Special to the Cape Charles Mirror by Paul Plante
One thing I have learned about America and the people in it today from reading the Cape Charles Mirror, and yes, this is in the light of these football protests, and all the commentary in the pages of the Cape Charles Mirror defending “taking the knee” as the right of the football player’s to do, which of course it is, since people in this country are always protesting about something, and have been doing so since I was born, without end in sight; is that we all view citizenship in this nation of ours quite differently.
For example, this comment appeared recently in the pages of the Cape Charles Mirror, to wit: The latest take on racial prejudices has been brought to the fore by the present occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue through his rhetoric of building walls to keep out People of Color.
HUH?
There aren’t walls being built anywhere to keep out “People of Color.”
We happen to be a nation, like Mexico is a nation, and Canada is a nation, and like them, we have national boundaries, and one of the most basic jobs of our national government is to defend our national boundaries, just as Israel defends hers.
And there is already a wall along that border with Mexico, and has been for some time, because the Congress of the United States of America decreed there would be one in legislation that is now public law.
And that wall approved by our Congress is not intended to keep out “People of Color,” it is intended to keep out people who are not citizens of this country.
As an American citizen, as I see it, we are supposed to know those things, but obviously, the person who posted that drivel does not know those facts, and so, chooses to present us with a falsehood, as if we too were ignorant of the reality we all must function in as citizens here in the United States of America.
And in a recent thread, I was called a “patriot” in what I thought was a pejorative sense, since that is how those who self-identify as liberals, or Democrats, especially progressive Democrats, and Hillary Clinton-ites all use the term, so I thought that I would take a moment to explore what the word “patriot” means to me, and why I would not be ashamed to be called one in its proper sense.
The Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary defines “patriot” thusly:
One who loves his (her) country and zealously guards it welfare; especially a defender of popular liberty.
end quotes
So yes, people, according to that definition, I am indeed a patriot, and I am not ashamed of being so.
As to “patriotism,” the Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary defines it as “devotion to one’s country.”
So, are we all “patriots” in this country then?
What about these football players, first at the pro level, and now down at the high school level, according to the DAILY GAZETTE article “Members of Niskayuna football kneel for National Anthem – Several players, cheerleader take knee, a la NFL protesters” by Michael Kelly on September 28, 2017?
Are they being patriotic or displaying patriotism by taking the knee when the National Anthem is played?
What is it about these words that offends them so:
O say can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hail’d at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O’er the ramparts we watch’d were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket’s red glare, the bomb bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there,
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
end quotes
Pampered and privileged football player Colin Kaepernick, who started the football protests in 2016, when a black man was United States president and another black man was its attorney general, said “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”
But that is just more bull****, since it is not the country that oppresses black people and people of color as Kaepernick says, and you would think that as an American citizen with the same citizenship duties I have, chief of which is know your facts, Kaepernick would know that, but obviously he doesn’t, which makes one then wonder why that could be, especially since he claims to have a college education in this country.
So perhaps we can find an answer to that question of what offends these football players and their supporters so about the lyrics to the Star Spangled Banner in the Nation Review article, “Is ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ Racist?” by Walter Olson on September 15, 2017, where the author states thusly:
By now you’ve probably heard the claim that America’s national anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner,” is an expression of racial hostility toward African Americans and should be either retired or at least acknowledged as a subject of national embarrassment.
end quotes
Actually, people, until today, I was totally unaware of that, and if indeed, the Star Spangled Banner actually were to be an expression of racial hostility toward African Americans, which I think is a bull**** claim, then yes, it should be either retired or at least acknowledged as a subject of national embarrassment.
But is the “Land of the Brave and Home of the Free” in any way an expression of racial hostility towards African Americans, given that African Americans have fought heroically for this nation’s flag in wars such as WWII?
Getting back to the National Review article, it continues as follows:
These reports appear to have influenced the act of vandalism in a Baltimore park this week, in which a statue of Francis Scott Key, the Maryland lawyer who wrote the words to the song during the War of 1812, was defaced with red paint and slogans including “Racist Anthem.”
But although claims of this sort have been circulating since at least the 1990s, it would not be fair to say that historians are of one mind on whether Key’s song was understood in its day to be making any reference to race.
