An example of black insecurity in America, case study Rene Marie
07-08-2008Here's another sad example of a black brainwashed person in America. A brainwashed self victimized crybaby by the name of Rene Marie was asked to sing at Mayor John Hickenlooper's Denver State of the City address. Rene Marie is a black jazz singer. Most ordinary people would be honored to be asked to sing the National Anthem at their city's State of the City function. Apparently Rene Marie wasn't honored. Ms. Marie took the opportunity to spit in the face of the Denver city council, the mayor of Denver and the citizens of Denver. When it was time for Ms. Marie to sing the National Anthem, she decided she wasn't going to sing it. She performed the song "Lift Every Voice and Sing," which also is known as the "black national anthem". Actually she decided she wasn't going to sing the National Anthem "MONTHS AGO". It wasn't a last minute change on Rene' Marie's part. Councilman Charlie Brown went on the airways after the State of the City address to rightfully attack the lack of the nation's anthem at the event. Mr. Brown said "there's no replacement for the national anthem". He's 100% correct. Mr. Brown stated precisely why the "Lift Every voice and sing" song was so inappropriate. Mr Brown "This is the State of the City address. It's not an NAACP convention,". This is what I don't like about Rene Marie. She was invited in good faith to sing a very patriotic song at an important event for the city of Denver. Ms. Marie decided she was going to deceive everybody by not making "her agenda" known to the mayor and the city council prior to the event. Mr. Brown also said "he thought Marie should have cleared her plans with the mayor's office in advance". Mr. Brown sounds like a rational guy, but he's missing the point. A person who is out to deceive aka "hoodwink" others isn't going to let the people know what he or she is planning to do until it is too late. If because of this stunt of hers she wears out her welcome in Denver, all I can say is she brought all her problems on herself. After her shameful act, Ms. Marie said on a local news station she kept her idea to switch songs a secret until the very last moment. Nobody of course had the guts to ask her why she "kept it a secret". She also said "When I decided to sing my version, what was going on in my head was: 'I want to express how I feel about living in the United States, as a black woman, as a black person". Marie was hired in good faith to sing the National Anthem, but she decided to sing "her version"? So not only is she a deceptive, insecure person, but she also feels that what she wants is more important then the citizens of Denver. For her to have done what she done clearly states how insecure of a person she is in her skin. Rene Marie said that if she had a chance, she would do it all over again. I have an extremely strong feeling that won't happen again in her life time. The mayor of Denver Mr. John Hickenlooper’ was actually trying to defend Ms. Marie. He stated "he spoke to Marie after the ceremony and that she apologized profusely". Oh really? Sounds like someone is lying, because Ms. Marie said that she would sing the same song over again if the opportunity presented itself. Also for months leading up to the address, she didn't feel sorry one bit. So why is Mr. Hickenlooper trying to protect her? Could it possibly be because he is a Democrat mayor, and he doesn't want to upset blacks that have the same mindset as Ms. Marie by attacking her?He also went on to state "She blended the two songs together"," She was trying to make an artistic expression of her love for the country. "She did not intend to make a political statement or anything" Clearly Dr. Hickenlooper is a massive suck up or is in a serious case of denial. This is what Mr. Hickenlooper can't clearly see. The National Anthem is suppose to be song that represents "ALL CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY". Lift Every Voice and Sing is a song that was meant for one group of people in America, blacks. Ms. Marie was making a statement and it was all planned out. It's just like when"Tommie Smith and John Carlos performed the "black power salute at the 1968 Olympic games". I have no doubts that Rene Marie would fit in just fine as a member of the Trinity United Cult of hate. Pass the plate.
Also, who told her she can sing? She can't!!
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 9:29 PM
57 Comments:
CB. While you and I see the stupidity and ignorance of her actions for what they are, among the other nuts in the fruitcake she will be praised for her actions.
You can tell our country is in bad shape Eric when morally and spiritual inept people are actually looked upon in a favorable manner. In reality noting is forcing Rene Marie to stay in the United States. She can denounce her oppressive citizenship at any time a immigrate to the country of her choice. Maybe she should checkout Zimbabwe Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia . Granted she can forget about the lifestyle she enjoys as an American, but at least she can finallly be secure in her skin as a black woman.
I'm planning on singing Monty Python's Lumberjack song the next time I get invited to such a function.
“Maybe she should checkout Zimbabwe Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia . Granted she can forget about the lifestyle she enjoys as an American, but at least she can finallly be secure in her skin as a black woman.” (Tyrone)
<
<
Sadly, there’s about as much chance of that as there is Michael Moore emigrating to France.
The primary problem with this is that she violated a contractual agreement in NOT performing the song she’d agreed to do. The underlying problem is one of this tedious embracing of “victimization” by some people within this society.
If Rene Marie feels “oppressed” here because of her race, she’s not alone, this is a competitive society...EVERYBODY has to out-compete all other applicants for their positions. ALL free societies are like that. And NO ONE is embraced for “who they are” or “their human value” in a free society. Everyone competes on a daily basis for what they have, whether they realize that, or not. Competition is not often very often a “welcoming” situation for ANYONE. In fact, it can feel downright alienating at times. Some people seek to blame their feelings of alienation and not being “welcomed” on their race, gender, ethnic or religious background or social orientation, but in almost EVERY case it comes from that person’s own insecurities.
Scuh people are indeed always "welcome"...to leave this competitive society, any time they want.
"YES I believe our government is capable of causing persecution for us. We better realize that we are hated in this country by our government."!!!!!
forty two "I'm planning on singing Monty Python's Lumberjack song the next time I get invited to such a function."
If you do it forty two, please video tape it. lol lol
jmk"adly, there’s about as much chance of that as there is Michael Moore emigrating to France."
true jmk, I hate hypocrites. I believe the golden rule of liberalism is to "Do as I say not as I do". As for Moore, I don't think he would last long in gay pierre. There isn't any all you can eat buffets in france. lol Millions of people left their home land to come to America for a better life. If their countries of origin was great, there would have been no incentive for them to leave, right? Africans who can afford to leave Africa have no problem coming to America, and they do in droves. They come here and they appreciate what this country truly has to offer knowing the conditions and circumstance from which they came. Blacks more in the United States try do down this country at every turn but never ever have any intentions on leaving. It gets very old after awhile. People like Rene Marie has the opportunity to go, and she never will even though she's not patriotic is this country in which she was born.
jmk"The primary problem with this is that she violated a contractual agreement in NOT performing the song she’d agreed to do. The underlying problem is one of this tedious embracing of “victimization” by some people within this society."
Your right jmk, I doubt however that she will be sued for breach of contract. The mayor and his aids wouldn't dare have the gutts to do it.If I was the mayor I would do it in a New York minute. I stand by my belief that the victimization mindset starts in so called black churches that preach the "black liberation theology".
jmk "If Rene Marie feels “oppressed” here because of her race, she’s not alone, this is a competitive society...EVERYBODY has to out-compete all other applicants for their positions"
I have a strong feeling that everything could be handed to people ike Rene Marie,and they will still find a reason to feel like they are oppressed. Hell, people can be brainwashed to blow themselves up, and they an be brainwashed to feel as the U.S.A is out to get them.
jmk"Scuh people are indeed always "welcome"...to leave this competitive society, any time they wan"
jmk, I know you heard of the old saying "to the winne goes the spoils"? Well people like Rene just want the spoils without having to compete for them. It all comes down to an entitlement mindset, and they don't like it when people don't cater to that mindset.
P Allen"YES I believe our government is capable of causing persecution for us. We better realize that we are hated in this country by our government."!!!!!"
OK Allen, I'll bite. The last act of persecution I can think of that was committed by the government was segregation forty plus years ago. So Alen with that on the table. What is the government doing in 2008 that is designed to oppress or attack black people?
"We better realize that we are hated in this country by our government."!!!!!" (PAA)
<
<
Really?!
By whom?
Rep Rangel? Rep Conyers? Rep Waters? Justice Clarence Thomas? Secretary of State Rice?
Or do you mean the likes of Justice Scalia, perhaps the foremost Constitutional scholar on the court?
Or maybe Senator Schumer, who along with Rep Emmanuel, has been recruiting Conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats to run out West and down South?
And what race, gender or ethnic-based "persecution" are you referring to?
The only such race-based discrimination or race-based preference that has been government sanctioned over the past four decades has been euphemistically called "affirmative action."
If you're referring to that, I agree it's an abomination and it violates both the equal protections clause and the equal opportunity clause of the U.S. Constitution, but it has been drastically reduced in scope over the past twenty years. So, while I agree that it's misguided and that it both stigmatizes its recipients, as it commits injustices on its victims, the word "persecution" isn't nearly as applicable as it once was, given that it's use (thank God) hasn't been as widespread as it once was.
p. anthony allen said...""YES I believe our government is capable of causing persecution for us. We better realize that we are hated in this country by our government."!!!!!"
Would that be the same government that provides you with a paycheck, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to own personal property, and the opportunity to benefit from the fruits of your labor? I guess that is why people walk across the Rio Grand, and risk their lives in 90 miles of shark infested waters. They don't find hatred in their own country, so want to be hated in the Land of the Free.
I think you are confusing government persecution with Jesse Jackson's statement out giving Obama surgery.
I will admit that there are some in government that hate people like me, because I refuse to be a member of the uninformed electorate. My vote and support can not be purchased by promises of Socialism. In that sense I guess I am hated. IMO, when the Socialist and Communist who prefer obedient subjects rather than independent citizens start to like me, then I am doing something wrong.
RB says; "Hell, people can be brainwashed to blow themselves up, and they an be brainwashed to feel as the U.S.A is out to get them."
and,
"OK Allen, I'll bite. The last act of persecution I can think of that was committed by the government was segregation forty plus years ago."
Very perceptive Tyrone, you knew that was bait....lol...very smart!
Well, I was going to wait to see what other types of responses I was going to get...but here goes!
If you take notice that response is in "quotation" marks. I copied that response from a previous post. (Pam, "How liberals like Obama are trying to hijack Christianity Part 2")
In 2005 FOX News reported that 59 percent of Christians feels Christianity is under attack
. This shows that not only does Rene Marie and those of her ilk have a grievance against the government, so does many other groups. Pamela's sentiments and idea that, "our own government hates Christians", seems to have a wide spread appeal.
The question now is, are these legitimate grievance's or perceived notions by a bunch of "whiners", and that it's all in their heads. (as Phil Graham would put it)
Even though I do not agree with what Rene Marie did, wouldn't it be fair to say that she has the "right" to express a grievance? Tyrone you asked, "What is the government doing in 2008 that is designed to oppress or attack black people?" Replace "black people" with "Christians" and answer that same question.
There are U.S. "church and state" laws which effect "ALL" religions, yet there are none that are specifically designed to effect Christians, and to my knowledge there has never been.
However, and to the contrary, there were laws that were specifically designed to negatively effect blacks in this country. Born in Virginia in 1955, Rene Marie can without question say that she has faced racism and laws "designed" not only to circumvent a black persons rights as an American, but also the "God" given rights as a human being.
On the other hand the question is, are 59% of Christians under attack... especially from the U.S. government? Is there a "War On Christmas"? Are Christians being discriminated against or even persecuted in America?
If you believe that the aforementioned is occurring, without "specifically" designed laws to cause such actions, then how can you possibly accuse Rene Marie (hypocritically I might add) of having a victimization mentality? At very least, Rene Marie can semi-justify her insecurity....
Answer this question-
WHAT U.S. LAW MENTIONS CHRISTIANS DIRECTLY BY NAME, THAT STATES THEY EVER WERE DEPRIVED, EXCLUDED, SEPARATED OR PERSECUTED?
.
I know that some here will attempt to spin this comparison as a "comparing apples to oranges" type argument. Well, I can firmly say your "spin" won't "wash." Mainly because 59% of Christians show that exact same "insecurity in America"!
To say that idea of attacks and discrimination against a group based on race, religion or gender is somehow "different" would also negate the argument that we're all Americans. So in this case you naysayers will have to take your pick! Either we're all Americans or, we are a country divided by race, gender and religion.
Eric replies;"Would that be the same government that provides you with a paycheck, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to own personal property, and the opportunity to benefit from the fruits, ect..."
Yep! Thats the one...
You took the bait Eric.
Unfortunately I'm not the one who see's America in that light.
I posted that "quote" to show that there are other individuals and groups that over zealously professed discrimination, oppression, being undermind and even persecuted in the U.S.
James Hagee, James Dobson, D. James Kennedy and the late Jerry Falwell are considered the most outspoken and prominant Christian leaders in America. Yet, at one time or another, each of these men have stated that one, or all of the aforementioned percieved attacks is occuring on Christianity.
My entire point on this subject is to point out the hypocrisy, particuarly for those who dare to say that, "were are all equal in sharing a common 'culture', background, or experience this society.
If you are one of those that share's the belief that Christianity is under attack in this country are you "among the other nuts in the fruitcake and praised them for their actions?" Are you using your faith as a way to "divide" yourself from the rest of society? Do you believe that your faith allows you "special" privilges, perhaps some sort of Affirmative Action program?
Again, I think Rene Marie was wrong for not singing the song she was asked to sing. But that in itself's is not just cause for anyone to ask, suggest, opine or "assert" that she should leave the country....UNLESS, you are willing to suggest that groups that believe;
"YES I believe our government is capable of causing persecution for us. We better realize that we are hated in this country by our government."
should leave the country also!
Rene Marie has just as much a right to challenge what she views a "discrimination" or "persecution", just as Christians have the right to assume and challenge the same.
Tyrone. You can handle this one, my friend. I read Mr. Allen's post. I am sure there is a point or a tiny bit of logic in there somewhere, but I couldn't find it in my first read. Maybe you could use your L-I-A-M-D- decoder ring to determine the connection between Christmas and an ignorant fool that is too ignorant to realize her ignorance.
I wish more nutjobs like Rene Marie would leave in Droves they will not be missed by me in the least.
Thank goodness for international news. I can laugh at the follies that are being perpetuated overseas.
I'd rather that foolishness be overseas than here.
I wonder about where the other ethnic groups fit in Miss Rene Marie's self-centered worldview.
Oh I forgot she sees the world in black and white.
Yes a horrible pun but rather fitting!
Asians,Latinos,Arabs and Indians of India and Native Americans don't exist according to black nationalists.
It's only oppressed blacks versus Oppressive whites in her narrow minded point of view!
Eric replies;"Tyrone. You can handle this one, my friend. I read Mr. Allen's post. I am sure there is a point or a tiny bit of logic in there somewhere, but I couldn't find it in my first read."
Say what?? My initial post was quite the "illogical" statement, yet somehow you were able to garner a response. Hell, you even trotted out your ole' red commie routine. Come on now....read it again. I'm sure you can find a way to tie my rhetoric to Marxist theology or Castro's Cuba...hell, The Irish Republican Socialist Party!!!!!
PAA. Government persecution of those who follow Christ is nothing new. I has happened elsewhere and through out history, and it will happen here. The move away from "One Nation Under God" is only the beginning of it in this country.
I know you don't understand it or have the faith to believe it but...
"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me." Matt 24:9
You see, PAA, history has shown that being persecuted because of ones faith is a good thing and it has rewards beyond your comprehension. What you see as over zealous, I see as being observant to the signs of the time. Unlike a Rene Marie claim of "persecution" in victim hood, we claim persecution in VICTORY!!!
Eric says;"PAA. Government persecution of those who follow Christ is nothing new. I has happened elsewhere and through out history, and it will happen here."
You're absolutely correct that it's nothing new and that there are places where Christian persecution is occurring as we speak. My point here is that persecution via government is not, and has never occurred in the United States! Hell, it was an American revolutionary imperative to have freedom of religion for all citizens.
Here is a list of countries where ACTUAL religious persecution is occurring. Some perpetrated by government, some by radicals or other factions. (Ahh...um.. you did notice the U.S.A. is nowhere on the list, did'nt you?)
Claims of persecution by Christians living in the U.S. is in effect heartless, cruel and lacks compassion toward those whom lose thier lives, and the lives of their loves in countries where persecution is government policy. What sort of responce do you think you would get from this Chinese Christian worshipper if you told him, "Christians in America are persecuted also!" What would this guy say? Hell, let's throw in this guy for good measure...
In my opinion (and using your own idea's concerning our government), why would you accuse the "government that provides you with a paycheck, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to own personal property, and the opportunity to benefit from the fruits of your labor", of persecution, or the possible persecution, of your religion. Until there is a law that specifically targets Christians, or, you are personally brought before a tribunal, or accosted by militants in the streets or dragged from your home by government or political forces, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO COMPLAIN NOR WORRY ABOUT!
In fact your position on Christian persecution is no different from what you believe is Rene Maries position on persecution of blacks in America. Yet there is one aspect that gives her position credence over yours. Rene Marie has actually "experienced" persecution. I must concede that it was not on account of religion, as it was her race. Yet, the fact remains that there is virtually no escape within a society where a government decides to persecute along the lines of race.
Look Eric, I know it's kind of a stretch to compare religion to race, still and yet, and to the contrary, there is only one reason. You can change or even hide your religion, you can't change your race. (Perhaps some can hide their race, but changing it is another thing)
"Rene Marie has actually "experienced" persecution. I must concede that it was not on account of religion, as it was her race." (PAA)
<
<
Did she?
According to her bio, "she was born René Marie Stevens in Warrenton, Virginia, on 7 November 1955. Her parents, Lester Barbour and Daisy Stone Stevens, were teachers."
Not a bad start. Two parents, both teachers. A better start than most people, black, white or Asian.
According to her bio; "When René was still a small child, her family moved to Roanoke, Virginia. She had begun taking her interest in music a stage further, learning to play piano and read music. Going one step further, as a young teenager she sang with an R&B band. 'It was just some local guys in the neighborhood. We called ourselves the Majestics. I met my future husband in this band. He played piano. We married when I was eighteen and we both became Jehovah's Witnesses. We quit doing music publicly as a result of that. I stopped singing for twenty-three years.'
...The resumption of her story, twenty-three years later, is almost as abrupt. It is tempting to assume that nothing happened during those intervening years but of course that is not so. Indeed, much did happen, most importantly, she had two sons, Michael Croan, born in 1975 and Desmond Croan, born in 1978. And she also went to work part-time in jobs ranging from being a cashier at McDonald's, a waitress at a formal restaurant and cleaning offices and private homes for her husband's janitorial business before joining First Union Bank in Roanoke in 1991, where she eventually rose to a senior position."
Hmmm, nothing about any racial persecution, anywhere....isn't that odd?
People who are persecuted generally don't get to Marry, choose their own religion, start a business (as her husband had), or rise to senior positions in a major bank of that persecuting country. Truly persecuted are not allowed to own property, start and run businesses, etc.
And most definitely persecuted people aren't generally given race-based preferences within the nations persecuting them, as part of their "persecution."
Perhaps your using the word "persecuted" and thinking "privileged," as that's the kind of life, at least according to her bio, Rene Marie seems to have lived.
Wow.... "Hmmm, nothing about any racial persecution, anywhere....isn't that odd?"
FROM THE EXACT SAME WEBSITE!!!
Q & A with Rene Marie
Rene Marie:"But that sentiment was not a reality for black folks living in a town with Jim Crow laws, where the flag often hung from buildings they could not enter. It was not a reality for black soldiers (among them my own father) returning home and being denied their civil rights after having fought for the nation the flag represented. On the other hand, nobody but black folks found comfort in “Lift Ev’ry Voice and Sing”, even though the lyrics focused on ‘ev’ry voice singing’ the ‘harmony of liberty’"
There is an individual that post's on this blog that will, "pee on your shoe, and tell you it's raining!"
The state of Virginia is home to one of the most avid proponents for racial segregation, and the author of The Southern Manifesto, Harry F. Byrd. Virginia, were new Jim Crow Laws were enacted up until 1960. Virginia, where it was against the law for blacks and whites to get married until 1967.
Now, some one dares to "assert" that black person born in 1955 Virginia has never been the victim of "racial persecution"????
I defy anyone else here to agree with that person! No, better still...
WHY WOULD ANYONE IMPLY THAT A BLACK PERSON BORN IN 1955 VIRGINIA (who interacted in society, of course)HAS NEVER BEEN THE VICTIM OF SOME FORM OF RACIAL PERSECUTION?
Honestly, why would someone propose such a theory? Is that person just ill informed? Are they not aware of the history and assume Black people were never treated differently? Or, is there something more sinister at play?
"Hmmm, nothing about any racial persecution, anywhere....isn't that odd?"
"The Devil will never tell you that his evil exists."
Had I not went to the website, and read it for myself, I would have never known about Marie's statement that I posted above.
