(02-10-2021, 11:35 AM)RDB Wrote: [ -> ]The Star-Spangled Banner made it’s debut in September 1918, during that year’s first World Series game between the Chicago Cubs and Boston Red Sox.
In addition to the ongoing toll of World War I, a cloud of violence hung over Chicago’s Comiskey Park, as a bomb had torn apart the Chicago Federal Building just the day before. During the seventh-inning stretch, the military band on hand struck up “The Star-Spangled Banner,” and in a moving spectacle, players and fans alike fell silent and saluted the flag.
The practice soon spread across major league baseball, and into other sports, and eventually became a widely accepted pregame tradition.
Thanks for sharing this.
VERY similar to the history of flags in churches. WWI and WWII usually precipitated the placement of flags in church sanctuaries.
In my particular German-American heritage it happened because of persecution from Americans toward German-Americans during that time. Our churches stopped praying in German and moved to English and also put up American flags in sanctuaries as a way to say "we aren't Nazis!"
The irony though was that Nazi flags were also put in so many (all?) churches during those times in Germany, leading to an incredible toxic relationship between church and state (where the church went along with state atrocities). As a little old Austrian lady in one of my previous churches said to me, "I am so glad you refuse to put an American flag in our church, when I was a little girl we had a Nazi flag in our church and I saw the corruption that came from the church surrendering its identity in the Kingdom God to the state."
The pledge of allegiance is also really interesting and its own connections and overlaps to how Nazis used it.
Check out these American kids in 1915, look familiar?
![[Image: 1920px-Bellamy_salute_1915.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/Bellamy_salute_1915.jpg/1920px-Bellamy_salute_1915.jpg)
(02-10-2021, 11:59 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]VERY similar to the history of flags in churches. WWI and WWII usually precipitated the placement of flags in church sanctuaries.
In my particular German-American heritage it happened because of persecution from Americans toward German-Americans during that time. Our churches stopped praying in German and moved to English and also put up American flags in sanctuaries as a way to say "we aren't Nazis!"
The irony though was that Nazi flags were also put in so many (all?) churches during those times in Germany, leading to an incredible toxic relationship between church and state (where the church went along with state atrocities). As a little old Austrian lady in one of my previous churches said to me, "I am so glad you refuse to put an American flag in our church, when I was a little girl we had a Nazi flag in our church and I saw the corruption that came from the church surrendering its identity in the Kingdom God to the state."
The pledge of allegiance is also really interesting and its own connections and overlaps to how Nazis used it.
Check out these American kids in 1915, look familiar?
I think this makes a ton of sense, though I doubt many are ready to turn on the lights and really look at these things.
Random question: is your heritage at all linked to the Amish?
National Anthems are dumb
(02-10-2021, 12:03 PM)dynamicalVoid Wrote: [ -> ]National Anthems are dumb
At some point in the future, I hope we look back at the imaginary dividing lines between countries as dumb, even. But that's just me.
(02-10-2021, 11:54 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, I'm not saying it's going to be successful, and I don't KNOW that's what he's trying to accomplish, it's just what makes the most sense to me when I put myself in his shoes.
I'd guess that what he's TRYING to do is to remove the inevitable moment when his players will take a knee in front of very conservative Texas fans. The only possible outcome of this moment is fans booing their own players. Whatever you think about the politics, one side or the other, as the Mavericks' owner, I think I can imagine how he might want to avoid that, if possible.
Just to be clear, I didn't write what you quoted in your above post. Sleeping Hero wrote that.
(02-10-2021, 12:03 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Random question: is your heritage at all linked to the Amish?
Not as far as I can see. The most immediate history is Lutheran and as far back as I can see in our genealogies and history we have been Lutheran for centuries (maybe back to the 1500s).
P.S. Though it should be noted that I am 1/32 European Jew as well according to genetics (though I do not know the story of where that came in and if that relative was a practicing Rabbinic Jew or not).
@"mtrot" Yeah...I'm pretty sure I quoted SH. I KNOW I meant to. Very weird, sorry.
(02-10-2021, 12:05 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]imaginary dividing lines between countries as dumb
It is incredible the amount of imaginary, made-up things we believe in. Borders, money, nations, races, etc.
(02-10-2021, 10:34 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]THIS.
It is actually crazy to me that we think it appropriate or normal and not totally bizarre to play the national anthem at a random sporting event that does NOT actually represent the country or nation.
BUT on another level, it is not bizarre because it was revealed by Jeff Flake and John McCain that the Department of Defense has been in bed with sports leagues in what is termed "paid patriotism." The military sees sporting events as a way to get its "message" and "mission" into the hearts of everyday Americans.
Astute observation Kamm. History here going back to WWI and WWII shines some light here.
Historically this all can be understood when you research the history of
propaganda. Introducing the song at sporting events and the move to remove it are both forms of propaganda movements.
Quote:"paid patriotism." The military sees sporting events as a way to get its "message" and "mission" into the hearts of everyday Americans.
Propaganda is defined as
Quote:- The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.n. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause.n. Systematic effort to propagate or win support for a theory or method of action.
Propaganda is historically used to shape and selectively manipulate the views of groups of people and is very well documented to be effective in
controlling the views and behavior of entire countries.
During WAR or similar threats of national violence, the cooperation of the Military and Media including what we think of as "Entertainment", propaganda has a long history.
Introduction of the National Anthem in sporting events
Quote:but just how did the Star-Spangled Banner come to be a staple of sports in the first place? The answer, it turns out, has to do with World War I.
Baseball fans in the late 19th century might’ve heard live military bands play the Star-Spangled Banner at a game every so often, but the song—which hadn’t yet been designated as the national anthem—wasn’t really a common occurrence at sporting events. That began to change on September 5, 1918, during Game 1 of the World Series between the Boston Red Sox and the Chicago Cubs.
American Propaganda returned with force in World War II
Quote:The United States government was not into the idea of propaganda at first. This was due in part to their propaganda efforts during World War I, which left a bad taste in the American public’s mouth. The U.S. adopted the “strategy of truth,” where they would release information, but not try and sway the public’s opinion regarding the war.
It would take businesses and media pressuring the United States government into putting out campaigns, for it to actually happen. Even so, the government still viewed it as them simply giving out information, as opposed to propaganda.
...
The United States had propaganda in just about every aspect of media you could imagine, except for television. Though televisions have existed since the 1920s, they weren’t commonplace in households until the 1950s. Media types used included radio, posters, leaflets, comic books, books, movies, magazines, and newspapers.
I see the American population today
almost at the point of being as completely propagandized as any country in the world where public perception is controlled and manipulated. Cuban and the Mavs are simply part of the system.
Quote:Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts in order to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language in order to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.
(02-10-2021, 12:17 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]Propaganda
No question, I almost used the word but I didn't want folks to think I was "picking sides."
Another element of "why" the military chooses sporting events is because of the demographic of the audience. Young males and in some cases an over-representation of males of color and in poverty. In my incredibly poor neighborhood I have seen the military recruiters purposely target males of color and in poverty as a "way out." The Army, Navy, and Air Force for instance have a higher representation of young men of color than society at large.
Propoganda is a great example of how words' meanings change over time. That word has a pejorative meaning nowadays that I don't believe was intended when it was invented. Propaganda is simply a promotional tool designed to evoke feelings from the masses that can be harnessed to predetermined ends. Whether or not it's amoral is case by case and subjective. It's associated almost exclusively with the Nazis for some reason, but every country has done this for every war, election, etc, including ours. Every meme you see on the internet is propaganda, from both sides of the isle.
It's not a dirty word, or at least it shouldn't be. I'd say the national anthem absolutely has some overlap with the meaning of the word propaganda.
(02-10-2021, 12:25 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]No question, I almost used the word but I didn't want folks to think I was "picking sides."
When you think about it though, if you present facts, those facts ultimately may favor one side or the other of an argument right? Facts may be neutral but the sides are not so selective presentation of facts while
filtering out other facts is taking sides.
So if you can't make a point without being attacked for taking sides, then a side is already taken, and that is the effect of propaganda. Eventually only one point of view is acceptable discussion in the propagandized public.
The 1st amendment was part of the solution to counteract this.
Mark Cuban is simply doubling down on the NBA's commitment to the woke ideological movement.
The National Anthem doesn't really fit well in that ideology.
(02-10-2021, 12:17 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]I see the American population today almost at the point of being as completely propagandized as any country in the world where public perception is controlled and manipulated. Cuban and the Mavs are simply part of the system.
Totally. And here's the thing: I'm not sure this has the nefarious intent or repercussions that older generations perceive.
It's very similar to religion, in my opinion. Regardless of what you believe, I'm sure that on some level, 100% can find common ground on the basis that it's better to live in the world if most of us have some sort of consistent approach to how we treat each other. Religion helps greatly to get us all closer to agreement on "right and wrong," so it's an important thing in our society, even today.
As far as the current political schisms in our country go, someone from the older generation might feel like the axioms on which their lives have been based are being threatened, while a younger person might view the questioning of any/all of those things as extremely healthy and not irreverent in the least. The reality, IN MY OPINION, is that how either of them feel about these things is secondary to the necessities that are growing everyday.
Example: Capitalism might be superior to every other way of approaching the building of a culture. You can think that, and you might even be right (if there is such a thing as right or wrong in that discussion). That doesn't change the fact that the WORLD'S resources are staring to run out, and sooner or later (sooner) the entire rest of the globe is going to decide they don't want us to have ALL that's left. Socialism IS coming, for every man, woman and child on this planet, whether it is ideal or not. To fight against that is like trying to walk in the rain without getting wet. I have absolutely no issues with the best among us (hopefully, some of them still work in government) trying to prepare us all for this evolution.
"The Mavericks have chosen not to play the anthem in the past. As the New York Times pointed out, the team, then owned by Donald Carter, played “God Bless America” before games for the club’s first 16 years. The team switched to “The Star-Spangled Banner” in 1996 when Ross Perot Jr. became owner, four years before Cuban took over." WaPo
I didn't realize that even going to some of the games.
