Post Reply
Page 9 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Arabs not required to sing Israel's ethnocentric national anthem
2 years ago  ::  Mar 20, 2012 - 3:02AM #81
habesor
Posts: 5,650

Miraj,


Do you think that the USA national anthem is about people who believe in God and leaves out atheists? 


Habesor

Habesor
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 20, 2012 - 11:13AM #82
shmuelgoldstein
Posts: 2,324

Mar 19, 2012 -- 1:12PM, rangerken wrote:

...BUT, the huge majority (like 99% plus)  of black Americans have been and are very loyal Americans, have always sung THEIR national anthem like all other Americans, and have served honorably and courageously in our military even when it was segregated.


Yup.


And you cannot say that about Arabs in Israel.


The situations are quite different.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 20, 2012 - 11:40AM #83
browbeaten
Posts: 3,092

Mar 18, 2012 -- 10:00AM, Miraj wrote:


Mar 18, 2012 -- 7:14AM, shmuelgoldstein wrote:


Mar 13, 2012 -- 5:59AM, Miraj wrote:


Mar 13, 2012 -- 5:02AM, shmuelgoldstein wrote:


...The difference is that blacks in the US are Americans. Americans who can, and have, died for their country. They are loyal Americans, and their destiny and national identity is wrapped up in being American. That cannot be said with the same force regarding Arabs in Israel.



Ah, but that was not the case in the 1950s.  



Actually, it was.


Black Americans fought and died for their country going way back to the Revolutionary War.


There was a famous Black regiment in the Civil War (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/54th_Regiment_Mass...)


And there were Black regiments in WW1, 2, Korea, and beyond.


Black Americans have always been Americans, and as a group, have always been loyal Americans.  


That cannot be said for Arabs vis-a-vis Israel.




Yes, Blacks did fight and die for the US, but they were not considered to be loyal citizens.  That's one of the reasons why the civil rights movement was necessary.  




Civil rights were for equality, not loyalty.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 20, 2012 - 11:57AM #84
rocketjsquirell
Posts: 15,748

"Civil rights were for equality, not loyalty."


That is 100% true

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 20, 2012 - 12:19PM #85
Miraj
Posts: 5,021

Mar 20, 2012 -- 11:40AM, browbeaten wrote:


Civil rights were for equality, not loyalty.




For those who were there, we know it was about both, and more.

Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts.  By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result.  The result is not the responsibility of this member.


PhotobucketPhotobucket
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 20, 2012 - 12:32PM #86
browbeaten
Posts: 3,092

Mar 20, 2012 -- 12:19PM, Miraj wrote:


Mar 20, 2012 -- 11:40AM, browbeaten wrote:


Civil rights were for equality, not loyalty.




For those who were there, we know it was about both, and more.




Sorry, the only thing that civil rights had to do with loyalty was the hurt that inequality created to those blacks who felt themselves as dispossessed, LOYAL Americans.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 20, 2012 - 12:40PM #87
Miraj
Posts: 5,021

Mar 20, 2012 -- 12:32PM, browbeaten wrote:


Mar 20, 2012 -- 12:19PM, Miraj wrote:


Mar 20, 2012 -- 11:40AM, browbeaten wrote:


Civil rights were for equality, not loyalty.




For those who were there, we know it was about both, and more.




Sorry, the only thing that civil rights had to do with loyalty was the hurt that inequality created to those blacks who felt themselves as dispossessed, LOYAL Americans.




They felt themselves to be loyal Americans, but that view was not a widespread one among Whites.  It's well accepted now, but, it wasn't at the time the civil rights movement was in full force.  

Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts.  By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result.  The result is not the responsibility of this member.


PhotobucketPhotobucket
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 20, 2012 - 12:41PM #88
rocketjsquirell
Posts: 15,748

I seem to remember being there. The civil rights movement was about and is about equality. There were all sorts of marches and petition drives and what not going on around here and I do recall wearing out al least couple pairs of PF Flyers and Keds marching about with my friends, family and neighbors. Of course, things might have been different in Morroco or Egypt or wherever. Smile

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 20, 2012 - 12:49PM #89
Miraj
Posts: 5,021

Mar 20, 2012 -- 12:41PM, rocketjsquirell wrote:


I seem to remember being there. The civil rights movement was about and is about equality. There were all sorts of marches and petition drives and what not going on around here and I do recall wearing out al least couple pairs of PF Flyers and Keds marching about with my friends, family and neighbors. Of course, things might have been different in Morroco or Egypt or wherever.



That's not all it was about.  It just got the most press.  


But, let's ask the Black and other racial minority members posting here and see what they have to say.





















[Cricket noises.]









Oh, sorry.  I guess that's me.

Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts.  By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result.  The result is not the responsibility of this member.


PhotobucketPhotobucket
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 21, 2012 - 2:08AM #90
habesor
Posts: 5,650

Miraj,


I don't know where you get your information from but there are many sites on the internet filled with people writing about their experiences in the civil rights movement. I cited one of those in another context. However, here I am going to site the Wikipedia entry on the civil rghts movement. It also links to several other entries which deal with other attempts at imrpoving the situation of American Negroes including the Back to Africa movements which preceeded the civil rights movement. 


Here in Israel there live American Jewish immigrants who participated in the Civil Rights movement. What they write and what wikipedia writes and what is written on the sites containing the recollections of those who were participants seems quite different from the version you are promoting here.


I have noticed that you see history in ways that support your vision of the present. That is not uncommon. Indeed sometimes we learn more about history by studying the present than the other way around. But in this case I will accept the version of history of the civil rights movement on Wikipedia rather than yours. After all, Wikipedia is not trying to promote an artificial history of a newly created nationalism when they write about the American Civil Rights movement and therefore are less likely to distort the history of those events as you are doing here.


Habesor


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_C...(1955%E2%80%931968) 


Habesor
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 9 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook