Richard Sherman's unsolicited advice!

[nighttrain]

These are some quotes in the National anthem think about when this song was written think about who the FREEMEN were that he is constantly speaking on.

By the millions unchained who our birthright have gained,

O'er the land of the free

Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:

O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand

over 200 years later you think you know all the thots of an American Patriot? Doubtful
train

 

[Dxmissile]

Again, calling for those fighting against the US to be given no quarter, not because they were black, but because they fought against his country....not hard to see the distinction, unless you willfully want to read something else into it. No where in his poem does he advocate killing slaves that fought on the side of the US.....if he did, you'd have a valid point. Reading historical events through the lens of a belief system in the 21st century can lead to all sorts of revisionist history, but I have yet to see any credible evidence that F. Scott Key was for the extermination of the black race. My last word on this...no hard feelings here. I like talking history is all.

So do I, I'm willing to have this conversation as well, he constantly said the hirling and
The slave , the home of the free you know as well as I do he wasn't talking about black people.

 

[Badfinger]

Protest is American as apple pie. So are the consequences of that protest. If there were no repercussions for protest, it would be because the "protest" wasn't worthy of the name. People have been beaten, shot with fire hoses, jailed, and even killed for protesting. Kaepernick can't play football? Big whoop-de-doo. Take a stand for what you believe in; good for you. But don't whine about the consequences. It renders your protest feeble, if you ask me.

 

[Dxmissile]

In 1814, Key was a slaveholding lawyer from an old Maryland plantation family, who thanks to a system of human bondage had grown rich and powerful.

When he wrote the poem that would, in 1931, become the national anthem and proclaim our nation “the land of the free,” like Jefferson, Key not only profited from slaves, he harbored racist conceptions of American citizenship and human potential. Africans in America, he said, were: “a distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community.”

Additionally, Key used his office as the District Attorney for the City of Washington from 1833 to 1840 to defend slavery, attacking the abolitionist movement in several high-profile cases.

In the mid-1830s, the movement was gaining momentum and with it came increased violence, particularly from pro-slavery mobs attacking free blacks and white abolitionists, and other methods to silence the growing cries for abolition. In a House of Representatives and United States Senate inundated with petitions from abolitionists calling for the ending or restriction of slavery, pro-slavery Congressmen looked for a way to suppress the voices of abolitionists.

In 1836, the House passed a series of “gag rules” to table all anti-slavery petitions and prevent them from being read or discussed, raising the ire of people like John Quincy Adams, who saw restricting debate an assault on a basic First Amendment right of citizens to protest and petition.


In the same year, shortly after a race riot in Washington, D.C. when an angry white mob set upon a well-known free black restaurant owner, Key likewise sought to crack down on the free speech of abolitionists he believed were riling things up in the city. Key prosecuted a New York doctor living in Georgetown for possessing abolitionist pamphlets.

In the resulting case, U.S. v. Reuben Crandall, Key made national headlines by asking whether the property rights of slaveholders outweighed the free speech rights of those arguing for slavery’s abolishment. Key hoped to silence abolitionists, who, he charged, wished to “associate and amalgamate with the negro.”

Though Crandall’s offense was nothing more than possessing abolitionist literature, Key felt that abolitionists’ free speech rights were so dangerous that he sought, unsuccessfully, to have Crandall hanged.




Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smith...holding-legacy-180959550/#30MX9e8xZvEgH3fy.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

 

[Dxmissile]

over 200 years later you think you know all the thots of an American Patriot? Doubtful
train

lol it's easy to know when my ancestors was slaves when my fathers family was my mothers family slave owners when the state of Mississippi now pays me for the use of those cotton fields. I know his thoughts because he taught against slaves being free his entire life he fought against other whites that wanted slaves to be free.

