I’m clinging to, that logic, even sound logic, doesn’t always guarantee correctness. political or otherwise. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And you, Bob, are the established authority on this because? If I told you that your replies to us were written in Latin and therefore unintelligible to an English-speaking web site, would that make it true? Would you then "know" you had been writing in Latin? I don't think Mark Twain is a suitable comparison to Steven Foster because of the differences. I do, however, see similarities and accept that comparison is a valid tool for uncovering truth. I think Ringo is horribly wrong to suggest we can't protect anyone if we can't protect everyone, but I also recognize that the foundation for justice is consistency. Inconsistency breeds a sense of injustice, which I honestly feel is the real complaint from both Mike and Ringo, as well as millions more. Unfortunately, while you can demand consistency when trying to change people's actions, it's much more difficult to find when you're trying to change people's feelings. That takes more time. What I'm trying to suggest, Bob, is that it's much more productive in the Alley to counter arguments than it is to dismiss arguments with a cavalier because-I-said-so gesture. And, trust me on this one, it's REALLY unproductive to tell someone here they (as opposed to their arguments) "look progressively more ridiculous." Attack the post, not the poster. Please. 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? This thread, to me, seems to be just another in a long line of threads that have run in much the same course. Do we want to talk about darkies? Or do we want to talk about why the profits of political correctness, when driven soley by peer pressure, outweigh the more obvious costs? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Oh kikes, how my heart grows weary Oh wops, how my heart grows weary Oh spics, how my heart grows weary Oh dagos, how my heart grows weary Oh wet backs, how my heart grows weary If the song had any of the above lines Mike - would you think it appropriate for a State government sanctioned official song? We're talking the State equivalent of an anthem here -- that's the issue (that the State of Florida is dispatching) although I think Ron may be right that what you're complaining about is PC -- or at least a PC that you don't like -- there are many PC's out there -- even Republican PC's -- but I've never heard you complain about the effort to change the name of the Inheritence tax to a "Death" tax? Tradition is no excuse to hang on to something that is hurtful. While the first amendment guarantees your right to say darkie, boy, jigaboo, or anything else you want to say -- it may be detrimental to your reputation -- or even your health in some quarters. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
dictionary.com defines 'anthem': –noun 1. a song, as of praise, devotion, or patriotism: the national anthem of Spain; our college anthem. 2. a piece of sacred vocal music, usually with words taken from the Scriptures. 3. a hymn sung alternately by different sections of a choir or congregation. –verb (used with object) 4. to celebrate with or in an anthem. Do you really want to show praise and devotion or (horrific as this sounds) patriotism with a song that displays the horrendous time in which Americans trapped, imported, and owned fellow human beings? Look, don't get me wrong, I don't know or really care what my state anthem is either. But if someone told me it had the term darkie in it I'd be all for changing it. Do I see value in this song as a folk song? Yes. But if your argument is the use of a racial term among members of the same race as a term of endearment, why not swap the old for the new and throw a 50 cent song in as your anthem? And do you think it was a black man who picked this song as the anthem? A comparison to books like Huck Finn (or To Kill a Mockingbird, for that matter) being taught in schools is completely moot- these books are not 'anthems' and I don't know about the teachers you had, but my teachers made us interpret these books. The racists and the slaveowners were not heroes. And as far as being mad about thinking blacks get 'special' treatment... I'll play devil's advocate here: if your entire race has been owned, beaten down, lynched, and discriminated to even to this day, then... Yes. Your family has not had the same opportunities my family had. Maybe your grandpa could only get a job peddling newspapers because my grandpa and his white friends got all the good jobs, so maybe your family was a lot poorer than mine because (at least in part) of racial disparities. Maybe peoples that have been downtrodden by the dominant race (Yep that's right- white folks) should ahve a hand extended to help them up from their forced second-class citizenry. So shoot me for sying it. Will I be mad at someone if they call me a cracker? Yeah... but everyone here knows that the term cracker does not have the same weight as the 'n' word, because white people were never the underdogs, not in America at least. A black man didn't own my ancestor. And I can't, for the life of me, see why some white people get so mad about the people that were oppressed for so long getting a leg up in life. As far as the American Indian (or native American, or whatever other equally misleading name you'd like to use) they were unfortunetly not all that useful as slaves, so instead of breeding them like cattle like black people were (thus giving them a big enough population to eventually stand up to the status quo of racism) we gave them blankets with smallpox and sent the few that remain to drink themselves to death in their defeat on reservations. So, the few that are left... just don't have the strength to fight their repressed status quo. My two cents for now. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
