• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Francis Scott Key in Baltimore - vandalized

C_Felix

Master Poster
C_Felix
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
2,953
Location
Just outside Raleigh, NC
C_Felix said:
http://nypost.com/2017/09/13/vandals-scrawl-racist-anthem-on-francis-scott-key-monument/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...andalized-in-maryland/?utm_term=.88a4b53d4d12


I cannot understand this.

A man being happy that the flag of the nation he loves is still flying after a night of battle is, somehow, racist?

I'm open for to help understanding how and why the national anthem is racist and/or FSK shouldn't be remembered for writing the anthem. (At least the lyrics)
Click to expand...

To be fair, he was racist. He owned slaves. People also think it's hypocritical for a guy to praise "the land of the free" when he owned slaves. Of course, darned near everyone in the country was racist at the time, and a significant majority either owned slaves or supported the right to own slaves.

But these people are on a roll. Holier than thou vandals, defacing art in the public swear, to show how enlightened they are. It's a sign of the times.
 
paulhutch said:
A few of articles about this issue.

Historians disagree on whether 'The Star-Spangled Banner' is racist

‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ and Slavery

Colin Kaepernick Is Righter Than You Know: The National Anthem Is a Celebration of Slavery
Click to expand...

Thanks much.

Now, the question is, is that verse/stanza supporting slavery?

When I read it, it seems he is mentioning slavery as a fact; not offering an opinion on it. "There is no safe place...a place so tempting and safe..that a slave is willing to chance running away and then face the repercussions of his decision and ultimately his probably painful and death as a result of his decision to run away."

(Flame away as to how I read that stanza)

As sad as it is, that was true. If you tried to run away, and you were caught, you were beaten, whipped, and probably left on the ground to die.

This was a fact.

Does his mentioning this fact make him racist?
(I hope this doesn't count as "Godwinning") Does mentioning the Holocaust and what happened at the camps make me a Nazi?

Or was it that he owned slaves?
 
Meadmaker said:
To be fair, he was racist. He owned slaves. People also think it's hypocritical for a guy to praise "the land of the free" when he owned slaves. Of course, darned near everyone in the country was racist at the time, and a significant majority either owned slaves or supported the right to own slaves.

But these people are on a roll. Holier than thou vandals, defacing art in the public swear, to show how enlightened they are. It's a sign of the times.
Click to expand...

This makes me want to ask, "If one owned slaves, is their default binary setting, 'racist'?" (As opposed to the other possible setting, not racist)
 
C_Felix said:
This makes me want to ask, "If one owned slaves, is their default binary setting, 'racist'?" (As opposed to the other possible setting, not racist)
Click to expand...

I think there is room for a scale, or even a multidimensional value, rather than binary. However, if forced into a binary choice, I would be willing to say "racist" to all slaveowners.

ETA: Although, the Wikipedia article on Key shows that his position was rather complicated. Opposed to slavery on a personal level, apparently, yet he owned slaves. He gave free legal services to negros fighting slavery related actions, and yet he was staunchly opposed to abolitionists. At least, so says Wikipedia. I knew none of this.
 
Last edited:
In the really olden days, if your city-state lost the war, you were taken as slaves, tough luck for you. It wasn't a racist thing. That had to be invented later to justify the industrialization of slavery.
 
Believe me, Washington and Jefferson aren't going to be on the currency much longer. FDR? Interned the Japanese; get him off the dime. Have you read some of the things Lincoln said about blacks? Teddy Roosevelt is already getting protested in New York.

We've seen lots of people get in trouble for decades-ago wearing blackface or wearing a Nazi costume. How long before it's any man who dressed up as a woman for a gag? Insensitive to the transgendered community! So what if he was a 7-year-old at the time?

Seriously, I think these causes are coming up because the activists have nothing else to complain about.
 
C_Felix said:
http://nypost.com/2017/09/13/vandals-scrawl-racist-anthem-on-francis-scott-key-monument/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...andalized-in-maryland/?utm_term=.88a4b53d4d12


I cannot understand this.

A man being happy that the flag of the nation he loves is still flying after a night of battle is, somehow, racist?

I'm open for to help understanding how and why the national anthem is racist and/or FSK shouldn't be remembered for writing the anthem. (At least the lyrics)
Click to expand...


See the third verse.

"No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave."

That was about the freed slaves fighting for the british. He really hated blacks.
 
C_Felix said:
Thanks much.

Now, the question is, is that verse/stanza supporting slavery?
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not, I'd need to do a hell of a lot more research on the topic to even get to the point where I'd be informed enough to decide which group of historians I think is more likely correct.

The only opinion I have regarding the Star Spangled Banner is that I find the musical score and the poem/lyrics artistically lacking. Since it hasn't been the national anthem for even 100 years I'd be in favor of adopting a different song as the anthem.
 
C_Felix said:
Thanks much.

Now, the question is, is that verse/stanza supporting slavery?

When I read it, it seems he is mentioning slavery as a fact; not offering an opinion on it. "There is no safe place...a place so tempting and safe..that a slave is willing to chance running away and then face the repercussions of his decision and ultimately his probably painful and death as a result of his decision to run away."

(Flame away as to how I read that stanza)

As sad as it is, that was true. If you tried to run away, and you were caught, you were beaten, whipped, and probably left on the ground to die.

This was a fact.
Click to expand...

And of course beating and killing runaway slaves was a good thing to be celebrated in the national anthem. He also was a staunch anti abolitionist like all true americans.

And that line specifically deals with a group of escaped slaves fighting for the british.
 
Beerina said:
In the really olden days, if your city-state lost the war, you were taken as slaves, tough luck for you. It wasn't a racist thing. That had to be invented later to justify the industrialization of slavery.
Click to expand...

What does any of that have to do with Francis Scott Key? Was he a secret time traveler?
 
Meadmaker said:
I think there is room for a scale, or even a multidimensional value, rather than binary. However, if forced into a binary choice, I would be willing to say "racist" to all slaveowners.

ETA: Although, the Wikipedia article on Key shows that his position was rather complicated. Opposed to slavery on a personal level, apparently, yet he owned slaves. He gave free legal services to negros fighting slavery related actions, and yet he was staunchly opposed to abolitionists. At least, so says Wikipedia. I knew none of this.
Click to expand...

He seems to be a fairly typical racist. He could like and befriend individuals of a hated race but held up policies and low opinions of the race as a whole.
 
I always thought the "hireling and slave" reference was to the British army. I've heard other references to the subjects of kings being slaves. The current national anthem of Ireland refers to English people as slaves.

I suppose it is possible that Key was referring to runaway slaves who had joined the British army.

It doesn't much matter to me, though. He was a guy who wrote a patriotic poem that would later be set to the music of a drinking song and then later become the national anthem. One verse of that song is kind of rough, and I suppose it might be racist, although it certainly has a rather obvious non-racist interpretation.

And since he owned slaves, that means that we shouldn't have a statue of him. Tear it down! Thus speaks the local Taliban in training.
 
Brainster said:
Believe me, Washington and Jefferson aren't going to be on the currency much longer. FDR? Interned the Japanese; get him off the dime. Have you read some of the things Lincoln said about blacks? Teddy Roosevelt is already getting protested in New York.

We've seen lots of people get in trouble for decades-ago wearing blackface or wearing a Nazi costume. How long before it's any man who dressed up as a woman for a gag? Insensitive to the transgendered community! So what if he was a 7-year-old at the time?
Seriously, I think these causes are coming up because the activists have nothing else to complain about.
Click to expand...

Nope - it's because we have a communication system unlike anything we've ever had before, not quite a level playing field but no longer do we just get to be the targets for the views of a handful of "media moguls" that own mass-media. Our system in fact now amplifies all kinds of things including "outrage", it is the basis of the "success" of the likes of Facebook, they provide no content they merely amplify the emotional reactions to gain more advertising revenues. Which means you only need a very few people to have an appearance of "outrage".
 
Meadmaker said:
I always thought the "hireling and slave" reference was to the British army. I've heard other references to the subjects of kings being slaves. The current national anthem of Ireland refers to English people as slaves.

I suppose it is possible that Key was referring to runaway slaves who had joined the British army.

It doesn't much matter to me, though. He was a guy who wrote a patriotic poem that would later be set to the music of a drinking song and then later become the national anthem. One verse of that song is kind of rough, and I suppose it might be racist, although it certainly has a rather obvious non-racist interpretation.

And since he owned slaves, that means that we shouldn't have a statue of him. Tear it down! Thus speaks the local Taliban in training.
Click to expand...

Says who?
 
Meadmaker said:
The local Taliban in training.

But seriously, are you going to quibble over whether the vandals want to tear down the statue, or just deface it with spray paint?
Click to expand...

Then why say "Tear it down" when that's not what happened ?
 
The Don said:
Then why say "Tear it down" when that's not what happened ?
Click to expand...

It's probably just a matter of time.

Slavery is a big part of our history. It should not be hidden, nor should it be celebrated. Monuments and statues of slave holders should not be torn down, they should be modified to explain the times that these people lived in, which were vastly different than today, and how we don't live in those times any more, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom