Eagles Requesting Campus Changes

[Htown77]

that black folks have nothing to complain about.

No one is saying that. We are saying that not all complaints from people are valid, whether those people be white, black, privileged student athletes or otherwise. You are saying that all or nearly all complaints from black people are valid regardless of the merit of such complaints.

 

[AustinHorn24]

No one is saying that. We are saying that not all complaints from people are valid, whether those people be white, black, privileged student athletes or otherwise. You are saying that all or nearly all complaints from black people are valid regardless of the merit of such complaints.

No way. I never said that all the complaints are valid. I specifically disagree that the Eyes of Texas is a racist song, and I don't think UT should ban it, regardless of what the players say.

What I did say is that if UT doesn't at least listen to them and find some kind of compromise, that it will be the end of UT athletics, period.

 

[AustinHorn24]

BTW, for the idiots on this forum who say that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, please explain to me the absurd coincidence that the end of slavery in Texas just happened to coincide at the end of the Civil War?

Are you seriously going to sit there and tell us that it was pure coincidence?

 

[Htown77]

Why do we today think the civil war was over slavery and slavery alone? A variety of reasons:

1. The abolitionists did feel this way. I do not deny there were rich slave holders in the south that did care mostly about what they viewed to be their property. However, neither the pro or anti slavery extremists were the majority.. no more than pro life or pro choice extremists are the majority in the US in 2020.

2. The North won and wrote the history. Due to the north's pilgrim roots and misguided belief in american exceptionalism and the "shining city on the hill" and beacon of freedom, etc., they needed to be painted as the good guys and the south as evil. See, even @Mr. Deez admits in abstract the South had the democratic right to secede. If the North was remembered as denying democratic freedom in the South, the North and therefore, the U.S., would be seen as anti-democratic. However, if the south was a bunch of evil slaveholders and only wanted to be independent due to the slavery and states rights only meant slavery... well then the north was justified invading and taking away the freedom of another democracy.

3. History has been simplified and our eduction dumbed down. Nowadays our education system has decided it would take too long to actually teach the many nuances of the civil war and American in history in general. It is easier to say "the Civil War was slavery. The north was good and south bad." Now, this dumbing down is driving people to go "oh, all these southerners were just evil white supremacists unworthy of praise and they should be removed."

 

[Htown77]

BTW, for the idiots on this forum who say that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, please explain to me the absurd coincidence that the end of slavery in Texas just happened to coincide at the end of the Civil War?
Are you seriously going to sit there and tell us that it was pure coincidence?

No one said it had nothing to do with slavery.

No one denied that the end of slavery was a result of the civil war. However, it was not what they were originally fighting about (right to secession vs. indivisible Union and north v. south power struggle).

WW1 was caused by the the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand and resulted in the Treaty of Versailles. However, it was not fought over the Treaty of Versailles.

WW2 was caused by the German invasion of Poland and originally fought over protecting Poland's independece. However, it resulted in the United Nations, the overthrow of the evil, tyrannical governments in Germany, Italy and Japan and the division of Germany into two states... and, ironically, Poland still lost its independence. Poland's master became Russia instead of Germany.

The end of slavery was certainly the result of the civil war, but was not the initial, single cause. The emancipation proclamation was not on the table until 1863 and the 13th amendment until well after that. What were they fighting over from 1861-1862? Whether or not states had the right to secede i.e. states rights.

 

[Htown77]

I love have history debates and discussions more than the next guy. However, WHAT THE F DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE EYES OF TEXAS OR 90% OF THE RIDICULOUS DEMANDS OF THE PLAYERS OR AN AFRICAN AMERICAN GETTING MURDERED BY A COP ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COUNTRY?

Even if I accept everything @TEXAS1983 says to be true about the civil war, it does not mean that the Eyes of Texas is racist or that most of the players' demands are reasonable. They logically do not have anything to do with the civil war for the most part.

What I and a lot of Americans are sick of are people taking a bad cop murdering someone in another part of the country and using it as an accuse to attack a bunch of unrelated things other the boldfaced lie of "fighting racism".

 

[IvanDiabloHorn]

The 1860 Charleston, South Carolina census is a good read.
83,
Expansion was to maintain balance(see first presidential veto).

The good folks of Ohio, Illinois , Rhode Island ratified the Corwin Amendment and then invaded the south over slavery?

Saying it was never ratified is a false argument.

The Corwin Amendment would have been ratified had the South wanted to go that route. In either case slavery was not the issue.
The Southern states joined voluntarily and could leave voluntarily.
The issue could have been decided by SCOTUS, but Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and invaded the south.

The south was being forced to pay the lions share of the federal debt and saw the untenable situation of losing a balance of power in congress.
The south did want to end up once again as colonies.

This was an Economic war.

Slavery was never going to survive the industrial revolution.

 

[IvanDiabloHorn]

Agree with Htown77, none of this has to do with op.

 

[2003TexasGrad]

I'm not the one saying that affirmative action is the only form of racism in America, or that "I don't see race" or that black folks have nothing to complain about.

That's you guys, not me.

Learn how to read. I said affirmative action is literally legal institutional racism. Show me another legal entity where discrimination based on race is legal, in particular against people of color.

I'll go file a lawsuit against that entity on Monday with you.

 

[Horns11]

Texas is probably one of the most liberal and non-racist universities out there.

You wouldn't realize that from reading this board. We have people on this thread ranging from "middle of the road" to "I'm going to go put on my grays for the reenactment of the War of Northern Aggression." The same types who complain that we're turning into Cal Berkeley, yet have had the benefit of the early-20th century "revisionist" version of the university needing to be friendly with secessionists and rebels. The issue isn't the revisionists today... who actually use primary sources for their arguments. The issue WAS the revisionists of the 1910s-1940s who found it necessary to eliminate all Republican attempts to ensure equality and prop up a system of denigration (and, to a lesser extent, intimidation when blacks were finally allowed to attend UT).

Corwin Amendment pretty much guaranteed Texas could keep slaves without seceding.

The Corwin Amendment, which never had a chance, was a last ditch attempt to prevent secession. Once SC got the ball rolling, there was no need for it.

No one denied that the end of slavery was a result of the civil war. However, it was not what they were originally fighting about (right to secession vs. indivisible Union and north v. south power struggle).

Deez is cool with "right to secession" because of the wording in the Constitution itself, but that power struggle was definitely because of the slavery issue. Jackson pretty much stamped out the idea of nullification and it created a generation of "take my ball and go home" rich people from the South, who definitely got the poor whites on their side. Not because they aspired to own slaves necessarily, but because they were worried what would happen to their power if freed blacks suddenly got rights.

Royal himself admitted that he was slow to accept reality that Texas needed to integrate it's football team in order to compete.

On this board, you'll chalk that up to "capitulation." Just like Brees and everyone else who changes or corrects attitudes over time.

Maybe if you started seeing them as equals, there would be fewer problems in the world.

Ahh yes the "YOU'RE the real racist!" comeback whenever someone points out systemic inequalities. Double edged sword. By getting Democrats/liberals to admit that they see other races as inferior, they can still hide behind the same policies that continue the systemic inequality, and then blame libs for it whenever they disagree.

If the South was just concerned about slavery, the South would have accepted the Cowrin Amendment.

Nope, they agreed with Deez and saw their "out" without needing to ratify anything. The Corwin Amendment was aimed at the northern states who wanted to compromise. Speaking of...

If the south was obsessed with the expansion of slavery, they never would have agreed to the Missouri compromise in a million years.

They didn't agree to it. They hated it. Henry Clay shoved it down their throats as a border-esque statesman who had aspirations for higher power. The South was friggin THRILLED with the Compromise of 1850 and the Dred Scot decision, which rendered the Missouri Compromise toothless. And they're direct contributors to why abolitionists, free soilers, Republicans, Whigs, and whoever wanted to rein the South back in and get them to agree to what Clay and others had been proposing for at least 40+ years when the war broke out.

3. History has been simplified and our eduction dumbed down. Nowadays our education system has decided it would take too long to actually teach the many nuances of the civil war and American in history in general.

Please. Every South-leaning textbook that kids have had to endure from Pearson and HMH and all of their publishing predecessors show that the nuance was WAY in the opposite direction, particularly in southern states from that era I mentioned earlier. The Lost Cause narrative, which has been debunked thousands of times over by modern historians, is still being espoused by state boards of education run by conservatives. And it sure seems that many on this board still apply it to their understanding of that era. The "nuance" was fake and added with one reason in mind: maintaining power over a group of people who, rightfully and lawfully, should have been increasing in their own political authority and autonomy during that time period.

 

[TEXAS1983]

Please be careful telling me or anyone else what it is we believe.

Of course regional conflict had been rife since the beginning of the country. Slavery was not entirely limited to the south, nor to white slave owners. Northern interests made fortunes from slavery too. And yes, the basic argument was and is political power.

That being said, political power was also tied directly to economic interest, which was growing more tied to slavery in the south and more tied to the industrial revolution in the north. Further, abolitionists were growing louder and more politically powerful in the north.

