PDA

View Full Version : ahhhh yes, jesse jackson again....



david gibson
07-26-2010, 07:23 PM
http://www.thefoxnation.com/culture/2010/07/25/jesse-jackson-wants-black-national-anthem

i though the obama era was going to be the era of post-racism?

if so, he should be pointing his fingers at jesse and denouncing this just as he does at the tea parties and conservatives in general.

but of course he wont, because that would cost him black votes. and he is forever on the campaign trail.....

YardleyLabs
07-26-2010, 07:35 PM
Well, I heard him say that multiculturalism was the richness and genius of the American experience." He said we should be preserving the things that grow out of that experience, not trying to excerpt them from history. I think those are pretty good sentiments and far from racism. What did you hear that was racist?

gman0046
07-26-2010, 09:47 PM
Jesse Jackass, an extortionist and racist for years never ceases to amaze me. Read the comments under his article which tells you what Americans think of him.

road kill
07-26-2010, 10:00 PM
Well, I heard him say that multiculturalism was the richness and genius of the American experience." He said we should be preserving the things that grow out of that experience, not trying to excerpt them from history. I think those are pretty good sentiments and far from racism. What did you hear that was racist?


I think the part about a "Black" anthem is a tad radical and racist.

Aren't we 1 country, indivisible,with liberty and justice for all?

Or do blacks need a special anthem, seperaste from whites??

Yup, seems a tad racist, should be clear to one boasting of such brilliance as you do so often.



rk:D

gman0046
07-26-2010, 10:22 PM
Jesse Jackass, Al Sharpton, Obongo, Holder, and Rev. Wright, are they try to set back race relations in this country? It sure seems so.

Blackstone
07-26-2010, 11:45 PM
You may not be aware, but that “anthem” was first a poem written by James Weldon Johnson about 1900. It was later turned into a song that was adopted by the NAACP around 1920 as the Negro National Anthem. It has been recorded several times since, and was popular in the '70s. Although the song is known as the Black National Anthem, it makes no reference to race at all. The song is about struggle, suffering, hope, never giving up, and staying the course until you finally overcome. It was adopted as the Black National Anthem because it mirrored the struggle of black people in this country. However, it could have just as easily been adopted by Native Americans, the Irish, or any other group that had been oppressed.

road kill
07-27-2010, 06:38 AM
"One nation, under God....."



rk

YardleyLabs
07-27-2010, 06:58 AM
"One nation, under God....."



rk
Ah yes, the Eisenhower version of the Pledge. I preferred it when it simply said "One nation, indivisible.." Of course, for a couple of years after then change was made, I continued to have problems with the wording. I couldn't understand why the pledge said "One nation, invisible under God..."

The problem with your interpretation of the "Black National Anthem" is that you are reacting to words without the context in which they were used. It has been around for over 100 years and has been used, not as an alternative to the National Anthem, but as an inspiration for the civil rights movement. It is a hymn, actually titled "Lift Every Voice and Sing". It includes no mention of race at all.

Lift every voice and sing,'
Til earth and heaven ring,
Ring with the harmonies of Liberty;
Let our rejoicing rise
High as the listening skies,
Let it resound loud as the rolling sea.
Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us,
Sing a song full of the hope that the present has brought us;
Facing the rising sun of our new day begun,
Let us march on 'til victory is won.

Stony the road we trod,
Bitter the chast'ning rod,
Felt in the days when hope unborn had died;
Yet with a steady beat,
Have not our weary feet
Come to the place for which our fathers sighed?
We have come over a way that with tears has been watered,
We have come, treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered,
Out from the gloomy past,'Til now we stand at last
Where the white gleam of our bright star is cast.

God of our weary years,
God of our silent tears,
Thou who has brought us thus far on the way;
Thou who has by Thy might
Led us into the light,
Keep us forever in the path, we pray.
Lest our feet stray from the places, our God, where we met Thee,
Lest, our hearts drunk with the wine of the world, we forget Thee;
Shadowed beneath Thy hand,
May we forever stand,
True to our God,
True to our native land

road kill
07-27-2010, 07:20 AM
Ah yes, the Eisenhower version of the Pledge. I preferred it when it simply said "One nation, indivisible.." Of course, for a couple of years after then change was made, I continued to have problems with the wording. I couldn't understand why the pledge said "One nation, invisible under God..."

The problem with your interpretation of the "Black National Anthem" is that you are reacting to words without the context in which they were used. It has been around for over 100 years and has been used, not as an alternative to the National Anthem, but as an inspiration for the civil rights movement. It is a hymn, actually titled "Lift Every Voice and Sing". It includes no mention of race at all.

Lift every voice and sing,'
Til earth and heaven ring,
Ring with the harmonies of Liberty;
Let our rejoicing rise
High as the listening skies,
Let it resound loud as the rolling sea.
Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us,
Sing a song full of the hope that the present has brought us;
Facing the rising sun of our new day begun,
Let us march on 'til victory is won.

Stony the road we trod,
Bitter the chast'ning rod,
Felt in the days when hope unborn had died;
Yet with a steady beat,
Have not our weary feet
Come to the place for which our fathers sighed?
We have come over a way that with tears has been watered,
We have come, treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered,
Out from the gloomy past,'Til now we stand at last
Where the white gleam of our bright star is cast.

God of our weary years,
God of our silent tears,
Thou who has brought us thus far on the way;
Thou who has by Thy might
Led us into the light,
Keep us forever in the path, we pray.
Lest our feet stray from the places, our God, where we met Thee,
Lest, our hearts drunk with the wine of the world, we forget Thee;
Shadowed beneath Thy hand,
May we forever stand,
True to our God,
True to our native land


The point is not the words of the song, it's a nice song.

The point is the "Black Anthem."


It's devisive.
Again, defending the indefensible.





rk

YardleyLabs
07-27-2010, 08:13 AM
The point is not the words of the song, it's a nice song.

The point is the "Black Anthem."


It's devisive.
Again, defending the indefensible.





rk
I seriously don't understand. Is St. Patrick's Day divisive? What about Oktoberfest celebrations, or Christmas, or Hanukkah, or eating Cajun food? Celebrating things related to the differences in our religious and ethnic identity is not the same as attacking those who are not the same. There may come a time when we are all so assimilated that it will be imposible to distinguish religious, ethnic, linguistic, or national origins. If and when that happens, I think we will be poorer as a nation. No one has suggested that the hymn is a substitute for or competitor with the American National Anthem. Rather, it is a song that has held significance in the history of blacks in America, and has even been less tied to struggle than songs such as "We Shall Overcome" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic". Talking about race and talking about the history of racial divisions is not racism. Failing to talk about these things makes it impossible for divisions to ever heal.

road kill
07-27-2010, 08:29 AM
I seriously don't understand. Is St. Patrick's Day divisive? What about Oktoberfest celebrations, or Christmas, or Hanukkah, or eating Cajun food? Celebrating things related to the differences in our religious and ethnic identity is not the same as attacking those who are not the same. There may come a time when we are all so assimilated that it will be imposible to distinguish religious, ethnic, linguistic, or national origins. If and when that happens, I think we will be poorer as a nation. No one has suggested that the hymn is a substitute for or competitor with the American National Anthem. Rather, it is a song that has held significance in the history of blacks in America, and has even been less tied to struggle than songs such as "We Shall Overcome" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic". Talking about race and talking about the history of racial divisions is not racism. Failing to talk about these things makes it impossible for divisions to ever heal.

Our country has a national anthem;
"The Star Spangled Banner"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner

Perhaps your familiar with it?

It speaks for 1 America.



rk

subroc
07-27-2010, 08:38 AM
I have no problem with naming any song whatever you want to name it. I have no problem with blacks needing and having a song they identify with. I would have a problem with our political leader’s adopting it as a second national anthem. It would be divisive.

We often hear “America the Beautiful” sung and it is often, not always, given similar reverence as our national anthem. There is no reason the nation cannot have several songs that are representative of who we are.

But, Our National Anthem should stand alone.

Hew
07-27-2010, 09:33 AM
I'm steamed that the people who are largely responsible for most decent music in the past 100 years picked such a boring song to be their "anthem." That thing's a snooze fest. Heck...you've got John Coltrane, Duke Ellington, Ella Fitgerald, Louis Armstrong, BB King, Marvin Gaye and Quincy Jones in the bullpen and THAT'S the best song you can come up with?!?

We should just wipe the slate clean and go with Ray Charles singing America the Beautiful and I think everybody would be happy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qemL8WAZqy8&feature=related

YardleyLabs
07-27-2010, 09:38 AM
I have no problem with naming any song whatever you want to name it. I have no problem with blacks needing and having a song they identify with. I would have a problem with our political leader’s adopting it as a second national anthem. It would be divisive.

We often hear “America the Beautiful” sung and it is often, not always, given similar reverence as our national anthem. There is no reason the nation cannot have several songs that are representative of who we are.

But, Our National Anthem should stand alone.
Did I miss someone calling for such official recognition? I am not aware of anyone who is suggesting any official status for the song. Jesse Jackson didn't in the video posted, despite the headline given for his comments on YouTube. As far as I can tell, the current noise began with a comment by a black professor in Georgia saying that calling it the black national anthem was somehow divisive (http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/07/21/black.national.anthem/?hpt=C2). However, it has been called that since about 1920, when the NAACP designated it as the "Negro National Anthem", often sung at NAACP functions in conjunction with the Pledge of Allegiance and the Star Spangled Banner.

Do you think raising an outcry now on Fox and conservative blogdom about something that happened 90 years ago has anything to do with efforts to counter the Sherrod fiasco and the NAACP call for tea party leaders to distance themselves from racist elements in their midst? I'm sure it must be a coincidence.

david gibson
07-27-2010, 10:01 AM
I seriously don't understand. Is St. Patrick's Day divisive? What about Oktoberfest celebrations, or Christmas, or Hanukkah, or eating Cajun food? Celebrating things related to the differences in our religious and ethnic identity is not the same as attacking those who are not the same. There may come a time when we are all so assimilated that it will be imposible to distinguish religious, ethnic, linguistic, or national origins. If and when that happens, I think we will be poorer as a nation. No one has suggested that the hymn is a substitute for or competitor with the American National Anthem. Rather, it is a song that has held significance in the history of blacks in America, and has even been less tied to struggle than songs such as "We Shall Overcome" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic". Talking about race and talking about the history of racial divisions is not racism. Failing to talk about these things makes it impossible for divisions to ever heal.

another totally inane analogy - do you have an endless supply in a little black bag or something?

nobody is debating juneteenth or mlk day here, or black history month. nobody is saying those are divisive. its about a separate black anthem. and its about who is pushing it, if anyone doubts every thing JJ does is not racially motivated then they have "i can help it i was abused as a child" blinders on. oh wait, my bad.

so now we can have a native american anthem, a wetback anthem, an italian mafia anthem, heck - why do we need our racist white national anthem anyway??? thats what it will be called after this goes down.....


you liberals are just too much

subroc
07-27-2010, 10:08 AM
Did I miss someone calling for such official recognition? I am not aware of anyone who is suggesting any official status for the song...

no, I am just suggesting that it would be a bad idea. no more, no less.

BTW, I honestly thought you would acctually read my post and agree with it in principle. But, I forgot, you only react to posts and who posts them with reflexive disagreement.

BrianW
07-27-2010, 10:31 AM
Jesse states that this "anthem" is rooted in our unique slavery experience, their struggles with "Jim Crow"... "the black experience", that does not sound like trying for "inclusiveness" to me.
Maybe that's not what the song says to you Jeff, but that's what Jesse is trying to make it say. He is saying it doesn't represent the Irish, the Germans, the Jews. (besides it's obviously not very inclusive of atheists/agnostics with it's admitted acknowledgment of & reliance on God! ;-) ) The concept is racist on it's own (according to the current view) because its rooted in : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities
A 'national anthem" is supposed to be encompassing of all the peoples therein, not just a minority. While I don't hear anything specific about replacing the SSB, when would this Black "National Anthem" be sung/played?

Is it just ironic that an "national anthem" that is concentrated on slavery is getting emphasis as Obama's views on & calls for "reparations" start to get more attention?

YardleyLabs
07-27-2010, 10:41 AM
no, I am just suggesting that it would be a bad idea. no more, no less.

BTW, I honestly thought you would acctually read my post and agree with it in principle. But, I forgot, you only react to posts and who posts them with reflexive disagreement.
Actually, I do agree with your post and felt that was also what Jackson was suggesting.

subroc
07-27-2010, 11:09 AM
BTW, I may be wrong, but I would be surprised if the average black man actually wanted a black national anthem.

Blackstone
07-27-2010, 11:10 AM
"One nation, under God....."



rk

It should be, but it hasn't always been. It wasn't in 1900 when it was written or in 1920 when it was adopted by the NAACP.

Blackstone
07-27-2010, 11:37 AM
Jesse states that this "anthem" is rooted in our unique slavery experience, their struggles with "Jim Crow"... "the black experience", that does not sound like trying for "inclusiveness" to me.

