UT Athletes demand removal of racist song

[Hunter Green]

On 6/17/2020 at 11:18 AM, MeanGreenTexan said:

I have to admit, I was shocked on this one and forced to do some digging as to why.   Of course, I'm too young to remember or never paid attention to very old advertisements that are popping up on social media now.  I've only ever recognized this Aunt Jemima:

...who just looks like a nice older black lady to me.  There doesn't seem to be anything racist about her at all.


However, she is not the original: 

 

The rebranding from the original to what we see today definitely needed to happen because the above is clearly a reduced caricature (complete with written dialect).   But since the original one existed, the rebranded one needs to go as well?

Uncle Ben is most certainly next.  I did not know this before, but "aunt" & "uncle" were terms used for house slaves?
I assume if old caricatures of the Cream of Wheat chef, or any other friendly old black person as the brand, pop up, they'll be gone as well.

So if we changed Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben to white people, would that make everyone feel better? Have the old, shriveled up white racists "talk like hicks." I'd be OK with that as long as the syrup and rice tasted as good as it does now!

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

27 minutes ago, Hunter Green said:

Just sayin.

Just dog-whistlin. 

re: 'eliminating *everything* '

I've never once considered minstrel music, traitors or racist imagery as 'everything' That's a odd thing to consider everything.  

Edited June 19, 2020 by SteaminWillieBeamin
..

[MeanGreenTeeth]

2 hours ago, Aldo said:

In Articles of Secession from the states, it says (I am paraphrasing)

"We want to be able to have slaves, and get them back if they escape to anti-slave states. You can't make them free."

The Missouri Compromise and 3/5th Compromise were all devised to keep slaveholding states in power.

After the South lost the war, there were many freedmen that were voted in to seats at various levels of government. In 1868, former slaveholders were no happy, and so they basically went around and started murdering freedmen in the thousands to suppress voter turnout, and to remove them from office (look it up).

Then Jim Crowe. Then the reaction to Brown v Board of Education (that's where all the confederate flags started showing up that weren't even the well-known confederate flags).

This ain't about fighting to preserve state identity. It's a different fight to preserve identity we're talking about.

I'm not sure what we're even arguing about.  I never claimed that the war didn't start over slavery nor am defending what came afterwards.  I'm simply stating that slavery wasn't much of an issue to the vast majority of the soldiers.  Nor did the soldiers consider themselves traitors.  In their minds the situation was analogous to the Revolutionary War.   I mean, I guess they were traitors in a technical sense, but no less so than their grandparents had been during the revolution.

2 hours ago, Aldo said:

Benedict Arnold couldn't even beat Canada so there's strikes 2 and 3 right there

Ha!

3 hours ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

It's entirely fair and factual. They were traitors to the country. 

You are right, during reconstruction it was found to be counter-productive, so the "Lost Cause" narrative was allowed to foster and fester. Fester to allow it to white-wash history and change racist songs into 'folk songs' that children sing.  

The confederacy lasted five years. I wear t-shirts older than that. Hardly ancestral t-shirts.  

It must be so amazing to so easily pass moral judgement on a whole group of people from 160 years ago, the vast majority of whom had probably never been further than 50 miles from their homes, were little educated, poor, and yet fought bravely to defend what they viewed as an invasion of their homeland.  I think it is not irrational to feel sympathy and admiration for people who acted bravely even if the governments under which they fought were unjust.

Edited June 20, 2020 by MeanGreenTeeth

[Hunter Green]

4 minutes ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

Just dog-whistlin. 

Had to look that up to know what it means.

[eulessismore]

Hey y'all, Happy Juneteenth!

 

[Hunter Green]

2 hours ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

Just dog-whistlin. 

re: 'eliminating *everything* '

I've never once considered minstrel music, traitors or racist imagery as 'everything' That's a odd thing to consider everything.  