That was the tipping point: a north less vitally interested in profiting from slavery, and a political party dominated by slavery critics coming to power. The seceding States enumerated those irreconcilable political grievances themselves, and they mostly had to with these state's desire to "make their own mistakes" with regard to owning other human beings, and expanding the reach of that ability in perpetuity in order to maintain a political balance. A balance that was first struck in the rather shaky construct that some people only counted as 3/5ths of a person.

Texas didn't list grievances over slavery just to fill out the form correctly, they listed them because those were the political disputes that most mattered to them. If you are choosing a reason to argue States can just up and leave, that's a really bad reason to pick. But state after state picked that same reason.

Hook'em!

 

[Htown77]

The "nuance" was fake and added with one reason in mind: maintaining power over a group of people who, rightfully and lawfully, should have been increasing in their own political authority and autonomy during that time period.

And yet, many Tejanos and South Texas Germans who lived in a nearly slaveless region of the South, did not have any interest in keeping african americans down as there were barely any in the region in 1860. These groups were actually economically HURT by having to compete with slavery.

You cannot truthfully say that the germans or hispanics in Texas who sided with the South were fighting to maintain control over and keep down a group of people they did not own or generally deal with. So why did south texas hispanics and germans join the confederate army? What were they fighting for?

We have not even discussed the Native American tribes in oklahoma that sided with the south. Throughout the civil war, the North continued to march westward and slaughter Native American tribes.

Also, the South hated the Missouri Compromise, but they did not secede when the expansion of slavery was effectively dead prior to the Mexican-American war and killed by the Missouri Compromise. I doubt they would secede over it later if they did not do so then.

However, yet again, this has nothing to do with the Eyes of Texas.

 

[Htown77]

You wouldn't realize that from reading this board. We have people on this thread ranging from "middle of the road" to "I'm going to go put on my grays for the reenactment of the War of Northern Aggression." The same types who complain that we're turning into Cal Berkeley, yet have had the benefit of the early-20th century "revisionist" version of the university needing to be friendly with secessionists and rebels. The issue isn't the revisionists today... who actually use primary sources for their arguments. The issue WAS the revisionists of the 1910s-1940s who found it necessary to eliminate all Republican attempts to ensure equality and prop up a system of denigration (and, to a lesser extent, intimidation when blacks were finally allowed to attend UT).

And yet, most importantly of all, different beliefs over a war 150 years ago, states, flags, school songs, etc. are not denying anyone's civil rights, keeping anyone down, taking anyone's freedom away or preventing anyone from having equal citizenship or opportunity in this country.

 

[theiioftx]

I'm not the one saying that affirmative action is the only form of racism in America, or that "I don't see race" or that black folks have nothing to complain about.

That's you guys, not me.

Feel free to find one post I have which states any of your emotional triggers. Black people have plenty to complain about as do white, Hispanic, Asian and Native Americans. Calling the University’s alma mater racist because how someone sang it over 100 years ago should not be one of those problems.

 

[Horns11]

And yet, most importantly of all, different beliefs over a war 150 years ago, states, flags, school songs, etc. are not denying anyone's civil rights, keeping anyone down, taking anyone's freedom away or preventing anyone from having equal citizenship or opportunity in this country.

Legally, you're correct.

But there's something bigger afoot now. Especially with regard to your "keeping anyone down" and equal opportunity statements. If the university doesn't want to take "feelings" into account, as has basically been the argument for 137 years, then we just keep on keepin' on and things like this aren't going to stop being issues.

 

[mchammer]

Posted elsewhere:

Our minister focused on the riots today. Great sermon. As long as a white person is automatically a racist there is nothing he can address. He was at a summer school in California in 70s and was asked repeatedly to finish sentences Black people are... Red people are... White people are....

He kept answering “People”.

He says we are back to that sentence.

 

[Horns11]

And yet, many Tejanos and South Texas Germans who lived in a nearly slaveless region of the South, did not have any interest in keeping african americans down as there were barely any in the region in 1860. These groups were actually economically HURT by having to compete with slavery.

You cannot truthfully say that the germans or hispanics in Texas who sided with the South were fighting to maintain control over and keep down a group of people they did not own or generally deal with. So why did south texas hispanics and germans join the confederate army? What were they fighting for?

I mean... you tell me? I wasn't necessarily limiting my account of "keeping black people down" to just the state, but there were a quarter million blacks in Texas in 1860 and maybe 50K Germans. I think I made my response pretty clear in the other post. If you think that Hispanics and Germans were fighting in heroic defense of their homeland from invasive elements, then you're allowed to believe that, but the Texas Declaration of Causes from 1861 makes no mention of either group, and indeed blames the Feds for NOT killing more Native Americans.