I take the song-changing as a good intention and a kind of mending though smart politician does take advantage of it. Black people of young generation may not care about it. And I am sure that most black people 100 years later will laugh at it. But do you agree that some does want to fly the Confederate Flag again? Government should have a proper attitude and sensitivity. I don't call this a PC this is a PC www.adversity.net/special/******.htm And my child of 7 yr patted on the shoulder of a black girl and wanted to talk to her when stood in line for lunch. She reported to teacher that my child hit her. So I got a call from Principal who told me that she knew my kid well (meant he would not hit somebody) but she had to handle it very carefully. I understood well because that little girl was bused in from inner city and she must be very nervous. I had no complain. I tried to understand. Black people and other minorities have suffered in this country. Never heard of Japaneses concentration camp? http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/haiku/haiku.htm never heard of glass ceiling? I told my child that every girl was a tiger so don't touch them because they bite. I think that It is the sensitivity and understanding. or just a topic to talk about between golfing. I try my best to be your BEST FRIEND to listen to you carefully but I DO JUDGE YOU |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, Yes, If somebody told me I was talking Latin, pointed it out to me, gave me examples, showed me how the grammar was different than English, I certainly would believe them. Especially if the evidence was clear. Have you checked back to see the number of times I pointed out Red Herrings in Balladeers' postings,Ron? Have you checked to see the number of times I offered to discuss them with him? Do you understand the comments I made about why I thought these comments were red herrings? Did you see my attempts to be clear about them? I didn't actually see Balladeer respond directly to the meat of any of them. He did twist them, change the subject and try to take them off on a different tangent several times, but he didn't respond to them, did he? Nobody made me the world's authority, Ron. I simply cited the standard authority for rational discussion in civilized discussion commonly accepted for the last 2500 years. Aristotle's Logic and his Rhetoric. These are the same rules Alexander the Great, The Church Fathers and the founders of the country accepted. I simply signed on at the end of a longest line of commonly accepted authority I could find. I know better than to try to walk into an argument with no rules, or one where the winner is the one with the cutest face. If discussion that enourages the use of logical fallacies is considered as valid in this arena as discussion that attempts to use logic, I should be happy to learn of it. I would have a better idea of how to value these discussions. And so should you, shouldn't you? A red herring is a red herring, Ron. Does it matter a lot who points it out? Do you disagree that any of the examples of red herrings I identified, other that the one that I acknowledged was a mistake and took back, as was my responsibility, was other than what I claimed? If a man is going to make the kind of statement that Balladeer did to open this thread of discussion, I certainly feel not simply the right but an obligation to make it absolutely clear exactly how outrageous he is being. I respect the man's talent, but in this case I think he is not taking responsibility for his political provocativeness. This is not a matter of one person versus another, Ron. If that were the case, I would not be trying to stay within the accepted bounds of reasonable discourse. I would feel free to change the subject, not apologise for my mistakes or even admit them, restate errors without dealing with attempts by the other to address them, etc. Should you care to go back through the threads and pick up places where I have been remiss in these obligations, I will be happy to either account for my lapses or apologise for them and try to make them right. Sincerely yours, BobK. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Folks, I know you're all writing to express your own opinions, but I wanted to say, that I was incredibly relieved at the amount of heartfelt and sensible stuff I see out there, even when it doesn't agree with me, and even when I start to fly off the handle a bit. It's nice to see that everybody really does more mean well than anything else. Bless you all, Bob Ps: Certainly, Grinch, you're right about logic and anything critical you have to say about me. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Yea, Bob, I read what you said. Saying it doesn't make it so, however, and saying it a lot doesn't increase the odds of being right. Even Aristotle would have to do more than call something irrelevant to make it irrelevant. At the very least, before moving on to a "that's settled" status and calling the argument won, we would expect a consensus. Maybe not from everyone. But likely from more than just one person? quote: Yea, Bob, I do disagree. I thought I said that? A red herring, by common definition, is something irrelevant; a comparison of two writers using similar language isn't necessarily irrelevant, even if it is, perhaps, flawed when the wrong things are being compared. Comparisons are an important tool for reaching conclusions. They are important clues to what someone thinks. They can certainly be faulty, and indeed frequently are, but only rarely will be they be irrelevant. You can, of course, disagree. You can even disagree strenuously. Just don't stoop to call me ridiculous in the process. Not here, in these forums, at any rate. It's not how we try to do things. Okay? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, I identified and pointed out the undistributed middle in Baladeer's syllogistic reasoning, Ron. First and third legs were unconnected. Since you read the discussion, you understand this can only be disputed by a response that addresses the formal flaw in the reasoning, q.e.d. Unlike legal reasoning, which Aristotle distinguishes, I believe, as an inferior type, defects in formal reasoning must be repaired, like bridges, before traffic is driven across them. In formal reasoning, disagreements of the kind you cite as acceptable are in fact not acceptable. That is why appeals to emotion such as the one you are making are permitted in, say, a court of law, or a public address, but are excluded in philosophical or scientic debate. Changing the subject "a little bit" is still considered a red herring. Looking for deeper motives for changing the subject doesn't do anything to repair the damage in the syllogism that's been offered. Until the syllogism has been repaired, any attempt to put traffic over it is a failure. Ron, I have no position of power here. Zip. Zero, nada, none. The only appeal I can make is to reason. I have no pretty face. I have limited toleration for what I consider to be racial impoliteness, and I will not back down in the face of it. I have a limited set of shoddy but time honored tools to use. I try to use them with as much politeness and respect as I can muster. For any personal sense of arrogance I project, I am sorry. I am flawed this way. If I slip into it again from time to time, I will willingly acknowledge the flaw again and again, and try to correct it. I will not pretend to believe that this sort of provocative discussion should be allowed to proceed without being shown up for the logical sham and travesty that it is however. I will not pretend that attempts to cover up the flaws in the argument with loud throat clearings and Deus ex Machina appearances from authorities on high (Ron), repair the tatty workmanship of the premises. Not to my eye they don't. Once we can decide how sound the actual argument is, without constantly trying to shift the basis or subject of it, it may actually be possible to settle it on the basis of actual reasoned discussion rather than pointless shouting. I think that would be nice. I don't actually like opening myself up to the possibility of being shown to be wrong, as actual reasoned argument might show, but that possibility is there, you know. If we actually take the discussion point by point and look at it and work it through, both balladeer and I as representatives of two distinct points of view might actually learn something. I do not say the points that balladeer raises are right or wrong, though I think them wrong. I haven't had a chance to examine them because they have been raised in an out of order fashion, and block the examination of the pieces of the argument that both of us SEEM to feel are most important. Dealt with in this way, these side issues are in fact red herrings, not simply because they are a change in subject and prevent the forwarding of the argument, but because the main discussion prevents a solid discussion of these other interesting points as well. There are reasons for syllogistic, step by step reasoning. It is solid, it can be examined, its flaws can be discoved and worked through. Of course I want to be right here. I have an ego and probably too much of one. I have a good solid element of blowhard to me; perhaps there's one of you who might claim they didn't (I myself, by the way would nominate TomMark, who actually doesn't seem to be a blowhard). But thank goodness there actually other parts of me as well, difficult as they might be to find from time to time. I actually want to understand as much about this seemingly un-understandable thing as I can. To do so means I have to risk feeling, looking like and occasionally being a fool. I think it's in a good cause. As a post script, Ron, I may have called you riduculous at some point, but don't remember doing so. I think I'd be more likely to call myself ridiculous, whom I actually know well enough to be able to make a solid call on. I am often ridiculous, as are many of the people I value highly. I've frequently found many of the insults people use for each other something of a puzzle. But no, I don't believe I do find you ridiculous, actually. Enjoyably prickly at this point, I think, but I don't have much sense of your core. Certainly a lot of determination, there, though, and a driving sense of values and a settled sense of self. Probably be nice to have about three cups of coffee and a long discussion with you about poetry and the world sometime. Oh yes, Did I mention loyalty to friends? I should have mentioned loyalty to friends. Ridiculous, though? not that I can tell, though I suppose I can always hope. My best, BobK. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
yet if I don't use the phrase African American, then I am insensitive and racist..and there is no inconsistency. Anyhow... enough about that. This is not true. Media or many think the white is default, you know default. So other colored has to have a title to make clear that "YOU ARE NOT WHITE". To label Americans by racial groups by Government is already providing a chance of discrimination though It does have significant medical and judicial reasons. It narrows down the target. esp today when light changes. but I also recognize that the foundation for justice is consistency. Inconsistency breeds a sense of injustice, which I honestly feel is the real complaint from both Mike and Ringo, as well as millions more. ? By creation and evolution, we would be still dirt if you were for consistency. shall we change for better as human are such fallible being? and It one says that who cares that "this words or that words" I shall say that many are hurt by that and esp when in Childhood. Last year when I took a walk in park, twice, men (Hispanic) of 60+yrs chatted with me. Two minutes into the talk, they were talking about their childhood. about how they were discriminated and how they have done well later in life out of those human "curse". This touched me deeply. No matter all the good life of adult, they still remember the hurt of dignity.... Being criticized, bad mouthed and name called for something that they could not change. To one it is merely a matter of teacake between talks. To other it is life long fighting and death for gaining social justice...Can human achieve it ?let along one or many refuse to change...If it does not benefit me why I have to change? yea, why I have to change? Dear Bob K, I pretend that I had been well tamed by zoo keeper. [This message has been edited by TomMark (01-15-2008 04:36 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hey, Hush! I really haven't said anything about blacks getting special treatment at all. Even this topic does not deal with blacks in general. As I said there was no mass protest to change the song. People didn't write in demanding one. This was simplya case of one man, one representative in the legislature claiming that the song was offensive,demanding change, and having the state doing anything to placate him....that's about it. As far as the Indians are concerned (wherever they popped up from in this topic) ther is no doubt that how they were treated is one of the most shameful parts of American history....but it is history. I did not declare war on the Indians. I did not send them to reservations or infect them with smallpox. Why should I assume the guilt of those who did? SHould I feel ashamed for the actions of people a century and a half ago? Sorry, but I don't. Actually, there are many of us who donate money to the Indians every day...darn those casinos! Would being called a whitey, a cracker or a honky bother me? Not in the slightest. I am a firm believer in the Elenor Roosevelt quote.."No one can make you feel inferior without your permission." |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
darn those casinos! what would you say about Las Vegas? what a wonderful city.. the whole world is donating money. I learned a person from a friend that the person donates 200,000.00$ each time he goes and he goes there weekly and fly international flight in first class. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Rebel, You could have a very good point there if any of those words you substituted also denoted terms of endearment when used by members of the same race, such as Hush pointed out darkies does. At any rate, you and ron are correct in the belief that this is more about PC than anything else. btw,congratulations! I know from past experiences, of course, how you like to get politics and political comments in whenever possible but you have outdone yourself here. In one of the few threads I have initiated which has NO bearing on politics and/or political parties, you still managed to work a reference in to Democrats, Republicans and political bias. Such talent should not go unrecognized. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Would being called a whitey, a cracker or a honky bother me? Not in the slightest someone was not as CALM as you because he twice got into fight and got disciplined by mom. Someone of 6 years old thrown a rock at me (8 years old) with name calling and bled my nose. I did not say a thing. His sister was kind enough to took me to her home and washed my face. Should I keep silent for the third time? no, absolutely not. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
BobK, You just don't seem to get it. The point we are at now, and which ron is referring to, is not the topic, it's how we discuss topics here. You may believe you are exactly right. You may lay out your reasoning, quote Aristotle, or do whatever and that's fine. I may not agree with you or believe that my comments and responses are in order. I have that right. You may feel that, if the conversations are not conducted in the way you specify, they are a sham. Go ahead and feel that way if you like. I don't have a problem with it. I will not pretend to believe that this sort of provocative discussion should be allowed to proceed without being shown up for the logical sham and travesty that it is however. And you are the self--appointed person to show it up, I assume? Well, it WILL proceed whether it meets you expectations or definitions of what it should be or not. You can either participate in the right way or stay out of it and save yourself the mental aggravation. I have a limited set of shoddy but time honored tools to use. I try to use them with as much politeness and respect as I can muster. preceded by... As you look progressively more ridiculous you persist on dragging into your discussion (the use of red herrings featuring prominently among them) as if the very use of them didn't discredit any pretense to reasoned discussion you might make. To confuse the two may amuse you for some disturbing reason only to drag another unhappy andf half-rotted herring across a perfectly straightforward train of reasoning. I fully expect to hear how the whole thing was Bill Clinton"s fault. Well, if that's as much politeness and respect that you can muster, I'd buy a new muster machine. As a post script, Ron, I may have called you riduculous at some point, but don't remember doing so You don't get it, sir. Ron was speaking figuratively, not literally. We don't condone calling ANYONE ridiculous here (no, not even me). We present views, we argue, we work in a little sarcasm if it is humorous, we banter, we attack each other's views....we do NOT directly insult anyone on a personal level. That is not what this site is all about and that is a rule that is expected to be followed. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Tom, that's an excellent example between sticks and stones and words |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Would being called a whitey, a cracker or a honky bother me? Not in the slightest I thought that it is your philosophy of endurance. So, it is not.  Someone shall throw a stone at you to test your true self. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And which of those, Bob, scientific or philosophical, would you expect to see in the Alley? quote: Bob, I think that's precisely where you're going wrong here. You've skipped that important first step of agreeing WHAT the actual argument is. In an earlier post, you said, "The subject is racism in the state song of Florida." While I admire your attempt at minimalism, I don't think that's the subject at all. At best, it's a symptom of the subject. Unilaterally defining the subject makes it easier, I suppose, to define what is and isn't relevant. By your definition, Bob, the state song in Michigan would also be irrelevant, would also be a red herring, because it is after all a change in subject. You have defined the subject the way you see it, very narrowly, and I certainly won't deny you the right to do so. You shouldn't be so surprised, however, to find everyone else deviating from the strait path you've set. This isn't formal debate, Bob. If it were, the originating topics would in fact be called resolutions and would all have to be much more stringently defined. This, instead, is discussion. Give and take. That necessarily means there are rarely (if ever) winners or losers, but what we lose in finality I think we gain in potential understanding. I don't care if Mike is right or wrong. I don't care if you are, Bob. I do care how each of you think and feel about what I consider a very important topic in this country. quote: You didn't, Bob. But when you mount a personal attack on anyone in these forums, you'll likely find me standing nearby. And that doesn't have anything to do with loyalty to friends, either. My loyalty is to a process that has worked for almost a decade now. Everything else is (drum roll, please) just a red herring. quote: No, TM, we would have very consistently followed the same path that led to where we are right now. Don't confuse consistency with lack of change. quote: Note the word I emphasized, Mike? Perhaps you'd like to rephrase this part of your complaint? quote: I'm not sure guilt is the word I would choose to use, Mike. Responsibility, perhaps? Why? Because even though a lot of the bad stuff happened several hundreds years ago, so too did a lot of the good stuff. You know, the good stuff you accept every day and even take some pride in. The freedom. The economy. A good education. Enlightened values. I'm not sure it's fair for anyone to accept the benefits of being an American today without also accepting responsibility for how those benefits were sometimes purchased yesterday. No, you didn't declare war on the Indians, Mike. Neither did I. I do, however, live on the land that resulted from those wars and broken treaties. 