UT football players allege school and donors coerced (them) into staying for “The Eyes of Texas”
This is pretty rough
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/03/03/ut-austin-eyes-of-texas-donors/
[Edit @ 8:10 pm] I would prefer to allow this thread to remain open. Let's everyone help to keep this thread alive by discussing thoughts, insight, and ideas rather than attacking others who are partaking in the discussion. Thank you all.
-rob f
(PS: I also edited the title, per the OP's request)
I've seen a few UT hoops games this year, and you very much got the "I'm just here so I won't get fined" vibes from the players, with very few singing along.
I'm neither here nor there on the song itself - I trust the University and Student Body to figure it out themselves, but to force the guys to stand there against their will is not great, Bob.
The shit said by the alumni show many of them are awful total pieces of shit.
As someone who graduated from UT, I applaud the students and think the people allowing the donors to wield as much influence should be axed. I would love to see the names sending these emails get published so these people can be open to public ridicule.
Well, the donors wield influence because they want their money.
I get it in one aspect, but on the other hand you have guys like Earl Campbell and Rickey Williams who have come out in support of the song. I might get negged, but I don't understand banning everything that may have a negative tie from decades ago. If we did that we would have practically nothing. I'm shocked no one has gone on a ridiculous crusade to change the name of Yost Arena yet.
Teach the whole truth, and learn from it. That doesn't excuse some of those emails, though.
It's not the lyrics or song itself in question in this instance - it's that the players are forced to stay on field after the game while the song is being played, with implied negative retribution for players that don't.
I saw that about Campbell and Williams, but only on Wikipedia, which of course essentially is "written" by online contributors.
That particular part of this particular wiki deserves a deeper look, (edit) being that two all-time Longhorn football greats hardly constitutes a representative sample of opinions, whether it be opinions of alumni, opinions of athletes, opinions of black athletes, or any other subset of those with a vested interest in this controversy.
As for “the Eyes of Texas,” which has its roots in a minstrel show from the early 1900s, Campbell said he believes that time has rehabilitated the song from its uncomfortable roots.
“I can’t help it that ‘The Eyes of Texas’ sounds like ‘I’ve Been Working on the Railroad,’” Campbell said. “It’s a different thing. I think the songs speaks for itself.
“I don’t think there’s anything wrong with ‘The Eyes of Texas’ and that there are more important things to be changed than that song.”
There’s a big difference between banning something and making something not mandatory or played by the university’s band.
Why does teaching "the whole truth" and learning from it mean to you that our society should keep a racist song, symbol, statue, saying, etc. around rather than changing it or getting rid of it?
Because meanings can change? "I've Been Working on the Railroad" has racist history but nobody thinks it's racist now...it's a freaking kids song.
As MGoUser "jmstranger" has already posted:
"It’s not really the lyrics they’re opposed to. It used to be a song that was popular in minstrel shows and that racist background is why they want it gone". https://mgoblog.com/comment/244110506#comment-244110506
...and then add to this that the song was performed from the very early 1900s thru the 1960s in those minstrel shows by whites wearing blackface.
And there's more. The words "The Eyes of Texas are upon you" are based on a favorite phrase of defeated Confederate General Robert E. Lee in his post Civil War career as a University President, "the eyes of the south are upon you".
I hope this helps explain why the song is offensive, not just the otherwise innocent-sounding actual words but also its origins.
It's also important to know that "Eyes of Texas" is actually only the unofficial UT fight sing; the official Texas Fight song is "Texas Fight!", with lyrics sung to a march-like version of "Taps", the military funeral song usually played on a sole bugle.
Here's the thing, not everything Robert E. Lee ever did was racist.
Someone basing a phrase from something he said is not racist. The phrase was used by the Texas president intending it to mean the state is expecting its students to go out and do great things.
Here's the thing, not everything Robert E. Lee ever did was racist.
Generally, this is true. But why did Lee specifically say "the eyes of the south are upon you"? Would it not just be the Washington and Lee University community whose eyes were upon the graduates of said institution? If he is trying to say that people expect the graduates to do great things, why limit it to just the south? Surely the entire country, nay the world, would expect great things from graduates of any institution of higher learning. The logic follows, in regards to "The Eyes of Texas", why limit it to being just Texas? There are out of state students who go there, and many graduates will leave Texas for employment. So why are just the eyes of Texas upon them?
Robert E Lee was a traitor to our country and decided to fight alongside traitors who chose slavery over unity. Not everything anyone ever does is racist, but I think it's certainly valid to call him one. It's a shame how little punishment he received after the war
So right. In the pursuit of unity they should have burned him at the stake, razed his home state, killing everyone he ever knew, tore down any city he lived in. Currently we should expunge his entire existence from our known history and strike the fact the Civil War happened from history. Can't go far enough in the effort in revising history to make people today feel good about what happened before.
Wow! This is probably the most dishonest post I've ever seen on this board. Where did njvictor "revise history"? Where did he say anything about striking "the fact the Civil War happened from history" or "killing everyone he ever knew and the city he lived in"?
Everything njvictor said is correct. Lee was a traitor by definition--he openly fought against his country. It is also perfectly acceptable to believe it was a shame how little he was punished after the war. The punishment for treason in the US is death.
Everything you wrote is just shit that you made up.Your post is bad and I'm embarrassed for you.
George Washington was a traitor too, to Britain. In the interest of being good world citizens, let’s erase his ass.
And you probably won't find a whole lot of homages to honor him in Britain, either.
Are you saying we shouldn't expect a statue of Boris Johnson in Brussels either?
He was a Benedict Arnold to this country and somehow gets away with a much better reputation. Post-war Reconstruction was an unmitigated failure and arguably a reason why we are where are today in terms of a lot things in society
Lincoln wanted to heal the country for starters. Secondly, getting a conviction for treason was in doubt because you can’t commit treason against a country from which you have seceded.
Serious question: was the south's secession legal? I'm no lawyer so I can't answer that myself but I'd love to hear arguments for or against it sometime.
I'm not sure that getting a conviction for it would be that difficult, though. If the trial were held in the north it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult.
Seceding from your country and going to war against it seems treasonous to me. But prosecuting him in such a time of turmoil would have devastated reconciliation.
We all have a lot of work to do to come together. Most people want the same things. Searching out the lowest common denominator is not helping anyone.
Snark redacted because it wouldn't help matters
I’m so curious. Your snark is typically pretty good.
If the trial was held in the north, or in a military court, you’re correct. Conviction would’ve likely been a slam dunk.
But it was decided that, at least for Jefferson Davis, that his trial would be in a civil court in the state in which the alleged treason took place. For Davis, that would’ve been in Virginia. So much less likelihood of a conviction.
As for if secession is legal, not really sure. I would think since each state entered the union voluntarily then they should be able to leave. That’s just my opinion though.
Here’s a good read if you’re interested
https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/201710/was-secession-legal
Thanks M Go Cue and Double-D for the responses and the link. I actually think it's a pretty interesting question from legal and philosophy standpoints. The right to secede or break a union is certainly one that even the founders had to think about or, at least, felt the need to justify.
Yes, the illegality of secession was hardly clear. Not stated in the Constitution or in any federal law, and the voluntary nature of entering the union certainly suggested the possibility of leaving the union. Meanwhile, as the name "United States of America" suggests, the nation consisted of states. There is no question that by fighting for the Confederacy, Lee defended slavery. But I don't think there's any legitimate doubt that the reason he fought for the Confederacy was not slavery but a sense that his loyalty belonged to his state -- a widely held view at the time. The secession issue was ultimately decided not by any law or court but by the war. So it's kind of hard to prosecute someone on that basis.
" Serious question: was the south's secession legal? I'm no lawyer so I can't answer that myself but I'd love to hear arguments for or against it sometime. "
No.
see: Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869)
Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. " Pretty obvious Lee was guilty of treason as he levied war against the US. Secession was null and void per Texas v White and the US Constitution itself which says that the US is created by "We the People..." The Constitution was ratified by the state, but only as representatives of the People. Also, at the time of ratification of the Constitution there was much debate about the origins of sovereignty. Was the federal or state government sovereign or were the people. We settled on the people being the sovereigns who delegate powers to the government. Government's "just powers are derived from the consent of the governed." So when the sovereign people created the Union it delegated powers to the government only, retaining their sovereignty. Thus the Union could not be seceded from without consent of all of the creators - the people. Thus, succession was void.
Ok, I'll take the bait. 1) Lee was guilty of treason only if he acted as a citizen of the United States. This was the matter in question so it is not "pretty obvious Lee was guilty of treason," since there is debate as to whether he was a citizen after his state seceded. 2) As you note, there was debate about where the sovereignty lay -- in the assemblies, in the states, or in the federal government. So it was not "pretty obvious" when the matter was not settled. 3) Texas v. White is a pretty tough case to use in establishing Lee as guilty of treason, as it was not argued before the Supreme Court until 1869 (after the war). In reality, it was the war itself that settled all these matters, by the barrel of a gun (as so often happens when laws fail). So it is pointless to assert that all this was settled before the war. Having the gun, the US could have prosecuted Lee, but not on the basis of any settled legal precedent. It was, however, wise not to do so since its cause was, you know, union.
The civil war was a terrible display of new technology versus human flesh and bone. "the glory of war is moonshine." The tactics the North used were criminal (currency wars, burning non-combatant...everything) (that said, the South was all too wiling to inflict the same criminality but were not able.) Many European observers refused to see the uselessness of valor in the face of advanced guns and paid a terrible price 50 years later.