Gee-whizzz...what's next, a Holocaust denial?????
Now, some one dares to "assert" that black person born in 1955 Virginia has never been the victim of "racial persecution"????
“I defy anyone else here to agree with that person! No, better still...” (PAA)
<
<
Yes indeed, and that "someone" would be myself.
The truth of the matter is that a number of different court cases, particularly such 1940’s cases as Sweat vs. Paiter and McLaurin vs. Oklahoma, broke down the “separate but equal” standard. State-sponsored segregation was finally and completely outlawed with 1954’s Brown v. Topeka Board of Education ruling.
But even if we extend the end of segregation all the way to 1964 the year the Civil Rights Act was passed (it had actually ended well before that) a child born in 1954 did not experience any such “persecution,” as schools had been integrated for a decade by then and state sponsored segregation had been ended by that same SC decision and "seperate but equal" standards had been ended nearly two decades earlier!
In Ms. Marie Rene’s case, she was born to relative privilege, in a home of two teachers.
When Ms. Rene stopped singing, it wasn’t due to any “persecution,” it was due to a personal choice (she and her husband joining the Jehovah’s Witnesses).
You complain about whites having a history of despising blacks, but you demonstrate the very same animus yourself and the inane view that “black bigotry is a legitimate response to white bigotry,” is completely unfounded, and ironically enough, it is a primary rationale used by white bigots as well.
Only masochists (that’s a psychosexual perversion) willingly embrace victimization PAA, perhaps because deep down inside they feel they deserve to be victimized.
Despite having utterly no use for the malignant and all too often malicious views you espouse, I’d argue that you deserve better than that PAA....everybody does.
eric" Maybe you could use your L-I-A-M-D- decoder ring to determine the connection between Christmas and an ignorant fool that is too ignorant to realize her ignorance."
I wish I coiuld connect the dots on that eric. I'm drawing blanks.
p allen "Very perceptive Tyrone, you knew that was bait....lol...very smart!"
Thank you allen, but it was so obvious even Stevie Wonder could have saw it. lol
P Allen"Rene Marie has just as much a right to challenge what she views a "discrimination" or "persecution", just as Christians have the right to assume and challenge the same."
Using rational thinking Allen, how in the world can you relate Rene "crybaby" Marie deceiving people in order to sing the black national anthem with "challening racism"?. Rene is black. We can agree on that. A black woman was invited not "exclude" to sing our national anthem at an important city event in Denver. In what I just said Allen, where exactly was the "persecution" or "discrimination" in this? Please point it out Allen.
eric"I will admit that there are some in government that hate people like me, because I refuse to be a member of the uninformed electorate"
We are definitely in the same boat eric. lol. Free thinkers are always the hardest people to control unlike a group collective.
jmk "People who are persecuted generally don't get to Marry, choose their own religion, start a business (as her husband had), or rise to senior positions in a major bank of that persecuting country. Truly persecuted are not allowed to own property, start and run businesses, etc."
Correct on all points jmk as usual. When I think about "persecution" or "oppression", I think abouts has been happening in Zimbabwe. People have been killed in great numbers for daring to exercise their right to "choose" their leader. In countries like the Sudan, Christians are being slaughtered just because of their faith. When I see and hear about all of the mass murders, starvation, civil wars, disease and other unimaginable suffering and true persecution and oppression in other countries, Rene Marie is a clueless pathetc excuse of a person. A victim of her own doing Allen.
jmk"Scuh people are indeed always "welcome"...to leave this competitive society, any time they want"
Yet they never do jmk, Michelle Obama thinks America "is a downright mean country". She's still here. Jerimiah Wright thinks this country is the USKKK of A". He's still here. I would love to find out what percentage of blacks that have left the United States as compared to the number of blacks immigrating to the United States. I can gurantee that the numbers will be drastically lopsided in favor of blacks COMING to the United States as opposed to leaving it.
"When I think about "persecution" or "oppression", I think abouts has been happening in Zimbabwe. People have been killed in great numbers for daring to exercise their right to "choose" their leader. In countries like the Sudan, Christians are being slaughtered just because of their faith." (Tyrone)
<
<
Yes, there's a cavernous difference between discrimination and persecution.
Many ethnic groups have been discriminated against in America, although blacks have a history that is unrivaled in that regard.
While I can understand where that has led to some very deep and abiding resentments in some people, that doesn't exonerate nor elevate such resentments out of the gutter.
Today, America is, in many places, as segregated as it once was, only it is virtually entirely due to "self-segregation" today.
On that score, I agreee with Clarence Thomas and James Meredith, who believe that as troubling as that might be to some people, in a free society, people have a right to freedom of association.
When I was in grammar school the riots of the 1960s were in effect. Some were racial and some (like the Chicago Convention riots) were the work of Leftist "hippies."
For better or worse, I internalized a lot of those images, and one of the lesson I took from them was that, "Blacks hate whites, so I can't trust that group and am justified in my dislike for them." I'd already reviled "hippies," and have always detested Leftists, as that ideology is so toxic and corrosive.
As I grew up and met more black Americans, I found tha the same is true for them as for every other group, there are some of the best and worst people in EVERY group.
My internalized "justification" for my dislike of blacks was a mere rationalization, same as it is for blacks who believe their hatred of whites and others is justified. In the end we are all responsible for what we believe and we must all confront and challenge those beliefs regularly.
I've gone into business and collaborated with blacks, my wife is not only black, but born in another country...and she is among all else, my best friend.
And still, some of the worst people I've met have also been black, just as some of the worst have also been Italian and Irish, German and Jewish, etc.
Anything that keeps us from examining ourselves and undermining our rationalizations is bad for our self-development.
Today, while all illegitimacy rates for all groups is high, it is incredibly and dangerously high among blacks in this country.
The rate for blacks was 68% in 2002, DOWN from 68.4% in 2001, for non-Hispanic whites it was 22.5% in 2002, UP from 22% in 2001, and for Hispanics it was 43.6% in 2002 UP from 42.8% in 2001. Those stats make very clear that what Obama said about black fatherhood was right and completely justified and NOT "talking down to" anyone.
In fact, ALL those rates are far too high!
But instead of justifying or rationalizing why they are as high as they are, we need to look at those rates as a signal of one of our faults, our own personal failings, and NOT as an excuse for self-pity.
Such a stat seems to prove, although the failure of the Liberal orthodoxy, to which Obama subscribes is that it refuses to acknowledge that proof, is that government action is the CAUSE of that problem and NOT the solution to it.
RB asks;"Using rational thinking Allen, how in the world can you relate Rene "crybaby" Marie deceiving people in order to sing the black national anthem with "challening racism"?. Rene is black. We can agree on that. A black woman was invited not "exclude" to sing our national anthem at an important city event in Denver. In what I just said Allen, where exactly was the "persecution" or "discrimination" in this? Please point it out Allen."
There was no persecution or discrimination what-so-ever involved in her singing any song at the event. However, that's not my point...
My point is, in effect, a direct challege to your claim that Rene Marie is "An example of black insecurity in America."
It is my opinion that Rene Marie is far from "insecure." If your idea of insecurity is built upon someone being viewed as a "brainwashed self victimized crybaby", then all those who speak out, (no just as an expression, as she says it was)or have a grievance, are also guilty of being "brainwashed self victimized crybabies".
And BTW yes, there is a difference between racial persecution and religious persecution. However, the effects are the same. That is to say, that a particular "group" is being targeted for either discrimination, harassment, punishment or elimination.
Belief that your race, gender, politics, religion or sexual orientation is "under attack" by government or other forces in America, in most cases, is driven by those who wish to exploit or profit from their grievance. Or, those who wish to impose their beliefs on the masses.
There within lies the hypocrisy Tyrone. Rene Marie is no more insecure that you are. You yourself often speak out against what you perceive as "political" disdain or harassment....
From, "How Liberals Like Barak Obama are Attempting to Hijack Christianity, Part 1";
" Liberals don’t like to accept things that are tradition, they like to change laws and rules to conform to their lifestyles not the other way around. It’s pretty simple to understand why liberals have such an unadulterated hatred towards Evangelical Christians. Evangelicals are by nature Christian “traditionalist”. They conform their lifestyles around the basis of what is moral, righteous, and spiritual in aspects to biblical scripture. In other words, Evangelicals are traditional Christians."
Am I to say that you are an example of "insecurity" because you believe "liberals" have a hatred for Evangelicals? How do you know this? Has a prominent liberal political group issued a statement saying they hate Evangelicals?
Can give me one clear-cut example of a prominent American liberal group, or it's leader, past or present, that has spewed hate towards Christians? (Preferably a statement similar to John Hagee's reference to destroying Islam.) With over 75% of the country saying they are Christians, you'll be hard pressed to find such a statement. Does that make you "insecure"?
You also say that Rene Marie is "brainwashed". You also believe that Evangelicals are "moral, righteous, and spiritual in aspects to biblical scripture." How about I give you an example of a one time"LEADER" of tens of thousands of Evangelicals who is the exact opposite of what you believe. Is it really true that Evangelicals are "moral, righteous, and spiritual in aspects to biblical scripture?"
Are you now... "brainwashed"?
My answer, as they pertain to your idea's is "NO"! I would not say that you are brainwashed nor insecure in your beliefs. Even if can't show evidence or back your beliefs with concrete facts, I am willing to give you "THE RIGHT" (or the benefit of the doubt, whatever...)to hold on to your beliefs.
The fact that she sang a different song, what ever the song, even if it was Lee Greenwoods "God Bless The U.S.A.", as an expression, belief or protest does not make her an insecure nor brainwashed black person. It just makes he wrong for not singing the song she was asked to sing.
You have you opinions and ideas on why you think liberals hate Evangelicals, so who am I to question them. Rene Marie was "WRONG" for not singing the song she was asked to sing. She has her reasons for doing so. Still, that does not make her an example of "black insecurity." You're just plain wrong Tyrone!
JMK blathers;"1940s court case, blah, blah, blah...,state sponsored segregation, blah, blah, blah-zay, yap, yap, yap...black bigotry, (lie) blaah-zay spleet, wink, wink, nod-nod, racism, code-word, code-word, lie psychosexual, hint-hint...unimportant junk, more unimportant stuff, dumb-dumb,I’d argue (lie)that you deserve better than that PAA....everybody does."exclaimation point...
Hmmm, nothing about any racial persecution that Rene Marie referred to on her very own web sight that you said was not there, anywhere....isn't that odd?