Would you really like to have been included in that experience?


Maybe that's not what the song says to you Jeff, but that's what Jesse is trying to make it say. He is saying it doesn't represent the Irish, the Germans, the Jews. (besides it's obviously not very inclusive of atheists/agnostics with it's admitted acknowledgment of & reliance on God! ;-) ) The concept is racist on it's own (according to the current view) because its rooted in : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities
A 'national anthem" is supposed to be encompassing of all the peoples therein, not just a minority. While I don't hear anything specific about replacing the SSB, when would this Black "National Anthem" be sung/played?

This anthem was around long before Jessie was born. It was adopted because it epitomized the history and struggle of black people in America at a time when the National Anthem did not necessarily apply to black people. It has been around for more than 100 years, and suddenly now it's a problem. Did you even know it existed prior to this?


Is it just ironic that an "national anthem" that is concentrated on slavery is getting emphasis as Obama's views on & calls for "reparations" start to get more attention?

When did Obama call for reparations? I had not heard anything about that. The last thing I heard from Obama on reparations was during his campaign when he said:

"I have said in the past _ and I'll repeat again _ that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed,"

Marvin S
07-27-2010, 11:51 AM
Source: the POTUS
"I have said in the past _ and I'll repeat again _ that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed,"

One of the many things the POTUS said that struck a chord with responsible citizens (I shouldn't use responsible in a thread about Jesse Jackson) but has failed to deliver. If my memory serves me correctly he signed off to eliminate a program that was giving some DC students hope for getting out of the morass that is called the DC school system :(.

BTW Blackstone, you post as a fairly knowledgeable individual, are you aware of the quality school that Dunbar HS was prior to people like JJ becoming the spokespeople for black people?

Blackstone
07-27-2010, 12:16 PM
BTW Blackstone, you post as a fairly knowledgeable individual, are you aware of the quality school that Dunbar HS was prior to people like JJ becoming the spokespeople for black people?

I am not familiar with Dunbar HS. I know there is one on the south side of Chicago, but that's about it.

Buzz
07-27-2010, 12:24 PM
Be very afraid. They're coming for you. Black people are coming to take everything that is yours. Be very afraid, they're coming for you.

road kill
07-27-2010, 12:25 PM
It should be, but it hasn't always been. It wasn't in 1900 when it was written or in 1920 when it was adopted by the NAACP.

So, how does a "Black Anthem" fix that??

rk

subroc
07-27-2010, 12:31 PM
Be very afraid. They're coming for you. Black people are coming to take everything that is yours. Be very afraid, they're coming for you.

is that you Rachel?

YardleyLabs
07-27-2010, 12:38 PM
So, how does a "Black Anthem" fix that??

rk
Stan,

No one has proposed anything new here. There is a song that was designated as the Negro National Anthem in 1920 by the NAACP. A professor in Georgia expressed the opinion that having something designated in this manner as the black national anthem was divisive. Jesse Jackson said that he viewed it as part of our multi-cultural history and that it should not be "excerpted" out in the pretense that our differences are unimportant. I am not aware of anyone that has sought any official status for the song or suggested that it should be any more than what it is and has been since 1920 -- a song that is sung by many and speaks to many about the long journey toward social and racial justice. I have looked for but have not found anything to suggest that some person or group is looking for a separate national anthem for blacks only.

Do you find that objectionable, or do you have information about efforts to push for something different?

Blackstone
07-27-2010, 12:42 PM
So, how does a "Black Anthem" fix that??

rk

The anthem was meant to be inspirational, something to give hope when thing looked bleak, and a way to celebrate victories along the way. It was never intended to replace the National Anthem of the U.S. for black people.

I'm really surprised it this is getting so much attention. The anthem has been around for more than 100 years. Black people never used it to replace the National Anthem. It has never been divisive to race relations. It has never caused harm to anyone. Black people are not meeting in secret, planning to overthrow the country, and singing this as their new National Anthem. In fact, this anthem has been so benign for the last 100+ years that most of you didn't even know it existed. Now, suddenly it is a problem and a detriment to racial relations. I just don't see it.

Oh wait, was this another FoxNews story? :rolleyes:

Buzz
07-27-2010, 12:45 PM
Subroc, you nailed it.;)

One thing that seems odd about that clip that David linked to. There is not discussion leading up to the Jackson comment to put it into context, just the comment below the clip about Jackson defending the idea of a Black Anthem. Leads one to think that Jackson thinks that there should be one for whites and one for blacks, I will have to do some of my own research to try and figure out for myself what this whole thing is all about, but my first impression was what I related in my first post in this thread.

YardleyLabs
07-27-2010, 01:04 PM
Subroc, you nailed it.;)

One thing that seems odd about that clip that David linked to. There is not discussion leading up to the Jackson comment to put it into context, just the comment below the clip about Jackson defending the idea of a Black Anthem. Leads one to think that Jackson thinks that there should be one for whites and one for blacks, I will have to do some of my own research to try and figure out for myself what this whole thing is all about, but my first impression was what I related in my first post in this thread.
The real purpose is to draw attention away from the fact that the RNC has invited Breitbart the Fraud to be the headline speaker at a major fundraiser in August.:rolleyes:

You can actually see a transcript of the CNN broadcast last Saturday of which the Jackson video was a part at http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1007/24/cnr.01.html. As I noted before, it all began with a book by a black professor suggesting that having a song that was referred to as the black national anthem was inherently divisive. Jackson disagreed, saying that the song was a part of history and should not now be excerpted as if it did not exist. He was actually alluding to the excerpting that was used to change the meaning of Sherrod's speech at the NAACP. During the transmission, the title writer broadcast snippets across the botton, which became the statement of support for a black national anthem shown in the video clip. It had nothing to do with what Jackson said beyond the specific question raised in the black professor's book -- at least not until it was rebroadcast by Fox News taken out of context and treated as if it were the beginning of some huge new attempt by blacks to define themselves in a separatist manner..

As Stan would say PUHHLEEEEZE.

road kill
07-27-2010, 01:13 PM
I think it has to do with the Reverand Jackson's struggle to remain relevant!



rk

Hew
07-27-2010, 01:45 PM
You can actually see a transcript of the CNN broadcast last Saturday of which the Jackson video was a part at http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1007/24/cnr.01.html. As I noted before, it all began with a book by a black professor suggesting that having a song that was referred to as the black national anthem was inherently divisive. Jackson disagreed, saying that the song was a part of history and should not now be excerpted as if it did not exist. He was actually alluding to the excerpting that was used to change the meaning of Sherrod's speech at the NAACP. During the transmission, the title writer broadcast snippets across the botton, which became the statement of support for a black national anthem shown in the video clip. It had nothing to do with what Jackson said beyond the specific question raised in the black professor's book -- at least not until it was rebroadcast by Fox News taken out of context and treated as if it were the beginning of some huge new attempt by blacks to define themselves in a separatist manner..

As Stan would say PUHHLEEEEZE.
LOL. The libs and their scary boogeyman Fox News.

CNN: After referring to the song as "the black national anthem" four times, the anchor prefaces Jackson's words with: "Also there are those who believe the anthem is still relevant and still important to this day. Among them, civil rights leader, Jesse Jackson, who was with us just a short time ago."

FOX: "Jesse Jackson Supports Black Anthem" or alternatively "Jesse Jackson Wants a Black National Anthem."

A chronogology:

1. CNN initiated this hard-hitting and truly important "news" :rolleyes: when they decided to air the views of someone who was against a black national anthem. 95% of the country probably had no freakin' idea there was such or thing or cared a whit about it until CNN decided some good ol' fashion racial divisiveness might be good time filler on their morning show.

2. The CNN anchor represented the song as the black national anthem. The guest, while against the notion of a black national anthem, alos recognized the song as the black national anthem. Everybody seems to think of the song as "the black national anthem."

3. Jesse Jackson lends his support to the song, which everybody has agreed is "the black national anthem."

4. Fox reports that Jesse Jackson supports/wants the black national anthem. Did I miss something? Did Jesse speak out against the song that is by all accounts, the black national anthem?

5. Liberals go reflexively apesh!t at Fox.

Buzz
07-27-2010, 02:28 PM
I think it has to do with the Reverand Jackson's struggle to remain relevant!



rk

Jackson doesn't have to lift a finger to stay relevant. FOX News and people like Breitbart are doing that heavy lifting for him.

M&K's Retrievers
07-27-2010, 03:20 PM
I seriously don't understand. Is St. Patrick's Day divisive? What about Oktoberfest celebrations, or Christmas, or Hanukkah, or eating Cajun food? Celebrating things related to the differences in our religious and ethnic identity is not the same as attacking those who are not the same. There may come a time when we are all so assimilated that it will be imposible to distinguish religious, ethnic, linguistic, or national origins. If and when that happens, I think we will be poorer as a nation. No one has suggested that the hymn is a substitute for or competitor with the American National Anthem. Rather, it is a song that has held significance in the history of blacks in America, and has even been less tied to struggle than songs such as "We Shall Overcome" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic". Talking about race and talking about the history of racial divisions is not racism. Failing to talk about these things makes it impossible for divisions to ever heal.

How does Miss White America strike you? How about a White only College?

ducknwork
07-27-2010, 03:23 PM
How does Miss White America strike you? How about a White only College?

I'm still waiting for White History Month.


Not holding my breath regards....

M&K's Retrievers
07-27-2010, 03:24 PM
I'm still waiting for White History Month.


Not holding my breath regards....

I was just getting to amend my post.:o

badbullgator
07-27-2010, 03:49 PM
Jackson doesn't have to lift a finger to stay relevant. FOX News and people like Breitbart are doing that heavy lifting for him.


Well they keep him in the news. He has not been relevant in decades

YardleyLabs
07-27-2010, 04:02 PM
I'm still waiting for White History Month.


Not holding my breath regards....
You could say that we celebrate white history perpetually. The creation of black history as a focus only happened because traditional history books almost never addressed blacks in history very appropriately. Of course the same was true with respect to almost all other non-white European groups as well. That situation has changed over time, but we can always rely on groups such as the Texas education board to try to rewrite history back again.

david gibson
07-27-2010, 04:10 PM
You could say that we celebrate white history perpetually. The creation of black history as a focus only happened because traditional history books almost never addressed blacks in history very appropriately. Of course the same was true with respect to almost all other non-white European groups as well. That situation has changed over time, but we can always rely on groups such as the Texas education board to try to rewrite history back again.

there you go again. i am not disagreeing that blacks and others had some significant roles in history, but in the days of the formation of this country, the significant roles were few and far between. personally, i am totally against black history month in principal, its totally stupid. i respect the reasons it exists - but it should not be that way. i remember my kids coming home with all this crap for an entire month each school season, when they could have learned all they needed to know in a week if it was taught correctly. another - yet minor - reason why i yanked them from public schools.

if educators could just get it right and inject black history and the roles they played into the regular curriculum in a proportionate manner it would be just fine. in other words, teach history exactly as it happened and give credit where it is due..

trouble is no one can even agree on that.....

Mark Sehon
07-27-2010, 04:28 PM
BET, 100 Black Men, Black Caucus, Miss Black USA, NAACP, New Black Panthers should I continue?

badbullgator
07-27-2010, 04:37 PM
BET, 100 Black Men, Black Caucus, Miss Black USA, NAACP, New Black Panthers should I continue?

I like this one
http://www.nationalbar.org/

I don't know anything about it other than it is "At present, the NBA is the nation's oldest and largest national association of African-American lawyers and judges"

I don't know if it is racist at all, what I like about it is the humor in the name....the NBA....

YardleyLabs
07-27-2010, 05:16 PM
BET, 100 Black Men, Black Caucus, Miss Black USA, NAACP, New Black Panthers should I continue?
So, what defines an organization as racist? Its name, its membership, or its activities?

If it is the name, whites will look pretty good. You generally only see ethnicity or religion mentioned in a name for groups that are not in power.

If it's membership, the tables begin to turn. The list of white only or virtually white only organizations is long and distinguished. The Augusta National Golf Club only admitted its first black member in 1990 (have they admitted a second?) and has yet to admit a woman, yet neither "white" nor "male" appear in the name, so that must be a matter of coincidence, not design. :rolleyes:

If it is activities, it is only fair that policies be measured by the extent to which they help maintain or create a disproportionate representation or one group versus another. Thus, if you had an employment process that only hired whites, then activities to support the status quo would be considered pro-white and anti everyone else. The same would be true, for example, if you had a policy that sought to prevent changes protecting the status quo in the NBA, where whites are clearly under-represented among players. Of course, the argument of business/job performance would always be a valid issue. Thus, if whites fail in the NBA because they can't jump, one could either accept their failure-based under-representation or lower the basket to seven feet.:rolleyes: I guess you could also follow in the steps of the All American Basketball Alliance which is limited to whites, since the owner believes it is unfair to expect whites to compete given the natural advantages of blacks (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/daily-show-mocks-all-whit_n_518637.htmlfor more details).

david gibson
07-27-2010, 05:16 PM
I like this one
http://www.nationalbar.org/

I don't know anything about it other than it is "At present, the NBA is the nation's oldest and largest national association of African-American lawyers and judges"

I don't know if it is racist at all, what I like about it is the humor in the name....the NBA....

you know what gets me???