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. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ringo said, quote: I'm just going to guess Bradley, that you've never been to the Caucasus mountains either -- you may have been though -- it is just a guess after all . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race I understand your frustration though because words are absurd. quote: http://www.africanamericans.com/OrgAfroAmericanUnity.htm Just as a test -- what race do we call the people who eminate from South Eastern Asia? Um... Asian? Words are absurd. [This message has been edited by Ron (01-16-2008 06:03 AM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: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: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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
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 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
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 don’t believe the line is racist, I don’t believe Twain is racist and I don’t believe Snoop Dogg is racist when he uses the N word either. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
A good place to start searching for anything Mike is at Wikipedia -- you could even click the link I provided above and find: quote: 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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: 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: 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
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 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: 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: 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: 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 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
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 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
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 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
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.) |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Nobody now alive committed the atrocities in question. Most of us, except the indians, have derived and continue to derive benefit from them. I wonder how the Indians feel about their current status under the BIA, and exactly what their current status actually is. I wonder how I would feel were I to share such a status under law; and what anybody here would feel, were the folks in charge Russians or Swedes or Chinese, or Greeks, or Germans. I can't imagine my feelings going away after a hundred years. Look, it's coming up time for Easter, pegged to Jewish Passover. The Jews make and have made a point of remembering a time of captivity and slavery for over 3000 years. Are we actually expecting Indians to get over it this quickly? At all? Their recourse to Law is real, it must be acknowledged, but it's somebody else's Law now, isn't it? How would the U.S. Government feel about turning over the adjudication of some of these cases about Indian property rights to the jurisdiction of Indian Courts using Indian Law? I can imagine the howls of protest now. They would probably be about the prejudice of the Indian Courts and how such courts should recuse themselves. I am climbing into the stratosphere of the hypothetical here, aren't I? Please forgive me. The point of this is that United States courts, for all their attempts at objectivity, look back at hundreds of years of ill-advised Indians being forced into gun-at-their-head deals by people who know how to cross their legal t's and dot their legal i's and the whole notion of actual justice not only takes of her blindfold but leaves the building. A few thoughts. BobK. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
If there is a chance to make peace or mending then make them. people do have memories and unwanted past. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Hasn't this question already been answered in a different context? We call them SOFA's. I'm not banging on SOFA's, I see very good reasons for having them, but, at the very least, issues of sovereignty are getting a little murky these days. Or perhaps they've always been like that. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Sir Brad, http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=112395 http://www.kimsoft.com/2002/how_two_korean_girls_were_killed.htm |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yes, that was the incident I was thinking about, I just didn't want to get this thread ( ) too far off subject. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
don' want you to get hurt and hurt again on sofa. [This message has been edited by TomMark (01-18-2008 08:59 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
So Fa, so good. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Dear Bob K, you are smart. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
