Swing Low Sweet Chariot to be banned

First topic message reminder :

Swing low sweet Chariot being sung at games looks set to be banned, BLM are trying to stop it due to its connections to slavery.

This is madness. Just like trying to stop Delilah being sung at Welsh games.

Thoughts?????

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/53096584

No 7&1/2 wrote:I dont think vunipola is a racist unlike the south african guys. He is a di*# though.

Why?

For not following the crowd and carrying out a now meaningless gesture, the moment it became seen as mandatory it lost it's effect.

Not true. It's very useful to see who people are.

What a horrible person he didn't kneel. What's worse is someone dictating what others can and cannot do, now that is pathetic.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I dont think vunipola is a racist unlike the south african guys. He is a di*# though.

Based on what are they racist?

You seem to be reading between lines incorrectly soul. He can do what he wants and I can think hes a d&÷k.
A wild stab in the dark old man.

I'm reading the situation correctly, you as a white man think that Billy as a Pacific Islander should be subservient to your views, akin to fascism.

Careful not to pull anything with that stretch.

No-one should be obliged to make a gesture such as taking the knee. However whether you do or don't will be taken as a message.

That every South African player in the Premiership chose not to, certainly sends a message - though it may not always be the same one. Lood de Jager for instance has adopted a black child.

Billy V is lots of things. Fantastic rugby player, follower of Old Testament Teachings, usually generous of spirit, but not the sharpest tool in the box.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You seem to be reading between lines incorrectly soul. He can do what he wants and I can think hes a d&÷k.
A wild stab in the dark old man.

Perhaps we should wait and hear what their reasons are before labelling every South African as racist.

I'm not too proud to change my mind if something new comes up.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not true. It's very useful to see who people are.

Absolute Bullsh1t!!!

I am not nor never will be a racist...but by god i weill never in a million years get on my knee for this BLM movement!!

By me stating that are you then judging me as a racist!???

Why on earth wouldn't someone kneel in support of a move away from racism. You may have a bible bashing conspiracy theory like Vunipola? I'd give you an initial benefit of the doubt from your previous posts.

I didnt tune in on time for the Saints game...I'd assume a guy like Lawes wouldn't have knelt. I doubt hes racist hes just a right wing nut who denies institutional racism. So the wording of it's useful to see who people are is a little wider. I'd be pleasantly surprised if he has knelt, another stab the dark.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why on earth wouldn't someone kneel in support of a move away from racism. You may have a bible bashing conspiracy theory like Vunipola? I'd give you an initial benefit of the doubt from your previous posts.

So like a fascist you're dictating how people promote an anti racist philosophy?

Dear me, watch those hamstrings soul.

But IMO thats not what this is about 7.5

BLM are (IMO) an organisation with other agendas than simply healing the race divide (anarchy comes to mind)...AND THATS where this is all going wrong.

It has become nothing to do with actual race...but they are doing all this under the label of race. Its an excuse for mindless thugery and violence.

Taking the knee is just a fraudulus hollow statement that means absolutely nothing!

What peeing me off even more...is that one side is allowed to have opinons and beliefs...for example someone can say they believe theres 100 genders...yet when i state sorry theres only 2 genders (MY BELIEF) im labelled a barbaric dinosaur with no clue and im simply wrong - ie im not allowed an opinion.

Its exaclty like if i dont take the knee (not becasue im racist!) then im automatically labelled as a racist!!

Its bo11ocks!!!

There are plenty of people around with views like that. I'd just encourage you to do a bit of reading around the subjects.

Ive done plenty of reading thanks.

No 7&1/2 wrote:There are plenty of people around with views like that. I'd just encourage you to do a bit of reading around the subjects.

Do you always expect people to hold the same views as you and if they don't you accuse them of X or Y?

I draw my opinion of people based on that among other things yes. Sometimes I'll accuse them sometimes I won't. Depends on a variety of reasons and circumstances.

Black lives matter. BLM don't.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I dont think vunipola is a racist unlike the south african guys. He is a di*# though.

Why should South Africans, playing rugby in England, be obliged to support an American political movement. That's a little bit eurocentric and culturally imperialist...

It's not an American political movement. Its being used in a lot of countries to bring attention to issues involving race everywhere. Not everywhere is the same and there will be different challenges.

I assume you're from south africa fish?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I assume you're from south africa fish?

Indeed, and do you stand for Ramaphosa or Magashule?

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's not an American political movement. Its  being used in a lot of countries to bring attention to issues involving race everywhere. Not everywhere is the same and there will be different challenges.

The problem is that is is also an American political movement (who've cunningly named themselves after an irrefutable truism). Hence, one must be given the liberty not to appear to support a political movement.

Not a clue. I have no knowledge of either.

This whole topic is a very delicate one...