Exhibit A in critics’ account is the anthem’s seldom-sung third verse, which gloats at the defeat of the “band who so vauntingly swore” America would lose its independence: 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.
There it is: the word “slave.”
end quote
OMG, yes, there is the word slave, but what does it mean in the context of the Star Spangled Banner when it was written?
To get to the third verse, you have to first pass through the second verse, which says as follows:
On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream,
‘Tis the star-spangled banner –
O long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
end quote
So when he says “Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,” who is he talking about there, the British, or African Americans?
And everybody who answered the British has it right, while anyone who said African Americans are way off base, and obviously know nothing about American history, despite being citizens here with the same duties and obligations as a citizen that I have.
And that takes us to the full third verse, to wit:
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
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.
end quote
When read in the context of the full song, it is quite clear to me that Francis Scott Key was making no reference to African Americans in this country.
Quite clearly, with his words “And where is that band who so vauntingly swore, That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion, A home and a Country should leave us no more?,” he is talking about defeatists and seditionists in this country who were for us again becoming a British colony with a British king over us.
That is who the “hireling and slave” were, those who were disloyal to this nation and its flag, as many were back then at the time of the War of 1812 between the United States and Great Britain, a flag which represents all the people in the United States of America, regardless of their skin color, for the nation is us, and we are the nation, all of us inclusively.
Returning to the National Review, in there the author states thusly about the use of the word “slave” in a proper historical context:
In Robert Burns’s battle poem “Scots Wha Hae,” written in 1793 though set more than 400 years earlier, the word “slave” is an insult directed at his fellow Scots who would flee rather than follow their king into the Battle of Bannockburn.
Yet another Robert Burns song, “Parcel of Rogues,” describes Scotland as having been sold out for “hireling traitor’s wages.”
end quotes
There we have it, people, the words “hirelings and slaves” in the Star Spangled Banner are not an expression of racial hostility toward African Americans, nor are the African Americans I know who are veterans and who do stand proudly when the Star Spangled Banner is played offended by those words, since those words to a veteran, regardless of skin color, are aimed at the skulkers veterans would be called on to defend this country against, not its own citizens.
So that is my take on that controversy, for what it is worth.
What about you, America, what is yours?
Charles Taylor says
Whether it is taking a knee , marching in protest, writing a critical column, or voting against an unsympathetic candidate for office, everybody has the right to LAWFULLY express their opinion that the country, in their view, has not lived up to its promise to all or a segment of its citizens. Who are we as individuals to suggest what form of lawful protest or display of displeasure they may adopt? Did you ever consider that the method which most rankles the antagonists might be the most effective, or draw appropriate attention to the protesters’ expressed displeasure? Perhaps, taking a knee has provided a catalyst for consideration of the issues, rather than the form of the protest.
Paul Plante says
Consideration of what issues, Chas Taylor?
Consideration of which issues?
You say, “Perhaps, taking a knee has provided a catalyst for consideration of the issues.”
Why don’t you do us all a favor and be a lot more explicit in here as to what “issues” you are talking about, instead of speaking in generalities as you have done about some nebulous issues you think “taking the knee” has been a catalyst for, because I have yet to hear any real issues articulated by these football players who are taking the knee.
Are you saying, Charles Taylor, that you are one who believes the Star Spangled Banner was written by Francis Scott Key as an expression of racial hostility toward African Americans and it should be either retired or at least acknowledged as a subject of national embarrassment?
Is that the issue you are talking about?
As to these protests, Charles Taylor, if you actually had bothered to read my essay before commenting on it, in the first paragraph, you would have seen as follows:
One thing I have learned about America and the people in it today from reading the Cape Charles Mirror, and yes, this is in the light of these football protests, and all the commentary in the pages of the Cape Charles Mirror defending “taking the knee” as the right of the football player’s to do, which of course it is, since people in this country are always protesting about something, and have been doing so since I was born, without end in sight; is that we all view citizenship in this nation of ours quite differently.
end quotes
I clearly said, Charles Taylor, that yes, they do have that right, just as disgruntled people in this country have the right to smash, loot, burn, and destroy the property of others like they did in Ferguson, Missouri.