 

[Zodi]

Lol your logic doesn't make sense, when does making a stand on something cause you to lose your job, what if you worked a factory job and it was too hot and so you took a stand and said give me more water until then I'm not working and your job fire you, I bet you would be on the phone with a lawyer talking about wrongful termination. You can keep trying to down play this all you want it doesn't change the fact that he isn't playing not because he can't or isn't good enough he isn't playing because he is a black man that decided to take a stance it's that simple

No, your logic doesn't make any sense. Kaepernicks protest didn't have anything to do with the field he played on, the locker room he prepared in, the team facilities he lifted in, etc. It was nothing more than an attempt to bring attention to a social issue he strongly believed in. Had nothing to do with his employer or job.

And now NFL execs and owners are deciding he's not worth the baggage that he brings.

Gotta face the consequences for your actions, especially when those actions are displaying your personal beliefs in a public setting on a national stage.

 

[nighttrain]

In 1814, Key was a slaveholding lawyer from an old Maryland plantation family, who thanks to a system of human bondage had grown rich and powerful.


In the same year, shortly after a race riot in Washington, D.C. when an angry white mob set upon a well-known free black restaurant owner, Key likewise sought to crack down on the free speech of abolitionists he believed were riling things up in the city. Key prosecuted a New York doctor living in Georgetown for possessing abolitionist pamphlets.

In the resulting case, U.S. v. Reuben Crandall, Key made national headlines by asking whether the property rights of slaveholders outweighed the free speech rights of those arguing for slavery’s abolishment. Key hoped to silence abolitionists, who, he charged, wished to “associate and amalgamate with the negro.”

Though Crandall’s offense was nothing more than possessing abolitionist literature, Key felt that abolitionists’ free speech rights were so dangerous that he sought, unsuccessfully, to have Crandall hanged.




Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smith...holding-legacy-180959550/#30MX9e8xZvEgH3fy.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

While it is a very bad to own people, it still happens today in third world countries, n 1814 it was the law of the land
train

 

[jrry32]

Protest is American as apple pie. So are the consequences of that protest. If there were no repercussions for protest, it would be because the "protest" wasn't worthy of the name. People have been beaten, shot with fire hoses, jailed, and even killed for protesting. Kaepernick can't play football? Big whoop-de-doo. Take a stand for what you believe in; good for you. But don't whine about the consequences. It renders your protest feeble, if you ask me.

I gotta disagree. I think recognizing the consequences the person faces for the protest is necessary for understanding the significance of it. For example, the Civil Rights Movement gained the most steam when people saw the consequences of the protests (beatings, jailings, murders, etc.) and were disgusted by it. Obviously, Kaepernick isn't facing anything of that degree, but the ability to continue to work in your profession is not an insignificant sacrifice.

When people see the consequences and sacrifices, it tends to attract more attention and condemnation.

 

[nighttrain]

lol it's easy to know when my ancestors was slaves when my fathers family was my mothers family slave owners when the state of Mississippi now pays me for the use of those cotton fields. I know his thoughts because he taught against slaves being free his entire life he fought against other whites that wanted slaves to be free.

And this has what to do with Francis Scott Key?
train

 

[Dxmissile]

While it is a very bad to own people, it still happens today in third world countries, n 1814 it was the law of the land
train

Yep just like it was when schools was segregated when we had to use the back door or when our women was raped and killed or our sons being killed for looking at white women it was the law of the land to burn churches and hang black men and women just because too yep the law of the land the land of the free and the home of the brave

 

[Mick]

These are some quotes in the National anthem think about when this song was written think about who the FREEMEN were that he is constantly speaking on.

By the millions unchained who our birthright have gained,

O'er the land of the free

Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:

O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand

Ok...this really is the last post from me, and damn you for dragging me back in First off, talk about cherry picking? You can't pick a line or two, and attribute motive to them. Read the entire poem, and it becomes clear he was talking about the British fighting again, after the Revolutionary War, and in verse 3 he is talking about the British who boasted about ending this newly formed country, and how their death washed away their intrusion upon our land. Dude, the entire poem is about defeating the British.