about political (or social) correctness. PC in general is away from truth for gaining political interests. I think that they are three types of it 1. say something that is not true. 2. Does not say something is true. 3. Absolute silence. I will find examples of them. I think that it is one of the self-protective behavior that one yields own power to a higher power (such as owner, mainstream opinions and bullets or something life threatening) through lying. Why lying? because there is a presence of tyrannical power. A best example is The Emperor's New Suit. [This message has been edited by TomMark (01-20-2008 10:57 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I don't think so, either, Mike. I'm certainly not suggesting we should assume responsibility for suffering simply because there is suffering. There are no shoulders this side of Heaven wide enough to bear THAT load. You wouldn't be responsible for the life a stranger took, any more than I would be responsible for the devastation of a hurricane named Katrina. If you treated the widow with a little extra consideration, or I contributed a few extra dollars, that would be kindness, not responsibility, humanity, not obligation. quote: Doesn't that just give them a lot in common with the children of the victims, Mike? The question, I think, boils down to this: What do you inherit from your parents? Ultimately, of course, we're talking about the intangible things, things like values, respect and admiration, a strong sense of self and family, and so much more -- but just to keep it really simple for now, let's limit our question to just the tangible and common things. Do you withdraw all your father's money from the bank and leave his bills unpaid? Do you take the good that was your father and leave behind the bad? I suspect it would help satisfy our American sense of justice (and I honestly do believe this is a cultural issue) if everyone in the world received a clean slate at birth, Mike. It would be equally nice if life was always fair, wouldn't it? It clearly doesn't work that way, though, especially not if your parents or grandparents were victims. Life, we both know, isn't always fair. The son of a slave isn't born a free man with a clean slate dependent only on his own future actions. The son of a slave inherits the yoke of his father. Why should the son of the slave owner get to insist his slate be wiped clean? Does that really satisfy a sense of justice? Is that somehow more fair? Neither son has committed a wrong, neither feels they are to blame, but both I think must bear the weight of their inheritance. The one should get a clean slate, Mike, only when both can get a clean slate. And we ain't there, yet. quote: Again with the guilt, Mike? There's a big difference, I think, between being culpable for your father's actions and being responsible for them. You have to pay Daddy's second mortgage -- even if it means selling that shirt on your back -- but that has to be measured in terms of justice, not vengeance. You owe the debt. That doesn't mean you're guilty of incurring it. The difference may seem a subtle one, but I'm convinced it's a very real one. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Powerful writing, Dear Ron, esp There are no shoulders this side of Heaven wide enough to bear THAT load. This is the summery of the "responsibility" of the past. Very, very right!!!!! How many death or who to die can bring back my grandpa and his sister? But something is still here today. Prejudice are not only in certain groups. It is the self-proud characters. One of my Jewish friend told me that he could not walk on the street in east San Diego. He would have chance to get killed. and he was retained for several hours almost each time he passes US customer when come back from Israel. ( I said to him "probably you are one of the terrorist" ) if something can bring a little peace for today and future, then we shall do it. Again, Dear Ron, powerful write. and a good title for a poem. [This message has been edited by TomMark (01-20-2008 12:03 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, Ron, your explanations are making me see things more clearly and I understand better where you are coming from.....and agree. We get a lot more from our parents than DNA. Blacks can easily get the feelings of prejudice against them, of being "second-class citizens".They can, subsequently, develop, inferiority feelings as they grow. Does that mean they are inferior? No, but it means the feeling is ingrained. Whites can grow up with a fear of blacks? Why? One could make the argument that the guilt or feelings of responsibility of the actions of their forefathers creates it. Do they personally feel guilt? No, but the feeling is there. Women who will swear they feel no prejudice at all will hold their handbags a little tighter when a black walks toward them. There is the commonly-told story of the lady in the Las Vegas hotel who stepped into the elevator after a very successful run at the blackjack table, with a sizeable amount of money in her purse. Two blacks stepped in with her, one a very sizeable person. She stood there, with the men behind her for a minute until the large fellow said "Hit the floor", at which point she dropped to her knees, let go of here purse and said "Please don't hurt me!" The man said, "The floor of your room, lady. Hit the button!" Later that night a large bouquet of flowers was sent to her room with a note...."Thank you for one of the biggest laughs I;ve ever had"...and it was signed Eddie Murphy, who was the man in the elevator, along with his bodyguard. A cute story but it has truth in it. Those feeling do exist in many people. For the most part, there IS a barrier. How is it resolved? Good question. I think it has been resolved in many areas. Mixed marriages, once considered travesties, are now commonplace. It takes work on both sides and I agree with you that whites need to understand the positions of our ancestors and where blacks are coming from with their actions and requests. I also agree that whites can go the "extra mile" in an attempt to rectify the past. True, there are blacks that simply use the past as an excuse for their own personal gain but there are also millions who just want to be considered on the same level as anyone else. I can understand what you are saying. I would have no complaint about changing the song if there were a movement among blacks to have it removed. I don't think it was written from a prejudicial direction, but simply using the black vernacular of the day. I've heard the song sung many times and I have NEVER heard it sung in that manner. It is sung in the same manner we would sing any song, with the exception of using the word mammy. I've never heard the stanza sung which contains the word darkie. It is one of those songs where only the first stanza is sung and known for, much like America the Beautiful. Having said that, however, I would still support it's removal if blacks did indeed find it offensive enough...call it my accepting responsibility Blacks did NOT complain about the song. No black organization complained about the song. Hush shows more outrage at the song than any black in Florida. This was a case of ONE man deciding he didn't want the song to remain and stuck a stick in the beehive for some reasoning known only to him....and having a state legislature jump to appease him out of fear of not being politically correct. Call me wrong but I call it silly at best... |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
About political correctness again in this case. There are several conditions here. 1. Change the song based on the demand of the black people. 2. Change the song out of historically guilt. 3. Change the song for political gain to win the heart of black people for election. 4. Change the song because a single person wants to do it because there is nothing else to do signify the State-government. 5. Don't change because that today nobody is bothered. A PC case here shall be like this: Black people didn't think that "darkies" as a racial slur but the single one person still wanted to change the song to show that he really cared about their feelings. My thought |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, In a trip to Barnes & Noble the other day I looked into a current edition of Webster's New College Dictionary to see if the revision had chosen to look at the word differently than my roughly 40 year old home edition. It had so chosen. The new version was that the word was offensive and had grown increasingly more so over time. I thought I'd offer the update because these word searches sometimes prove interesting, because I like to present them whether they prove or disprove what I'm trying to say because I love words, and because I think you probably do too. The word does not appear in Johnson, but then Johnson is pretty much exclusively a source of 18th century English usage, rather than English-American usage. As for your point above that no People of Color or organizations demanded a change in the song, I believe the most that you can say here is that you know of none. I do not know, either, the details of voter registration in Florida at the time the legislature (a probably Democratic one at that time, I am ashamed to admit) voted the song the status we are currently discussing. Were I a Person of Color in Florida at that time, I don't know how well my interests would have been represented over such an issue. During World War Two, troops of Color, I am told, were commanded overwhelmingly by white officers rather than same race officers or officers of an integrated officer corps. This was the state of the society. Protest over the lyrics of a state song that idealized the glories of the fastasies of the antebellum south would possibly been greeted by widespread support by the citizens of Florida, whom the depression had hit with special fury. The acutal likelihood of the possibility to my mind seems low, though. The existence of feeling or protest against such a song would not only have to be there, but it would have to be reported. It would not only have to exist, in other words, it would also have to qualify as news. It would have to meet the man bites dog test, and in most southern newspapers of the time, headlines such as "Negroes Unhappy At Not Being Allowed To Vote!" were nowhere to be seen. Why? It wasn't news. Many if not most white citizens were aware of the simmering resentment and rage over segregated schools and restrooms and literacy tests among People of Color. The newspapers kept pretty quiet about it, again, because it wasn't news. This is very circular, I know, but sometimes people get into these circular places as societies and even individually. I think the reason you haven't seen much record, Balladeer, is not because it wasn't there, but because it was so much a part of the atmosphere, it simply wasn't news. Our ancestors did much we may take pride in, and made some really terrible mistakes that our children's children's children will have trouble living down. Should we have to cover our faces before some of those misdeeds? I don't know. I do believe that if I'm going to happily take pride in the shining legacy that America can at her best offer the rest of the world, then I can't say with any kind of personal integrity—this is for me, you understand, Balladeer, for me—that I haven't any responsibility for cleaning up the messes we've made in our attempts to learn to do things right. It's part of what I personally need to do in order to feel comfortable looking people in the street in the eye. It's part of that biblical routine about the beam and the mote, not that I'm generally religious in the way; but sometimes the darn book makes a lot of sense in a short space. Yours, BobK |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Two bullets of Lincoln and King, a sound from our beloved Sir Balladeer who has a big heart, one shall learn how hard to change a thing racial related. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Well, no, the song doesn't outrage me. But if I were a white citizen of florida, I wouldn't want it as my song either because it implies that I find the use of the word darkie (as well as the 'cloying sentimentality' for the days of slavery) representative of my citizenship and my state. I don't see why you care so much or why it bothers you so much to have a new song. So Al Sharpton and the NAACP didn't complain. Maybe they should have? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
But if I were a white citizen of florida, I wouldn't want it as my song either because it implies that I find the use of the word darkie (as well as the 'cloying sentimentality' for the days of slavery) representative of my citizenship and my state. Hush, I feel very confident that at least 98% of the white people in Florida have no idea that the word darkie was even in the song...along with about that same percentage of blacks. I know I didn't..(but then I didn't know what 'cloying' meant, either). I don't see why you care so much or why it bothers you so much to have a new song. One has to CARE so much or be BOTHERED so much to bring a topic into the Alley for debate? As I stated, I could give two shakes about the song. What bothers me is what it's symptomatic of. I felt the same about two families out of hundreds getting the Christmas play canceled at their children's high school despite all the other families, even ones of other religions, having no problem with it. I felt the same about Speedy Gonzalez being banned by a few Mexicans claiming to be offended by it when the polls and facts showed that the large majority of Mexicans LOVED the cartoon and were against it's being banned. THAT's what I was complaining about.... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