Racism needs to be dealt with......thats clear, but the problem is you can put all sorts in place…but you will never change an individuals personal opinion…

This agenda led, racist and anarchic BLM group are not (In my Opinion) helping / dealing with racism. If anything they are creating a bigger divide. They are creating racism.

Labelling Whites for all sorts just creates animosity….for example…Slavery.
The White Europeans werent the first or only ones to have Slaves. The Africans used Slaves from the Middle East in their great civilisations...they sold their own people as slaves, the muslims were amongst the biggest Slave owners ever...etc etc, so when only the "whites" get the finger point at them for slavery it doesnt sit well. And to then have their history eroded because of this is even worse.

Things like the recent Last Night of the Proms insanity…where there BBC were going to ban the signing of Land of Hope and Glory, and Rule Britania. At least the BBC saw sense in that…….Or was it the 12000 complaints with in half an hour of the announcement that swayed their mind. What is to be achieved doing that??

Racism comes in many colours…not just white…history and civilisations around the world have shown that! But seemingly at the moment only the whites can be racist. Im not sure I agree with that.

Anyway..this is probably not the site to be discussing this...this is a rugby site

That's a very defensive stance geordie. Blm here is helping shine a light on things. See the mini uproar on the national trust yesterday? They've expanded some of the history at their sites. Simple stuff in a lot of cases one example was a beautiful mahogany desk. They've added detail of the history of this and the fact the wood was provided by slaves. A lot of anger over that as some people want their culture to be blameless.
People like clear cut good and bad. Some people like those simple myths of the past or the whitewash version. Nothing wrong with scratching that veneer away.

Is it a defensive stance? Or a balanced one?

It certainly reads as defensive. For instance I haven't seen anyone of serious note say that white people were the only ones involved in slavery. I havent seen anyone seriously say that troublesome attitudes is the domain of only white people. Hell we've got a home secretary who blows that out of the water. It's not eroding history which is going on at the moment but perhaps retelling the whole story of our history. The instance of the kerfuffle of the proms and for swing low: is it wrong that people have that discussion of origin and intent behind the songs? I dont think it is. What is to be achieved by pointing out that land of hope and glory is a tad racist in its core message? What is to be achieved when some people say that swing low is perhaps out of place to be sang at a rugby game? Shouldn't we be able to view those challenges through current society and not simply say it's fine we've always sung them without a second thought?

No 7&1/2 wrote:It certainly reads as defensive. For instance I haven't seen anyone of serious note say that white people were the only ones involved in slavery. I havent seen anyone seriously say that troublesome attitudes is the domain of only white people. Hell we've got a home secretary who blows that out of the water. It's not eroding history which is going on at the moment but perhaps retelling the whole story of our history. The instance of the kerfuffle of the proms and for swing low: is it wrong that people have that discussion of origin and intent behind the songs? I dont think it is. What is to be achieved by pointing out that land of hope and glory is a tad racist in its core message? What is to be achieved when some people say that swing low is perhaps out of place to be sang at a rugby game? Shouldn't we be able to view those challenges through current society and not simply say it's fine we've always sung them without a second thought?

I agree with you for the most part, however earlier in the thread you blatantly labelled the white SA players as racist, without giving a second thought as to why they chose to stand and not kneel.

The SA sports minister was/is up in arms about it.

Back home he is now taken on with regards to his dictatorial attitude demanding SA rugby must investigate why they chose to stand.

The mere fact that an investigation is demanded over a right to exercise freedom of expression and speech is where we don’t want society to go.

I myself do not support any political movement, however I support individuals such as Siya Kolisi who has a legitimate case of discussing and enlightening people in regards to the circumstances he found debilitating.

The point is the players supported the BLM by wearing the t-shirts, that should be seen as a positive, yet the SA sports minister chooses to ignore that, because he has found another stick to throw and support his agendas.

Well ive must have read and watched different things to you 7.5 as ive seen alot of that.

The instance of the kerfuffle of the proms and for swing low: is it wrong that people have that discussion of origin and intent behind the songs? I dont think it is. What is to be achieved by pointing out that land of hope and glory is a tad racist in its core message?

Discussing it, not at all, but why suggest it be cancelled due to BLM? Were the public consulted? I dont think so...hence the tidlewave of complaints.

As to Swing Low...well truthfully i loathe the song...i cringe the second i hear it starting off.

It's not eroding history which is going on at the moment but perhaps retelling the whole story of our history.

How are they retelling it? They are vandalising and carrying out destruction etc.
Is that the right way? Why not talk to the powers that be...negotiate to have things removed. The majority of people would probably go along with it. Why have these never been an issue previopusly...but all of a sudden now it is?

Are they going to pull down the Pyramids in Egypt? Are they going to pull down the great China wall? etc etc

Im not being defensive, im offering a balanced argument. I spent alot of my youth growing up in Africa, i have seen alot of racism first hand.

Britain is an exceptionaly tolerant and welcoming country...(too much so in my opinon but thats for another debate). The majority of people are not remotely racist in fact the majority of people are not racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc (but you will always have a minotiry that is anywhere in life and the world.)

To have people like Stormsy mouthing off that the UK is a racist place does create an anger .

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It certainly reads as defensive. For instance I haven't seen anyone of serious note say that white people were the only ones involved in slavery. I havent seen anyone seriously say that troublesome attitudes is the domain of only white people. Hell we've got a home secretary who blows that out of the water. It's not eroding history which is going on at the moment but perhaps retelling the whole story of our history. The instance of the kerfuffle of the proms and for swing low: is it wrong that people have that discussion of origin and intent behind the songs? I dont think it is. What is to be achieved by pointing out that land of hope and glory is a tad racist in its core message? What is to be achieved when some people say that swing low is perhaps out of place to be sang at a rugby game? Shouldn't we be able to view those challenges through current society and not simply say it's fine we've always sung them without a second thought?

I agree with you for the most part, however earlier in the thread you blatantly labelled the white SA players as racist, without giving a second thought as to why they chose to stand and not kneel.

The SA sports minister was/is up in arms about it.

Back home he is now taken on with regards to his dictatorial attitude demanding SA rugby must investigate why they chose to stand.

The mere fact that an investigation is demanded over a right to exercise freedom of expression and speech is where we don’t want society to go.

I myself do not support any political movement, however I support individuals such as Siya Kolisi who has a legitimate case of discussing and enlightening people in regards to the circumstances he found debilitating.

The point is the players supported the BLM by wearing the t-shirts, that should be seen as a positive, yet the SA sports minister chooses to ignore that, because he has found another stick to throw and support his agendas.

Yup.i did. Your point about freedom of expression is one supported by courtney lawes in a recent interview with jim hamilton as well. Freedom to say and do as you wish is still there, but freedom of expression without consequence isnt. I've said I think they're racist and people are free to challenge that but do I think if the mods decided that statement was too far they shouldn't be allowed to remove the post and take further steps: no. Action and words have consequences.

Freedom of expression without consequence isn’t.

What did those players do that was offensive?

Did they publically denounce BLM?
Did they burn a flag?
Did they act offensively?

Lets use an example, one person supports the ANC and another the Democratic Alliance.

should either take offence because the other isn’t supporting the same party?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well ive must have read and watched different things to you 7.5 as ive seen alot of that.

The instance of the kerfuffle of the proms and for swing low: is it wrong that people have that discussion of origin and intent behind the songs? I dont think it is. What is to be achieved by pointing out that land of hope and glory is a tad racist in its core message?

Discussing it, not at all, but why suggest it be cancelled due to BLM? Were the public consulted? I dont think so...hence the tidlewave of complaints.

As to Swing Low...well truthfully i loathe the song...i cringe the second i hear it starting off.

It's not eroding history which is going on at the moment but perhaps retelling the whole story of our history.

How are they retelling it? They are vandalising and carrying out destruction etc.
Is that the right way? Why not talk to the powers that be...negotiate to have things removed. The majority of people would probably go along with it. Why have these never been an issue previopusly...but all of a sudden now it is?

Are they going to pull down the Pyramids in Egypt? Are they going to pull down the great China wall? etc etc

Im not being defensive, im offering a balanced argument. I spent alot of my youth growing up in Africa, i have seen alot of racism first hand.

Britain is an exceptionaly tolerant and welcoming country...(too much so in my opinon but thats for another debate). The majority of people are not remotely racist in fact the majority of people are not racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc (but you will always have a minotiry that is anywhere in life and the world.)

To have people like Stormsy mouthing off that the UK is a racist place does create an anger .

Ah we do live in a society with a free press that's a good thing and a bad thing at times. Organisations generally have their own boards who make the decision. Not everything has to be a referendum.
Re destruction (I assume a nod to a bristol statue), I'm fine with that. It's good it's down. As above actions can have consequences.
I disagree that it's not a racist place. The majority of my friends have racist views and have uttered them aloud. Theres worse places in the world but ita far from ideal.

Ps the pyramids comment, am I to assume you believe they were built by slaves? Not quite true but more likely slaves were used to support skilled workers by providing food etc. But yes important that history like that isnt simply ignored.

Old Man wrote:Freedom of expression without consequence isn’t.

What did those players do that was offensive?

Did they publically denounce BLM?
Did they burn a flag?
Did they act offensively?

Lets use an example, one person supports the ANC and another the Democratic Alliance.

should either take offence because the other isn’t supporting the same party?

On reflection old man I think you're right to challenge me on that. I've only met 2 south africans in real life and I think that's coloured my opinion to tar all the guys at Sale with the same brush. One of the guys had even stopped supporting the Springboks as there were too many damn bl*acks in the team.

Cant say whether those sale are definitely racist.

I don't follow SA political parties or have the detail so no idea.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well ive must have read and watched different things to you 7.5 as ive seen alot of that.

The instance of the kerfuffle of the proms and for swing low: is it wrong that people have that discussion of origin and intent behind the songs? I dont think it is. What is to be achieved by pointing out that land of hope and glory is a tad racist in its core message?

Discussing it, not at all, but why suggest it be cancelled due to BLM? Were the public consulted? I dont think so...hence the tidlewave of complaints.

As to Swing Low...well truthfully i loathe the song...i cringe the second i hear it starting off.

It's not eroding history which is going on at the moment but perhaps retelling the whole story of our history.

How are they retelling it? They are vandalising and carrying out destruction etc.
Is that the right way? Why not talk to the powers that be...negotiate to have things removed. The majority of people would probably go along with it. Why have these never been an issue previopusly...but all of a sudden now it is?

Are they going to pull down the Pyramids in Egypt? Are they going to pull down the great China wall? etc etc

Im not being defensive, im offering a balanced argument. I spent alot of my youth growing up in Africa, i have seen alot of racism first hand.

Britain is an exceptionaly tolerant and welcoming country...(too much so in my opinon but thats for another debate). The majority of people are not remotely racist in fact the majority of people are not racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc (but you will always have a minotiry that is anywhere in life and the world.)  

To have people like Stormsy mouthing off that the UK is a racist place does create an anger .

Ah we do live in a society with a free press that's a good thing and a bad thing at times. Organisations generally have their own boards who make the decision. Not everything has to be a referendum.
Re destruction (I assume a nod to a bristol statue), I'm fine with that. It's good it's down. As above actions can have consequences.
I disagree that it's not a racist place. The majority of my friends have racist views and have uttered them aloud. Theres worse places in the world but ita far from ideal.

So your happy with mindless vandalism without proper negotiaion and discussion??

7.5

Are you the type that...your racist / homophobic / gender phobic / sexist etc until i prove to you that is not the case??

You seem to come across like that in this thread.

Vandalism can have consequences. In the case of the Bristol statue, yup loved it.
In this proof thing, I'm not currently surprised by anyone who has been standing during the kneeling. Theres an outside chance I've labelled some of these south Africans incorrectly but I've got the view of it due to their actions.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ps the pyramids comment, am I to assume you believe they were built by slaves? Not quite true but more likely slaves were used to support skilled workers by providing food etc. But yes important that history like that isnt simply ignored.

The pyramids were very much built off the back of slavery.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Vandalism can have consequences. In the case of the Bristol statue, yup loved it.
In this proof thing, I'm not currently surprised by anyone who has been standing during the kneeling. Theres an outside chance I've labelled some of these south Africans incorrectly but I've got the view of it due to their actions.

Well i strongly disagree that mindless vandalism is right. And i dont care if your black, white, yellow, white with pink polka dots...you do it...you get slung in jail. LIke wise smashing up shops, looting, rioting and violence.... in the name of anything

I personally am not racist in the slightest, but i can promise you i wouldnt be on my knee either...so you probably think im racist.

Ill just leave this debate here now as we probably wont get anywhere as we have differeing opinons.

Indeed we do. Had the same sort of conversation with a friend at the time of the Bristol statue. He went further to say that breaking the law is never right and has always worked against the person doing it. Clearly in some cases a statue doesnt teach you history!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not a clue. I have no knowledge of either.

...You can't take a stance on South African political issues, and yet you expect South Africans to take a stance on American/European political issues....that's kinda my point: expecting foreigners to feel the same way about your local political issues that you do is cultural imperialism / Eurocentrism ...you expect Africans to agree with you, because you think that your worldview is superior to theirs, while not knowing anything about their cultural or political context...that smacks of colonialist paternalism, which is ironic given that BLM, whom you claim to support, are anti-colonialist.

I dont live and work in south africa so not comparable. Your last line suggests you havent really read or understood my points above either.

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not a clue. I have no knowledge of either.

...You can't take a stance on South African political issues, and yet you expect South Africans to take a stance on American/European political issues....that's kinda my point: expecting foreigners to feel the same way about your local political issues that you do is cultural imperialism / Eurocentrism ...you expect Africans to agree with you, because you think that your worldview is superior to theirs, while not knowing anything about their cultural or political context...that smacks of colonialist paternalism, which is ironic given that BLM, whom you claim to support, are anti-colonialist.

Absolutely spot on.

Bar not being comparable and inventing positions, spot on indeed.

Perfectly comparable actually, you're doing your usual of deciding what others can and cannot do. Oh no somebody didn't kneel they must be racist, what a truly pathetic point of view but one entirely expected of from you.

Now now, respect my right of freedom of expression soul.