I said and stand by the FACT that the "separate but equal policies" of "Jim Crow" had already ended well BEFORE Rene Marie came into this world.
It is also a fact that even the Southern schools she attended were desegregated a year prior to her birth, with the 1954 Brown decision.
Ergo, Rene Marie DID NOT grow up in any "segregated society," and she was certainly not "persecuted" by any government, either here or elsewhere.
She DID, however, grow up in a society that discriminated IN FAVOR of blacks via race-based preferences known as "affirmative action."
Rene Marie was/IS a "child of privilege," as much as that fact may bother you.
These "FACTS", makes this statement...
"I said and stand by the FACT that the "separate but equal policies" of "Jim Crow" had already ended well BEFORE Rene Marie came into this world."
a LIE!!!!!!
Never underestimate the power of "the google"!
These "FACTS", makes this statement...
a LIE!!!!!! (PAA)
<
<
Not one of those facts contradicts what I said.
I pointed out the historical fact that a number of different court cases, particularly such 1940’s cases as Sweat vs. Paiter and McLaurin vs. Oklahoma, broke down the “separate but equal” standard. State-sponsored segregation was finally and completely outlawed with 1954’s Brown v. Topeka Board of Education ruling.
Brown ended segregated schools EVERYWHERE within the United States.
I suppose that's why the list you googled only goes up to 1960, kind of proving that Rene Marie never experienced any of the segreagation you claim she did.
She DID however, come of age in a time when blacks were "persecuted" via affirmative action's race-based preferences.
Four years after the Brown decision, the "STATE GOVERNMENT OF VIRGINIA enacted this LAW"!
1958: Education [State Code]
Upon enrollment of members of both races, schools must close; control transferred to governor
You can dodge, wile, scheme, deceive, ploy, lie, cheat and steal...but you will never convince any sane god-fearing human soul, that;
"Ergo, Rene Marie DID NOT grow up in any "segregated society," and she was certainly not "persecuted" by any government, either here or elsewhere."
America is indeed a much more tolerant society than it was prior to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. But to say that those who lived through that period were not effected by the racist practices...??
Rene Marie is a tad younger than I am. As a child, I remember being called a "N----R", not being allowed to enter certain establishments, and being told not to go to certain parts of town on my many summer trips to Alabama. Rene Marie is just as black as I am! So, it is an insult for you to state that racial discrimination and government persecution did not did not exist, or effect either her or myself.
Tyrone states;"The last act of persecution I can think of that was committed by the government was segregation forty plus years ago."
Granted, I rarely agree with Tyrone on almost every racially charged issue. But doesn't that comment make it obvious to you that 99.9% of blacks would agree that state sponsored racism "did" exist forty years ago? You cite the 1954 Brown decision as an "end" to racist practices in this country. The height of the Civil Rights Movement did not even occur until 1968, right at the time of Dr. Kings assassination.
JMK you're taking your resentment for Affirmative Action, liberal government, Democrats and civil rights way to far. You've become so disillusioned that your "racist" streak is beginning to show.
I've said before that I believe you post here in a vague attempt at self affirmation. You've found an honest black conservative who speaks his mind on the issues concerning the black community. So, you've found a way to vent your frustration while hiding your contempt.
Sure there are plenty of black conservatives that would agree with you on some issues. But to deny and purposely distort history is just lowdown and pitiful.
Prominent Republican Michael Steele had this to add concerning race relations in 2008 America. Take note on his take on white voting patterns and the Bradley Effect. (about 3:03 of the clip)
"You can dodge, wile, scheme, deceive, ploy, lie, cheat and steal...but you will never convince any sane god-fearing human soul, that;
"Ergo, Rene Marie DID NOT grow up in any "segregated society," and she was certainly not "persecuted" by any government, either here or elsewhere." (PAA)
<
<
Those court cases removed any federal protections for segregation.
Moreover, the vast majority of Americans choose to self-segregate today.
IF segregation is so deleterious (I tend to think it is NOT), then there'd be a hue and cry from many people to engage to government in ceasing this practice.
I haven't heard any such hue and cry, certainly not from blacks, many of whom actively engage in selof-segregation themselves.
<
<
"JMK you're taking your resentment for Affirmative Action, liberal government, Democrats and civil rights way to far." (PAA)
<
<
It isn't merely Conservatives who oppose race and gender based preferences, opposition to them is nearly 3 to 1.
In Michigan, Ward Connerly's recent Ballot Initiative banning race and gender based preferences passed by better than 2 to 1 in a very "BLUE" and mostly "Liberal" State!
Anyone who believe the government should not support any kind of racial discrimination opposes such preferences.
Moreover, I remain a registered Democrat. I call myself a "Zell Miller Democrat," and am very happy about the fact that since 2006 over 25% of the Democrats in Congress (mostly "New" Democrats) are also "Blue Dog (Conservative) Democrats" like Evangelical Christian, Heath Schuler.
And I've neer had anything against civil rights....my opposition to race and gender based preferences is clearly in support of the universal civil rights enumerated in our Constitution.
Fact is, Rene Marie, was born AFTER Brown and other court cases had already desegregated schools and eradicated separate but equal standards. She actally came of age at a time when blacks were "persecuted" with race-based preferences and set-asides.
If Rene Marie's singing career was a "victim" of anything, it was her and her husband's chosen religion (Jehovah's Witnesses).
"I've said before that I believe you post here in a vague attempt at self affirmation. You've found an honest black conservative who speaks his mind on the issues concerning the black community. So, you've found a way to vent your frustration while hiding your contempt." (PAA)
<
<
Actually, I have an affinity for all Conservatives. I tend to agree with them on most, if not all issues.
My views don't require any validation, nor affirmation, because they're rooted in a reasonable and logical approach to the issues.
I confess that I've never suffered due to affirmative action. I scored 1220 on my SAT's back in the early 70's and didn't have any problem getting into the schools I applied to.
Likewise, on the FDNY Entrance Exam I took....I scored a 100% on the written and a near perfect score on the physical and was in the thrid class appointed from that list.
My problems with race and gender based preferences are with the injustice to both blacks and whites alike. Read Tom Sowell's book Preferential Policies for in depth look at their corrosive effects on the black community.
Ironically enough, it's YOU who seem motivated by some misguided racialist mindset. What else could explain your enthusiasm for embracing "victimology" for people like Rene Marie, who weren't really victims, while supporting the same kinds of injustices (segregated standards) when it benefits what you perceive to be "your group?"
I'll readily acknowledge that I have shown "contempt" for your views and your demeanor (your arrogant attitude toward Eric and Tran), and I'd say, deservedly so, but I don't believe I've ever displayed any contempt to any other poster or their views here...largely because I tend to agree far more often than not, and also because, aside from yourself, no one else here has consistently offered up the palpable malice that you do.
For insance, while I may not be as religious as either Tran or Tyrone, or many of the other posters here, I'm certain that if we were to discuss our disagreements, we could do so without any personal malice whatsoever.
Personally, I think you're attempting to use me as a sort of "beard," to mask your own contempt for black conservatives, whom you feel have no reason to endorse the views that they do.
More from JMK;"What else could explain your enthusiasm for embracing "victimology" for people like Rene Marie, who weren't really victims, while supporting the same kinds of injustices (segregated standards) when it benefits what you perceive to be "your group?"
That's where you're wrong (AGAIN!, needless to say). It's you that see Rene Marie's actions as an expression of "victimology." What I see is a woman that [possibly] took artistic expression to far. She was wrong for not singing the song she was asked to sing...no more, no less.
Unlike you, I read through her entire website and statements. Her reasons for changing the lyrics are;
"This is the aspect of being American that gives me the greatest sense of pride. Though others may impute a political or racial motive, for me, the issue can only be addressed from an artistic standpoint because that is the nature of its inception."
Clairvoyance is definitely not within the realm of my expertise. And, unless you possess some kind of paranormal psychic ability, you have to give her the benefit of the doubt. By showing the merest suspicion of someone you don't know, is in itself prejudice, or "prejudging" their intent. Rene Marie is not Jesse Jackson. She is a Jazz singer, an artist. Until you see her on Capital Hill waving a Pan African flag while reciting Garveyite philosophy, (or something less similar) it's entirely unfair to "Dixie_Chick" her expression.
"Unlike you, I read through her entire website and statements. Her reasons for changing the lyrics are;
"This is the aspect of being American that gives me the greatest sense of pride. Though others may impute a political or racial motive, for me, the issue can only be addressed from an artistic standpoint because that is the nature of its inception."
<
<
Actually I DID read through that and find it immaterial.
She contracted to sing the national anthem and made a half-baked attempt at a political statement.
We agree that "She was wrong for not singing the song she was asked to sing."
Where we've disagreed is over your charge that Rene marie was somehow "persecuted," despite her being born AFTER Brown desegregated Southern schools and earlier court cases had already dismantled the "separate but equal standards," AND having come of age, at a time when blacks were actually given preferences based on skin color by the white dominated federal government you castigate.
JMK;"Actually I DID read through that and find it immaterial."
Of course you do. That's how would view any black person who would dare to make any statement which you view as contrary to your beliefs...right? Rene Marie is just another one of those "whining Negroes"...right?
Even when asked to explain herself, anything other than a, "it's all the white mans fault", kind of rant is unacceptable to you...right?
Her explanation is "immaterial" to you because it doesn't fit the "black-racialist" mold that you wish to bestow upon her...right?
In no uncertain terms you view her explanation as immaterial which means it's unacceptable to you.
No problem... I can't say I agree with you, but I see exactly where you're coming from. If Jesse Jackson can do it, why cant you! The only problem there is, you've become no different than Jackson...and in my "opinion", worse!!!!
"Even when asked to explain herself, anything other than a, "it's all the white mans fault", kind of rant is unacceptable to you...right?" (PAA)
<
<
Actually that's perfectly ACCEPTABLE to me, as I have no concern over the impact such corrosive beliefs have on folks who adhere to them. And not to put too fine a point on that, but Rene Marie's "explanations" all amount to an "it's all the white man's fault" kind of rant.
They are immaterial, in that they hold no truth.
NONE of Rene Marie's problems or successes are "the white man's fault," or ANYONE's fault...other than her own.
I'm not going to let you retreat from your initial faux pas. You called her "persecuted," I corrected you with the facts;
(1) Ms. Marie was born over fifteen years before a number of court cases eliminated the legal underpinnings for the "separate but equal" standards some southern states had used and a year AFTER the brown decision desegregated all U.S. schools.
(2) Ms Marie DID indeed come of age - she was in her early teens when race-based "affirmative action" bestowed special privileges on black Americans due to skin color.
It's OK to be wrong PAA but it's classless to try and worm out of acknowledging it by merely changing the topic.
JMK;"NONE of Rene Marie's problems or successes are "the white man's fault," or ANYONE's fault...other than her own."
She never stated that! I stated that, per YOUR implications.
JMK;"Actually that's perfectly ACCEPTABLE to me"
Exactly! It's you that are putting words in her mouth. It's all in your mind.
JMK;"They are immaterial, in that they hold no truth."
Point proven! You're calling her a liar. Rene Marie has been on the music scene in Denver for years. Thats why she was asked to perform the song. She obviously had no history of being a "radical", or what some would refer to as being "un-American".
Granted, it's her own fault that she has one now, only because of people who think like you!
Although it does make me wonder, what would have been the reaction had she sang the lyrics to Greenwoods "God Bless The U.S.A." instead of "Lift Every Voice"? Would she have gotten the same "black radical" label?
Would you have still felt that she is a "whining" Negro for singing the lyrics to "Yankee-Doodle"? How about the "Lords Prayer"?
Hey, you know something?? Either way you answer those questions will speak volumes!
Could you say yes, she is still and example of black insecurity, and you were offended by "God Bless The U.S.A."?
If you say NO, you would have NOT been offended [by God Bless The U.S.A.], you're saying that it was the fact that the song she chose was "Lift Every Voice", and that it is the "SONG" that offends you!
Is it the song JMK? I'm waiting for the answer to this one....
Rene Marie NEVER declared herself a "victim of the white man," YOU DID. That's why I've taken issue with YOU and your inane statements.
I've never dealt with ANY of Rene Marie's quotes from her website. Again, YOU did.
I took her own bio to show that she was born AFTER Brown and a number of late-1940 court decisions had already eviscerated the "separate but equal" standards and desegregated all schools.
AND, as I note she came of age in a period when black Americans were given privileges (race-based preferences and set-asides) NOT "persecuted," as YOU claim.
Rene Marie was CONTRCTED to sing a specific song....the national Anthem, the anthem of ALL Americans. She chose to sing, not merely a "different song," she chose to sing, and I quote, "Lift Every Voice and Sing," which also is known as the "black national anthem"."
That was a divisive and EXCLUSIONARY political statement on her part.
You were WRONG on the claim that Rene Marie "grew up persecuted by the U.S. government" (a claim you've wisely backed away from) and you're WRONG in arguing that her Denver mishap was merely "artistic expression," it was an expression of disdain for a country that bestowed "skin-color privilege upon her and her husband throughout the majority of their lives.
The reason you always seem to have such a hard time arguing with me is that you seem to argue based on emotions, leading you to create a fictitious nation (let's call it "AmeriKKKA") that has oppressed and persecuted its black citizens, when in FACT, post 1950 those "seperate but equal standards" had no legal standing and post-1955 the nations schools (Brown was targeted at Southern Schools) were desegregated, and post-1968 blacks in America were given "skin-color privilege" in the form of race-based preferences.
Those facts are easy to look up (as I've shown) and they prove that your fiction of "AmeriKKKa" does not and never really has existed.
JMK;"That was a divisive and EXCLUSIONARY political statement on her part."
I'll get to that comment later... in the mean time...You did not answer the question. (just as I thought you would'nt)
WOULD YOU APPLY THE SAME RHETORIC (ie. every comment you have posted thus far) TO RENE MARIE IF SHE HAD REPLACED THE LYRICS WITH "GOD BLESS THE U.S.A."?
It's a very straight forward and simple question. No rambling diatribe required, just a simple YES, or NO!
JMK;"You were WRONG on the claim that Rene Marie "grew up persecuted by the U.S. government" (a claim you've wisely backed away from"
Say WHATTTTT??? I never "backed away" from anything. Moreover, I never stated that Marie was "grew up persecuted by the U.S. government". I said she experienced persecution. That is to say, persecution by "STATE GOVERNMENT" and persecution from citizens, from which she has lived.
I'll "attempt" to school you so you'll stop this nonsense.
It doesnt matter how many laws you make that order people to stop a particular behavior, or laws that attempt to regulate ideas.
YOU CAN NEVER LEGISLATE MORALITY!!
There are laws against marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines, and so on. Yet you can get any one of these drugs just as easy as you can get a value meal at McDonalds...as possibly just as cheap!
Those facts are easy to look up (as I've shown) and they prove that your fiction of "AmeriKKKa" does not and never really has existed.
Never really existed???
Tyrone;"The last act of persecution I can think of that was committed by the government was segregation forty plus years ago."
Born just one year before Maire, Condoleezza Rice was growing up in Birmingham, Al. Was she a victim of racial persecution? Say NO so I can tell you that you're losing your dog-gone mind JMK.
I'm only going to say this one more, and one last time. Ninty-nine point nine percent of American blacks knows that racism exsited, and flourished, in this country since it's inception. Condoleezza Rice refers to the racil issue a "birth defect." You state "it never existed". I don't know what allows you to make such idiotic statements.
"WOULD YOU APPLY THE SAME RHETORIC (ie. every comment you have posted thus far) TO RENE MARIE IF SHE HAD REPLACED THE LYRICS WITH "GOD BLESS THE U.S.A."?" (PAA)
<
<
I know you think it's a good question, but it's a dumb one.
She'd be WRONG to sing ANY other sing other than the national anthem under those circumstance - "God Bless America" and "God Bless the USA" are NOT substitutes for the national anthem.
BUT she didn't choose to sing another pro-American, patriotic song, she cose to sing one that some misguided souls refer to as "the black national anthem," and that amounts, under the circumstance, to "a rage of a privileged class."
And come on PAA!
My "rambling diatribes" have eviscerated the initial argument completely - the one you've long abandoned......something about Rene marie being....what was that term????..."persecuted"?
I'm not gloating, I'm really not. In fact, I'm just glad that you've abandoned that particular tact.
JMK;"That was a divisive and EXCLUSIONARY political statement on her part."
and
BUT she didn't choose to sing another pro-American, patriotic song, she cose to sing one that some misguided souls refer to as "the black national anthem,"
Exclusionary? Misguided souls?
Lift Every Voice was originally written as a poem, by James Weldon Johnson. The NAACP adopted it as the "Negro National Anthem" in 1919. In essence, that song/poem is just as much "American" as you! It's been around longer than you.
The lyrics basically speaks to the struggles of a people. It's a poem about the quest for pride, and the struggle for "liberty" and "justice." Sound familiar? Sounds "patriotic" to me! The poem was written by an American, for other Americans...that definitely sounds "pro-American" to me!
So you believe that people who sing this song are "misguided?"
This song has been passed on through generations and has a very significant historic presence. The lyrics speak of hope, liberty and faith in god. The poem, lyrics and song are uniquely American and would not have come about if Weldon Johnson were not in America.
I taught this song to my children just as I taught them "The Star Spangled Banner", "Ole' McDonald", "Mary Had a Little Lamb" and "Jingle Bells"!
I'll be damned if I allow you or anyone else to deny me and my family the rich history of this song, or any other song. You hate the song, and that perfectly okay with me. You just should'nt attempt to pass off your racist views about the song by claiming that people are "misguided" by singing it.
I stated that Rene Marie was wrong for not singing the song she was asked to sing. Thus the only thing you have gotten bent out of shape about, is the fact that she replaced the lyrics with the words from the "Black National Anthem". That's what upsets you, nothing else. You don't like the song, because you "THINK" it promotes blacks over you.
What other songs do you think are "exclusionary?" The Beer Barrel Polka? Hava Nagila? Chopsticks? Hell, the Star Spangled Banner (the music/melody) is not uniquely American. Although the poem was written by F. Scott Key, the melody was "borrowed" (actually ripped-off) from The Anacreontic Song, a British drinking song.
You're just a paranoid and delusional racist JMK. It's a shame you would stoop so low...
"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain-
And buy the way, while we're on the subject of songs, hymns, anthems and poems, the next time someone sings "Danny Boy" on St. Patricks Day or at a firemans funeral you'll need to remind them that the song is "exclusionary and misguded."(in your opinion, that is...)
"I'm only going to say this one more, and one last time. Ninty-nine point nine percent of American blacks knows that racism exsited, and flourished, in this country since it's inception." (PAA)
So?
That has NOTHING to do with our disagreement. As you know, I've never claimed Jim Crow and slavery didn't exist.
Neither does the fact that everyone who came here - whether starved out of Ireland, chased out of England, France and Germany or dragged from Africa - their descendants are ALL far better off than they otherwise would've been.
Singing a so-called "black national anthem," an Acadian national anthem, or Danny Boy in lieu of the real American NATIONAL ANTHEM at a state function, would ALL be divisive and exclusionary political statements.
The fact that you can't comprehend the difference between a funeral, where "Danny Boy" or "When the Saints Come Marching In" may well be appropriate and an official state function where Francis Scott Key's National Anthem is solely appropriate, makes you, as they say in the old neighborhood, "half a retard.
It's probably useless to try and explain this to you, but, at all state functions the national anthem is singularly appropriate. Other songs may be sung....AFTER, and "in addition to," but NEVER instead of the real National Anthem.
Anything else, ESPECIALLY anything ethnically specific IS indeed divisive and exclusionary.
I believe your frustrated because I treat you with as much disdain and disrespect as you treat the likes of Eric and Ty and others around here.
What can I say? I see you as a puffed up, sanctimonious dickwad and what's worse, your arguments, when distilled down to their core are, well, to be kind, consistently stupid.
I guess that's par for the course, being a Liberal and all. I haven't come across too many Liberals that weren't naive dolts, so in that regard, you're not alone.
As I've continually noted in this thread, OUR DISAGREEMEMNT is solely over your calling Rene Marie "persecuted by her own government."
I showed you that that wasn't the case. I referenced numerous court cases through the late 1940s had eviscerated the "separate but equal" standards of Jim Crow, which had existed throughout the southeast.
I showed you that Rene Marie was born a year AFTER Brown v Board of Education which desegregated all schools, including those in AL, MS, GA, VA, NC, SC, etc.
Rene Marie, like yourself, came of age (she was about fourteen when the racial quotas and set-asides of affirmative action were codified) during a period of black privilege.
