0
   

Another Parallel with the Civil Rights movement.

 
 
Reply Sat 29 Apr, 2006 06:55 am
The brouhaha over the National Anthem is about to become the center of the debate over the Immigrants Rights movement. It is funny how history repeats itself.

Tommie Smith was scorned for disrespecting the National Anthem by giving a symbol of Black pride whle he got his medal. Of course the voices attacking his statement were very similar to the chattering masses attacking Nuestro Himno today.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Carlos-Smith.jpg

TommieSmith wrote:

My whole life flashed in my face. I had two minutes to see everything. Oh man, I never felt such a rush of pride. Even hearing the Star-Spangled Banner was pride, even though it didn't totally represent me. But it was the anthem which represented the country I represented, can you see that? They say we demeaned the flag. Hey, no way man. That's my flag . . . that's the American flag and I'm an American. But I couldn't salute it in the accepted manner, because it didn't represent me fully; only to the extent of asking me to be great on the running track, then obliging me to come home and be just another nigger.


The rest, of course, is history.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 538 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Apr, 2006 07:31 am
One minor difference you might have overlooked is that he was a citizen. For most of us, the sole objection is to peoples' illegal presence in the country, not to what language people sing our anthem in, although one hopes that immigrants would wish to eventually be assimilated somewhat.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Apr, 2006 08:06 am
Well, seeing as the US doesn't really have an Official language, I don't see why not.

However, I think it's kinda frankly silly just to have a Spanish version of the American National Anthem. I mean, we don't have a Welsh version of our "God Save the Queen" do we? Do we?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Apr, 2006 08:10 am
This entire thread is silly. E_brown is obsessed--so obsessed, that he makes a stretch like this, and is prepared to defend it. The athletes in Mexico City were beneficiaries of the civil rights movement, but they were not leaders in civil rights, nor even lowly workers in civil rights. They were there for personal reasons. I agree, mostly, with E_brown's position on immigration. He does his cause no favor, however, with nonsense like this.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Apr, 2006 08:16 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
One minor difference you might have overlooked is that he was a citizen. For most of us, the sole objection is to peoples' illegal presence in the country, not to what language people sing our anthem in, although one hopes that immigrants would wish to eventually be assimilated somewhat.


Brandon, I think you are missing the point,

The Spanish National Anthem was not sung by illegal immigrants. Most of the singers were U.S. citizens including Wyclef Jean and Olga Tanon (Gloria Trevi is the one exception I know of). But, not one illegal immigrant is on the recording of this song.

The immigrants rights movement and the backlash against the Spanish language are part of a much larger battle. The question is whether multiculturalism is a part of American society.

Many U.S. citizens are being fully energized and incorporated into the immigrants rights movement. And it is those of us who have the political leverage of the vote that will win it.

It is citizens who are also promoting the song. It is U.S. citizens who run the radio stations who are playing it.

You might say the many of the people promoting this song (as citizens after the civil rights act) now have more rights than Tommie Smith did.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Apr, 2006 08:17 am
I think the immigrant rights movement is beginning to over play it's hand. The only reason I can think for translating the national anthem into spanish is to get in the face of the more rabid xenophobic portion of the anti-immigration opposition, and this will do it.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Apr, 2006 08:20 am
My father (who is a veteran of the Civil Rights movement) offers these wise words.

"When you get into a political struggle, make sure your opponent is uglier than you."

We will see how this plays out.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Apr, 2006 08:21 am
Sentanta wrote:

E_brown is obsessed--so obsessed


I prefer Foxfyre's word-- "passionate", to obsessed. But I certainly am involved.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Apr, 2006 08:33 am
What you prefer in the way of terms for your obsession does not obtain, and i notice that you avoid the criticism. This thread is ludicrous. The athletes in Mexico in 1968 cannot be considered--reasonably--to have been acting in behalf of the civil rights movement. Their use of the "black power" salute does not equate with singing the national anthem in Spanish. Neither activity is germane the question of what to do about the flood of people entering this country illegally. The attempt to suggest as much just makes you look ridiculous.

As Winston Churchill had it: A fanatic is someone who won't change his mind, and won't change the subject. That describes you more and more these days, Boss.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Apr, 2006 08:54 am
Setanta wrote:
What you prefer in the way of terms for your obsession does not obtain, and i notice that you avoid the criticism. This thread is ludicrous. The athletes in Mexico in 1968 cannot be considered--reasonably--to have been acting in behalf of the civil rights movement. Their use of the "black power" salute does not equate with singing the national anthem in Spanish. Neither activity is germane the question of what to do about the flood of people entering this country illegally. The attempt to suggest as much just makes you look ridiculous.

As Winston Churchill had it: A fanatic is someone who won't change his mind, and won't change the subject. That describes you more and more these days, Boss.


I will accept fanatic.

I want to point out that to many of us, particularly many in the Latino community, the Immigrants rights movement is about more than "the flood of people entering this country illegally".

It is about the right to be proud of one's heritage.

This statement is a statement of the current mindset of those of us in the movement. Whether this feeling is justified by your well-respected view of history is irrelevant to this statement.

The feeling of many of us in the Immigrant rights movement-- that this is an expression of just defiance and pride to be applauded-- is the same as the reaction of the African American community to the olympic power salute during the National Anthem.

The reaction of opponents to the Civil Rights movement is also very similar to todays cries of outrage from both opponents of the movement, and even some of middle America. Even the attacks on liberals, and the threat to "American culture" are similar.

I respect your grasp of history. It is the present I think you are misinterpreting.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Apr, 2006 09:04 am
ebrown_p wrote:
This statement is a statement of the current mindset of those of us in the movement. Whether this feeling is justified by your well-respected view of history is irrelevant to this statement.


That's unnecessarily snotty--i made no reference to historical precedent to underpin my statement of opinion that you are unable to link singing the national anthem in Spanish to the actions of two athletes in Mexico City. No mindset matters unless it entails devising and furthering an effective strategy. Attempting to link this movement to the civil rights movement has so far failed to impress anyone other than those who are already committed to your goals. It is not a successful strategy. You can continue to harp on it, but it's not working.

Quote:
The feeling of many of us in the Immigrant rights movement-- that this is an expression of just defiance and pride to be applauded-- is the same as the reaction of the African American community to the olympic power salute during the National Anthem.


And that gesture in 1968 did absolutely nothing to further the goals of civil rights. What effectively moved forward the civil rights movement was the 1965 Civil Rights Act, and the constant legal actions which succeeded it. Gestures like that may comfort you, but they achieve nothing.

Quote:
I respect your grasp of history. It is the present I think you are misinterpreting.


Obviously, i disagree. Once again, i'm not leaning on obscure historical references--we all have immediate access to information on the civil rights movement, and to the current debate on immigration. The strategy of attempting to take a moral high ground by equating an immigrant's rights movement with the civil rights movement has so far failed to make any apparent impression on public opinion. But if it comforts you, go ahead on.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Another Parallel with the Civil Rights movement.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/06/2021 at 09:00:33