A Race Based National Anthem? Gay Beer? Injecting politics into Sports and the Perils of Corporate Marketing in a 'Woke' Society

 

It used to be that the world tuned into the Super Bowl as much for the commercials and performances (especially during Half Time) as they did the games. Sadly, Sunday's showing proved that the NFL's entertainment drought continues, leaving viewers parched for some quality performers.

Of course, there's no shortage of performances to pick from, be it Janet Jackson's infamous "Wardrobe Malfunction", the Who's tone deaf performance, or this year's offering from Usher. However, there have also been some pretty spectacular shows too over the years such as the legendary Paul McCarthy and Prince performances.

One of the key problems is that in times past, there was a general equality of respect in the various musical genres, ranging from rock, to Motown, Pop, and Country. Nowadays, it seems that just one market segment is even considered. But like many others facing this country, there is a divide which seem ever more insurmountable. 

The NFL's selection of a very narrow band of performers does not appeal to the majority of fans, especially those who are willing to plop down the big dollars, either in the form of season tickets or one of the numerous viewing methods. If it wasn't for those fans, the NFL would quickly find itself  unable to keep paying out those multi-million dollars salaries to players, coaches. and administrative staff.  

One seriously problem is the apparent growing willingness of the NFL to allow a measure of racism which it wouldn't tolerate from any other group. It originally began with a few players deciding to "take a knee" rather than stand for the playing of our National Anthem (the players claim it was a protest against racial injustice).

This relatively small clique, which revolved by then San Francisco quarterback Colin Kaepernick, had decided to interject their race based political beliefs into a sporting event.  The practice quickly spread into other sports venues, and down to high school and Pop Warner leagues (further proof that children and young adults often emulate what they see more so as a form of "hero worship than an understanding of issues).

The clap back  came swift and hard from the fan base. Fans made it clear that they were there to watch a sporting event, not attend a political event. This was particularly among law enforcement and veteran associations despite denials from the NFL to the contrary.  The general consensus was that if players want to make political statements, they should do it on their own time, not on that of the fans.  

The NFL lost nearly 1/3 of its viewership and took a hit of $8.1 billion dollars in revenue. Other sport leagues and associations face similar drops in the revenue. I imagine that whoever in NFL management who opted to do nothing about the kneel downs found themselves with a pink slip in hand fairly quick. No one take hits in the billions without heads rolling.

While the issue of "taking a knee" during the playing of our National Anthem, has largely faded from the public's mind along those responsible for triggering the movement, but it didn't end there. Not by a long shot.

Today we face another attempt to politicize  sports through the playing of the so-called "Black National Anthem" as the song, "Lift Every Voice and Sing" has been coined.  It's being performed increasingly at various professional sporting events around country, and as with the copycat kneeling, has begun to spread into colleges and Pop Warner games. More so, the media is often encouraging attendees to afford the same level of respect as the actual National Anthem.

The song, "Lift Every Voice and Sing" was a hymn written by NAACP leader James Weldon Johnson around 1900 and set to music by his brother, J. Rosmond Johnson. James Johnson, who was Chair of the Florida Baptist Academy, penned the hymn in honor of Lincoln's birthday. 

The hymn was written from the perspective of late 19th Century Black Americans as a form of thanksgiving and evokes imagery commonly found in Black Liberation theology of the Biblical Exodus story from enslavement to freedom.

It was pointed out that during the last Super Bowl game, attendees were urged to stand for the Black National Anthem, but not for the American National Anthem. Was that a one off mistake or was that intentional?  Later, leading Democrats were critical of the crowd for not standing enmasse.

As an aside, when Andra Day sung the Black National Anthem, she was roundly booed by the audience which was audibly suppressed and downplayed by the media commentators while praising the NFL's openness.  Meanwhile, country music star Reba McEntire received a rousing round of cheers and applause in response to her rendition of the National Anthem (am I the only who thinks Reba looks like a caricature of a poor country mouse?)/

While the sentiment of the song is noteworthy, the question of whether a country can or should have two national anthems, especially one seen as promoting a certain racial segment of its society needs serious debate. It's not as if this is a choice between "America the Beautiful" and "If I had a Hammer".  This is especially true given how deeply divided America has become across political, gender, economic class, educational, and racial lines.

According to several surveys and polls conducted by Pew and Gallup, America has never been this deeply or widely split over  even basic issues since the decade preceding the America's bloodiest war, the Civil War. That war resulted in deaths of over 620,000 mostly young men. That's more than the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam...combined!

Lately the public has shown a willingness to use economic and social media pressure to respond to bad corporate decisions. As mentioned earlier, the Kaepernick Fiasco resulted in the loss of $8.1 billion dollars in revenue not to mention ending a number of professional sport related careers.  

When Budweiser began its promotion of "transgender influencer" and TikTok personality, Dylan Mulvaney in 2022, "Bud" had long reigned as America's top selling beer and was especially popular at sporting events. It was even referred to as "blue collar beer". Anheuser-Busch, the maker of Budweiser, reported a quick kick in its most tender spot---its bottom line.

During the second quarter, from April to June 2023, its revenue dropped a numbing 10.5%, especially sales of Bud Lite. That reflected a loss of $395 million in North America sales.  Stores couldn't get rid of the stuff no matter how low it cut prices. Drinkers of the stuff saw Bud's promotion of the transgender activist as a not-so-subtle promotion of LGBQT values, and in particular, those revolving around transgenderism, which highly unpopular among conservatives.

Boycotters made it a point to frame their protests as a personal violation of their trust to their long standing brand loyalty. "Bud" had long been associated with conservative ideals . The fall out later spread to include Target and country singers Garth Brooks, Kid Rock and several others. But how different is this than the attempted boycott over Chic-fil-a's refusal to be opened on Sunday?  

Conservative musical performers, athletes, and event promoters dropped Budweiser product from the lineup (some of largest consumers of Bud also happen to be NFL fans). As a result, after being America's top selling brand for over 20 years, it was toppled by a Mexican lager, Modelo Especial, which is owned by the Belgium company ABInBev.  Think about that. A beer which had been accepted as the essential working class American beer being replaced by a Mexican brew! Meanwhile, Anheuser-Busch reported that two of their top marketing executives were place on a leave of absence.

Three current examples, which by themselves and perhaps at some other time would have captured nothing but dead air time. But other examples exist such as alleged "cultural appropriation" of hairstyles, types of jewelry, and clothing styles. Even the use of certain phrases can serve as a trigger event!  But, given America's deep division and hypersensitivity over nearly everything, should any of this  be considered a proper venue for corporate social responsibility?

Even after a year since the "brew off", profits and market shares at Budweiser remain down. Despite Wall Street's never ending chase for more market share and more profits at any cost, shouldn't we address whether boards of directors be giving the green light to delve into socially sensitive issues? Are they showing due diligence to their stake and share holders? 

On the other hand, there are those who believe that corporations have a unique "moral responsibility" when it comes to the environment and society. Does the ruling oligarchy still retain a sense of "noblesse oblige" to society? 

After all, there are corporations out here who have greater revenues than some countries, and thus greater resources for social change. Corporations are commonly typically more influential than any NGO. The top ten richest companies, if combined, would be the third largest financial entity behind the U.S. and China. Saudi Aramco generates more wealth than Italy, Brazil, Canada, and Russia. Apple's market capital is the size of Australia's GDP.

America, as most of its citizens have come to accept, is a neo-fascist corporatocracy managed by a relatively small handful of super rich oligarchs.  Corporate media serves as its mouth piece in ensure a continuous and unrelenting stream of propaganda promoting one agenda or another. But does Wall Street want to get into the "social reimaging" game?  The public has demonstrated that it can and will respond to the wrong message  just as quickly as to the proper one.

So, if we're to have a "Black National Anthem" being promoted as a substitute to our collective national anthem, will Corporate America give equal thrift to a "Hispanic National Anthem"? What about a Asian-American National Anthem or a Native American National Anthem? Then too (I have to ask), what about a European-American National Anthem? Maybe we should adopt corporate anthems like in the 1975 dystopian movie "Rollerball" (a similar theme was played out in the 1986 film "Rollerblade".

How will they respond to the growing population of Muslims without offending other religions or victims of Islam such as the Kurds or Coptic Christians? What about commercials which promote legitimate Muslim traditions or values but which also comes in conflict with Western values such as the role of women?