Again, those facts and the FACT that those black Americans who came of age during that period of race-based preferences were "privileged," may vex you, but they remain facts.
Facts are neither "racist," nor "offensive," they're merely facts.
You're problem isn't with me, it's with the facts.
You think I'm "racist" because I treat you like the dipshit that you really are.
I'll offer you a deal, If you stop making arguments that are rooted in stupidity and are an afront to the facts and stop acting like a nitwit, I'll stop treating you like one.
How's that?
Fair enough?
JMK mutters;"cant comprehend.. half a retard... puffed up, sanctimonious dickwad... consistently stupid... dipshit.. stupidity... nitwit.. "
Tsk, tsk, tsk... I guess the old adage applies here. When all else fails, when you're on the wrong side of an issue, resort to lies and name calling!
JMK;"Rene Marie, like yourself, came of age (she was about fourteen when the racial quotas and set-asides of affirmative action were codified) during a period of black privilege."
"Period of Black Privilege". There within lies the frustration and angst of his tirade against me!
JMK, who believes that Affirmative Action has "corrosive effects on the black community", yet a "black privilege". Quota's, set-asides, Black National Athems, Black Churches &*&%$#&}~!!!!! Makes you want to go out on a shooting rampage, doesn't it?
You need to calm down JMK. Your friend Jared Taylor controls his racism well. You should take a page from his book, and don't get so "strung-out." A proud racist trumps a angry racist, on any given day!
Which implies there are some Blacks who exploited the opportunity. Who are these "privileged" Black people?
Clarence Thomas? Barack Obama? Oprah Winfrey? Michael Steele? P. Anthony Allen?
I have white friends, co-workers, business associates and a next door neighbor who is White. Although we have never discussed such an idiotic notion, I have never heard any person, other than you, use the term "black privilege."
Privileges are entirely different from "rights." I don't see myself as "privileged" because I went to college (where I wanted), got a teaching job (where I wanted), bought a house (where I wanted), am relatively financially stable, and can feed myself and my family.
Because of my own efforts I have the same "rights" as any other American to have done so. Yet, I recognize the efforts of those who fought for those rights. From Marcus Garvey to Frederick Douglas, from Rosa Parks to Dr. King, are those to whom I owe a debt of gratitude.
On the other hand, certainly there are some blacks that are privileged. Some are born into privilege, some are rich enough or powerful enough to buy their way into certain situations. These are the privilege blacks you are referring to. These are the Black Americans you racists refer to as "uppity Negroes."
Thus, the "victim mentality" you attempt to label the so-called "privileged" blacks with, is no more than racial animosity fueled by delusions of superiority.
You don't understand the concept of special, race-based preferences as racial privilege, PAA?
Suffice to say, they are exactly that.
A relatively recent NYPD entrance exam had three separate passing grades: 70% for whites and Asians, 65% for Hispanic applicants and 60% for black applicants.
You somehow don't see that as "privilege?"
Well, whether you understand that it is, or accept that it is, it IS.
The fact of the matter is (and I can't believe I'm explaining such a simple and obvious concept) that race-based preferences are as morally wrong when they're used to BENEFIT blacks as when they were used to harm them.
That is such an obvious concept that the phrase "equal opportunity" has no real meaning OUTISDE of its original context of, "Equal opportunity for ALL, special privilege for NONE."
It's difficult to believe you can't comprehend such basic concepts, merely because they don't appear to fit your preconceived worldview.
Same with the corrosive impact of "victimology."
My paternal grandfather was very definitely and very obviously discriminated against in his employment. He was overtly barred from advancing due to his ethnicity and religion. In those days you couldn't advance beyond a certain point without a Mason's ring and that kept Roman Catholics (Irish, Italians and others) in their place.
That kind of discrimination ended along with Jim Crow and signs like "Irish and dogs need not apply."
I never suffered that kind of discrimination and it's morally and ethically wrong for me to be compensated for something I didn't go through and, of course, I feel the same way about people like Rene Marie, who grew up AFTER Brown v Board of Ed desegregated southern schools and previous decisions had eviscerated the "separate but equal" standards, and came of age in a period (whether you like the term or not) of "black privilege" - race-based preferences, seperate and unequal standards (as noted above on the NYPD's separate passing grades) and set-asides.
Again, your inability to comprehend that such practices are as morally wrong now as any Jim Crow laws of the past were, leads you to find ratioanlizations for your own racial animus.
You seem to labor under the mistaken impression that a "racial dialogue" should consist of blacks, in effect, scolding whites for "past injustices."
Sadly for folks like you, that's NOT a reasonable nor acceptable "racial dialogue." There were freed black slave owners before the Civil War, there were blacks in Boston and New York who, like anyone else who could afford it, bought their way out of that war for the $300 it cost.
The Union's Army was over 80% Irish (mostly immigrants) who perceived (whether rightly or wrongly) that they were fighting for black emancipation.
And while I'd argue that no group was as alientated and decimated by overt ethnic discrimination than blacks were, I'd continue to rightly insist that NO group should be compensated for past injustices.
When blacks couldn't attend southern colleges, many bigots didn't see that as "racial alientation and discrimination, nor any "privilege" accrued to themselves.
Such people also saw all blacks as threats to the established social order and worthy of their animus and hostility.
Ironically enough, you've acknowledged that you don't consider race-based preferences and set-asides as black "privilege," just your due and you insist on defending your open animosity toward whites under the banner of "past injustices."
""A relatively recent NYPD entrance exam had three separate passing grades: 70% for whites and Asians, 65% for Hispanic applicants and 60% for black applicants.
You somehow don't see that as "privilege?"
That's not a "privilege", it's a misapplication of the idea of equal opportunity.
Moreover, most of the exams, such as the once used "Furcon" I.Q. test, were deemed culturally bias by most experts. You must keep in mind that Blacks makeup about 13% of the overall population. Rather you believe it or not, THERE ARE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE AVERAGE BLACK IN AMERICA, AND WHITE IN AMERICA.
In my opinion there is a fairly large percentage of black population that would do well on police entrance exams. I would include myself in that percentage. Yet I, like those who had acquired those skills, have no interest in becoming a police officer.
I have always been an opponent of "differential regression curves" for minority testing. Separate scoring curves for the same "bias" testing methods gives nonobjective people like you something to gripe about.
Many municipalities implemented Affirmative Action in the exact same fashion. Well, the fact is it was improper. However, it is my belief/opinion that there were possibly conspiratory antics at play, by some who were angered by the law forcing them to hire and promote minorities. I have first hand knowledge of such attempts.
My cousin was a fairly well known working musician here in Detroit in the 1970s. One night I rode along with him to a venue where her was performing. It was 1975, just about the time Affirmative Action policies were being applied to the Detroit Police Department.
On the ride back from his gig we were pulled over by a [white] Detroit Police officer. Realizing was was occurring of, needless to say I damn near soiled myself. My cousin was what you might call a "typical musician" that used several types of drugs regularly.
He had in his possession several ounces of cocaine and untold amounts of pills, and was smoking a marijuana joint to boot! To make a long story short, he pulled over and the officer asked him to step out of the car, which he did.
I am 100% sure that the officer smelled the marijuana, when he asked; "where are you guys coming from?" My cousin told him he was a musician on his was home from a performance.
Without asking any further questions or attempting to search the car, or our persons, the officer said; "Do you guys know that the Detroit Police Department is hiring? Here, take my card, and on Monday go to the recruitment center and apply. Give my card to the on-duty officer and tell him that I sent you." He further added; "be sure when you go you dress appropriately and be sober." With that, he got into his squad car a drove away.
At the time I was totally baffled by what had occurred, and why would a police officer attempt to get a obvious drug addict on the police force. As time passed and as I would hear and know of several other questionable acts and "backwards" implementations of the A.A. policies, I began to understand.
In 1975 the City Of Detroit racial makeup was about 50/50, black and white. The Detroit Police Department was 84.2% white. In his haste to cure what had been years of discriminatory hiring practices, Mayor Young literally open the door for all types of problems. It was clear that the white police officers and the whites on the city council, were not willing to accept a sudden and drastic change.
JMK, you see A.A. as a privilege because some one else appears to be taking an opportunity away from you. In effect the idea makes you angry. That's fine by me. Although, you must understand the person that sees another as being "privileged" and is angered by it, is always described as "jealous"!
The corrosivity of victimology (claiming and wallowing in the “victim’s status" of one’s ancestors) is undeniable PAA.
While most Americans came here against their wills, either starved, chased or otherwise forced out of their ancestral homes, or brought here in indentured servitude (whereby a person accepted a condition of chattel slavery for a pre-determined period), no other group was so completely consigned to chattel slavery that the Africans in America were.
Still, after 1863 and the final emancipation of all remaining black slaves in America, no ethnic group was denied the ability to own land, start businesses, or hold elective office.
Blacks in America did ALL those things in the 19th Century. In fact, black males were given the vote far sooner (over half a century) than women of ANY ethnic group.
The question many ask is, “Is merely ending such injustices like slavery and then setting such people free to compete against others enough?”
Some argue that it isn’t, but the facts seem to indicate otherwise. After all, George F. Grant was born to former African slaves in 1847. In 1867, after two years apprenticeship with a local dentist, in Oswego, NY, was awarded a scholarship to the Harvard University school of Dentistry, which was the first University-based Dental School in the U.S.
He later invented the golf tee, sent his kids to Harvard and lived a prosperous life in 19th Century New York, before dying in 1910.
By comparison, most persecuted ethnic groups are completely excluded from their societies. In England, France and Spain, during the pogroms, the Jews in those places were not allowed to own businesses, or property, they weren’t allowed to vote or hold elective office and were eventually, most of them were chased from those countries. When Hitler took power in Germany, he targeted the entrepreneurial Jews of Germany, stripping them of their right to own businesses or property, their right to vote and run for political office, etc. before ultimately seeking a more “final solution.”
Once again, the facts are what they are.
While blacks in America were horrifically mistreated, they were valuable property (more valuable than a horse) during the age of slavery (and chattel slavery in the West has been ended 145 years...and counting before its end in sub-Saharan Africa, large tracts of the Mideast and Asia) and were not barred from owning property, holding elective office, getting advanced educations and starting businesses, inventing products, etc.
Blacks in America, circa the late 19th Century, people like George Franklin Grant, certainly faced discrimination and mistreatment based on their skin color and ethnic background, but they faced nothing like the actual persecution that the likes of Anne Frank and the Jews of Europe did in the middle of the 20th Century!