As to the supposed issues you talk about, this is what I did say:
Pampered and privileged football player Colin Kaepernick, who started the football protests in 2016, when a black man was United States president and another black man was its attorney general, said “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”
But as I said, that is just more bull****, since it is not the country that oppresses black people and people of color as Kaepernick says, and you would think that as an American citizen with the same citizenship duties I have, chief of which is know your facts, Kaepernick would know that, but obviously he doesn’t, which makes one then wonder why that could be, especially since he claims to have a college education in this country.
So what issues are you talking about?
Help us out if you can.
Mike Kuzma, Jr. says
Mr. Taylor, just like shouting fire in a crowded theater is prohibited, there has always been restrictions on speec.
One of them has long been that an EMPLOYER can moderate the EMPLOYEES speech in the workplace.
The stadium is the work place.
Shut up and play(although I no longer care to watch).
I am sure that you cannot stand on your desk and spew political diatribes, nor can the NFL players.
Stuart Bell says
Sorry Chuck……you and many like you have been sold a bill of goods that just does not exist. It is not your fault, they started on you early in public school. Political Correctness kept people from correcting you all these years.
Paul Plante says
With respect to the use of the word “slave” in our American history, not to mention the Bible itself which is replete with references to “be a good slave,” which should result in the book being banned here in the United States of America because it, like the Star Spangled Banner, which admittedly does have the word slave in it, is considered an expression of racial hostility toward African Americans by African Americans, Progressive Democrats and the followers of Hillary Rodham Clinton, just the other day, I was reading a passage in a document titled “History of Troy, New York FROM LANDMARKS OF RENSSELAER COUNTY BY: GEORGE BAKER ANDERSON PUBLISHED BY D. MASON & CO. PUBLISHERS, SYRACUSE, NY 1897 CHAPTER XVI. TROY AS A CITY., where I also came across the word “slave,” which has me wondering if this history too should be suppressed as an expression of racial hostility toward African Americans, notwithstanding that as I read the passage, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with African Americans, just as the Star Spangled Banner has nothing to do with them.
The passage in question reads thusly:
In July, 1819, an event occurred which stirred the people of the city of Troy to widespread expressions of great indignation.
Colonel Albert Pawling, who had been appointed the first mayor of the city, was a man beloved and confided in by all, regardless of party.
He had been one of the greatest benefactors of the village and city and at the time of his appointment there was no opposition to him, as far as can be learned.
Suddenly, and without warning of his intention, Governor DeWitt Clinton removed him from office and appointed in his place Thomas Turner, a man evidently unpopular and possessed of few qualifications for the office.
The removal and new appointment resulted in a spontaneous outburst of indignation.
An illustration of the popular feeling over what was considered by the people of Troy as an unwarranted abuse of power on the part of Governor Clinton may be had in the following communication, which appeared in the Troy Northern Budget July 13, 1819, the issue next following the news of the appointment of Mr. Turner.
The communication was signed “A Trojan.”
A report reached this city in the early part of last week that Thomas Turner had been appointed Mayor in the place of Col. Pawling, but it was so unwelcome to the great body of citizens that they were unwilling to believe it.
The report however proves to be true.
What has this city done to merit this indignity?
If the feelings and policy of the Governor would not permit him to spare an old soldier of the Revolution – the companion in arms and ardent friend of his father and uncle the citizen of unblemished reputation, the zealous and upright magistrate – the man who with propriety may be called one of the fathers of our city, who had taken care of its infancy and watched with parental solicitude over its rising prosperity, I ask if the Governor could not spare such a man, why has he given us such a successor?
The insult admits of no palliation.
Mr. Clinton knew the standing of Turner: because he had been recently and reluctantly compelled to recede from his purpose of making him Sheriff of this county by the indignant voice of the people.
He also knew from the expressed opinion of the most respectable men of all parties in this city, that the citizens wished the continuance of the old Mayor.
When that venerable patriot Gen. Clinton, in his declining years, expressed with feeling regret his apprehension of the evils that this state would suffer by the unprincipled ambition of his nephew, he probably had some indistinct forebodings of the political abuses which have now fallen upon us; but how inexpressibly poignant would have been his regret, if he could have foreseen the very transactions on which I am now commenting.
