Toby Keith Advocates [Racial] Lynching?

[Azazal]

Joe and Betty hear it and think 'Clint Eastwood'.

So does this mean I can no longer enjoy Hang 'Em High?[/url]

[Darth Wong]

Ignorance is no excuse for itself.

No it's not, but it is an explanation of why a lot of people would look at you as if you were crazy for suggesting the song's about race.
Someone who knew a lot about 19th century race relations would listen to the song and hear the racial aspects that Joe Six Pack and Betty Winebox would miss altogether.

Joe and Betty hear it and think 'Clint Eastwood'.

I think what you're missing here is that this kind of cavalier disregard for the suffering of blacks in your nation's history is part of the problem. The kind of people who don't even want to learn about that stuff are the kind of people who stand in the way of reforms of all kinds.

[Death from the Sea]

Doesn't that only reinforce the point, that lynching is about mob prejudice rather than justice?

Yes, but as was said earlier, the song is about 'hanging', which was a common death sentence meted out legally in frontier territories.

Yeah, right. "Legally," in the sense that a white sheriff and white townsfolk decided that the nigger should die. Texas, remember?

Texas Rangers often would hang horse thieves, murderers and such on the spot in the nearest tree. Why? because it was often too difficult and dangerous to transport prisoners across the state back then.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, right. "Legally," in the sense that a white sheriff and white townsfolk decided that the nigger should die. Texas, remember?

Texas Rangers often would hang horse thieves, murderers and such on the spot in the nearest tree. Why? because it was often too difficult and dangerous to transport prisoners across the state back then.

That doesn't change the fact that one-man summary justice (which is just as bad as mob justice) is not justice at all. It's Judge Dredd.

[Big Phil]

ghetto edit: not trying to argue the broad picture...never was. Just questioning whether toby was meaning to go "RACISM RAH RAH RAH!" even on an instinctual level.

He was meaning to go "good old days and good old southern boys rah rah rah", and like it or not, racism is part of that package. It probably wasn't his emphasis, but that's beside the point.

It's a stretch to say that anyone who wishes for an idealized "golden days when things were simpler," in this case by talking about vigilante justice by hanging, is supportive of all of the negative things that can be attributed to the language used.

It's like arguing that the directors of Gettysburg and other films that portray the Confederacy in a positive light are also supporting black slavery. The storytellers (Toby Keith or others) aren't telling the whole story, just their own little piece of it, and are ignoring everything else.

There is no direct evidence to argue that Toby Keith is a racist or hates black people; just a lot of really poorly structured, tenuously connected arguments that rely on every previous assumption being correct.

[Darth Wong]

ghetto edit: not trying to argue the broad picture...never was. Just questioning whether toby was meaning to go "RACISM RAH RAH RAH!" even on an instinctual level.

He was meaning to go "good old days and good old southern boys rah rah rah", and like it or not, racism is part of that package. It probably wasn't his emphasis, but that's beside the point.

It's a stretch to say that anyone who wishes for an idealized "golden days when things were simpler," in this case by talking about vigilante justice by hanging, is supportive of all of the negative things that can be attributed to the language used.

Why? Are you saying they honestly don't know that there was slavery and black subjugation in the old days? Or just that they don't think it's a big deal, which IS a racist attitude?

It's like arguing that the directors of Gettysburg and other films that portray the Confederacy in a positive light are also supporting black slavery.

They're apologists for it, absolutely. Watch "Gods and Generals", which was produced by the same people, if you want proof.

The storytellers (Toby Keith or others) aren't telling the whole story, just their own little piece of it, and are ignoring everything else.

That itself is racist. If you ignore the victims of a culture, you are part of the problem. It's like people who think that Manifest Destiny was God's will, and don't really give a shit what happened to the Indians. You can't say that their apathy toward the Indians means they're not racists.

There is no direct evidence to argue that Toby Keith is a racist or hates black people; just a lot of really poorly structured, tenuously connected arguments that rely on every previous assumption being correct.

Bullshit. Not giving a damn about how black people are treated is not the same thing as actively oppressing them, but it's still racist. If most of the white population had been treated that way at that time, then he wouldn't call it the good old days.

[Big Phil]

Errmm ... precisely what is it in that article which contradicts the notion that he's a typical flag-waving redneck? The part where it said that he was a high school athlete, who did manual labour before becoming a country and western singer who calls himself a "patriot"? CaptainChewbacca's notion that it's impossible for someone to be registered Democrat if he's a right-winger, as if Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman never existed?

This whole thread started because somebody is trying to paint Toby Keith as not only a redneck (which he is), but also a racist who supports lynching black people. There's nothing in his past that suggests such.

[Lonestar]

Coyote, you're being an idiot. How many spontaneous tree-hanging lynchings took place of criminals who are not black? Especially in a context that is as culturally accessible and known as race lynchings?

