Thought for the Day

Where does the anthem in sports events come from? Maybe it carried over from international competitions where this is how allegiances were specified. Or maybe for some sports that are seen as national past-times, such as nfl football, it sets the stage for the event.

For some, sporting events are seen as both individual competitions and also proxies for national ones. Even when they only involve domestic teams they express national pride, perhaps excessive.

Banning the anthem at sporting events evades the compulsory nature of the flag salute, but it doesn't resolve the issue of whether people should be permitted to protest in unconventional or unpopular ways for causes they believe in. It removes the immediacy of the issue, but the underlying question of how people can make their voices heard without facing retaliation would persist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Where does the anthem in sports events come from? Maybe it carried over from international competitions where this is how allegiances were specified. Or maybe for some sports that are seen as national past-times, such as nfl football, it sets the stage for the event.
For some, sporting events are seen as both individual competitions and also proxies for national ones. Even when they only involve domestic teams they express national pride, perhaps excessive.
Banning the anthem at sporting events evades the compulsory nature of the flag salute, but it doesn't resolve the issue of whether people should be permitted to protest in unconventional or unpopular ways for causes they believe in. It removes the immediacy of the issue, but the underlying question of how people can make their voices heard without facing retaliation would persist.

---

Thanks for this Broncofan, but what you have done is show how you Americans have created this mess by conflating national pride with free expression. I asked the question because in the UK in domestic team games, be it football (soccer), rugby, cricket and so on, the teams just come out onto the field and after shaking hands (which is a fairly recent invention too) get on with the business. So I don't understand why the anthem is played before every game, or why you have service personnel raising flags, and all that jazz. It is a football game, not a rally.

The interesting point in the Guardian article linked below, is how this was not a major issue before the President decided to make it one, Colin Kaepernick made his protest when Obama was in the White House. And, although it would be naive to separate sport from politics, it is just as evident in the UK as it is elsewhere, it is rather sad that what ought be an afternoon of skill, drama and entertainment is reduced to a 'culture war' provoked by a man who has no culture. Or maybe there is a deeper issue which concerns the changes taking place in American society which over the next 50 years is expected to see a decline in the proportion of 'white Americans' as the 'other Americans' become the numerical majority.

That aside, the US national anthem is one of the most interesting in a field where most anthems are an embarrassment with regard to both words and music.

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/28/...on-of-slavery/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...al-protest-nfl

I always thought the anthem was sung before every game (that involved a ball) because Francis Scott Key wrote "Play Ball," as a coda to the Star Spangled Banner to be performed recitative by a second voice following the line "...home of the brave."

I have found this account which identifies a baseball game during the First World War (when US troops were in the field) but as a regular feature probably the Second World War.

I only found it because I googled Francis Scott Key and 'play ball' being mystified by (what appears to be) Trish's perceptive observation...

http://www.npr.org/2014/09/10/347100...tional-pastime

They play the anthem because they’re PAID to play the anthem. Also. Listen to the real reason behind Kaepernick’s protest STRAIGHT FROM HIS MOUTH, not a second hand source.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka0446tibig

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

What happened to the Israel of Judah Magnes and Martin Buber? Crucially, how can it be anti-semitic to condemn a worthless bigot like Naftali Bennet and his genocidal plea to 'Kill all Arabs' when Bennett is just one among others in government or the Knesset who would never have been elected in years gone

---

It can't be. But just because there are thousands of critical things that can be said about Israel that are not anti-semitic does not mean certain permutations that incidentally mention Israel are not. I know you disagreed with the article but one thing I sort of skimmed over the first time I read it is that it said Jews appearing on television should be labeled like rat poison.

BTW I agree with and appreciate your analysis.

It's just when I read the comments section of the Independent and other left wing outlets I am sometimes amazed at the fact that people think raising Israel will immunize an otherwise bigoted argument. I recall seeing a story about a Jewish kid having his head split open while waiting for the train because he was Jewish and the comments below could be divided into three categories. One: why is this being reported? Isn't it just the Zionists using this to defend Israel? The article did not mention Israel by the way. Two: Maybe the witnesses are lying about the anti-semitic nature of the attack. Three: nothing to do with the article just otherwise unbiased discussion of Israel. But what is the implication of an unbiased discussion of Israel in response to a random kid being attacked without any obvious segue?

When I hear discussion of anti-semitism in Labour I frequently hear as a platitude that anti-zionism and anti-semitism are not the same thing. That may be true, but then how would one characterize a lot of comments by people that bear no relation to Israel such as we need to stop offering protection for synagogues if Israel persists etc. ? Or Jews have big noses lol? Or we need to solve the Jewish question? Every once in a while a less astute person will not realize they're supposed to avoid being obvious and will say something like "the Zionists killed Jesus". Really shrewd people will notice the anachronism there. I realize that someone who has been subjected to these kinds of comments is not persecuted or severely harmed, but it does shift norms when these comments start to become a bit more indiscriminate.