A young man flew to the standard of this patriot and participated with him for seven years the dangers and sufferings by which our liberties were achieved.
When he left the service of his country, he carried with him the love and affection of this patriot and the commendation of Washington.
No act of his after life disgraced this auspicious beginning.
Having been a pupil in the school of the revolution his political sentiments emanated from the purest principles of republicanism.
Amidst all the changes and vicissitudes which this State has undergone, he has not erred in his political faith.
In his old age he would not belie those principles which he loved in his youth, and practised in his manhood, of course he could not be a favorite of present administration.
Those very virtues which won the respect and esteem of General James Clinton and George Clinton, have drawn down upon the gray head of Col. Pawling the displeasure of Dewitt Clinton.
The merit of this act belongs exclusively to the Governor, and his comfort arising from reflections on it, will excite no man’s envy.
I shall not attempt to do justice to public feeling on this occasion among our citizens; nor comment upon other acts of the present administration, which evinces its baseness.
Let them hunt down and proscribe political virtue as much as they please, they never can make the people insensible to a want of it in themselves.
The hoary headed patriot may feel their rage, but they cannot reach his reputation.
Every such victim will make a martyr.
Though a man more entitled to respect than the late Mayor of this city has not encountered executive ire, nor fewer qualifications to redeem the misdeed, could be found in any successor, we have this consolation that other parts of the state are suffering evils similar in kind if not equal in degree with ourselves; and from this common suffering may and will arise a sense of the necessity of a remedy; and if the people of this State are not tamer than the slaves of despotism in a few months, this intolerable reign, in which talents are proscribed and virtue is a victim, will have passed away forever.
In response to an overwhelming popular demand Mr. Turner refused to serve in the office to which he had been appointed and Mayor Pawling continued to act until February, 1820, when Esaias Warren was named as his successor.
end quote
And look at right here, people, and you will see it as plain as day, the word slave in there: and if the people of this State are not tamer than the slaves of despotism in a few months, this intolerable reign, in which talents are proscribed and virtue is a victim, will have passed away forever.
“The slaves of despotism” in New York State in 1819 during the reign of New York governor Dewitt Clinton, considered a political slimeball in New York State for good reason, because of his oily dealings with people.
Is that a reference in any way to African Americans in New York State in 1819, or is it in fact a reference to all the political sycophants and lickspittles and bootlickers and *** kissers on the public payroll through party patronage who formed the base of Dewitt Clinton and kept him in power?
What say you, America?
Isn’t this political correctness bull**** going a bit too far when we have to start culling from our history and our language words which one particular ethnicity that thinks it is a separate race from all other people finds offensive to them for reasons entirely their own and which cannot be comprehended by those who in the name of political correctness have to change the way they think and communicate?
I would say it has, and being old, I am not going to abide by it.
What say you, America?
Charles Taylor says
Sorry that the form of protest does not suit your neat sense of how and when it should occur, and that it is does not articulate anything you can get your “hands” around. You do the digging to understand; that ‘s not my job or intent to inform you. Since it has peaked your interest, you can delve further into the message it is intended to send. If it makes you uncomfortable, then maybe its purpose is being served.
Paul Plante says
While you may be a protester, and while you obviously endorse the practice, Charles Taylor, the fact of the matter is that I am not a protester.
I don’t kneel when the Star Spangled Banner is played to make some arcane point that frankly, Charles Taylor, American people don’t give a damn about, what some thug playing pro football thinks about anything, because people don’t think pro football players are capable of thinking, and I don’t burn flags, or walk around on a sidewalk blocking the access of honest, working people to something I don’t like.
I have in fact filed many citizen lawsuits against public corruption in my state, and I have won them because of my knowledge of facts and law, but that is citizenship, Charles Taylor, which if you had looked, is the title of this thread – On Citizenship.
“Citizenship,” Charles Taylor is defined by the Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary as “the status of a citizen, with its rights, privileges and duties,” and that is the definition I am using in here, with an emphasis not on rights or privileges, which includes the privilege of a mob that does not like a jury verdict to go out on a rampage to loot and burn and destroy the property of others as an act of civil disobedience, which is their right, but on “duties,” which is what this thread is all about, Charles Taylor, if you had bothered to read the essay before commenting on what you think, as opposed to what I wrote.