79% of NBA players are "of color"
65% NFL are "of color"

general population: 13.5%

ok, your numbers may vary but not by much.

SO, if these sports are predominantly "of color" at a much greater %age than the general population, WHY is there an issue if the coaching staffs are not "representative of society"? if the coaching staff breakdowns - particularly head coaches - dont meet the 13.5% "of color" ratio then its a travesty! but its ok for the players to to be off-balance???


could it be that "of color" just have a higher %age of higher ability athletes????? whooopee!! i think thats pretty darn obvious, dont you???

but dont for one second think that perhaps, maybe - just maybe - "not of color" men have a better ability to coach just as "of color" have a better ability to play. oh noooooo - thats racist!!!

WTF????

ALL RACES HAVE DIFFERENCES THAT NO ONE WILL ADMIT

we are all supposed to believe that we are all exactly alike under the skin - its the politically correct thing to do - but if that were true, then why are the athletes skewed one direction and the coaches the exact opposite??? the answer is the pink 10-ton elephant in the elevator with all of us. i am not afraid to call a spade a spade (oh horrors! a saying that dates back to the 16th century but i am sure i will be called racist for using it).........

its ok to discriminate in one direction, but not the other. need i go on???

road kill
07-27-2010, 05:56 PM
Jesse Jackson is a model citizen!!



rk

gman0046
07-27-2010, 06:09 PM
Jesse Jackass, Al Sharpton, Charles Rangle, what do they have in common? They are all thieves. Fooled you didn't I Yardley?

Marvin S
07-27-2010, 06:22 PM
I am not familiar with Dunbar HS. I know there is one on the south side of Chicago, but that's about it.

I read about it in Dr Thomas Sowell's book titled "Black Redneck, White Liberal", don't hold me to accuracy in title as I thought it inappropriate for the contents of the book. It discusses the quality institution Dunbar HS in DC was & the large number of black leaders who attended during the time prior to it's takeover by the federal laws.

Dr. Sowell is one of my favorite authors, I originally connected with him when he was a columnist for Forbes.

BrianW
07-28-2010, 10:26 AM
1. Would you really like to have been included in that experience?


2. This anthem was around long before Jessie was born. It was adopted because it epitomized the history and struggle of black people in America at a time when the National Anthem did not necessarily apply to black people. It has been around for more than 100 years, and suddenly now it's a problem. Did you even know it existed prior to this?

3. When did Obama call for reparations? I had not heard anything about that.

1. :confused:
Of course not, but I also don't include myself in part of the collective guilt for something I had no part of, no control over - even vicariously through ancestors as some want to assert.

2. I understand that. Though I haven't heard of anybody of importance trying to say this song should be "excerpted from history". Imo, Jesse is a perpetual, professional victim and all his words serve little to heal the wounds that exist, instead he's more like salt in them. The song, in & of itself is not the problem, it's the particular person and his symbolism, using it, that is.
SSB, not representative?
In indignation over the start of the Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Civil_War), Oliver Wendell Holmes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner#cite_note-12) added a fifth stanza to the song in 1861 which appeared in songbooks of the era.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner#cite_note-13)

When our land is illumined with liberty's smile,
If a foe from within strikes a blow at her glory,
Down, down with the traitor that tries to defile
The flag of the stars, and the page of her story!
By the millions unchained,
Who their birthright have gained
We will keep her bright blazon forever unstained;
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave,
While the land of the free is the home of the brave.

Does that not ring of "inclusiveness"?

3 I apologize for leaving out a word "Obama's views on & others calls for reparations are ...".
I don't think all of these recent events are coincidental. I also think that there are those who are exploiting these events, such as Jesse & Farrakhan, Wright & Cole, because animosity between races benefits them.

Having a anthem : a song or hymn of praise or gladness about being black, slave freed etc is fine. But to me, promoting it as a "national" anthem, even if "unofficially" highlights 3: a usually rousing popular song that typifies or is identified with a particular subculture, movement, or point of view, ie a separateness from the whole on the basis of race. Is that what our country really needs right now?
I think not.