 

[OrangeShogun]

Legally, you're correct.

But there's something bigger afoot now. Especially with regard to your "keeping anyone down" and equal opportunity statements. If the university doesn't want to take "feelings" into account, as has basically been the argument for 137 years, then we just keep on keepin' on and things like this aren't going to stop being issues.

So you're saying that despite having equal opportunity under the law, black folks don't feel like they do, and it's the rest of the country's responsibility to do whatever they demand to help them feel better? I've asked this question previously and will do so again. What concrete, definable actions can anyone possibly take to completely expunge these feelings of inequality from the minds of every black American? Since there is no answer, you're right, a segment of the black community will just keep on keepin' on pissing and moaning about systemic racism. Meanwhile the rest of us (including many black Americans) will stay busy building a great life for ourselves and our families.

 

[ut1969]

A pretty good article written by a Berkeley professor.

Anonymous Berkeley Professor Shreds BLM Injustice Narrative With Damning Facts And Logic

 

[AustinHorn24]

Let me tell you a story of 2 murderers.
Both were high on drugs.
Both were caught in the act of murdering people.
Both were literally tearing at the victims with their teeth.
One murderer was shot within 10 seconds after the police rolled up on the scene.
The other murderer, while tearing at the victim's throat with his mouth, was not shot at all.
He was not shot when police ordered him to stop attacking the victim.
He was not shot when police tasered him 3 times which had no effect.
He was not shot after the police repeatedly kicked him in the head 5 times to get him off the victim.

I'll let you take a wild guess on which perpetrator was black and which one was white.

 

[AustinHorn24]

So you're saying that despite having equal opportunity under the law, black folks don't feel like they do, and it's the rest of the country's responsibility to do whatever they demand to help them feel better?

No, it's the country's responsibility to fullfill the promise it gives under the Constitution.

Surely you're not going to sit there and tell us that racism is not a problem and it's just a bunch of whiners who are making **** up.

This isn't a question of making people feel better, it's an issue of TREATING them better.

 

[IvanDiabloHorn]

“...police repeatedly kicked him in the head 5 times...”. I guess his white privilege didn’t help him in that situation.

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

Let me tell you a story of 2 murderers.
Both were high on drugs.
Both were caught in the act of murdering people.
Both were literally tearing at the victims with their teeth.
One murderer was shot within 10 seconds after the police rolled up on the scene.
The other murderer, while tearing at the victim's throat with his mouth, was not shot at all.
He was not shot when police ordered him to stop attacking the victim.
He was not shot when police tasered him 3 times which had no effect.
He was not shot after the police repeatedly kicked him in the head 5 times to get him off the victim.

I'll let you take a wild guess on which perpetrator was black and which one was white.

Were both crimes in the same city with the same officers at the scene? Or are you pulling two random crimes and lumping them together?

 

[Htown77]

then we just keep on keepin' on and things like this aren't going to stop being issues.

Actually from 1980ish to some time in the 2010s, these things were not issues. In truth, the vast majority of all people of all races did not care. The vast majority of all races do not care about statues, or history, etc. They care about Keeping up with the Kardashians, Game of Thrones, music, etc. One day, at random, small groups people (not necessarily african american) decided they became outraged at everything and have been using unrelated events, like George Floyd, to attack random statues and building names. For some bizarre reason, it was decided that the key to fix racism was to google the history of names, places and things and find out if they might be offensive or not, then get mad at them, despite previously not caring.

Amazingly, since the anti-confederate memorial moment picked up steam 5 years ago, race relations in this country are actually worse.... it's almost as if the existence of these monuments or building names or traditions has nothing to do with with racial unity or equality or happiness in this country.

Political correctness has led to more bitter division in than any other time since 1865.

 

[Horns11]

A pretty good article written by a Berkeley professor.

Anonymous Berkeley Professor Shreds BLM Injustice Narrative With Damning Facts And Logic

1. Infowars
2. There is no black history professor at Berkeley that would have penned this. There are two black history professors currently on staff, and both of them are left-leaning women who focus more on how history hasn't included enough stories of BIPOC. It could have been a black professor from another department, but that's not what the vetted nature of the intro states.
3. It's full of the same racist tropes that we've seen on every other anti-apologist op-ed over the past couple weeks: "what about black-on-black crime?" and "George Floyd was a sonofabitch who doesn't deserve this outpouring" and "Jews that survived the Holocaust and Japanese who survived internment seem to be doing well" among them.

 

[Htown77]

No, it's the country's responsibility to fullfill the promise it gives under the Constitution.

The Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law (well, not really, as all laws discriminate against someone in some way. I mean punishing murder is discriminatory against murderers), but does not ban racism, hate or anyone's feelings, philosophies no matter how good or bad they may be... it's called freedom.

 

[Htown77]

Shooting of Daniel Shaver - Wikipedia



What color was this guy?

We need police reform in this country. Bad cops should not have a badge. However, let's not pretend like this issue only affects one group of people.

 

[Horns11]

So you're saying that despite having equal opportunity under the law, black folks don't feel like they do, and it's the rest of the country's responsibility to do whatever they demand to help them feel better? I've asked this question previously and will do so again. What concrete, definable actions can anyone possibly take to completely expunge these feelings of inequality from the minds of every black American? Since there is no answer, you're right, a segment of the black community will just keep on keepin' on pissing and moaning about systemic racism. Meanwhile the rest of us (including many black Americans) will stay busy building a great life for ourselves and our families.

Man, it's all-or-nothing, huh? If you've ever competed in policy debate, my guess is that all of your arguments ended with nuclear annihilation.

I don't think the "whatever they demand" is necessarily the point. Indeed, one of the demands seems to be "don't kill unarmed people, even if they resist arrest" and that one isn't universally agreed upon by people on this board, which is strange.

But the rest of your post is very "throw the baby out with the bathwater." Do you believe that the football team will just have a RACISM IS OVER parade if buildings on campus are renamed? The term "expunge" is particularly useful here for your argument, with the common definition being "to completely remove." It's not going to approach the "expungement" that you seek the other side to hold as a burden, so it's convenient for you. This is why I mentioned that beyond the law, there has been a neglect of what has been negatively deemed as "feelings" on this board, which is so much more than that.

The fact that you even typed "moaning" about systemic racism shows you don't hold it to be true, so there is no aim that could possibly appease you. So instead of focusing on the legality of discrimination, which was eliminated by LAW a long time ago, maybe focus on the empathy of understanding why the athletes brought this list to our attention, and why it's important for people to feel heard, and what we all could learn about it. If you aren't satisfied with their "whines," then you're just not going to be part of the audience.

 

[MajesticII]

No one said it had nothing to do with slavery.

No one denied that the end of slavery was a result of the civil war. However, it was not what they were originally fighting about (right to secession vs. indivisible Union and north v. south power struggle).

WW1 was caused by the the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand and resulted in the Treaty of Versailles. However, it was not fought over the Treaty of Versailles.

WW2 was caused by the German invasion of Poland and originally fought over protecting Poland's independece. However, it resulted in the United Nations, the overthrow of the evil, tyrannical governments in Germany, Italy and Japan and the division of Germany into two states... and, ironically, Poland still lost its independence. Poland's master became Russia instead of Germany.

The end of slavery was certainly the result of the civil war, but was not the initial, single cause. The emancipation proclamation was not on the table until 1863 and the 13th amendment until well after that. What were the fighting over from 1861-1862? Whether or not states had the right to secede i.e. states rights.

Add the fact the North wanted to tax the hell out of Southern agriculture...ie..Taxation without representation...You got a war !!! Then Lincoln decided to throw slavery into the mix.

 

[hornde68]

I had promised myself to let this lie. To go peaceful into the pleasant feeling of not having to suffer through another disappointment but I just have to say a parting word.
I have been around UT and UT football all my life. I heard the Eyes at age 5 when my grandmother cried over losing her son, my uncle, in WWII. He played at UT as well. I am still moved by the strains and have never given more than passing thought to its origin. It honestly didn’t matter where from. Still doesn’t. I do recall The Daily Texan writing something about its origin when I was in school but didn’t give it much thought. Those things happened 100 years ago. Wow, who knew.
I HAVE taken pride that the coeur of Texas have sung the Eyes at the end of games, win or lose, in respect to the players effort and courage. I have pointed that fact out to other teams’ fans as a source of particular school spirit. That being that we ‘Horns have pride in OUR team whether they win or lose. For that matter, even when they lose in an appallingly dispirited performance. I have seen a substantial fraction of the fan base stick around for a full quarter after our team had thrown in the towel to sing to the players. OUT OF RESPECT. I have personally sat through an hour of heat and gloom (when I would have been a lot happier with a beer at Scholz’s) not to be a fair-weather fan. Little did I know that I did so out of being a mean-spirited race hater! I suppose it is all in your point of view. If you are dead set on finding an excuse for failing, the Eyes of Texas is as good a lame answer as any. Try LSU or Alabama, they won’t make you sing it.
Done and Done. I truly feel better already. One less rock in my shoe.