We saw the public's reaction over LGBQT when it came to a beer. What about race based holidays which have been adopted by government organizations and corporations? How should they be promoted going forward? Can some holidays be celebrated and not others? Many regional holidays pertaining to the Confederacy have already been forcefully dropped, not to mention the removal of statutes.  

Hispanics already represent the largest national minority and growing. Some studies indicate that American will skip pass racial parity with white Europeans and go straight into a Hispanic majority within the next two decades. How will Wall Street handle that transition without disrespecting other racial groups?

Corporations have worked long and hard to achieve control of our political system. Now it's going to have to face up to some of the same issues our Republic struggled with. The chief difference is that the public will have more arrows in quiver. Not only through boycotts, social media "shaming", internal protests, and challenges via stockholder meetings. Corporate America many caught itself in a trap of its own making in its quest for profit and control.

 

  If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

Lift Every Voice and Sing

Democrats criticizes Super Bowl Crowd for not standingduring Black National Anthem

 

The Companies More Profitable Than Countries

Bud Lite boycott takes fizz out of brewer's earning

Behind the Backlash Against Bud Light

Garth Brooks' Bud Lite scandal takes to new turn

 

2017: A Retrospective and A Look toward 2018

While I think nearly everyone since time immemorial has always said something like "wow, what a year it's been", I think we can pretty safely put 2017 in that category of "Wow, What a Year It's Been" don't you? I've looked back at the articles I've written since January and the wide ranging topics I've covered. I've also checked out several retrospective articles as well, both here and abroad. With your indulgence, and with touch of nostalgia, I would like to review some of those articles with you and, perhaps, make a few predictions about 2018.

The first article of 2017 for me was about racism raising its ugly head again. However, this racism was different. It wasn't the racism of the 1950's or 60's. It wasn't the kind that Martin Luther King spoke against or in his that the dream he told us about. It wasn't even the racism that Malcolm X spoke out against. No, this wasn't the racism of George Wallace, the KKK, or of the discrimination experienced by Cesar Chavez. This was new; something which smelled phony or contrived At the time I wrote the article, I was still a little unsure. However, as the year progressed, my suspensions seemed to be more and more correct (in fact, I would return to this topic several more times during the year in order to gain a better understanding of it).

I grew up in the deep South and still live in the South today (although it's often called the northernmost Southern town---LOL). Nevertheless, I did experience the South of the 1960's. My friends at the time included rich kids, dirt poor ones (including a few whose parents were migrant workers), Irish and Italian Catholics, Greek Orthodox Greeks, kids from broken homes, Asian kids, Native Americans, girls---yes, girls (including "girly" girls and tomboys. And a PSA point---none had cooties), handicapped kids, and yes, kids who were black (and often quite poor). Frankly, we really didn't care. Of course, we all occasionally had our falling outs or fought, but we always came together for each other. In school, the classes were all mixed socially and racially, as well as by gender (back then, kids came in two types---boy or girl). One year, in the sixth grade, I even had a black teacher---Mrs. Gladys Knight (I didn't like her and she did not like me, but that's another story). Even when we moved to Bowling Green Kentucky in the early 1970's, I had a number of black friends and black teachers (as well as an Indian teacher from Delhi by the name of Ron Kumar Mukhergee. He was my pal. Thank you Mr. Mukhergee where ever you are).

Granted, my experience was likely unique, but I can't really recall any overt acts of racism during that time. Even in boot camp, we had a large contingent of Northern black guys from the big cities who had rarely been about any of us "white folk" and a couple of guys whose fathers or uncles were active in the KKK and/or John Birch Society, yet they became the best of friends. Of course, I'm sure it was there...somewhere. However, the "racism" I was now hearing about was different. Much of it was the result of black individuals being killed by police officers for crimes they may or may not have committed. It seemed like the police officers were acting more aggressive and shooting first. In the majority of those cases (even the ones which should have been a slam-dunk), the cops were getting off. One, an overweight guy who was tackled by several officers (and was well known to them), was allegedly selling illegal cigarettes. He loudly complained about not being able to breath and ultimately died.