Hey, Steamin! I have no issue what so ever eliminating minstrel music. But, who plays that anymore? I never knew the history of "The Eyes of Texas" until about a week or so ago. It never occurred to me in all of my 64 years of existence. To me, it was just a snappy fight song with Texas undertones. Racist imagery? Depends on the definition of racist, to me anyway. Never have I ever, looked at a bottle of Aunt Jemima pancake syrup, and thought, well, I don't even want to think such thoughts. Traitors? Again, depends on your definition, doesn't it? Now, I don't know you from Adam, but I'l bet we've stood side by side at several games with a common bond and considered each other brothers in arms, cheering for a common goal. I'm assuming we are of different ethnic persuasions and frankly, I couldn't care less if we are. The point is, when people share a common goal, no matter what it is, we are all brothers.  

I look at the confederacy and their representatives strictly from a historical perspective. To me, they were brothers in arms, fighting for a common goal, whether we think it noble or not.  I ascribe no moral judgement to it other than to think that the battle for states rights was noble, but the battle for slavery was not. Nevertheless, it was history, but nothing I dwell on or long for, and I know from a human and Christian perspective slavery was wrong. Dead wrong. But we have moved so far from that, haven't we? I mean, we've had our first black President, right? I'd say at least half of the voters we're white.

Bottom line, I think we have common ground on many things and we don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water.

[NM Green]

Well they are coming for the Texas Rangers now. Runnin Rebels about to be gone. I feel like I am back in China where they whitewash all history, all religion, international influence...and have created a “perfect” but quite sterile society. I guess that’s what America wants.  Weird direction for an awesome country that is awesome because of its eclectic and interesting build and people. Thank goodness Mean Green doesn’t offend. Yet.

GMG

[97and03]

6 hours ago, MeanGreenTeeth said:

I'm not sure what we're even arguing about.  I never claimed that the war didn't start over slavery nor am defending what came afterwards.  I'm simply stating that slavery wasn't much of an issue to the vast majority of the soldiers.  Nor did the soldiers consider themselves traitors.  In their minds the situation was analogous to the Revolutionary War.   I mean, I guess they were traitors in a technical sense, but no less so than their grandparents had been during the revolution.

Ha!

It must be so amazing to so easily pass moral judgement on a whole group of people from 160 years ago, the vast majority of whom had probably never been further than 50 miles from their homes, were little educated, poor, and yet fought bravely to defend what they viewed as an invasion of their homeland.  I think it is not irrational to feel sympathy and admiration for people who acted bravely even if the governments under which they fought were unjust.

The generals whose names are on army bases knew what the fight was about. Most were commissioned US officers at the time who took up arms against their fellow colleagues. I am good with calling them traitors. My ancestors were among them. I don’t even need a degree in history to figure it out (although spoiler alert I do have one). 

[SilverEagle]

20 hours ago, RiseUNT said:

Not the first time.

Let’s just say Rangers back in the day did some bad things to black, brown, and red people.

 

They visited such misery on the Hispanic community along the border that the Hispanic community has come to hate the word "Ranger" as much as people in the middle east hate the word/term "Crusader". They were essentially the storm troopers/brown shirts on horseback.

As to the Swastikas', it was popular with the Navajos.....and other Indian tribes.

From 1906

 

The Unit symbol for the 45th Infantry division in WWI. It was discontinued in the 30's and the patch was switched to a Thunderbird.

[UNTFan23]

We have people calling for any monument of George Washington (First POTUS and leader of the American Revolution) and Thomas Jefferson (Third POTUS and principal author of the Declaration of Independence) to be torn down.

To be frank, without George Washington, we might not have a country with which Shaun King can even make such a comment freely.

[CMJ]

19 hours ago, Aldo said:

 

The Missouri Compromise and 3/5th Compromise were all devised to keep slaveholding states in power.

 

This is actually sort of false, at least in the way it is most often argued.  Usually the insinuation is the South didn't want slaves counted as people.  It was actually was designed to prevent the Slave states from having even more power. The North didn't want slaves counted as people at all.  The South thought they should get some representation for the population.

 

So, when people complain about slaves being counted at 3/5 of a person, it was actually meant as a way to decrease the slave states' power in Congressional delegations, not to increase it.  