I can think of one off the top of my head. Of course, it was an equal oppurtunity lynching(took place along side a black guy) and took place from a bridge, not a tree.

Also, it took place in Illinois.


Having said all that...eh. I've head "Beer for my horses" on my iPod for years now.

[Darth Wong]

Errmm ... precisely what is it in that article which contradicts the notion that he's a typical flag-waving redneck? The part where it said that he was a high school athlete, who did manual labour before becoming a country and western singer who calls himself a "patriot"? CaptainChewbacca's notion that it's impossible for someone to be registered Democrat if he's a right-winger, as if Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman never existed?

This whole thread started because somebody is trying to paint Toby Keith as not only a redneck (which he is), but also a racist who supports lynching black people. There's nothing in his past that suggests such.

I'll grant that turning a blind eye to racist lynchings and and actively supporting them are not exactly the same thing, but they're both still racist.

PS. Do you honestly believe that there's nothing racist at all about turning a blind eye to racist acts?

[Big Phil]

snip

The John Adams miniseries that just aired on HBO, and the book by David McCullough, don't mention a whole lot about slavery or the treatment of American Indians; they focus on John Adams and his role in the American Revolution. Should we assume, therefore, that the producers of the film and David McCullough were therefore supportive of the genocide committed against the American Indians, because they don't make any mention of these other things that were occurring at the same time? Is any book, movie, or song that portrays a narrow, glorified, and whitewashed version of history also racist?


Back to the OP, I can certainly see why someone would question the lyrics of Beer for my Horses and wonder about the writer, but to accuse Toby Keith of racism and "calling out" Barack Obama, when he clearly did no such thing, is just silly.

I wonder if, when he wrote Beer for my Horses, Toby Keith even thought about black lynchings. If he didn't even think about it, why is that so terrible? And if he's writing a song about justice, even vigilante justice, why can't the song simply be about justice? Why must it become a commentary on race relations? If he talked about gunning down "bad boys" instead of hanging them, would this even be worthy of a thread?

[Darth Wong]

Is any book, movie, or song that portrays a narrow, glorified, and whitewashed version of history also racist?

If it involved minimizing or ignoring the racism of the era, then yes. Absolutely. And it's pretty fucking sad that you think otherwise.

Take your John Adams example: if the Founding Fathers were slave owners and racists, then any documentary about them should make a point of mentioning it. It is NOT insignificant. It is important, unless you think their racism was no big deal, which is a racist attitude in itself.

Suppose someone made a documentary about Jesse Helms or David Duke but somehow neglected to mention that he was a fucking racist and ardent segregationist. You wouldn't see a problem with this?

[CaptainChewbacca]

I would, but in the case of Helms or Duke, those are the defining characteristics of their personality. You're asserting that the treatment (subjugation, slavery, or exploitation) of a given race is ALWAYS the most important and defining aspect of a given historical era, and therefore cannot be ignored or marginalized in any way.

[Big Phil]

Is any book, movie, or song that portrays a narrow, glorified, and whitewashed version of history also racist?

If it involved minimizing or ignoring the racism of the era, then yes. Absolutely. And it's pretty fucking sad that you think otherwise.

You're smart enough not to have to resort to ad hominem attacks Mike. Try something else.

Take your John Adams example: if the Founding Fathers were slave owners and racists, then any documentary about them should make a point of mentioning it. It is NOT insignificant. It is important, unless you think their racism was no big deal, which is a racist attitude in itself.

The biography itself did talk about the compromise the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution made with regard to slavery. I don't know how much of an issue the miniseries made of it. But since slavery was one of the key issues of the day, it would make a lot of sense, and be an obvious omission, to discuss it.

Suppose someone made a documentary about Jesse Helms or David Duke but somehow neglected to mention that he was a fucking racist and ardent segregationist. You wouldn't see a problem with this?

I don't see how a biography of Jesse Helms or David Duke could possibly be complete without a discussion of their views on race relations, or in Jesse Helms' case, his views on foreign relations.

What you haven't done, however, is justify why book, movie, or song that talks about a period in history needs to include a discussion of racism, particularly if that's not the main or even a terteriary point of it. Does it need to also include a discussion of religion, or women's rights, or gay rights? Why can't it simply be a song (with no religious, sexual, racial, or gender overtones)?

Sink the Bismarck (by Johnny Horton) didn't make any mention of Britain's treatment of its colonies. Does that make it a racist song as well? The Twelve Days of Christmas makes no mention of Christianity's treatment of the Jews or the Crusades; does that make the song anti-semitic or anti-Muslim?

[Darth Wong]

I would, but in the case of Helms or Duke, those are the defining characteristics of their personality. You're asserting that the treatment (subjugation, slavery, or exploitation) of a given race is ALWAYS the most important and defining aspect of a given historical era, and therefore cannot be ignored or marginalized in any way.

Slavery and racism was the defining characteristic of 19th century America. It even precipitated a civil war in the latter half of it, the ramifications of which echoed right into the 20th century.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The John Adams miniseries that just aired on HBO, and the book by David McCullough, don't mention a whole lot about slavery or the treatment of American Indians; they focus on John Adams and his role in the American Revolution.

Yes. And they gloss over the fact that his life was built on the backs of slaves. You cannot have anything even resembling an honest portrayal of the period and NOT touch upon slavery, the poison of the pre-modern era, also known as the vile cancer of the ancient world. Nor can you gloss over the events leading up to the american revolution. Namely the French-Indian war. If you narrowly focus on one person you might be able to avoid details, but glossing over it nearly in its entirety is doing the world a disservice.

Should we assume, therefore, that the producers of the film and David McCullough were therefore supportive of the genocide committed against the American Indians

No. But you CAN fairly say that they are dismissive of it, which is still racist. A different variety of racist, but racist.

because they don't make any mention of these other things that were occurring at the same time? Is any book, movie, or song that portrays a narrow, glorified, and whitewashed version of history also racist?

In a word. Yes. For the same reason that history books that skip the contributions of women and ethnic minorities to our past and culture are racist. For the same reason that black people are not represented in popular culture to the extent to which they are a proportion of the population(unless the show itself is ABOUT black people, which is also racist). It is minimizing people of different ethnic groups (and other historically disadvantaged groups, like women)

[Big Phil]

snip

You know what, scrap the book or movie examples. If a book ignores or glosses over something major (like slavery and John Adams, or racism and the Confederacy), then you and Mike are absolutely right that they're racist, actively or passively.

I'm more focused on the song, and how and why a song should include a full and thorough discussion of certain subjects. Why should "Beer for my Horses," be expected to contain a full and open discussion of racism and the practice of lynching?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm more focused on the song, and how and why a song should include a full and thorough discussion of certain subjects. Why should "Beer for my Horses," be expected to contain a full and open discussion of racism and the practice of lynching?

Ok. I will say this first. Lynching is always bad. Period. Our false conviction rates are horrible now with modern forensics, how bad do you think they were back in "the good old days"? Hell, there was no conviction because there was no Jury.

You cant have a full and open discussion with a song. But that is not the point. The point is that the song itself pines for "the good old days" when justice was swift, without a thought to who was actually being lynched.

Rape? Well if a white woman had sex with a black man that was rape. Hang 'em high! If a woman WAS raped and didnt see her attacker? Find the black guy that might have given her a lustful eye three weeks ago and Hang 'em high!

Murder? Find the local darkie who knew the victim... you get the point

A reasonable properly informed person cannot pine for "the good old days" without taking this into consideration. No one who was raised during that time period can not be aware of it. So the only alternatives that I can see are "active support" which is racist by definition. Or convenient forgetfulness.

The later is racism if for no other reason than because the suffering of those countless people seems to not be worth remembering.

[Adrian Laguna]

You people are using a weird definition of "racism". Here's the one I'm familiar with, from Merriam-Webster:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Indifference to the suffering of a particular race does not necesarily imply a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits, all it implies is apathy toward evil that does not affect one directly. Likely a lot of people who don't give a fuck about blacks in the US also don't give a fuck about whites in Zimbabwe. Shit, I don't give a fuck about whites in Zimbabwe, does that make me racicially prejudiced against whites?

Much of the glossing over slavery is probably not racially motivated, that slavery is evil has likely more to do with it, associating anyone with slavery makes them look bad. When was the last time you heard that Ivlivs Caesar had slaves? Indeed, Roman slavery seems to get more glossed over than Confederate slavery, and race definitely has nothing to do with it there because the Romans happily enslaved everyone.

[Civil War Man]

It's like arguing that the directors of Gettysburg and other films that portray the Confederacy in a positive light are also supporting black slavery.

They're apologists for it, absolutely. Watch "Gods and Generals", which was produced by the same people, if you want proof.

"Gods and Generals" was definitely much more blatant than "Gettysburg" in that regard. Though while they are part of the same series, their source material was written by different authors (Killer Angels by Michael Shaara, Gods and Generals by his son Jeff).

This doesn't excuse the filmmakers, though, since while the books were staunchly Confederate-apologist (with the possible exception of The Last Full Measure, which focused primarily on Grant and portrayed him as a good person), the movie actually made it worse in the case of Gods and Generals. The addition of that slave character (who wasn't in the books) and the almost single-minded focus on Jackson were particularly egregious. And this is coming from someone who appeared in that movie.

Of course, I've kinda fallen out of reenacting. Started out as a time constraint, but I think one of the reasons I haven't gone back is due to the thick layer of Confederate apologism that is inherent in the hobby. I was one of few reenactors who had the attitude of "Fuck you, the Union won and the Confederacy deserved what it got." Which is one of the reasons I refused to reenact on the Confederate side. I wasn't alone in this, but people with my opinion were a definite minority.

[Alyrium Denryle]

When was the last time you heard that Ivlivs Caesar had slaves?

Pretty much every time we read about him or see him portrayed. Hell, even popular TV depicting him depicts roman slavery rather well. It ranged from a situation where the slave was practically adopted to a situation where southern slavery looked pleasant.

Indifference to the suffering of a particular race does not necesarily imply a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits, all it implies is apathy toward evil that does not affect one directly.

I will be blunt. A dictionary definition usually only includes the most narrow possible definitions for a term you can concievably use. The way the word is actually used and thought of by actual people is more useful.

By this definition, the fact that when a white woman goes missing in NYC, there is news coverage and a metric fuckton of cops involved, while if the same happens to a black woman the case is barely touched by comparison, is not racism. Even though it clearly is.

[Big Phil]

I'm more focused on the song, and how and why a song should include a full and thorough discussion of certain subjects. Why should "Beer for my Horses," be expected to contain a full and open discussion of racism and the practice of lynching?

Ok. I will say this first. Lynching is always bad. Period. Our false conviction rates are horrible now with modern forensics, how bad do you think they were back in "the good old days"? Hell, there was no conviction because there was no Jury.

You cant have a full and open discussion with a song. But that is not the point. The point is that the song itself pines for "the good old days" when justice was swift, without a thought to who was actually being lynched.

Rape? Well if a white woman had sex with a black man that was rape. Hang 'em high! If a woman WAS raped and didnt see her attacker? Find the black guy that might have given her a lustful eye three weeks ago and Hang 'em high!

Murder? Find the local darkie who knew the victim... you get the point

A reasonable properly informed person cannot pine for "the good old days" without taking this into consideration. No one who was raised during that time period can not be aware of it. So the only alternatives that I can see are "active support" which is racist by definition. Or convenient forgetfulness.

The later is racism if for no other reason than because the suffering of those countless people seems to not be worth remembering.

Given that the song itself makes no mention of race, the conclusion that hanging bad boys = lynching black people seems like one that you're drawing yourself, not one that Toby Keith was trying to make (or imply).

[Darth Wong]

Why is indifference to the suffering of a particular race not racism? It's not indifference to the suffering of all human beings; just a particular race. That fits the dictionary definition of racism to a T, since the person doesn't treat all of the races equally.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Given that the song itself makes no mention of race, the conclusion that hanging bad boys = lynching black people seems like one that you're drawing yourself, not one that Toby Keith was trying to make (or imply).

I am not saying he has to. All he has to do is conveniently forget the historical realities of what he is singing about, and it is passively racist.

It is like when a libertarian says that they want to go back to the good old days without labor laws. They are passively supporting all the cruelty that goes with it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ghetto edit because I feel like violating Godwin's law


Another example would be complaining about the inefficiency in the german commuter train system, and yearning for the good old days in the 30s and 40s when the trains always ran on time, while conveniently forgetting where the trains are running too, and what they were carrying. The only way to explain that brain-fart is if 12 million people, mostly jews, slavs and roma dont matter inside the person's head

[Big Phil]

Given that the song itself makes no mention of race, the conclusion that hanging bad boys = lynching black people seems like one that you're drawing yourself, not one that Toby Keith was trying to make (or imply).

I am not saying he has to. All he has to do is conveniently forget the historical realities of what he is singing about, and it is passively racist.

It is like when a libertarian says that they want to go back to the good old days without labor laws. They are passively supporting all the cruelty that goes with it.

Let me give you some examples of other songs that, by your definition, are passively racist, and you tell me whether your definition is sufficiently absurd or not:

Iron Maiden's Aces High - conveniently fails to mention the Allied struggle was against Germany, therefore the song is clearly pro-Nazi and anti-semitic.

John Fogerty's Centerfield - fails to mention the Negro Leagues at all; therefore, John Fogerty clearly yearns for a return to whites only baseball.

The Ballad of Ira Hayes by Peter LaFarge (covered by Johnny Cash among others) - does not mention segregation in the armed services during WWII, and therefore clearly supports continued segregation

Hits from the Bong by Cypress Hill - fails to discuss how marijuana was originally outlawed and the resulting epidemic of drug users in prison, gangs controlling entire neighborhoods to sell drugs, and the corruption in police forces as a result of drug money. Clearly, Cypress Hill hate black people and want them all arrested and/or dead.

Hot for Teacher by Van Halen - doesn't discuss (not even one word) the debacle that is the American public education system, particularly in black neighborhoods. Clearly, Van Halen support the current public education system, even though it has failed for decades to properly educate American children, and they must hate black people since they clearly don't want black people to receive an education.