Another was a little kid playing in the park with a toy pistol. A toy pistol! A caller reported the kid was alone and pointed out the toy gun. The two cops shot and killed the kid within seconds of arriving. Then there was the slightly overweight older guy stopped for a tail light issue. Judging from the video, he panicked (he had as suspended license) and turned to run. The cop calmly pulled his pistol and shot the man in the back when he was about 20 or so yards away. He then walked up to the body and placed what appeared to be a gun in his hand. The cop later testified that he was "afraid for his life", of a hopelessly out of shape older guy running away from him. Seriously? There was also the guy who was stopped; got out of his truck as ordered; reached in his hip pocket for his wallet, and suddenly shot multiple times. That officer (a female) also testified that she was "afraid". The guy was about 15 feet away! Of course, all of these officers were recently acquitted, though one or two were eventually fired from the force, but served no time.

In none of these cases did the officers pull their tasers, which could have eliminated any potential threat and saved a life. The officers were obviously being protected by the Judicial system. Ok, I get it. But what I wasn't hearing was about police or Judicial reforms. I also wasn't hearing about intercity youth being taught to do exactly what they are told by police officers, or even their teachers. What I was hearing was demands that whites pay "reparations" for what allegedly happened to an ancestor close to 200 years ago. I was hearing demands that whites (and Asians) give blacks their homes, cars, businesses, or investments when they died. They claimed that they were "owed" what whites and Asians owned. There was also a big uproar about so-called "cultural appropriation". That's when one ethnic or racial group demands that another group stop using certain behaviors or cultural fashions. For instance, black groups were demanding the non-blacks stop putting their hair in "corn rolls" , wearing large loop ear rings, use certain slang terms, or wearing droopy pants. Insanity (except for the droopy pants. Now that's a good idea).

In other articles, I wrote about conservatives (especially white conservatives) being openly denied the opportunity to speak...at events they were officially invited to! Those who were willing (or able) to speak found themselves shouted down, heckled, or had students and other individuals try and take over the stage. Outside, these "snowflakes" as they're called, would protest, attempt to block traffic, and destroy property. They were admittedly trying to stop the free speech and expression of others while demanding that everyone not just listen to them, but agree with them. They got bent out of shape when drivers refused to stop. Differences of opinions had become a big "no-no" (which, ironically, was especially the case on college campuses where diversity of opinion used to be the norm), and the "snowflakes" openly admitted it. They simply did not want anyone challenging their mindset even if it meant denying others freedom of speech. Who could forget "comic" Kathy Griffin's big SNAFU with her picture holding the severed head of Trump? She had a hissy fit because people were upset over her crude sense of humor and disrespect. Can you imagine a comedian doing that with the head of Obama or Hillary? The Left would have had an apoplectic fit!

Occasionally I wrote about how the Left (still in meltdown mode over Hillary Clinton's loss to Donald Trump), continued to bash "The Donald" at every opportunity; every news broadcast or "talking heads" show seemed to open with some criticism of Trump the way old TV shows did sponsor commercials. Nothing was too off the wall as long as it was negative. Take the "Russian Investigation" for instance. The Left has been desperately trying to figure out why Hillary (the "pants suit Caesar as I called her) was denied her coronation; surely it couldn't be because she was a poor candidate or thought untrustworthy or corrupt by the America People. Nah, that couldn't be it. However, the notion of the Russians "buying" or influencing the presidential election, now that was more "realistic". Of course, as it turned out, the more the Congressional subcommittees investigated, the less incriminating evidence against Trump they found. However, they did manage to keep uncovering dirt on Hillary, the Clinton Foundation, and the DNC. Whoops. Nevertheless, the corporate media keeps trying to make a mountain out of a dung heap, and that dung heap appears to have a name. Care to guess?

Several of the articles I wrote in 2017 dealt with the topic of illegal immigration. As many of you know, I'm a big proponent of legal immigration, especially in areas where we have a shortage or for academic reasons. However, I do not and will never support illegal immigration. Those individuals knowingly ignore and break our laws . Many have no interest in becoming citizens. They refuse to adapt to our values or traditions, or even learn our language. They skirt the law and find work with anyone willing to pay them (many end up working for some seriously unscrupulous individuals). We also have churches and other groups who, for some reason, believe that the laws don't apply to them; that they are somehow exempt. They seem to have no problem letting taxpayers pick up the tab though. They routinely help these criminals evade authorities; provide them with food and shelter; manipulate our national safety net, and even find jobs and places for them to live. Even some cities have got in on the act by declaring themselves so-called "Sanctuary Cities", whereby they will harbor these criminals and protect them from federal authorities, even if an individual was repeatedly deported, had a criminal record, and guilty of committing a murder while keeping their hand out for federal money. Such was the case when I wrote on Kate Steinle and her murderer, illegal alien Jose Zarate in December.