[97and03]

23 minutes ago, CMJ said:

This is actually sort of false, at least in the way it is most often argued.  Usually the insinuation is the South didn't want slaves counted as people.  It was actually was designed to prevent the Slave states from having even more power. The North didn't want slaves counted as people at all.  The South thought they should get some representation for the population.

 

So, when people complain about slaves being counted at 3/5 of a person, it was actually meant as a way to decrease the slave states' power in Congressional delegations, not to increase it.  

Well not from the Southern perspective. From the Northern perspective it was better than counting slaves as “people” but they still allowed Southern states to increase (maintain?) their influence. The Senate and Electoral College also created insulation for the sparsely populated Southern states. They still do in fact as we have seen this century. 

[Venson]

20 hours ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

I mean, those outside people pay for the Army... and the Army fights to uphold the rights and values of those people.... so...  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That is yes and no. Yes, those people pay for the Army, but no it is not to uphold their rights and values. The second part of that will need to be explained. Soldiers swear to support and defend the constitution. The constitution gives you your rights so that is correct. However, the constitution does not give you your values. Values vary from person to person. If your values do not mesh with what the constitution says, then they are not their for that. However, you are absolutely correct on your rights. Like it is a person's right to kneel for the national anthem or stand. Whether I agree with kneeling or standing is irrelevant. It is their right by the constitution and we are there to support and defend that. Values are more your moral compass and we are not there to defend what you value morally if that makes sense.

[CMJ]

25 minutes ago, 97and03 said:

Well not from the Southern perspective. From the Northern perspective it was better than counting slaves as “people” but they still allowed Southern states to increase (maintain?) their influence. The Senate and Electoral College also created insulation for the sparsely populated Southern states. They still do in fact as we have seen this century. 

I'm not sure you can argue that the South was that more sparsely populated than the North in the 1780's.  The two sections both had states with very few residents and big states with plenty.

[Venson]

1 hour ago, UNTFan23 said:

We have people calling for any monument of George Washington (First POTUS and leader of the American Revolution) and Thomas Jefferson (Third POTUS and principal author of the Declaration of Independence) to be torn down.

To be frank, without George Washington, we might not have a country with which Shaun King can even make such a comment freely.

This is what I was afraid of. I remember after Charlottesville, and the statues really became an issue, the President was having a press conference and he mentioned "What about George Washington? You like him? Is he next? What about Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Because he was major slave owner." The media told him he was being ridiculous. Now it is happening. My fear is not necessarily about the statues. My fear is where does it end? I really fear Churches will be next because most Churches regard LGBTQ as sinful. I fear that people will start saying that is bigotry and they will start destroying Churches. People may say that I am being ridiculous, but that's what they told Trump about Geo Washington and Thomas Jefferson statues. To me this virus was already a trial run. Telling people they can do Church online instead of in person. How long before they go after Churches because they offend LGBTQ? Just my honest opinion. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Venson
Grammar

[greenjoe]

I’ve always been amazed the the nickname for the University of Mississippi has remained unchallenged for so many decades.  It’s even on their football helmet.

[MCMLXXX]

39 minutes ago, Venson said:

This is what I was afraid of. I remember after Charlottesville, and the statues really became an issue, the President was having a press conference and he mentioned "What about George Washington? You like him? Is he next? What about Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Because he was major slave owner." The media told him he was being ridiculous. Now it is happening. My fear is not necessarily about the statues. My fear is where does it end? I really fear Churches will be next because most Churches regard LGBTQ as sinful. I fear that people will start saying that is bigotry and they will start destroying Churches. People may say that I am being ridiculous, but that's what they told Trump about Geo Washington and Thomas Jefferson statues. To me this virus was already a trial run. Telling people they can do Church online instead of in person. How long before they go after Churches because they offend LGBTQ? Just my honest opinion. 

Thank you for your post. I share your opinion.