And yet, Jews today, who claim “second and third generation Holocaust survivor” status are as wrong as blacks who wish to claim privilege via the victim’s status of past generations of blacks in this country.
"The corrosivity of victimology (claiming and wallowing in the “victim’s status" of one’s ancestors) is undeniable PAA."
Is that supposed to be a reference to slavery? If it is, you need to check yourself. Not once, on this entire thread, did I mention slavery. Slavery has nothing to do with what Rene Marie did.
It's you that mentioned slavery! And again your last post is another "quasi history lesson" that has nothing to do with the conversation.
Your comments were more pertainant when you were name calling. Frankly, I prefer the name calling over a long winded prolonged discourse...
"That's (separate and unequal passing marks) not a "privilege", it's a misapplication of the idea of equal opportunity." (PAA)
<
<
That's what ALL race and gender based preferences ARE!
And, of course, that's what a "special privilege" IS - a "misapplication of the idea of equal opportunity", that acrues benefit to one group at the expense of another.
Such "preferences" have been for about nearly forty years, and yes, I agree with you that they are ALL "misapplications of the concept of equal opportunity," that result in skin-color based privilege for American blacks.
I appreciate your being reasonable on that issue.
However, the entire idea of "test bias" has been thoroughly debunked. You might have missed that.
In fact, it has been so completely debunked that Claude Steele (brother of Shelby) has retreated FROM the "test bias" argument and advanced a new wacko theory called "test phobia," based on the view that blacks "who are taught to expect to fail, become much more anxious than white or Aisan test-takers and deliver the expected outcome (failure)".
I give Claude Steele high marks on originality, but very low ones on believability.
"Separate scoring curves for the same "bias" testing methods gives nonobjective people like you something to gripe about." (PAA)
OK, you're back to being "unreasonable PAA." Actually, "people like myself" are extremely OBJECTIVE observers and corrrectly call such "misapplications of equal opportunity," what they actually are; "race-based discrimination sanctioned by government pinheads."
It's the people who actually waste time trying to rationalize or justify such injustices who are being non-objective....or to be more precise SUBJECTIVE in their outlooks.
Your anecdote about a single interaction with the DPD, in which a white officer admittedly (according to your own account) gave you and your cousin a break, by not searching the car and booking you both on possession charges) is useless. For one thing, such anecdotal stories are filtered through the teller's recollection and are thus generally unreliable, and secondly, and in this case, most importantly, they fail to demonstrate that that one instance is at all indicative of public policy.
"JMK, you see A.A. as a privilege because some one else appears to be taking an opportunity away from you." (PAA)
I see racial preferences as PRIVILEGES because they are privileges. You yourself agreed with that at the outset of this post - a "misaaplication of equal opportunity" that benefits one group at the expense of another is called a "privilege."
Moreover, as I stated early on, I've never been negatively impacted by such race-based preferences. I scored 100% on the FDNY's written and 98% on its physical.
When I went to College, I took the SATs - one of the exams on which early claims of "test bias" were debunked, as it turns out that the greatest disparity in scores between blacks and whites were on the math section, and we all KNOW that 3 and 567 are the same in Harlem as they are up in Armonk - I scored a 1340 the first time I took them and I had severe bronchitis, with a fever at the time. I took them a second time and scored 1480. I went on to get a Masters Degree in Phsiological Psychology, I later took and passed the exams for the Series 7 (for stock brokering) in 1992 and took the exams for and have a Real Estate license in both NY and NJ.
I don't want any special privilege for what my ancestors (as recently as my paternal grandfather) went through and I don't accept any rationalization for special privilege for anyone else either.
In my wife's case, such special privilege could enrich us both, but neither I, nor, I'm happy to say, my wife, wants any part of such things.
My wife was born and raised in Kingston, Jamaica and came here with a Chartered Accountancy in the English system and has since gone back and gotten her CPA in the American system.
The CPA exam is five part series of exams and she knows many blacks who haven't been able to pass it.
I'm certain that many whites have the same problem. Such exams serve to weed out those who aren't motivated to spend a few hundred hours of their own time studying and preparing for such exams.
Look, I don't believe your at all malicious PAA, you seem to be pretty much a harmless dork, and you have at least a modicum of common sense, otherwise, I wouldn't even waste any time discussing such matters with you.
I know you're admitting defeat when you impugn racial motives to me. Problem is, I don't care what you think....I don't respect your judgment.
You've acknowledged that race and gender based preferences are morally wrong and result in privilege to those recipient groups, but they also result in a handicap down the line. As Tom Sowell notes, and I paraphrase, if the NBA instituted preferences for whites, then future white applicants wouldn't have to worry about competing against the game's best players, they'd need only compete with their fellow whites for those protected spots available to them. The result, in short order, would be no more Larry Bird's and Tom Chambers', (today it would be Nowitzki's and Nash's) just a bunch of guys able to perform at a bare minimum level.
Dr. Sowell's right, as that IS the natural and inevitable effect of such preferences.
Again, all of this, on your part, in order to avoid having to defend your "Rene Marie was persecuted by her own government" argument about forty thousand words ago.
I certainly hope it was worth the effort.
"Is that supposed to be a reference to slavery? (PAA)
It's very clearly a reference to anyone who seeks privilege from past injustices. Again, are you that obtuse?
Just as there are no "Second generation Holocaust survivors," there are no "Second generation survivors of Jim Crow," nor "Fifth generation survivors of slavery."
There is no such concept as "inherited suffering," or "hereditary victim's status." Such concepts simply DO NOT exist despite your attempts to rationalize people like Rene Marie as "persecuted," depsite their privilege.
A Rene Marie, born AFTER Brown desegregated schools and well AFTER a number of, aforementioned court cases had eviscerated the "separate but equal" standards that had existed in most southeastern states," AND came of age in an era of race-based preferences, was NOT a "victim" and did NOT suffer any "persecution" by her own government, as you earlier claimed.
She grew up privileged (by the race-based preferences you acknowledge were privilege via a "misapplication of the concept of equal opportunity"), as did anyone of that background born after 1950, as a child born in 1950 was too young to experience segregation first hand and was appx 18 y/o (the earliest age when people seek employment) when racial preferences were first instituted.
The account of George F Grant proves that all one needs is the freedom to compete in an open field.
The fact that the likes of Ben Ward and Augustus Beekman (both black) took and passed, with very high marks, the 1950 NYPD and FDNY Entrance exams, respectively, shows that those exams weren't biased against blacks any more than they were "biased" against any white or Asian who failed them.
Such standardized exams are merely barriers to those who don't prepare well enough for them.
The fact that some of those who'd happily champion racial injustice, advance crackpot theories like "test bias" (now debunked) and "test phobia" (currently being debunked) shows only that there are some blacks who happily embrace racial injustice when they perceive it to their benefit, just as there are some whites who do the same. Both of those segments almost certainly comprise less than 10% of each group and they SHOULD be marginalized.
Rene marie cut her own recording career (such as it is) short, by leaving that world due to the religious beliefs that she and her hsuband embraced.
In the interim she was "persecuted" by being given a senior position at First Union bank and her husband was "persecuted" by being able to start and run a successful janitorial business.
You interpet recent past events in an illogical and perverse way.
Rene Marie's story is proof that American blacks of that vintage were NOT treated unfairly - her work history is complete and her husband started and ran a successful business.
Gus Beekman and Bewn Ward, who rose up through the ranks of the FDNY and NYPD respectively, after getting on those Departments in the erarly 1950s (long BEFORE there were any racial preferences) PROVE that standardized exams DON'T discriminate against blacks, whites, Asians nor Hispanics...they "discriminate" against those who don't prepare well enough.
Name-calling?
On my part???
No, I called you a dickwad and a dipshit for making an incredibly dumb argument that you've ADMITTED was DUMB abd irrational, or as you put it, "Not well thought out."
You compared the singing of "Lift Every Voice' in lieu of the National Anthem at an official State function to the singing of "Danny Boy" or "When the Saints Come Marching In" at a funeral.
I called you on that as it was such a retarded attempt at an argument, and you subsequently agreed and asked that it not be brought up again...and I would've abided your request except that you now once again make a dishonest statement, suggesting that I was calling you names for no reason, when you, in effect, AGREED that such a stupid attempt at an argument warranted that kind of response on my part.
As I said, "If you'll stop making dumb arguments like that, I'll stop treating you like a nitwit."
Don't be dishonest with me PAA. I'll embarrass you every time with that. You can make dumb arguments, if that's your wont, and you can fail to have a grasp of the facts, but don't be dishonest.
You made an initial statement that you couldn't defend - that Rene Marie was "persecuted by her own government," and since then, you've only made more inane arguments digging your hole even deeper.
That's fine.
Just don't be dishonest with me.
I've seen your meanspirited and demeaning act with Eric and Tyrone and I don't like it at all, so I've taken to treating you as badly as you treat them.
Being dishonest in a forum where most of your statements can be verified, is only going to make things worse for you.
JMK;"You compared the singing of "Lift Every Voice' in lieu of the National Anthem at an official State function to the singing of "Danny Boy" or "When the Saints Come Marching
I called you on that as it was such a retarded attempt at an argument, and you subsequently agreed and asked that it not be brought up again..."
For some who claims to have such a high I.Q., you don't seem to comprehend very well...("The Saints go Marchin' In"??...I never said that...)
From the outset of this conversation I said that Marie was wrong for singing a different song...do you understand that? You called the song ["Lift Every Voice"] exclusionary and further referred to those who sing it as "misguided"...right?
I never stated nor implied that someone would, could or should sing any other song at a state function...NEVER said that! I was addressing your "STATED" contempt for what is known as "The Black National Anthem."
YOU called the song exclusionary and misguided. What you need to do now is pay close attention....
"Lift Every Voice and Sing" was a poem which was put to song, then adopted as an Black American anthem. "Danny Boy" was a poem, put to song, then adopted (perhaps not "officially", but yet adopted) as an Irish American anthem. Both are sung on particular occasions as well as for entertainment or social gatherings.
You clearly do not approve of a Black National Anthem...right? Throughout this entire conversation you never stated nor implied that perhaps there was an "appropriate" venue for a "Black National Anthem", and it's much to late to do so because you have already referred to it's idea as misguided.
Follow closely...
I'm not implying that "Danny Boy" is appropriate for a "state function." I said Marie was wrong for not singing the anthem she was asked to sing...Do you understand?