And that same source defines “citizen” as a native or naturalized person owing allegiance to, and entitled to protection from a government.
Owing allegiance to, Charles Taylor, does that mean anything at all to you?
Do you consider yourself a United States citizen, Charles Taylor?
If so, to whom or what do you owe allegiance?
Or don’t you?
If that is too hard a question for you to answer, Charles Taylor, then you can duck it and being compassionate people, we will understand, although we won’t celebrate you for it.
So, to summarize and make this quite succinct for you, Charles Taylor, if a mob in Ferguson, Missouri has the privilege of burning, looting and destroying the property of others, because the law has not done what the mob wanted done, which was mob justice, which is their right, then of course some football players in the National Football League have the privilege of “taking the knee” to show their disloyalty to the United States of America, as opposed to allegiance, which is a form of sedition, Charles Taylor, where sedition is conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state, which happens to be the state to which I owe allegiance to as one of its citizens.
Seditionists, Charles Taylor, are domestic enemies of our Constitution.
So these football players are protesting absolutely nothing, Charles Taylor, when they take the knee.
What they are doing, plain and simple, is declaring themselves outlaws, which of course, is both their privilege and right in the United States of America, a nation in which they have no citizenship duties because they play pro football, and so are outside the normal rules of conduct for ordinary citizens like me.
As to “nation,” Charles Taylor, the Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary defines it thusly:
A body of persons associated with a particular territory, usually organized under a government, and possessing a distinctive cultural and social way of life.
end quote
By taking the knee, these football players are rejecting that nation they are a part of and its distinctive cultural and social way of life, which again, is their right and privilege when a mob in Ferguson, Missouri has the privilege of burning, looting and destroying the property of others, because the law has not done what the mob wanted done, which was mob justice, which is their right.
So when you say, “Sorry that the form of protest does not suit your neat sense of how and when it should occur,” you are babbling and mouthing gibberish.
As to your “sorry that it is does not articulate anything you can get your ‘hands’ around,” that too is gibberish, because there is no protest there to get anyone’s hands on.
As I said, it is a demonstration by these football players of their disloyalty to the United States of America, which I stress again, they have the privilege and right to do when a mob in Ferguson, Missouri has the privilege of burning, looting and destroying the property of others, because the law has not done what the mob wanted done, which was mob justice.
As to your “You do the digging to understand; that ‘s not my job or intent to inform you,” I have done the digging to find absolutely nothing there, and it’s not your job or intent to inform me, because you can’t, and you can’t because the whole thing is nothing but bull***, and you know it.
So that was nothing more than an amateurish dodge on your part to avoid making a fool out of yourself in here.
And then we come to this ridiculous statement of yours, Charles Taylor: Since it has peaked your interest, you can delve further into the message it is intended to send.
What has peaked my interest, Charles Taylor, and the only thing that has peaked my interest is the fact that there is no other message than that these football players feel they owe no allegiance to the United States of America, which raises the question of are they really citizens then, when they disavow allegiance to the nation they are a part of by virtue of the fact that they are here?
And lastly, we have this further ridiculous statement of yours, to wit: If it makes you uncomfortable, then maybe its purpose is being served.
I am not uncomfortable at all, Charles Taylor, sorry to disappoint you, but that is just how it is, and the only purpose this “taking the knee” crap has served is to show just how many disloyal people there are in this country, which is something that should make every loyal American citizen uncomfortable to be truthful.
Does it make you uncomfortable, Charles Taylor, the fact that there are so many disloyal people in the country?
The candid world is quite curious and would like to know.
John Ricks says
Angry old men make me want to get sick to my stomach. They name all the things they don’t do and put down everyone different than them. Open mindedness is something they know nothing about. Just put everybody who is not like them down, with racist code words like Thug.Must be really sad being you Paul, I will pray that you find empathy and love one day. I really feel sorry for you. A little self reflection would do you a world of good. You really don’t seem like a nice person, more like a Russian Bott.
Paul Plante says
My goodness. John Ricks, what a surprise, dude, long time no see and all of that.
So, John Ricks, angry old men make you want to get sick to your stomach?
Why is that, John Ricks, do you have a weak stomach, perhaps?