The US should have let the South go, choke it from any trade via sea, and we could have saved tens of millions of lives. Slavery was going away with or without the war.
The US should have never intervened in the Cuban rebellion from Spain. Cost, we committed untold war crimes in the Philippines. We became what we hated about Spain in two years.
The US should have never joined WWI. London gave the international banking system to New York, plus interest for love of empire.
The point is, history is the autobiography of a mad man. changing a song does nothing. It teaches nothing. Take that energy and make positive change.
Owen Pallett said it better than I can:
"The difficulties of my story:
Despite discomforts, despite myself, I
I reaffirm my endless devotion
To the belief that we're all of value,
We're all of virtue, and so inclined we
Fill up our cups and toast to each other,
And though I listen to the arguments
That most divergent systems employ to
Debilitate us, delineate us,
Repackage our words, demystify us,
I unceasingly affirm my love can
Cannot be measured, cannot be altered.
I know, I know it, I do affirm it
With overzealous obscurantism.
With every word and with every gesture,
I must express it. I can't define it,
But all the same I know I can describe it:"
Love you guys.
Oh FFS please stop. What is your point? Not everything Hitler or Mussolini did was fascist or anti-Semitic either. Besides, Lee was a traitor to this country and fought to destroy it and to preserve slavery forever. So, fuck that guy,
Got it, fighting against an overstepping government in Great Britain when the colonists formed the USA = good, but when part of the USA does it = bad and everyone who joined were traitors.
fighting against an overstepping government in Great Britain when the colonists formed the USA = good, but when part of the USA does it = bad and everyone who joined were traitors
Literally yes
It sure as hell does when one side believes slavery should exist.
I think you're kinda missing a BIG point here. The revolutionary war was fought because laws concerning the colonies were being passed without any representation from the colonists. In other words, it was a fight for democracy and representation.
The south didn't fight for democracy. Quite the opposite. They were part of a democratic government and had representation in that government. They fought simply because they lost in the democratic process.
Except they felt they were underrepresented....the South was set to be taxed at 40% on imported goods. Also Abraham Lincoln never said anything about going to war to end slavery, his goal was to simply bring the union back together.
Also Abraham Lincoln never said anything about going to war to end slavery,
And neither did I. So I'm not sure what your point is...
Except they felt they were underrepresented....
If anything, they were overrepresented. The 3/5 compromise gave them an overrepresentation in the House and the Electoral College. They wanted to count slaves in the census so they could get greater representation but, at the same time, deny any representation to slaves.
Imposing tariffs is a constitutional power of Congress. Democratic politics is about accepting the results of an election and the constitutional democratic process. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Should people take up arms every time they lose in the process?
But, of course, Gen. Lee could have meant a number of things by saying "the eyes of the south are upon you." He might have meant, "you are expected to study hard and show good character." Lee was noted for being against the Lost Cause movement and declined a very serious opportunity to run for President on the Democratic Party ticket against U. S. Grant. Lee declined because he wanted there to be healing and didn't think it would serve the country to carry on the old animosities. So I strongly doubt that he meant "the eyes of the South are upon you" in any nefarious way.
If the donors would rather take their billion dollars to a place that doesn't destroy history in a state that is still 60% republican voters. then that's their choice if the school decides to appease the masses and not let their athletic department goes under that is also their choice.
nothing wrong here on either side honestly.
equating "stopping a tradition with racist origins" to "destroying history" is ridiculous hyperbole.
EDIT: Also your "60% republican voters" claim doesn't hold water, given that Texas voted for a Republican president by a 52 to 46.5% margin and a Republican senator by a 53.5 to 43.9%. There's a real thought that if demographic trends continue, Texas will be a blue state sooner rather than later.
What if I told you we could still celebrate things that once had bad elements to them as well as good? George Washington was a slave owner as were most of the founding fathers...that doesn't mean George Washington doesn't deserve to be on the $1 bill or have the capital of the freaking country named after him.
I'm not saying I disagree with you. It's a tricky subject. One can easily argue that not a single founding father would be considered a good person if he were instantly transported into today's times and judged by today's standards without being given a chance to revise any of his beliefs.
At the same time, if we take George Washington off the $1 bill, we have in no way "destroyed the history" of George Washington. Ditto for taking down statues, renaming military bases, revising flags. None of these things "destroy history". They just signify that we're going to do something different going forward.
But in a way it does. It leads to the individual in question being only discussed for the bad they did without the good. Very rarely are we taught both sides of anything in history growing up.
Questioning someone’s legacy does help bring both sides to light
The difference being that George Washington was an American patriot and the Confederates were rebels. You won't find a statue of George Washington in the middle of Picadilly Circus, and for good reason.