[97and03]

56 minutes ago, Venson said:

This is what I was afraid of. I remember after Charlottesville, and the statues really became an issue, the President was having a press conference and he mentioned "What about George Washington? You like him? Is he next? What about Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Because he was major slave owner." The media told him he was being ridiculous. Now it is happening. My fear is not necessarily about the statues. My fear is where does it end? I really fear Churches will be next because most Churches regard LGBTQ as sinful. I fear that people will start saying that is bigotry and they will start destroying Churches. People may say that I am being ridiculous, but that's what they told Trump about Geo Washington and Thomas Jefferson statues. To me this virus was already a trial run. Telling people they can do Church online instead of in person. How long before they go after Churches because they offend LGBTQ? Just my honest opinion. 

Shaun King IMO is a fringe guy. Some of these statute things will happen but probably mostly in the heat of the moment. People like King take radical positions because it’s radical. Most rational people at this point ignore him. 
On your other point, I think churches that are anti-LGBTQ should be allowed to be so. They are allowed their opinion but their members should not be allowed to discriminate against LGBTQ persons in federally protected areas. The Supreme Court said the same. But on a technical point , they literally are bigots. They are allowed to be, but they are bigots. No interpretation needed. 
 

Definition of bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

[MCMLXXX]

Muhammad Ali Jr. says BLM movement is racist.

https://nypost.com/2020/06/20/muhammad-alis-son-says-he-wouldve-hated-black-lives-matters/

[aztecskin]

On 6/15/2020 at 12:44 PM, MeanGreenTeeth said:

The problem with all of this is if you take it to it's logical ends, then almost everything has to be cancelled/torn down/renamed.   Austin itself would need to be renamed because SFA was a slaveowner.  One of the most cherished Christian Hymns, "Amazing Grace", was written by a slaver.  Disney probably needs to be renamed and many works expunged as racist and anti-Semitic themes are found in Walt's work.  Statues of Washington and Jefferson would need to be toppled.  LBJ, despite shepherding  in the civil rights act, was quite racist on a personal level, so the LBJ library would need to be closed.   As pretty much everyone was pretty dang racist by today's standards, almost anything that pays tribute to a white person before 1950 would need to be removed as, no doubt, they did not see blacks as true equals.  This process would literally never end, because there is a plausible argument that so many things had racist roots or were created by people who were themselves racist.

 

<I very much dislike Disney so I am happy to throw that in the trash.>

I think it is important to tell the full story of the people we are honoring, and not hide it. When Kobe Bryant died, some people were very vocal about the part where he was very credible accused of rape and admitted he was very wrong about the whole encounter. That is the kind of conversation we can have about every one of the people in our nation that we choose to honor. 

The point is to have an ongoing conversation about each of the pillars of our culture and discuss their value. It cannot and should not be a one-time conversation and then shut up forever. That ongoing conversation should be inclusive of all the stakeholders of this country or the institution and what have you. 

As for removing statues to people who were problematic, an amenable solution is to tell that story prominently and not put up a hagiography. 

[UNTLifer]

So, just to get back on topic and so I am clear, players want a song removed that no longer has racist words because of the music the words are sung to?  Reminds me of a pastor back in the early 2000's when "contemporary Christian music" became common in churches.  The older members were none too happy about this, and the pastor was quick to state, "There is no Christian music, only Christian lyrics."  

To steal a line from SL, at the end of the day I really don't care what UT does or doesn't do, but somebody will always find something to bitch about if they look hard enough.  These mascots, fight songs, etc... aren't enough to keep many a young man or woman from accepting a scholarship to these schools.  

[Hunter Green]

Are we all too stupid to realize that the times we're talking about are history that most people have forgotten about, or never even learned? Or are we too stupid to realize that Washington, Jefferson, et.al, were a product of their times? Not to justify it, but it's true. We are 155 years past all of that. Those founding fathers are not being honored because they were slave owners, it's because they devised a plan to create the greatest country the world has ever seen. Is this a perfect world? Are we a perfect country? No. But we have evolved to a point where the Amendments to the Constitution corrected many of those wrongs, at least on paper.  We're the only country that warred with itself to end slavery. Can everyone be changed by words on a piece of paper? Hardly. Only one person can change the hearts of man (people) and that is by His grace and our acceptance of His forgiveness. The inherent fallibility of humans gives rise to these "errors" in judgement and behaviors re. slavery and other wrongs. We have come so far, but we all know there is a ways to go yet. We have to stop living in just a portion of the past and look forward to even more greatness. The foundation for greatness is there for all of us. We have to learn from our mistakes, but if we continue on our path to erase history, we'll have learned nothing.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Hunter Green

