A Search for National Anthem Consistency

[Nepperhan]

How “overlooked” black history is??? There’s an entire month dedicated to it, and you’re forced to acknowledge it in school by order of state education.

You ask anyone over 40 what black US history they learned in school and they will give you a blank look.

I’m fine with history, but there’s no “white history month”, or “latino history month”, etc. that are enforced by the state that you MUST learn or suffer the consequences.

You never heard of Polish Heritage Month or Hispanic Heritage month? They are celebrated around here without any complaints.

We overcompensate and exaggerate being black in our society IMO.

What did Casey Jones’ fireman look like?

 

[Nepperhan]

The BLM and this anthem is doing just that. The entire movement is constantly a negative critique on America, offending millions of people.

Good! That’s the way we get a dialogue started. Conservatives love to talk about their admiration of Dr. King but they were HIGHLY offended by him when he was alive. Check the “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”. Your comments about being offended are pharisaical.

 

[Mister_Friscus]

You see that’s where you keep getting race-based first, not judging on the individual or content of character. History should be studying the most impactful achievements, not an immoral racist quota system. I’m not sure why you’re so obsessed with the color of people’s skin.

Conservatives wholly support MLKs message. We’re called racist for referencing it. It’s todays leftist ideology that outwardly proclaims viewing a person on their race first. It’s a regressive message of segregation we defeated, during the democrat Jim Crow throughout the civil rights movement. Now, it’s back, and you don’t seem to mind, oddly.

Meanwhile, yes, there are many heritage months, and that’s fine. The difference is they aren’t required to be studied per threat of bad grades or widely proclaimed by mainstream media. You’re comparing apples and chainsaws and missing the point.

 

[Nepperhan]

I’m not sure why you’re so obsessed with the color of people’s skin.

I am quite sure that I am not so obsessed. You presume.

Conservatives wholly support MLKs message.

Sure! After he was dead for 25 years and his proposals were embodied in legislation. Who could not support the law? Conservatives had objected to the laws getting passed. That’s a fact.

It’s a regressive message of segregation we defeated, during the democrat Jim Crow throughout the civil rights movement. Now, it’s back, and you don’t seem to mind, oddly.

Civil rights was a leftist movement; it was shunned by conservatives. The new Jim Crow is voting restrictions; led by the GOP.

Meanwhile, yes, there are many heritage months, and that’s fine. The difference is they aren’t required to be studied per threat of bad grades or widely proclaimed by mainstream media. You’re comparing apples and chainsaws and missing the point.

I’m not sure you can make that distinction. You seem unaware that Pulaski Day is a state holiday here, celebrated as much as Columbus Day. Both certainly make the mainstream media. You should not be surprised that if US black history is studied in an educational setting then failing to absorb some details might result in bad grades. Isn’t that with all fields?

You also seem certainly resentful at the country acknowledging some diversity and celebrating diverse occasions.

 

[Mister_Friscus]

I am quite sure that I am not so obsessed. You presume.

Well, it appears to be the thing you look at the most, just from what I’ve noticed. It’s your focus in most of these posts, I think it’s observable and can be proven. Let’s just get some clarity here. Do you think a racially diverse group of individuals achieving X is better than a non-racially diverse group achieving X? Is diversity for diversity’s sake good? Are racial quotas a good thing?

Sure! After he was dead for 25 years and his proposals were embodied in legislation. Who could not support the law? Conservatives had objected to the laws getting passed. That’s a fact.

Historically both major parties, Republicans and Democrats, had Jim Crow-esque racists in them. All the 20+ Senators who voted against Civil rights acts who were Democrats remained democrats besides one. The whole “all the racists became Republican” myth has been debunked for sometime. I know it probably won’t stop you from continuing to repeat it, but, that’s your choice to do so as an activist, not as a historian.

The most important aspect is that in today’s modern political spectrum, MLK would be staunchly Conservative, and the leftist BLM/Media/Academia and most Democrats would be entirely at odds with his message. Conservative principles are superior as far as race today. View someone on the merits of their individualism and character, not as what race they are apart of that defines their experiences.

Civil rights was a leftist movement; it was shunned by conservatives. The new Jim Crow is voting restrictions; led by the GOP.