Oh, and the first line you quoted, which shows me you're just cherry picking here and not doing any rigorous examination, isn't in the original poem. It was added later, during the Civil War era, and the verse is in reference to our unchaining from Britain, and how we can't let that struggle go for naught by seeing the breakup of this United States....it isn't about slaves at all, but we, as a nation, unchaining ourselves from England. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that line, and he felt is was our God given birthright to form this new, revolutionary idea of a democracy. I've already agreed that Key was a slave holder (Inherited from his father), thought of slaves as inferior, and worked for their return to Africa, but to say he hated them, or celebrated their death because of the color of their skin, is historically, factually, not in evidence. I'm done...I usually get paid to teach, but this time it's on me. Have a great day man, and thanks for the lively discussion.

 

[Dxmissile]

And this has what to do with Francis Scott Key?
train

Because you said I didn't know his thoughts when he made them pretty clear by his words and actions his entire life and personal experience is more valuable then anything you can read

 

[bluecoconuts]

Francis Scott Key was pretty racist, it was pretty normal for the time being, but we don't need to sit and pretend like he's not. He still wrote one hell of a first stanza for a poem, and I still feel the same sense of pride knowing that the dude was kind of a shitty dude in some ways, because that's how all humans are. There's no reason to pretend like our heroes and our founding fathers didn't have their own flaws, they were human and humans have flaws. It doesn't mean that they didn't do great things, or that we can't be proud of our history. The American history is riddled with black marks just like every civilization ever. As cultures grow and norms change, we often look back with fresh sets of eyes and determine that it really wasn't right. Shit for all we know 300 years from now racism is back and people look back in our current time and look down on us for it. We simply don't know what the norms will be then just as there was no way to know what the norms would be back when the founding fathers were kicking things off. I mean shit they wrote in our constitution that black people were worth 3/5ths of a person, that shit happens. Again, doesn't mean we can't be proud because they did a whole hell of a lot of great things too.

Anyway, I didn't bleed for this country for people to be looked down upon for expressing their first amendment rights in a peaceful way. We've lost approximately 581,496 men and women fighting for that flag and the idea that it represents, for his right to peacefully protest something he feels strongly about. If there's enough people saying something, the least we can do is take a look and see if there's something there. If we just ignore it that doesn't mean the underlying problem isn't there.

I think he's a shitty QB, I always have, never once did I buy into the hype, my post history shows that, but he should be able to protest how he sees fit. I'm not hypocritical enough to claim that I have a right to yell at him about it (because obviously) nor am I sensitive enough to forget what the flag represents to someone who's upset at our country. I signed the dotted line because I felt all Americans should be able to do what Crapernick does, and yes I'll still call him Crapernick because I've always cared so little about him I've never bothered to lean how to spell his name. I still believe he has the right to express himself, and I don't agree with punishing or shaming him for it. Live and let live.

 

[nighttrain]

Yep just like it was when schools was segregated when we had to use the back door or when our women was raped and killed or our sons being killed for looking at white women it was the law of the land to burn churches and hang black men and women just because too yep the law of the land the land of the free and the home of the brave

IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW TO DO THESE ATROCITIES. DEFINITELY NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND.....

train

 

[Dxmissile]

Ok...this really is the last post from me, and damn you for dragging me back in First off, talk about cherry picking? You can't pick a line or two, and attribute motive to them. Read the entire poem, and it becomes clear he was talking about the British fighting again, after the Revolutionary War, and in verse 3 he is talking about the British who boasted about ending this newly formed country, and how their death washed away their intrusion upon our land. Dude, the entire poem is about defeating the British.