The song "Danny Boy" is considered an Irish American anthem. It was written by an British poet close to 200 years ago. "Lift Every Voice" was written by an "AMERICAN" 100 years ago.
I must keep reminding you that this has nothing to do with Marie's performance, this is a "DIRECT" challenge to your idea that "Lift Every Voice" is exclusionary and misguided.
Again, you have made it clear that you don't approve of a "Black Anthem", but yet you approve of an Irish Anthem...somethings wrong with that! Both anthems are "adopted" in terms of a people, a culture, or those of a particular race. Both of them are sung and used by Americans, mind you, but yet you refer to the Black Anthem as exclusionary and misguided. You despise anything that identifies as being "black", therefore you despise blacks. I believe it is more-so "covert contempt" than subconscious...
JMK;"and you subsequently agreed and asked that it not be brought up again..."
Agreed with what?? I asked it not to be brought up again? You're completely delusional man... How in the hell do you come to these conclusions?
JMK;"I've seen your meanspirited and demeaning act with Eric and Tyrone and I don't like it at all, so I've taken to treating you as badly as you treat them."
HA!! Who do think you are, "Captain save-a-blogger?" That's like the third time you've stated that you have come to the rescue of some other poster! That's a perfect example of your condescending austerity and air of superiority. Eric, Tran and Tyrone are grown men, and can defend and speak for themselves!
Furthermore, Tyrone doesn't need you nor me! His blog, writings, and essay thoughts will continue as long as he has the will, and a medium to support it.
Look JMK, hasn't it become obvious to you that we are on different sides of the fence? It's not my intent to "knock you off your high horse" (you might get hurt by the fall). It's better if you climb down on your own!
But I digress, I see you views as being bereft of awareness and contemplation. It's obvious to me that you see mine in a similar manner, thus, we will never agree.
"For some who claims to have such a high I.Q., you don't seem to comprehend very well...("The Saints go Marchin' In"??...I never said that...)" (PAA)
<
<
Actually you did.
You mentioned "Danny Boy" and I added another funeral favorite "When the Saints Come Marching In"....same thing.
PLEASE, DON'T continue to make arguments you can't sustain!
You made a retarded argument - comparing the singing of "Lift Every Voice" in lieu of the National Anthem at a State function, to the singing of Danny Boy (OR Wnen the Saints Come Marching In) at a funeral.
That inspid argument was soooo stultifyingly dumb that it warranted you being called out on that for what you were, in making that...
Rene marie wasn't merely "WRONG" for singing "the wrong song," as though were an accident.
Her singing that song IN LIEU OF the National Anthem was a deliberately divisive and exlusionary act on her part and was disrespectful to those who attended that official State function.
Even now, you inisist on making more STUPID arguments; "You clearly do not approve of a Black National Anthem...right? (PAA)
Uhhhh, WRONG. I fully approve of Lift Every Voice Danny Boy and When the Saints Come Marching In, so long as NONE of those are song IN LIEU OF the National Anthem at any official government function.
Singing ANY of those songs IN LIEU OF the National Anthem is WRONGHEADED disrespectful, divisive and EXCLUSIONARY. That is an undeniable fact, so please do not deny it.
There is ONLY one song that is MANDATED at EVERY State or Federal function - the National Anthem.
Should we vote on it, or allow various comunities to consider changing that?
Not on your life.
If the American National Anthem ain't good enough for you, then you ain't good enough for America, so such folks should avail thmselves of the opportunity to leave her forthwith...and not return.
"That's a perfect example of your condescending austerity and air of superiority. Eric, Tran and Tyrone are grown men, and can defend and speak for themselves!" (PAA)
<
<
Eric, Tran and Tyrone are all too nice to treat you in kind...I'm not.
Your every post with those you disagree with drips with contempt. I merely treat you in kind.
You can check my posts, I DON'T do that with ANYONE else.
I don't have any problem with those who disagree with me...check out Burr Deming's blog (http://www.fairandunbalanced.com/)
as an example.
I really don't like exchaning vitriol with Liberals, but I reject the idiotic idea that "Liberals have a right to be angry," so I treat them the way they treat myself and others. Look at your own posts and then mine and you'll find that your the only person I've exchanged any vitriol with and I'm only responding in the same style that you respond to myself and others.
"You mentioned "Danny Boy" and I added another funeral favorite "When the Saints Come Marching In"....same thing"
Once again, you're showing a lack of comprehensive skills. The "fireman's funeral" part was for you personal benefit. (You are a fireman, right?). Yet I'll concede that perhaps you were put on the wrong track by that comment. However, it apprears that you still can't comprehend the idea that "Danny Boy" is an adopted ethnic song, just as "Lift Every Voice" is. (I think I did mention St. Patrick's Day somewhere also)
What American ethnic group has "When The Saints Go Marchin' In" as their spiritual, cultural or national anthem? I certainly don't know of one. More than likely you'll make one up...
JMK;"PLEASE, DON'T continue to make arguments you can't sustain!
I'm not backing away from anything I've stated thus far. As far as sustaining an argument, apparently I'm doing a good job because we're the only two still posting on this thread! I'm sure anyone else is welcomed to join...
JMK;"I fully approve of Lift Every Voice"
That's definitely not consistent with everything you've stated thus far. How can you "fully approve" of a song that you view as "exclusionary" and "misguided" in any capacity? You're attempting to imply that your only concern was that she replace the National Anthem with a ethnically centered song.
I specifically asked you, "is it the song?" You had plenty of opportunity to say that you had nothing against the song...YET YOU DID NOT!!! Instead you attacked the song itself! It was you that stated (in very certain terms) the song was an "EXCLUSIONARY" song which is sung by "MISGUIDED" people. It was not until I pointed out your "hidden contempt" for the song that you came up with, "I fully approve." Too little, too late...
You also said you did not believe Rene Marie's responce when she was asked about the incident. So why should I believe you? Bottom line is...I don't believe you!
JMK;"Your every post with those you disagree with drips with contempt. I merely treat you in kind.
You can check my posts, I DON'T do that with ANYONE else."
WRONG! My every post "drips" with opinions that you disagree with! And duhhhhhh... If you agree with other comments made here, but not mine, of course you'll respond the way you do! I speak exactly whats on my mind, and I don't attempt to cover anything up. Can you say the same?
Actually, a fireman's Line of Duty Funeral is a State Function PAA, and the National Anthem is ALWAYS song first, often the Pledge of Allegience is required, as well.
AGAIN, even without your understanding that fact, your argument is...well, to be precise, if undiplomatic....stultifyingly insipid because you didn't imply "the singing Danny Boy IN LIEU OF the National Anthem (as dopey Rene Marie did), which WOULD BE an outrage, but the mere singing of another tune along with the National Anthem, which is an invidious and thus...retarded, inspipid, inane, stupid (take your pick) argument.
It is not merely wrong, but divisive, inciteful and hate-filled to attempt to replace the National Anthem with ANY other song. In the presence of many police officers and firefighters in this country that would be, as we say, "Verbotten" (forbidden).
I've called YOU out on your intolerance and you keep lamely trying to find offense in my regarding the REPLACING of AMERICA's (all of America's) official Natioanl Anthem with a song you call "the black national anthem."
And I'm certain that you'll readilly admit that it is ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE inappropriate to try and replace the National Anthem with any other song at ANY State function.
So you have no point.
IF you don't admit that is offensive, divisive and exclusionary to replace the National Anthem with another song...the your free to GET THE FU*K OUT OF THIS COUNTRY!
I called you out on your intolerance over your objection to the playing of Danny Boy at a funeral and claiming that THAT was equivalent to what Rene Marie did - disrespect a State function, by REPLACING the National Anthem with another song.
For my part, I NEVER uttered such intolerance!
I've heard Lift Every Voice, and as I said early on, "It's an OK song." I wouldn't mind Lift Every Voice or When the Saints Come Marching In sung at any State function AFTER the National Anthem....but NEVER in place of it.
I DO MIND (in fact, I mind very much) ANY song replacing the National Anthem at a State function. It demans that song and it is divisive, inciteful and exclusionary. There's no other way to argue that.
As you'd, no doubt, agree, Lift Every Voice has no official standing, any more than When the Saints Come Marching In or Danny Boy.
You haven't sustained ANY consistent argument. You've dodged, ducked and backed away from your initial pointless points.
You did the MINIMUM in acknowledging that Rene Marie was WRONG< but proved that your brain-dead in arguing that it was because whe'd contracted to sing the National Anthem.
She was not only WRONG but VILE for lamely attempting to replace the National Anthem with some other song.
We will never see eye to eye on any of this thus, this will be my last post on this thread.
"IF you don't admit that is offensive, divisive and exclusionary to replace the National Anthem with another song...the your free to GET THE FU*K OUT OF THIS COUNTRY!"
Typical...ohhh so typical...
A simple gesture of what "YOU" perceive as an "unpatriotic" act, set's your mind so ablaze that you would advise someone to leave the country? But wait...
1. It cost you nothing
2. You or your family were not physically harmed
3. No laws were broken
And all that's left is what??? YOUR PRIDE! Your pride in the anthem and what it represents to you. (what I mean by "you", is your personal views. Others may share them, but since you're the one talking, I'm referencing you)
your free to GET THE FU*K OUT OF THIS COUNTRY!"
I should leave the country? Fortunately JMK, it doesn't work that way. Don't you know that people fought and died for my right to say and think as I please? You're disrespecting their memory...
So is that all you can come up with...AFTER ALL THAT VIRULENCE AND RANCOR? Ohhhh I get it, thats your slogan on the "personalized signature limited edition" of JMK toilet paper...
Even though it's likely Rene Marie will never be asked to perform the "Star Spangled Banner" at any other formal function, the fact remains that she could sing it again, again, again and again in night clubs, social gatherings and any other function where there might be folks who accept it as "ART" an appreciate it as such. Therefore, all you can do is...uh, um... what you're doing here.....BIT#HING ABOUT NOTHING!
People who don't like this nation's culture and traditions are free to LEAVE....or in my parlance, to "Get the FU*K OUT!"
Suffice to say, it's wrong, divisive and exclusionary to attempt to replace the National Anthem (required at all official State events) with any other song.
There's no "seeing eye to eye," there is only that basic fact.
Those who hate America and see the America that spawned that heart-stirring anthem as oppressive or ill-conceived are free to leave and SHOULD avail themselves of that privilege.
Post a Comment
<< Home