BobK, We are not talking about World War II nor the time that the song was selected as the state anthem. We are referring to THIS period of time where the reporting of any such protest or controversy either by the people or by the black organizations would certainly have been reported, if they were to exist. The fact that the complaint by the ONE person which generated the change WAS given the proper news coverage bears that fact out. It makes me wonder just how many Indians are offended by the Atlanta Braves, the Florida State Seminoles or the many other teams who have received demands to have their nicknames changed by virtue of the fact they are insulting. My guess would be the same...an extremely small amount of people making demands for the sake of publicity over a topic the vast majority of the same people would have no problem with....but that's another thread |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Foster I bring this in to shed a little light on the background of the man whose work is in question of being “banned”, or removed as the state song, by the State of Florida. quote:Emphasis added. Quite possibly, he was not alone in his work? quote:Emphasis added. That pretty much speaks for itself, overall. quote: Will Florida push Kentucky into the same venue of changing its state song? Check out the wording of "My Old Kentucky Home." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you, Sunshine, for the input. In that light, Stephen Foster and his wordings could be viewed along the same lines as someone like Samuel Clemen's, for example. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Well, that was my take on it, Mike. While I can see by "today's standards" the state song may be offensive, the song itself, through the ghost of Foster's eyes, was written for the humanity of the Black American. Isn't that taking away Foster's right to his Freedom of Speech[writing]? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, I think that stretches too far. I would say the free speech of the living overrides the free speech of the dead. If blacks consider it offensive now, that's their perrogative and choice and, agreeing with Ron, respecting their request goes with our responsibilities of the past. My point remains that I do not see this as a black issue so much as a complaint of one man, stirring up the hive. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: How many voices do you need to hear, Mike? If one or two is insufficient, what number will make you feel more comfortable? Ten percent? Twenty? At what point does "that's wrong" become "okay, maybe you have a point?" Here's a quotation you might remember? "Unlimited majority rule is an instance of the principle of tyranny." Ayn Rand I could give you a dozen similar thoughts, from the like of Jefferson to Shaw, but this one is my personal favorite: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." James Bovard On December 1, 1955, one woman in Montgomery, Alabama, refused to give up her seat to make room for a white passenger. She was only one of four blacks specifically ordered to move. The other three complied with the order, and an unknown number of others on the crowded bus, black and white, failed to complain. Rosa Parks was just one voice, Mike. Everyone else was seemingly fine with the status quo. Today's a good day, perhaps, to discuss whether Rosa Parks was right or wrong. It's a good day because the sound of her single voice would, on December 5, lead to the election of a president for the newly formed Montgomery Improvement Association, a young and largely unknown minister of a local Baptist church named Martin Luther King, Jr. Ultimately, Rosa Parks' single voice of protest was joined by that of 40,000 black commuters who, for 381 days, refused to ride a bus. My question for you, Mike, is this: At what point did segregation stop being right and start being wrong? Many today don't remember that Rosa Parks wasn't the first black to refuse to give up her bus seat to a white. Others before her were arrested, even convicted. She was just the first to receive a whole lot of support. Did the lack of black support make everyone before Rosa Parks wrong? Did her refusal on December 1 only become right on December 5? If one person tells me the sun is shining and fifty others tell me it's still dark, what am I supposed to do? Do I listen to the single voice? To the fifty? Personally, I say to hell with all the voices. At some point, I think I have to open my eyes and make my own call. I think I know the difference between light and dark, and I sincerely hope we've all learned the difference between right and wrong. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
My point remains that I do not see this as a black issue so much as a complaint of one man, stirring up the hive. Who got hurt the most during civil war? The mothers of Missouri. The woman who just buried her husband fighting with General Sherman was crying on the death of her son fighting along with General Lee. The frustration. I felt like her now. Now, the "darkies" is a slur. Will you change it? It doesn't matter that it is one man or NO man's issue. Will you present a Bill to change it? Believe me. I have not such a gut to put myself into the front page of the news or the last page. And with the knowledge of unknown. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
---"Unlimited majority rule is an instance of the principle of tyranny." Ayn Rand--- Mathematically, 1/0=meaningless. So the statement supported nothing. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: By reading the section entitled "Controversy" you should have found that quote: Does "some" indicate more than one? From the way it's written it most likely even includes more than African-Americans. quote:  This is Tony Hill. quote: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/state/epaper/2007/03/30/a19a_XGR_song_033 0.html This is my retiring post from this and all PIP threads -- Thanks for the many years of fun, friends, and education. Namaste |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