But none of this has to do with anyone who criticizes Israeli policies or discusses the history in good faith as you do. But I do think earnest people maybe underestimate the tendency of dishonest people to exploit genuine criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I have found this account which identifies a baseball game during the First World War (when US troops were in the field) but as a regular feature probably the Second World War.

I only found it because I googled Francis Scott Key and 'play ball' being mystified by (what appears to be) Trish's perceptive observation...

http://www.npr.org/2014/09/10/347100...tional-pastime

---

Yes , here's more history of how the National Anthem and sports got tangled up together.
http://www.history.com/news/why-the-...porting-events

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

It can't be. But just because there are thousands of critical things that can be said about Israel that are not anti-semitic does not mean certain permutations that incidentally mention Israel are not. I know you disagreed with the article but one thing I sort of skimmed over the first time I read it is that it said Jews appearing on television should be labeled like rat poison.
BTW I agree with and appreciate your analysis.
It's just when I read the comments section of the Independent and other left wing outlets I am sometimes amazed at the fact that people think raising Israel will immunize an otherwise bigoted argument. I recall seeing a story about a Jewish kid having his head split open while waiting for the train because he was Jewish and the comments below could be divided into three categories. One: why is this being reported? Isn't it just the Zionists using this to defend Israel? The article did not mention Israel by the way. Two: Maybe the witnesses are lying about the anti-semitic nature of the attack. Three: nothing to do with the article just otherwise unbiased discussion of Israel. But what is the implication of an unbiased discussion of Israel in response to a random kid being attacked without any obvious segue?
When I hear discussion of anti-semitism in Labour I frequently hear as a platitude that anti-zionism and anti-semitism are not the same thing. That may be true, but then how would one characterize a lot of comments by people that bear no relation to Israel such as we need to stop offering protection for synagogues if Israel persists etc. ? Or Jews have big noses lol? Or we need to solve the Jewish question? Every once in a while a less astute person will not realize they're supposed to avoid being obvious and will say something like "the Zionists killed Jesus". Really shrewd people will notice the anachronism there. I realize that someone who has been subjected to these kinds of comments is not persecuted or severely harmed, but it does shift norms when these comments start to become a bit more indiscriminate.
But none of this has to do with anyone who criticizes Israeli policies or discusses the history in good faith as you do. But I do think earnest people maybe underestimate the tendency of dishonest people to exploit genuine criticism.

---

There are parallel lines here, with informed comment going one way, and prejudice and bigotry another. What the 'comment is free' phenomenon in newspapers reveals is that bigots makes their comments without regard to truth or evidence, and it is just as ugly with regard to comments on Jews as it is on women, Black people, Arabs and of course Muslims, and no amount of critical comment will persuade them to change their views. In general I don't think there is anything one can do about it other than shut down the free comment sections, or ban the posters who just reappear with other names, or just accept their right to make fools of themselves. The problem is that such repetitive comment threatens to 'normalize' bigotry, or it reveals the extent to which it exists anyway and to shut it down would be to deny such people and views continue to exist.

In Labour's case, when I was in the party in London the two constituencies I was in both had fairly large Jewish communities and I would guess a third of each party's members were Jewish, and close to the Israeli Labour party edge of politics as far as Israel was concerned. In the late-70s-80s when I was active there was a tacit agreement not to raise Middle Eastern issues because it threatened to be divisive, but I do know that as Corbyn, Livingstone, John McDonnell and others sought their ascendancy around that time that they were 'pro-Palestinian' for their 'revolutionary' credentials and certainly when Livingstone was leader of the Greater London Council this became a more pronounced position.

There was always going to be a problem when some elements of Labour took sides in this conflict against Israel, what I don't know is how this positioning affected them in the later 1980s and 1990s when the left in the party was eclipsed by the more pragmatic centrists and then Blair's New Labour experiment -Blair, Gordon Brown and most leading labour people were all members of the Labour Friends of Israel group inside the party, so they were always more biased, and following in the traditions of earlier leaders like Harold Wilson, and as I have said before, in 1948 most of the Labour left was pro-Israeli. The Oslo Accords would have been a dilemma I think in the same way that the pseudo-Marxists supported Sinn Fein's campaign for a United Ireland only to see it bite the dust in 1998.

If there has been a more vocal anti-semitic trend among some in the Labour Party I wonder where it comes from. In one of the parties I was in there was also a growing number of Asians may of whom were Muslims from (by family origin) the Punjab and Kashmir, two areas that have been influenced by more radical Islamic ideas from within Pakistan (the Deobandi movement and the Taliban, for example) and also Saudi Arabia through its 'education' programmes. I am reluctant to suggest this is a source without any concrete evidence, but also feel there is still a 'radical chic' element in Labour which attaches greater value to some pseudo-Marxian view of Palestinians as revolutionaries fighting for their liberation against an Israel that is an outpost of US Imperialism in the Middle East. At the very least the party is divided over Middle Eastern issues in general, but at the constituency level these days is probably more pro-Palestinian and as a result Jewish membership of the party has declined, though it is also the case that in numerical terms the Jewish communities of the UK are in decline compared to the 20th century.

The latest incident came a few days ago at a fringe meeting at the Labour Party conference in Brighton. Fringe meetings are hugely popular because anyone can go, and in this one Miko Peled is alleged to have said people should be allowed to question whether the Holocaust happened. An obvious solution would be to stop inviting people to meetings when it is known that they will be making inflammatory remarks, and it is not an issue of free speech since Peled and people like him are free to discuss their views in a variety of media. But it has been an issue Labour must deal with at some level. Unfortunately I think people deliberately create these situations because they know it will get publicity, upset people and so on, and Milo Yianopoulos is available to do the same at the Tory conference or anywhere else he would love to cause trouble in.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rks-miko-peled

I say alleged because I don't know precisely what he said, but if you are familiar with Peled's pedigree -his grand-father Avraham Katznelson was one of the men who signed Israel's Declaration of Independence in 1948- you will also see in him one of those vicious critics of Israel that only Israel can produce. I suspect that anti-semites latch on to this kind of critical view of Israel, not to make Israel a better place, which I assume is Peled's long term intentions, but just because they see it as an opportunity to knock Israel and the Jews in general. There is a similar problem with atheists who think that they can use their position to condemn all religions as a convenient way of blaming both Jews and Muslims for the problems in the Middle East, but who in some cases use it as their opportunity to condemn Jews and Muslims. In reality the issues are political, they relate to the way the modern state has emerged in the Middle East, be it Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Iraq, with religion being used as a hammer to destroy rather than build, and yet I think we have to avoid allowing this trend to become the cement that binds everything together, because there are solutions to all conflicts that can be reached in spite of all the hate that they generate.

The other question is the extent to which bigotry and prejudice are created by situations, such as poorly performing economies when one element of society blames another fr their problems, and the extent to which bigotry and prejudice inherited from previous generations is given space to breathe and express itself through the authority of political leadership, where the leaders we expect to calm things down and level the field of debate, instead fan the flames of hatred and themselves take sides in disputes making conflict worse. The foundations of prejudice and bigotry are flimsy, the arguments that claim Jews control banking and the media collapse as soon as they are investigated, as do claims Black people are less intelligent than white people. It seems we not only have to challenge this nonsense every generation, but every day of every generation, but it is worth the effort it takes, as we have seen and can see where the alternative takes us.

What a delightful read Stavros. Don't be embarrassed that I'm saying so and didn't think liking your post was enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

If there has been a more vocal anti-semitic trend among some in the Labour Party I wonder where it comes from. In one of the parties I was in there was also a growing number of Asians may of whom were Muslims from (by family origin) the Punjab and Kashmir, two areas that have been influenced by more radical Islamic ideas from within Pakistan (the Deobandi movement and the Taliban, for example) and also Saudi Arabia through its 'education' programmes. I am reluctant to suggest this is a source without any concrete evidence, but also feel there is still a 'radical chic' element in Labour which attaches greater value to some pseudo-Marxian view of Palestinians as revolutionaries fighting for their liberation against an Israel that is an outpost of US Imperialism in the Middle East. At the very least the party is divided over Middle Eastern issues in general, but at the constituency level these days is probably more pro-Palestinian and as a result Jewish membership of the party has declined, though it is also the case that in numerical terms the Jewish communities of the UK are in decline compared to the 20th century.
.

---

I'm reluctant to respond because I think you covered the subject very well but my sense is that it less likely to be extremist Muslims than those adopting the "radical chic" position you've described. A couple of years ago I said that I thought many terrorist acts in Europe that targeted Jews were carried out by religious extremists. But the attacks have been at least carried out by people who had extreme views about violence in general and are rare. The over the top comments that seem oblivious to distinctions between Israel's government, Israeli's citizens, and Jews in general have mostly come from people who have been politically active and tend to support some fringe positions.

I think that while the basis for supporting revolutionary movements and opposing imperialists is strong in many cases, the formula sometimes suffers from a lack of rigor. Even when applied to other conflicts it often invokes bogeymen and unseen forces thwarting the national objectives of indigenous people. While this undoubtedly happens and may apply to Israel it is too easy to be vague about what those forces are, where they originate, and what the motives are of people who don't subscribe to this ideology. It's possible to be radical chic and not be antisemitic, but it's easy to not be aware that the themes about groups of people who represent moneyed interests and constitute a state within a state can echo some of the ways antisemitism has manifested.

I don't know what one can do given that unfortunately there are people on the right who will exploit any opportunity to say those on the left do not have the moral high ground. I think the best anyone can do is be very disciplined and objective about what they see, both when antisemitism is charged and it is a false charge, and when it exists but some find it politically inconvenient to admit.