The easy cure, of course, if your stomach can’t take them, is to stay away from them, and then you won’t have to be worried about sicking up all the time as you are presently doing.
And what is this hog crap you are peddling here, John Ricks, with this “They name all the things they don’t do and put down everyone different than them.”
Oh, really, pray tell where is that happening?
Point it out to us and we will wait for you to do so.
And isn’t that really the duty of old people in an open society like ours – to act as institutional memory and to call out crap as crap and bull**** as bull**** when it is being spewed by younger people without a clue as to what they are talking about?
That’s the tradition that was handed down to me, anyway, and despite the fact that you don’t like it, I have no intentions of going against my teaching and my upbringing to satisfy someone like you.
And how about this gem of yours: Open mindedness is something they know nothing about.
That’s balderdash and hog wash, John Ricks, and it is an indication of the people you associate with, only.
You are very close-minded, and small-minded, so it comes as no surprise then that the people you associate with are the same way.
Like attracts like, afterall, and birds of a feather flock together.
And here is some real horse**** served fresh on a hard roll here, John Ricks: Just put everybody who is not like them down, with racist code words like Thug.
That’s ludicrous, John Ricks for two reasons.
First of all, there is your use of the word, “racist,” which is a direct reflection on how you yourself see the world, as the word “racist” is defined as “a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.”
The problem there, John Ricks, and if you were living in 2017 instead of somewhere back in the 1830’s, you would know this, is that there are no different races, so there can be no racists, other than those who are mental defectives, morons, inbeciles or just plain idiots.
Check out the Scientific American article “Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue – Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out” by Megan Gannon, LiveScience on February 5, 2016 where you will find as follows:
More than 100 years ago, American sociologist W.E.B. Du Bois was concerned that race was being used as a biological explanation for what he understood to be social and cultural differences between different populations of people.
He spoke out against the idea of “white” and “black” as discrete groups, claiming that these distinctions ignored the scope of human diversity.
Science would favor Du Bois.
Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning.
end quote
Can you understand or comprehend that last sentence there, John Ricks – that race is a social construct without biological meaning?
That means race and racists and racism, which means “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior,” are concepts you have created in your own head, without any scientific basis for having done so.
Race and racists and racism, John Ricks, are products of your imagination, perhaps some kind of fever dreams or something like that.
Outside of your head, they have no objective existence, only subjective.
And then, John Ricks, to drive that point home that you are having fever dreams with your talk of racists, there is the New York Times article “Race and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs” by Angela Onwuachi-Willig, a professor of law at the University of Iowa College of Law, and the author of “According to Our Hearts: Rhinelander v. Rhinelander and the Law of the Multiracial Family.” on September 6, 2016, where we were informed as follows:
Race is not biological.
It is a social construct.
There is no gene or cluster of genes common to all blacks or all whites.
end quotes
So, John Ricks, what that says is that “race” is something people make up in their minds, with no scientific basis for doing so, and that includes you, but not me, since I treat ALL people regardless of skin color as fellow human beings.
As to the word “thug,” which I did in fact apply to the thug Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, because he epitomized the word, it means “a violent person, especially a criminal.”
Michael Brown was a violent person and so he was a thug, and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with “racist code words.”
Any violent person regardless of skin color is a thug.
And here, John Ricks, you really had me all choked up, for maybe half a heartbeat:
Must be really sad being you Paul, I will pray that you find empathy and love one day.
end quotes
In fact, John Ricks, because of how I live, I am surrounded with love and empathy, and I don’t at all consider it being sad being me and playing the Star Spangled Banner on my banjo.
Then you say: I really feel sorry for you.
Well, good for you, but let me tell you it is emotion wasted, but hey, if it makes you feel good about yourself and all warm and squishy inside, feel sorry for me all you want, because it doesn’t affect or confront me, any.
And how about this: A little self reflection would do you a world of good.
You know what, John Ricks, I do that every day, and dude, so should you if you want to preserve your sanity and mental health.
Which brings us to the climax here, as follows: You really don’t seem like a nice person, more like a Russian Bott.
Let me tell you, John Ricks, when people up this way read that, you had them rolling in the aisles, holding their sides they were laughing so hard, and they wanted me to thank you for providing them with some comic relief.
And to conclude, John Ricks, who on earth do you have doing your script writing for you:
Read this following you posted @ John Ricks says October 10, 2017 at 2:18 am and tell me that is not some ignorant horsecrap dredged up for the 1820s:
If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket.
Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.
end quotes
HUH?
Where did you get that from, John Ricks?
Is that how the people you hang with talk and look at life?
If so, how sad, John Ricks, but I tell you what, being compassionate as I am, I will pray that you find empathy and love one day, and until then, John Ricks, you have a wonderful day.
Lisa Barker says
Your people showed the world their true colors in Ferguson and Baltimore such a short time ago…
Charles Taylor says
I’m sure Paul Plante believes he has the answers and viewpoints to which all should adhere. He misses he point at every turn . Who made him the stereotypical model of American allegiance. Remind us not to vote for him for public office.
Paul Plante says
Charles Taylor, is it possible that you suffer, as many do in this country, from reading comprehension problems?
The reason I ask is this is how this thread started, with a simple statement, to wit:
One thing I have learned about America and the people in it today from reading the Cape Charles Mirror is that we all view citizenship in this nation of ours quite differently.
end quote
Why is it that you never addressed that statement?
Is it because you couldn’t understand it?
Or is it because you made a conscious choice to ignore it, so you could go off on a rant to defend these football protests?
And then I concluded the thread with a pair of statements and a question, as follows:
There we have it, people, the words “hirelings and slaves” in the Star Spangled Banner are not an expression of racial hostility toward African Americans, nor are the African Americans I know who are veterans and who do stand proudly when the Star Spangled Banner is played offended by those words, since those words to a veteran, regardless of skin color, are aimed at the skulkers veterans would be called on to defend this country against, not its own citizens.
So that is my take on that controversy, for what it is worth.
What about you, America, what is yours?
end quotes
Why didn’t you stay on topic, Charles Taylor, and respond to that question?
Is it because you wanted to hi-jack the thread and make it about you, as opposed to the meaning of the words of the Star Spangled Banner, which is what this thread is about?
As to who made me the stereotypical model of American allegiance, on further reflection, I would have to say it was our dear friend and colleague in here, the honorable Chas Cornweller, who said in another thread in here that, “Yes we get it, Paul, you are a patriot.”
For your information and edification, Charles Taylor, the Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary defines “patriot” as follows:
One who loves his (her) country and zealously guards it welfare; especially a defender of popular liberty.
end quotes
So yes, Charles Taylor, according to that definition, I am indeed a patriot, and I am not ashamed of being so.
As to “patriotism,” the Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary defines it as “devotion to one’s country.”
So, are we all “patriots” in this country then, Charles Taylor?
What say you on that subject?
Paul Plante says
Charles, so good to see you back in the conversation, and no, I do not have the answers and viewpoints to which all should adhere.
To the contrary, what I do have are my own answers and viewpoints to which I adhere.
And who made me the stereotypical model of American allegiance?
Why, that would be the people in my community who know me and respect me for my service to the people of that community.
How about you?
Who made you the stereotypical model of American allegiance?
But enough of that autobiographical trivia.
Above here, Charles Taylor, @ October 16, 2017 at 11:20 am, you said as follows, if you can recall it:
Sorry that the form of protest does not suit your neat sense of how and when it should occur, and that it is does not articulate anything you can get your “hands” around.
You do the digging to understand; that‘s not my job or intent to inform you.
Since it has peaked your interest, you can delve further into the message it is intended to send.
If it makes you uncomfortable, then maybe its purpose is being served.
end quotes
And you know what, Charles Taylor, that being such good advice, especially coming from you, who are the stereotypical model of American allegiance, I followed it, and what I found was that, not surprisingly, the National Football League and its players who “take the knee” want to coddle criminals in this country, which is what this “taking of the knee” crap is really all about.
Until criminals in this country get better treatment, these football players are going to continue their “protest” of how unfair criminals in this country are treated.
How do I know that?
It would be from an ASSOCIATED PRESS article entitled “Goodell, union, players to meet on social issues and anthem” by BARRY WILNER, AP Pro Football Writer, 16 OCTOBER 2016, where we were informed as follows:
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, owners of each team, representatives of the players’ union and players themselves will meet Tuesday to discuss ways to “move from protest to progress.”