(02-10-2021, 12:47 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Totally. And here's the thing: I'm not sure this has the nefarious intent or repercussions that older generations perceive.
It's very similar to religion, in my opinion. Regardless of what you believe, I'm sure that on some level, 100% can find common ground on the basis that it's better to live in the world if most of us have some sort of consistent approach to how we treat each other. Religion helps greatly to get us all closer to agreement on "right and wrong," so it's an important thing in our society, even today.
As far as the current political schisms in our country go, someone from the older generation might feel like the axioms on which their lives have been based are being threatened, while a younger person might view the questioning of any/all of those things as extremely healthy and not irreverent in the least. The reality, IN MY OPINION, is that how either of them feel about these things is secondary to the necessities that are growing everyday.
Example: Capitalism might be superior to every other way of approaching the building of a culture. You can think that, and you might even be right (if there is such a thing as right or wrong in that discussion). That doesn't change the fact that the WORLD'S resources are staring to run out, and sooner or later (sooner) the entire rest of the globe is going to decide they don't want us to have ALL that's left. Socialism IS coming, for every man, woman and child on this planet, whether it is ideal or not. To fight against that is like trying to walk in the rain without getting wet. I have absolutely no issues with the best among us (hopefully, some of them still work in government) trying to prepare us all for this evolution.
I'm interested in which resources your think we're running out of, and how you think socialism addresses this problem. History has shown the exact opposite to be true. Every time a resource is said to be running out we either find more through innovation (oil, food), find substitutes (natural gas, solar, hydrogen), or increase efficiency, again through innovation. The biggest problem with socialism is that it doesn't promote innovation, so it exacerbates those issues, it doesn't fix them.
(02-10-2021, 12:42 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]Mark Cuban is simply doubling down on the NBA's commitment to the woke ideological movement.
I fundamentally disagree. I think he is making a business decision:
1) He knows the international community is the ultimate future cash cow for the NBA.
2) He knows that he can avoid future scandal around the national anthem by biting the bullet now (and getting some flack) and in the process eliminating a context for future scandal.
Follow the money. This is a long term angle and investment based on his read of markets, etc.
(02-10-2021, 12:42 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]When you think about it though, if you present facts, those facts ultimately may favor one side or the other of an argument right? Facts may be neutral but the sides are not so selective presentation of facts while filtering out other facts is taking sides.
So if you can't make a point without being attacked for taking sides, then a side is already taken, and that is the effect of propaganda. Eventually only one point of view is acceptable discussion in the propagandized public.
The 1st amendment was part of the solution to counteract this.
Mark Cuban is simply doubling down on the NBA's commitment to the woke ideological movement.
The National Anthem doesn't really fit well in that ideology.
Well, with the widespread "cancellations" of unapproved opinions being conducted in social media, aren't we already pretty much at that point? Only one set of opinions seems to be acceptable.
(02-10-2021, 12:59 PM)Kidnova Wrote: [ -> ]History has shown the exact opposite to be true. Every time a resource is said to be running out we either find more through innovation (oil, food), find substitutes (natural gas, solar, hydrogen), or increase efficiency, again through innovation. The biggest problem with socialism is that it doesn't promote innovation, so it exacerbates those issues, it doesn't fix them.
It's true that capitalism leads to innovation, especially from the best of us. No argument there, and I'm not anti-capitalist. Far from it. I love this country's history, even the shameful parts of it, and I'm proud to be an American.
But, if you pay attention when you're out and about today, you'll see very quickly that the best of us aren't multiplying at nearly the rate as the average, and that's a view on a country where certain levels of education and privilege are still easily attainable. The average people drink water, eat food and live on land. The best of us are currently trying to figure out who will own all of the drinkable water on the planet in 50 years, while the average are trying to figure who we can get for Kristaps Porzingis on the trade market. At SOME point, the conclusion of this will be that the only way to "win" is to murder people from different places. I don't mean that hyperbolically at all.
I didn't mean to stop the discussion down with this, sorry. We should probably keep it to the anthem. My point is that sometimes we focus on the details of change rather than the big picture.
(02-10-2021, 01:01 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]I fundamentally disagree. I think he is making a business decision:
1) He knows the international community is the ultimate future cash cow for the NBA.
2) He knows that he can avoid future scandal around the national anthem by biting the bullet now (and getting some flack) and in the process eliminating a context for future scandal.
Follow the money. This is a long term angle and investment based on his read of markets, etc.
Absolutely.
(02-10-2021, 12:59 PM)Kidnova Wrote: [ -> ]I'm interested in which resources your think we're running out of
![[Image: tenor.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/images/dfd064f89f371996286abf3fca33c3cf/tenor.gif)
There is a reason that guys like Jeff Bezos (with Blue Origin) and Elon Musk (with SpaceX) have stated that the single most important human mission is to find resources off the planet.
I really do not understand how folks think the soon to be 8,000,000,000 people on this planet can be sustained at current consumption levels for decades to come.