Oh, and the first line you quoted, which shows me you're just cherry picking here and not doing any rigorous examination, isn't in the original poem. It was added later, during the Civil War era, and the verse is in reference to our unchaining from Britain, and how we can't let that struggle go for naught by seeing the breakup of this United States....it isn't about slaves at all, but we, as a nation, unchaining ourselves from England. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that line, and he felt is was our God given birthright to form this new, revolutionary idea of a democracy. I've already agreed that Key was a slave holder (Inherited from his father), thought of slaves as inferior, and worked for their return to Africa, but to say he hated them, or celebrated their death because of the color of their skin, is historically, factually, not in evidence. I'm done...I usually get paid to teach, but this time it's on me. Have a great day man, and thanks for the lively discussion.

lol I know that first line I used was added after the civil war but it still fits the theme and message of the national anthem. I cherry picked as you say because those was relevant to the discussion you asked me a specific question and I answered with those lines, you also said you didn't know of any evidence of his hatred for black people but when I put out evidence your mum and quiet. If you really think he was only talking about defeating the British then it's obvious how painfully oblivious you are and no need for your lesson when it's incomplete

 

[nighttrain]

Francis Scott Key was pretty racist, it was pretty normal for the time being, but we don't need to sit and pretend like he's not. He still wrote one hell of a first stanza for a poem, and I still feel the same sense of pride knowing that the dude was kind of a crappy dude in some ways, because that's how all humans are. There's no reason to pretend like our heroes and our founding fathers didn't have their own flaws, they were human and humans have flaws. It doesn't mean that they didn't do great things, or that we can't be proud of our history. The American history is riddled with black marks just like every civilization ever. As cultures grow and norms change, we often look back with fresh sets of eyes and determine that it really wasn't right. crap for all we know 300 years from now racism is back and people look back in our current time and look down on us for it. We simply don't know what the norms will be then just as there was no way to know what the norms would be back when the founding fathers were kicking things off. I mean crap they wrote in our constitution that black people were worth 3/5ths of a person, that crap happens. Again, doesn't mean we can't be proud because they did a whole hell of a lot of great things too.

Anyway, I didn't bleed for this country for people to be looked down upon for expressing their first amendment rights in a peaceful way. We've lost approximately 581,496 men and women fighting for that flag and the idea that it represents, for his right to peacefully protest something he feels strongly about. If there's enough people saying something, the least we can do is take a look and see if there's something there. If we just ignore it that doesn't mean the underlying problem isn't there.

I think he's a crappy QB, I always have, never once did I buy into the hype, my post history shows that, but he should be able to protest how he sees fit. I'm not hypocritical enough to claim that I have a right to yell at him about it (because obviously) nor am I sensitive enough to forget what the flag represents to someone who's upset at our country. I signed the dotted line because I felt all Americans should be able to do what Crapernick does, and yes I'll still call him Crapernick because I've always cared so little about him I've never bothered to lean how to spell his name. I still believe he has the right to express himself, and I don't agree with punishing or shaming him for it. Live and let live.

Excellent post sir
train

 

[nighttrain]

lol I know that first line I used was added after the civil war but it still fits the theme and message of the national anthem. I cherry picked as you say because those was relevant to the discussion you asked me a specific question and I answered with those lines, you also said you didn't know of any evidence of his hatred for black people but when I put out evidence your mum and quiet. If you really think he was only talking about defeating the British then it's obvious how painfully oblivious you are and no need for your lesson when it's incomplete

no need for names, thank you
til later
train

 

[Memento]

Remorse only goes so far though. He was driving drunk but I'm glad that he did feel bad. Either way, fans seem to be completely okay with watching football knowing that we have quote a few law breakers/ drug abusers but Colin uses free speech and an entire country rallies against him. It seems backwards to me

Yes, he drove drunk, but the fact that he stayed by the victim and called 911 instead of fleeing the scene speaks volumes. And even if he hadn't been drunk, it would've been near impossible to avoid the victim, according to police reports.

But yeah, I'm not going to get into the can of worms that is Colin Kaepernick. I only wanted to point out how Stallworth's crime was different than Vick's and Hardy's.

 

[Dxmissile]

IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW TO DO THESE ATROCITIES. DEFINITELY NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND.....

train

It might have been against the law but definitely not enforced so yeah that was the law of the land if they felt like a black man needed to die he died as simple as that

 

[Dxmissile]

no need for names, thank you
til later
train

What names did I say??