That’s hilarious. Voting restriction warfare, gerrymandering, etc. has been going on for decades, used by both parties. The fact that you’d single out one party is telling that political history isn’t your forte. Think-tank politics is ugly, they base stances not on merits and morality but on what produces wins for their party. Notice how the Democrat “everyone vote” narratives are all directed at inner cities, not rural areas that are stereotypically Conservative. It’s a fraudulent claim that they want “all to vote”, they just want certain people to vote. Please don’t tell me you fall for this sort of stuff.

Jim Crow is always and forever will be a Democrat staple. If they’ve changed, all the better, but now it appears racial segregation is becoming all the rage in the party. I’d hope we could unite to oppose it, but I’m oddly not getting support from you.

 

[Mister_Friscus]

I’m not sure you can make that distinction. You seem unaware that Pulaski Day is a state holiday here, celebrated as much as Columbus Day. Both certainly make the mainstream media. You should not be surprised that if US black history is studied in an educational setting then failing to absorb some details might result in bad grades. Isn’t that with all fields?

The question is… why is black history necessary to be elevated simply because of the color of their skin? What if you elevate a black person to be taught about but ignore a white person who achieved much more? Is that just? Or is it just racial activism? I’d argue the latter. Those who achieve the most, or are the most influential, should be what is studied, not a historical racial quota. Plus, once you start this path, if you don’t enforce all other ethnicities and races you’re revealed as having racial prejudice, fighting what one perceives as racism with more racism. There’s nothing virtuous about racist policies that support blacks. It’s not tit-for-tat. And the moment you actively advocate for and treat historical people differently simply because of their skin color… you enter the world of the most watered-down term in history… racism. Well done.

You also seem certainly resentful at the country acknowledging some diversity and celebrating diverse occasions.

Wow… How insecure do you have to be to make that claim. How about this… Answer the questions up top that I asked so we can get to some clarity and really find out who is resentful of true freedom and organic diversity, and not just pandering and virtue signaling their own supposed morality. You might find it’s not me in the end, but someone else.

 

[Odilon]

Get off slavery and focus on discrimination against minorities. Then we can have meaningful dialogue.

Oh there is just so much discrimination theses days. Black lawyers, black prosecutors, black Judges, black police officers, black police chiefs, black politicians, black Generals, black CEO’s, black movie stars, black President’s, and more and more interracial marriages then there has ever been - we have basically reached being the color blind society that Dr. Martin Luther King would have wanted. Are there some remnants of racial discrimination? Sure, but a pittance of what once existed in this nation.

What is happening today my friend is a clash between Capitalism and Marxism, and those who profess the latter are using race as the tried and true cudgel and as a means to hide their hideous political ideology. BLM is a Marxist organization because their leadership has admitted as much. A nation’s past must be destroyed and day one starts now - that is a basic Marxist teaching and that is what the left is attempting to do right now.

 

[Odilon]

Civil rights was a leftist movement; it was shunned by conservatives. The new Jim Crow is voting restrictions; led by the GOP.

Oh please. Now it is clear that you do not want a secure voting system which conservatives are attempting to keep in place. Any proposal ever put forth on this issue is not based on what race a person is, EVERYONE must abide by them. It was Democrats however who put the “Poll Taxes” in place, remember?

 

[Odilon]

Good! That’s the way we get a dialogue started. Conservatives love to talk about their admiration of Dr. King but they were HIGHLY offended by him when he was alive. Check the “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”. Your comments about being offended are pharisaical.

Who put Dr. King in that jail? The Democrats. You just can’t change the historical facts to make conservatives out to be the bad guys.

 

[Mister_Friscus]

You hit the nail on the head with your multiple posts here. It’s frustrating that thinktanks use race in such an effective manner to divide the populace. But yes:

1. There’s nowhere else in the world where blacks have achieved more and had the opportunity to achieve than the USA, and you list off plenty of examples.
2. Securing the voter system to prevent fraud is a non-racial issue, but notice how folks charge racism for doing so. Very odd.
3. While neither “side” of the aisle was perfect, history looks awful for the Democrat party. They’ll hold opponents to their worst moment, but then allow their own the opportunity to change and learn from their mistakes. Academia has created words and changed much of history into bumper stickers that aren’t much correct on their own… but, many most college professors are unapologetically leftist and far too often activists. So… things are being warped constantly.

 

[Nepperhan]

The question is… why is black history necessary to be elevated simply because of the color of their skin?