Zarate, who has a criminal record and been deported six times as I recall, allegedly "found" a stolen pistol laying under a nearby chair, wrapped in a towel, next to where he was sitting on Pier 39, near Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco. According to Zarate, when he unwrapped the pistol it "accidently" fired, striking the base of a mental pole and then striking Steinle as she stood nearby talking to her father during one of those "father/daughter" moments. She died in his arms. Zarate was acquitted, and while he was charged with possession of a stolen firearm, was credited with time served while awaiting trial, which means that at most, he would serve no more than 30 days. By the way, I've wondered how he could have been charged with possession of a stolen gun if he had only "found" it moments before. Odd don't you think? As an aside, one of the "Sanctuary Cities" I mentioned, Denver Colorado, passed a new city ordinance that allows homeless individuals (who are mainly illegal immigrants) to poop and pee anywhere and anytime they want in public. Now that's going to be a great tourist attraction!

Another subject that I wrote about was terrorism, especially as it pertained to ISIS, Syria, and the not too subtle duel between the US and Russia. As you all should know, the US and its Allies, have been engaged in a long and protracted war with the terrorist organizations Al Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS and their splinter groups. Meanwhile Syria's Civil War descended into the realm of nightmares. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, the US claimed to do its best to destroy these organizations (and a mighty fine job our military has done too).

Meanwhile, the US supported "freedom fighters" out to topple Assad. The only thing is that these "freedom fighters" were one and the same as the terrorists we've fighting elsewhere. The key difference is that Syria (and Assad. Russia's other regional ally is Iran) has been Russia's longtime ally in the Middle East (comparable to the US and Israel). The US wanted to remove this connection, and by aiding the terrorists...err..."freedom fighters" in establishing a Caliphate, we end the threat from groups like ISIS, and create a new potential ally in the Middle East (albeit a very dangerous one and one close to Israel). More importantly though, we deny Russia an ally. Russia, nevertheless, has been successful in defeating ISIS or whomever, in relatively short order---much to the embarrassment of the State Department.

Speaking of terrorism, have you noticed that while there has been a slight increase in "lone wolf" attacks here and there, we've heard nothing about the single largest "terror attack" in US history? I'm speaking of course about the mass shooting in Las Vegas outside the Mandalay Bay Hotel . We literally know next to nothing about the shooter, or the events leading up to and just after the shooting. We've had three revised reports from law enforcement about what actually happened. There has been no new updates. Zero. Several of the key witnesses have since died of various causes. Much of what we do know (or think we know) is contradictive (such as the use of "bumper stocks" on semi automatics with bipods, muzzle flashes from two points simultaneously yet one shooter, missing or absent hotel security footage, failure of housekeeping, and many others). I guess what happens in Vegas really does stay in Vegas.

A more recent article discussed the significance of Trump acknowledging Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Apparently this issue went over the heads of most Americans. We just don't seem to grasp how divisive this topic is, and will likely become. Since Israel's creation in 1948, Israeli leaders have insisted that Jerusalem belonged to Israel. However, Palestinians and the Arab World have long claimed the City of David as their own (mainly due to the Dome of Rock site). Through a series of wars, initiated by Muslim armies, the Israeli military secured the city, and despite high tensions, has allowed it to remain open to all faiths and peoples. Meanwhile, Israel has used Tel Aviv as essentially its proxy capital, along with the resort city of Haifa. Trump's proclamation has stirred a hornet's nest in the Middle East and has given the various Muslim factions a common cause... and target...against not just the "Great Satan" (that would be us), and the "Little Satan" (which would be Israel, although no new excuse was need).

Lastly, I spent much of 2017 writing about the human condition. Something I've always been very interested in. One topic I considered was the microchipping of people. There are some positives uses such keeping track of your kids or senior adults (such as those with dementia). Employers and banks like the idea since employees can clock in without actually clocking in! Personal and financial information would be more secure and less subject to hacking. Your credit score would be instantly accessible...with the right prefix. Your health records would be right there in your hand and just a security access code away. No more trying to remember who you see or when. No more trying to remember prescriptions, allergies, or surgeries. You could even monitor all your vitals.

Some has speculated that at some point (sooner rather than later), we could install a port; perhaps at the base of our neck, where data could be instantly up loaded from the nearest computer data port. We would interact directly with Internet or any other data network. Imagine "knowing" any language, subject or mastering a skill in seconds. Perhaps too the ability to correct any mental or physical issue with a simple download, or in conjunction with nanotechnology; near microscopic "bots" which could mend cardiovascular problems such as a clogged arteries, a faulty valve, or torn ligament in minutes. Maybe repairing intestinal problems or getting an overall health "checkup" could be as simple as swallowing a specialized bot. The possibilities are almost endless.

However, who will pay for these advances, and more importantly, who will have access to them? Will it only be the uber-rich? We are already a world divided into a tiny minority of obscenely rich and the rest of us. Even the US has become essentially become a two tier economic, social, and political society. We're already an Oligarchy with a growing police state. Perhaps it will only the military and "Deep State" security agencies, creating a "Matrix" type of world. As for employers or banksters, I don't think that's such a great idea personally. It means employers can and will keep track of you 24/7/365. They will track and monitor everything you do---everything. Think about that. Your personal history will no longer be entirely private. Neither will your financial or health history. They will, at some point, co-mingle.

Employers are going to demand---not ask--- to know your habits and health in order (they will claim) to minimize their healthcare costs, anticipate absenteeism, and your potential productivity. I can foresee employers demanding at some point your genetic health information---got to know about any dickey heart, arthritis, or possible cancer susceptibility! Given that we are already an Oligarchy; a neo-fascist plutocracy, if your employer knows, the government will know too and visa versa. No thank you. I'll pass. I value my privacy; my sense of "humanity" far too much. I am not Borg. I will not be assimilated.

So, as we move into a new year, let me say that from us at Another Opinion, we wish you and yours a happy, healthy, and safe New Year. Of course, we hope you will continue reading A/O, commenting, and passing on, and recommending Another Opinion. We depend on you to keep going and bringing you another perspective; Another Opinion. Have a great 2018 everyone!

A Future Misplaced

People are a curious lot, especially when we resort to "herd mentality". For some reason, we seem to have this tendency to act or think in a certain way just because we perceive or we're told, that "everyone else is doing it", be it some fashion or gaming or whatever trend. Maybe we've just been conditioned by Madison Avenue marketing types to follow these made up trends. Maybe it's genetic, or perhaps it's a little of both. Lately, we've tripped into something similar to herd mentality, but potentially much more sinister, and that is "political correctness" or as it's otherwise known, being "PC".

Why do I say that? Because political correctness makes use of the our "group think" behavior by attempting to alter a person's behavior into conforming to a often manufactured set of parameters. This effort generally includes stigmatizing, bullying, and sometimes includes the use of or threat of violence. George Orwell discussed this kind of behavior in two of his most popular books, "Animal Farm" and "1984". However, Orwell was simply writing what he saw taking place in Stalinist Russia, where certain ideas were "erased" from the public conscientious. It didn't take long for this to go from ideas or words and phrases to erasing actual people and events from the accepted history (it's been said that history is nothing more than a collective agreement of assumptions).

The Catholic Church has had a very long history of rewriting (or "correcting" to use their phrase) history through its destruction of "heretical" sects, religious texts and other books. It has deleted, altered, and reinterpreted hundreds if not thousands of religious scripture in order to promote its political-religious agenda going back centuries. Of course, many other religions have done so as well. More recently in history, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy , Spain, Hungary and Romania all made great use of politically correct behavior which included not just intimidation but made use of mass book burnings (as did the Catholic Church which, as often as not, was simply stoking the flames for the religious and political dissenters tied to the stake). However, none did it better than Stalin who even had photos and film edit out the latest political enemy along with all mention of their very existence (while sometimes inserting himself to create the image of the all present and powerful leader).

Here in America, we're seeing something similar being played out. Perhaps not to the extent mentioned above; at least no one has been burned at the stake, executed, or set to a concentration camp...not yet anyway. What I'm specifically talking about is the accelerating tendency to distort and/or attempt to erase a part of American history. We've long heard the story about how George Washington could never tell a lie when in truth he was a little shady on his real estate dealings or how Abraham Lincoln "freed all the slaves", which is patently not true. However, that is where I want to go with this article, namely the removal of our portion of collective past as a nation. Let's get started with ole log splitting "Honest Abe".

First off, Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky, a slave state, as was the first and only President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis (as an aside, both were born in log cabins). Lincoln's family moved to Indiana and finally settled in Springfield Illinois while Jefferson Davis moved to Mississippi. Lincoln would grow up being mostly unsuccessful in everything he did and hardly "honest" even as a lawyer. Of course, in time, and after numerous false starts, Lincoln finally succeed in becoming President, but it was of a nation which was deeply divided along many lines and had been since the 1840's. Davis would be more successful in his business ventures and ultimately become one of America's greatest US Senators. When he agreed to become President of the newly created Confederacy, Davis said it was the "saddest day of my life", but felt he had no other choice. Lincoln repeatedly said he had no opposition to the issue slavery with respects to the nation and would do whatever he could to keep the nation together, including the acceptance of slavery (privately, Lincoln opposed slavery). However, slavery was not the key issue for succession. It was only one, albeit a vocal one, of the many reasons for the division of the union---the two key factors being the issue of state's rights and economic development (which was brought to a head with Worrall Act).

Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, understood the complexities of succession. He even acknowledged that the institution of slavery was unsustainable and would very likely have ended on its own within ten years if not sooner. When Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, following the bloody and indecisive Battle of Gettysburg, it was in hopes of bring the war to an end. The Proclamation pertained ONLY to the states which had seceded and not to the slave holding border states and territories. Since the South was primarily rural, Lincoln hoped to draw Southern soldiers away from the battlefields and back to the farms as slaves left and crops began to rot in the fields. Of course, Lincoln's order was illegal in that it was being issued over territory where he had no jurisdiction, but he hoped it would have the same results. Of course, the industrial might of the North ultimately won and the South was utterly laid waste.

Decades later, veterans on both sides meet; some became good friends with their counterparts on the other side. Eventually, the widows, children, and descendants of both the North and South began to form associations erect memorials and statues. Even our current "Memorial Day", originally a Southern holiday, was adopted nationally. Now, some 152 years later, a new type of Civil War seems to be arising. We have a small minority of individuals who are quite adapt at being vocal as well as making use of the "politically correct" trigger, are demanding that all traces of the Confederacy be erased. We've already seen where decades of misleading education has created the popular myth of "Lincoln the Modern Moses " or that there was a single sole cause for the war when in truth, less than 4% of the entire South owned any slaves (the average was three). Most slave owners worked shoulder to shoulder with their slaves. Only 1% were the stereotypical "Terra" plantations.

These individuals and groups are demanding that all statues pertaining to the Confederacy be removed and destroyed. Thankfully, most are being saved and removed to less prominent locations. However, these demands include the renaming of schools, roads, and the removal of any and all Confederate flags or memorabilia from public property as well as museums, cemeteries, battlefields, or even re-enactments along with prohibiting the sale of related memorabilia. Failure to comply could result in threats of violence (sometimes it's more than mere threats), protests, boycotting and labeling as a "racist". As a result, state and local leaders have tucked tail and complied with these terrorist demands in the name of political correctness.

Now, as if that isn't intimidating enough, these same individuals are demanding an end to so-called "cultural appropriation". By that they mean prohibiting non-black individuals from wearing certain types of ear rings, hair styles, or clothing. Some have tried to extend that to creating "all black" associations, social functions like school graduations, and even "white free safe spaces". Finally, there is the demand for "slave reparations", which range from a cash settlement, a free house and/or car, to a guaranteed annual income or a tuition free college education, all paid for by a special tax on non-black individuals. The worse part of this is that some publicly elected individuals or appointed institutional leaders are actually considering this while a few have actually already implemented some of these demands!

I suppose that, in some ways, I can understand their frustration (note: since I'm not a racial minority, that statement can be construed as being "racially insensitive" or not "PC"). Anyway, they rightfully claim that, per Lincoln, those who left their masters would receive "40 acres and a mule". They were to be resettled in what was then called "Indian Lands"; that is, what's now Arizona and New Mexico. The alternative was a one way trip back to Africa, which some took. They founded the country of Liberia, which is basically the anus of the world. Home to huge blocks of poverty, poor sanitation, unsafe food, inadequate housing, a seriously corrupt government, and up until recently, ground zero for the Ebola virus. However, Lincoln's assassination nullified that verbal agreement (the reason for the offer in the first place was because Lincoln felt that whites and blacks would not get along well together). These individuals also claim, again rightfully, that because of slavery, they lost their cultural inheritance and connection to their history.

However, before they try to fix the blame on the US, they need to be reminded that slavery was introduced to America by the Spanish, then the Portuguese, Dutch, French and English. Even Native Americans, who were occasionally slaves themselves, held both white and black slaves. Furthermore, do you think any of these slave traders actually traipsed through the jungles in search of some hapless victim? Nope. They were caught and sold by other African tribes; usually as a result of a conflict or war, or some chief wanted someone's wife, daughter, property, or simply to get rid of a possible rival or troublemaker. Sometimes, these poor souls were sold to European slave traders in port; sometimes they were sold to Arab slave traders who took them East to sell (this practice by Arab slave traders still continues).

The fledgling US was among the very first countries to stop the importation of slaves into the country (1794 and again in 1807). So, who should be responsible, if anyone, for so-called "reparations"? Of course, there is the fact that there were actually some free black farmers and merchants who actually owned black slaves. We also shouldn't forget the non-slave free blacks in the North and in the so-called "Indian Lands" of the West, or those who came to America post 1865. Then there is the problem of multiple compensation given that very few blacks in America today actually descended from a slave. What about non-black individuals who were held as slaves such as the Irish, Scottish, Germans, Native Americans or Asians? They should be compensated too since they were enslaved by the same people (BTW, I am not referring to indentured individuals. That was a voluntary arrangement which often ended in freedom at the end of their term of servitude).

So what do we do? Is rewriting or distorting history the best answer? Should we try to bury the past by denying mainly WASPish Americans their history the way some blacks claim they were denied? What about those demanding the statues of Andrew Jackson be removed too? What do we gain by destroying our past or even the symbols of our pasts, or more importantly, what do we lose as a nation? Is it now acceptable to prohibit individuals from displaying pride in their heritage or honoring the dead just because a small minority claims to be "offended" or because you might be called a name? Do we try to forget the past by erasing its markers and symbols the way Stalin did his enemies? Do we reward individuals for something which may or may not have happened to an ancestor 150 or 200 years ago? If so, what about others who suffered from the same fate? Should be force museums and battlefields to close or cloak the truth, yet we publicly fund other groups simply because of their race? Isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy...or cowardice? Should we allow others to censor our words? What about digging up the dead? The City Council of Memphis Tennessee voted move to remove the remains of Confederate General Nathan B. Forrest, his wife and relocating them from the city cemetery, along with his statue. Is that morally right? Should all images of the Founding Fathers who owned slaves (including Jefferson and Washington) be removed, their homes closed and their bodies disinterred too (ironically, Robert E. Lee did not own slaves and whereas neither did Lincoln, his wife's family did). What about Union Generals who owned slaves, such as U.S. Grant, who came from a slave holding family?

Claims of "cultural appropriation" too is another case of "me thinks you protest too much" to borrow a line from the Bard's pen. Civilization has always advanced thanks to "cultural appropriation" . Perhaps this should be simply chocked up to another example of extremism, no different from the divisive political morass in Washington or the theocratic-based hatefulness taking place in Europe, Middle East, Asia, and Africa except this racism being perpetrated by the same individuals who scream "racism". We would do well to seek the middle ground; to reach for a societal equilibrium and strive for a consensus which serves the greater good but leaves our values intact. As for me, I am not afraid of words; of being called a name by someone who is likely to be more guilty of its meaning than I. We should stop trying to destroy the past. To do so is like setting ourselves adrift by cutting our historical anchor or throwing our moral compass overboard. We should learn from the past, embrace the present, and keep our eyes fixed on the future.


More states seeing Confederate statues defaced.

Third Confederate statue removed in New Orleans

Bulldozing Monuments and The War on American History

A Confederate General's Final Stand Divides Memphis