California NAACP wants to remove 'The Star-Spangled Banner' as national anthem

[JettaKnight]

How about people just sing the Holmes' fifth stanza instead?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kind of hard to call someone a traitor to a country to which he/she was brought in chains.

Yeah, that was a serious WTF is he talking about moment. Are there really people that believe that slaves that fight for their freedom are traitors to the nation that's enslaving them? Now that's "enlightening."

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Kind of hard to call someone a traitor to a country to which he/she was brought in chains.

OK "traitors" is may not have been the best and most precise word...how about "enemy". When you're fighting with the enemy of my country, you get not sympathy from me. I was all for you until you turned and pointed that gun back at me or my brothers.

 

[Alpo]

I had to get a Heimlich Maneuver when I read that. Almost choked to death on a Snickers.

 

[JettaKnight]

I whole heartedly have no problem with slaves attempting to escape to freedom and if I were around back then, I hope I would have been one of the enlightened ones that would have cheerfully assisted with their flight. My support ends when they pick up arms in fighting with the enemy, against my country. At that point they become traitors and if I were fighting in that war, I would have had no reservation shooting anyone fighting for the British.

The Slave Trade Act of 1807 ended Britain's involvement in slavery. America was still happily wed to it come 1812.

Are you really telling us that you find fault with a man who's never tasted freedom, one who's been between, one who's probably had his family ripped from his chest, fighting against the government that condones this?

Really?


Of course you would have shot this man in defense of your country - you're white; the country is a free place for you.


EDIT:

OK "traitors" is may not have been the best and most precise word...how about "enemy". When you're fighting with the enemy of my country, you get not sympathy from me. I was all for you until you turned and pointed that gun back at me or my brothers.

OK, that's fair.

 

[Kutnupe14]

OK "traitors" is may not have been the best and most precise word...how about "enemy". When you're fighting with the enemy of my country, you get not sympathy from me. I was all for you until you turned and pointed that gun back at me or my brothers.

Now that's a lol.... mostly because it's obviously not true.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Now that's a lol.... mostly because it's obviously not true.

rly? He just said he hopes he would have been on the enlightened side and fought for liberation. Why do you say he supports slavery?

This is why we get mad at you kut

 

[Birds Away]

OK "traitors" is may not have been the best and most precise word...how about "enemy". When you're fighting with the enemy of my country, you get not sympathy from me. I was all for you until you turned and pointed that gun back at me or my brothers.

Hey, if someone has taken up arms against you then they are the enemy. That's not really the time to sort out the finer points of what led them to that action. Is a person justified in taking up arms against those who would enslave them? Most assuredly, yes. If a foreign power came and overwhelmed our country and enslaved us would we then be traitors if we did not fight for that power against another?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The Slave Trade Act of 1807 ended Britain's involvement in slavery. America was still happily wed to it come 1812.

Are you really telling us that you find fault with a man who's never tasted freedom, one who's been between, one who's probably had his family ripped from his chest, fighting against the government that condones this?

Really?


Of course you would have shot this man in defense of your country - you're white; the country is a free place for you.

Yes. An enemy is an enemy. Like I said, later I'd like to think that I'd be one of the ones helping them to freedom but as soon as they picked up arms against this country, they've decided their loyalties lie elsewhere and the bed they made, they'll have to lie in it.

Imagine you're in the militia fighting to repel the British and maintain your independence...Are you seriously going to tell me that if a group of men were attacking you with the full intent on killing and defeating you and helping the British, you'd lay down your arms and let them have their way?

Really?

I think folks are conflating modern sensibilities on the horrors of slavery with the existential threat the young US was under from the greatest armed force in the world. It's easy to say now that I would have supported their efforts to be free but if those efforts involve defeating the country, excuse me if we depart ways on this one.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Hey, if someone has taken up arms against you then they are the enemy. That's not really the time to sort out the finer points of what led them to that action. Is a person justified in taking up arms against those who would enslave them? Most assuredly, yes. If a foreign power came and overwhelmed our country and enslaved us would we then be traitors if we did not fight for that power against another?

Apples and oranges. One is overthrowing a presumably illegal, conquering nation the former is taking up arms to defeat a nation, much of which was working to ensure their freedom.

 

[Kutnupe14]

rly? He just said he hopes he would have been on the enlightened side and fought for liberation. Why do you say he supports slavery?

This is why we get mad at you kut

"All for you." I take the word "all" literally. Sympathy and passive resistance isn't what I'd consider "all." If you're willing to die for your and your "brothers" freedom, but not a slave (who you will note is not considered a "brother"), you're only slightly better than those who kept slaves.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

"All for you." I take the word "all" literally. Sympathy and passive resistance isn't what I'd consider "all." If you're willing to die for your and your "brothers" freedom, but not a slave (who you will note is not considered a "brother"), you're only slightly better than those who kept slaves.

Dying for people trying to defeat you in war seems counter productive.

 

[rob63]

Perhaps we are simply overthinking it. Can we agree that Key disagreed with slaves, fighting for their freedom, against the United States?

I interpret the line as being a taunt towards those who were fighting against the US and he was obviously opposed to those who did so. Whether that means he disagreed with the idea of slaves fighting for their freedom I honestly don't know. He isn't someone I have read a lot about, but from what I can find online he is a study in contradictions, so it is difficult to pin down exactly what he believed. He was a slave owner and presumably racist, considering his time, place, and the other things that he wrote. He was also a lawyer who on occasion represented slaves against their owners pro bono, freed his own slaves, and became known as the "N***** Lawyer" because he spoke out against slavery so often. He also represented slave-owners wanting their slaves returned, and prosecuted abolitionists. It is often difficult to figure out historical figures that held seemingly contradictory positions. Modern lawyers often represent people they disagree with or prosecute laws they disagree with, so that complicates figuring him out even more since he may have done the same.

As a side note, his son's death is an interesting story. He was literally shot in the street in front of the White House by a former congressman who then was the first person to successfully use the temporary insanity defense. Here is a good article about it: Daniel Sickles Shoots and Kills Philip Barton Key - 1859 Crime Magazine

 

[JettaKnight]

Yes. An enemy is an enemy. Like I said, later I'd like to think that I'd be one of the ones helping them to freedom but as soon as they picked up arms against this country, they've decided their loyalties lie elsewhere and the bed they made, they'll have to lie in it.

Imagine you're in the militia fighting to repel the British and maintain your independence...Are you seriously going to tell me that if a group of men were attacking you with the full intent on killing and defeating you and helping the British, you'd lay down your arms and let them have their way?

Really?

I think folks are conflating modern sensibilities on the horrors of slavery with the existential threat the young US was under from the greatest armed force in the world. It's easy to say now that I would have supported their efforts to be free but if those efforts involve defeating the country, excuse me if we depart ways on this one.

I'm saying that in retrospect, I cannot in good conscience call them a traitor.


I also don't call George Washington et al traitors.


And BirdsAway is right, the enemy is the enemy regardless of how they got there.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm saying that in retrospect, I cannot in good conscience call them a traitor.


I also don't call George Washington et al traitors.


And BirdsAway is right, the enemy is the enemy regardless of how they got there.

They did what they had to to do. They chose to fight against the US. I'm not even saying I might not have done the same thing if I were in their shoes. But they lost...and with that comes the repercussions of it. I don't think if I were on the losing side, I'd expect to be welcomed back with open arms.

 

[JettaKnight]

You know the German national anthem has all sorts of language promoting the nationalism that brought them shame. They simply don't sing that verse(s). The Russians simply changed the words of the USSR anthem.
Of course, both of those tunes are good!

My point is where does this all stop? When do we stop applying litmus tests to everything from the past? When will there be nothing left to throw out?


I still think it needs to go.

 

[JettaKnight]

They did what they had to to do. They chose to fight against the US. I'm not even saying I might not have done the same thing if I were in their shoes. But they lost...and with that comes the repercussions of it. I don't think if I were on the losing side, I'd expect to be welcomed back with open arms.

Totally with you on this.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Dying for people trying to defeat you in war seems counter productive.

That's a sidestep. My "all for you" quip was based on this:

I whole heartedly have no problem with slaves attempting to escape to freedom and if I were around back then, I hope I would have been one of the enlightened ones that would have cheerfully assisted with their flight. My support ends when they pick up arms in fighting with the enemy, against my country. At that point they become traitors and if I were fighting in that war, I would have had no reservation shooting anyone fighting for the British.

So were talking about before any sort of armed conflict, prior to anyone trying to defeat anybody. You "hope" you would've helped slaves escape bondage (again prior to any hostilities), and yet have no reservations about shooting fight against the British during hostilities. It would appear you words indicate a willingness to defend freedom, based on who they are. I have no such reservations with either. Freedom for those in bondage is just as precious as freedom for those who fight to preserve their own.

 

[Kutnupe14]

They did what they had to to do. They chose to fight against the US. I'm not even saying I might not have done the same thing if I were in their shoes. But they lost...and with that comes the repercussions of it. I don't think if I were on the losing side, I'd expect to be welcomed back with open arms.

Because they received welcoming open arms BEFORE? Am I in some sort of weird world where people believe slaves had it better before the war than afterwards?

 

[1DOWN4UP]

It amazes me how some clowns in California stirred the racial pot in Indiana and has you guys arguing over a song!I am a admitted AHole,but you guys today with the endless racist accusations, ancestral slavery pains,and I know what you are but what am I BS has me laughing my asss off. Thank you,I am now going to try to channel a dead relative who suffered in the past so I can too justify being so angry.