Among the topics will be enhancing their platforms for speaking out on social issues, and the league’s policy that suggests but does not mandate players standing for the national anthem.
“We are proud to be able to work with our players to highlight these issues to really put focus on the issues and how the game and the NFL and our players bring communities together when we are divided,” NFL spokesman Joe Lockhart said.
The league also will be supporting a bipartisan legislative bill in Congress that seeks reforms and targets enhanced mandatory minimums for prior drug felons; increases judicial discretion for sentencing; and reforms enhanced mandatory minimums and sentences.
“We felt that this was an issue over the last months as we have continued to work with our players on issues of equality and on issues of criminal justice reform that was surfaced for us,” Lockhart said.
“And we thought it was appropriate to lend our support to it.”
end quotes
Not surprisingly, the National Football League, which itself promotes violence, is more concerned for the well-being of the violent drug gangs that are terrorizing our communities than they are for the victims of those violent drug gangs.
So now, thanks to you, Charles Taylor, I do have a much better handle on what these football protests are really all about, which is protecting criminals from the law.
That really is a very important social issue, isn’t it, Charles Taylor, protecting criminals from the law, as opposed to protecting their victims from the criminals.
So thanks for opening my eyes here, Charles Taylor, as to where yourself stand on the issue.
The candid world is pleased to know.
And yes, the National Football League coddling criminals does make me uncomfortable, but since I don’t watch the game and don’t have a season ticket, I am sure they don’t really give a damn, so there we are, Charles Taylor, there we are.
John Ricks says
You don’t have to remind me to not vote for this Sheep. What an ignoramus, lots of curse words and no substance from the angry idiot.
Paul Plante says
John Ricks, dude, you want to know why I wouldn’t run for public office?
The simple answer is that I would not want to be saddled with a fool like you for a constituent, nor would I want Charles Taylor for one, either.
Paul Plante says
John Ricks, I seriously doubt that you would know “substance” if it rose up and bit you right on your ***, you being the whacked-out dude who posted this lame crap @ John Ricks October 10, 2017 at 2:18 am:
If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket.
Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.
end quote
Where, John Ricks, is there any substance in that ignorant pile of horse poop, other than in your own warped and twisted mind which resides in unassailable benighted ignorance?
Who is it that you see convincing the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man so he won’t notice his pocket being picked?
Where is that happening, outside of a fever dream in your fevered mind?
And dude, seriously here, you really have got to get yourself a much better team of scriptwriters than the losers you have writing your stuff now, because the stuff they have you posting is drivel, at best, and ignorant drivel, at that.
Take this “sheep” comment of yours, for example.
A sheep is an animal that goes BAAAAAA, and goes where the dude with the crooked stick and his dogs and the Judas goat want them to go.
Sheep don’t think, John Ricks, they follow.
It is also a reference to people in this country who are incapable of thinking, and simply do as they are told and go along to get along.
The fact that I am in here, standing on my own two feet in the face of a veritable storm of pure bull**** and gross ignorance such as your comment above, and speaking my own mind is a sure indication that I am anything but a sheep, or sheeple as they are called.
And John Ricks, I don’t know if you have clued into this fact yet, but posting in here is just like being on national TV.
Did you know that?
You and I are speaking to the world in here, because this is on the internet, and the internet is global.
So people all over the world are watching this conversation happen as it happens, and they are learning much about America and its people from these exchanges between us.
What they are learning from you is just how mired in abject ignorance from a different century the sorry people of this once great nation really are.
What they are learning from me is how much I object to being consigned to a third world nation where people are so ignorant, but am unable to do anything about it, because that ignorance is not so firmly entrenched and pervasive.
Between us, what we are writing is called contemporary American history, which is that written by the people living in that same time, as opposed to someone in the future looking backwards.
So in that sense, John Ricks, the candid world owes you a debt of gratitude for shining a great big spotlight on how ignorant a people the people of America have become since our founding as we, with our “democracy,” devolve into anarchy, lawlessness and chaos, and I thought you would like to know that, as it will probably puff you up with pride and make your day for you.