Your question is presumptuous. Black history is studied because it is part of US history; no more and no less. Because of the dearth of mention of black history in US education earlier in US history, black historians set aside a month to concentrate on the history of black folks in this country. Thus was born Black History Month. That month does not ignore anyone’s history – it is filling in the gaps.

 

[Nepperhan]

Are there some remnants of racial discrimination? Sure, but a pittance of what once existed in this nation.

How do you know? Has the EEOC gone out of business? 70% of its charges have to do with racial discrimination.

Any proposal ever put forth on this issue is not based on what race a person is, EVERYONE must abide by them.

Well. a federal court in NC said that the state’s new voting rules targeted minorities ‘with surgical precision’ when no vote fraud had been found previously. A solution without a problem. That’s the new Jim Crow for you.

"The court said that in crafting the law, the Republican-controlled general assembly requested and received data on voters’ use of various voting practices by race. It found that African American voters in North Carolina are more likely to vote early, use same-day voter registration and straight-ticket voting. They were also disproportionately less likely to have an ID, more likely to cast a provisional ballot and take advantage of pre-registration.

Then, the court, said, lawmakers restricted all of these voting options, and further narrowed the list of acceptable voter IDs. “… [W]ith race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans. As amended, the bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess.”

The state offered little justification for the law, the court said. Those who defended the law said they were doing so to prevent voter fraud. “Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist,” the court said."

Court: North Carolina Voter ID Law Targeted Black Voters | FRONTLINE

 

[Nepperhan]

There’s nowhere else in the world where blacks have achieved more and had the opportunity to achieve than the USA, and you list off plenty of examples.

That’s like saying slavery Was better here – slim comfort. Black have fought for this country since its inception.

Securing the voter system to prevent fraud is a non-racial issue, but notice how folks charge racism for doing so. Very odd.

Please see above. It seems the courts could find racism in the new Jim Crow.

While neither “side” of the aisle was perfect,

You generalize far too much for any reasonable comment. The old saw that ‘the Democrats were the racists’ is inaccurate and gets us no further along.

 

[Mister_Friscus]

You ignore so much of my posts that these discussions are difficult. Why do you refuse to answer direct questions? Here, Let me repost them in case you missed them. We need clarity so we can know where each other stands:

1. Do you think a racially diverse group of individuals achieving X is better than a non-racially diverse group achieving X? Is diversity for diversity’s sake good?
2. Are racial quotas a good thing?
3. Why is black history necessary to be elevated simply because of the color of their skin? What if you elevate a black person to be taught about but ignore a white/latino/asian person who achieved much more or was more influential? Is that just or right?

… or are you going to avoid these. Come on, step up.

 

[Mister_Friscus]

Well then where is white history, latino history, asian history, irish history, italian history, etc.?

Only one race’s accomplishments are elevated and enforced, the others merely recognized.

How about this. How about we drop the race of the person and judge how influential someone was based on what they accomplished and how they effected people. By definition, this historical racial segregation is regressive. Why the historical race quotas? Yes, blacks achieved in history… they aren’t ignored. The person who invented the toaster isn’t taught in history class. If an individual is mentioned in history, it should be for their merits, not their skin color.

 

[Nepperhan]

Well then where is white history, latino history, asian history, irish history, italian history, etc.?

What did your parent tell you when on Father’s Day you asked when was children’s day? By the way, its time to leave the rhetorical questions behind.

Yes, blacks achieved in history… they aren’t ignored.

You misunderstand majority culture. What do you think Casey Jones’ fireman looked like?

 

[GKMotley]

I know. I was alive when he died.

I’m still alive, for that matter.

 

[WingedHussar]

I was falsely accused by someone who played the race card. I would definitely be sitting down, assuming I was willing to waste money on an NFL game.

 

[Mister_Friscus]

This tap dancing needs to stop.

Given your obsession over what someone’s fireman looks like… which means nothing to our discussion, but again, here you are with it probably being about skin color… Are race quotas a good thing?

Yes or no… please respond.

 

[Nepperhan]

Given your obsession over what someone’s fireman looks like… which means nothing to our discussion, but again, here you are with it probably being about skin color…

It means quite a bit. It shows you how the majority culture in the US held down the mention of minorities in the story of the building of this nation. Sorta makes one understand why there is a black history month, huh?