[UNTLifer]

22 minutes ago, Hunter Green said:

Are we all too stupid to realize that the times we're talking about are history that most people have forgotten about, or never even learned? Or are we too stupid to realize that Washington, Jefferson, et.al, were a product of their times? Not to justify it, but it's true. We are 155 years past all of that. Those founding fathers are not being honored because they were slave owners, it's because they devised a plan to create the greatest country the world has ever seen. Is this a perfect world? Are we a perfect country? No. But we have evolved to a point where the Amendments to the Constitution corrected many of those wrongs, at least on paper.  We're the only country that warred with itself to end slavery. Can everyone be changed by words on a piece of paper? Hardly. Only one person can change the hearts of man (people) and that is by His grace and our acceptance of His forgiveness. The inherent fallibility of humans gives rise to these "errors" in judgement and behaviors re. slavery and other wrongs. We have come so far, but we all know there is a ways to go yet. We have to stop living in just a portion of the past and look forward to even more greatness. The foundation for greatness is there for all of us. We have to learn from our mistakes, but if we continue on our path to erase history, we'll have learned nothing.

[Censored by Laurie]

7 hours ago, Hunter Green said:

Are we all too stupid to realize that the times we're talking about are history that most people have forgotten about, or never even learned? Or are we too stupid to realize that Washington, Jefferson, et.al, were a product of their times? Not to justify it, but it's true. We are 155 years past all of that. Those founding fathers are not being honored because they were slave owners, it's because they devised a plan to create the greatest country the world has ever seen. Is this a perfect world? Are we a perfect country? No. But we have evolved to a point where the Amendments to the Constitution corrected many of those wrongs, at least on paper.  We're the only country that warred with itself to end slavery. Can everyone be changed by words on a piece of paper? Hardly. Only one person can change the hearts of man (people) and that is by His grace and our acceptance of His forgiveness. The inherent fallibility of humans gives rise to these "errors" in judgement and behaviors re. slavery and other wrongs. We have come so far, but we all know there is a ways to go yet. We have to stop living in just a portion of the past and look forward to even more greatness. The foundation for greatness is there for all of us. We have to learn from our mistakes, but if we continue on our path to erase history, we'll have learned nothing.

I mean...so much comedy gold to parse out in here, but the bolded line is probably my favorite.

if we had a side going to war to "end slavery' that means we also had a side willing to leave "the greatest country the world has ever seen" in order to DEFEND TO THE DEATH THE RIGHT TO OWN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. 

we've then spent 155 years building statues to those defenders of slavery...155 years honoring a seditious flag...and 155 years of subverting those words on a piece of paper in order to continue to subjugate others. 

we (white folk) have spent 155+ years erasing history. if you actually want to learn from history, be honest about it.
 - Washington didn't have wooden false teeth, he had dentures made from the teeth of slaves. 
 - Jefferson fathered multiple children with a woman he owned.
until we teach that equally along side the Crossing of the Delaware and Louisiana Purchase we have no opportunity to learn from our mistakes

[UNTexas]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/22/shaun-king-says-jesus-images-a-form-of-white-supre/

https://www.foxnews.com/us/rice-university-black-house-statue-demolition-demands

https://www.foxnews.com/media/shaun-king-jesus-christ-statues-white-supremacy

Well, here it is. I thought the eliminate law enforcement, anarchy, mob rule, destroy Washington and Jefferson crowd, ect. was too far. Now people are calling for a new form of segregation and the worst yet eliminating symbols of Jesus Christ. 

The UT fight song is really nothing compared to this nonsense. Great cause we are seeing today. I guess the original cause is hijacked.

Edited June 23, 2020 by UNTexas