Eyes of Texas

[troph 24563]

I do not accept that tunes are racist, especially within the context of folk music. Often, songs had multiple different versions of lyrics.  And a song might be sung to multiple tunes. Or different sets of lyrics could be sung to the same standard tune. You can see that phenomenon at work in a lot of 18th-19th century hymns, for instance, to this day.

You don’t have to accept it for it to be true.

It’s well established I’ve been working on the railroad was racist, and that was the tune used for a song written with the words that the eyes are upon you and you can’t get away during a time when Black folk walked on the street afraid for their lives at the hands of white people always leering at them.

I guess I’m on the exact opposite side now. I can’t see how it’s not easily seen as racist given what we now know.

[Spankytoes 1736]

38 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I just think the perception is really poorly founded.  Statues, building names, Confederate flags, other symbols I get. I don't mind telling Trumpers they're full of shit  . . . .

I'm not for a majority imposing its will on an oppressed minority, when there's an aspect of oppression involved.

But the majority can't let the oppressed minority dictate everything, when there's not an aspect of oppression involved or only a self-declared one.  That kind of turns democracy on its head.  Not that there's a whole lot left, but still.

A song that has been sung for more than a century that up until recently, was sung with absolutely no racist undertones. This isn’t white people trying to oppress black people in any way. Hell, we don’t even have a straw poll on whether the song offends the majority of black students on campus. (Not that this would change my opinion) The people that carry so much white guilt that they are willing to concede anything and everything to show “change” are morons. Could not care less if anyone thinks I’m racist for wanting to keep it. Doing so has a net neutral effect on getting rid of any racism. It only further divides our fanbase. I never got into the Texas/Southern pride thing so I never understood the need for any statues outside of a museum. Perfectly fine with renaming buildings after less controversial figures. 

[formermav43 4599]

7 minutes ago, troph said:

You don’t have to accept it for it to be true.

It’s well established I’ve been working on the railroad was racist, and that was the tune used for a song written with the words that the eyes are upon you and you can’t get away during a time when Black folk walked on the street afraid for their lives at the hands of white people always leering at them.

I guess I’m on the exact opposite side now. I can’t see how it’s not easily seen as racist given what we now know.

None of that contradicts anything I said regarding tunes.

As for the lyrics, we KNOW that the statement about the eyes are upon you was based on a statement of Lee and directed toward students to instill pride. This is undisputed (and, in fact, is one of the arguments used to demonstrate its supposed racist origins). To turn that around and claim that it’s promoting white supremacy by...comparing students to slaves? It’s completely nonsensical. 

Edited June 21, 2020 by formermav43

[troph 24563]

I don't know.  It hit me funny from the get go.  Sometimes that changes over a bit of time, but so far it hasn't.

Maybe what I feel is that the claim of racist symbolism to me is sufficiently thin and contrived that I question the sincerity of those objecting to it.  At least insofar as they really object to it rather than are using it as some sort of political bargaining point.

I don't know, that's a brand-new thought that just spurted out.  I don't like questioning people's sincerity, as a rule, unless it's an obvious troll.

Especially not when my experiences have been so vastly different from those whose sincerity I might be questioning.

I'm trying to talk this out, with myself, with anyone who will listen/respond in good faith.  Thanks, troph.  You've changed me for the better.

I haven’t written anything on this until tonight. I was hell bent on defending the song originally and that made me ask myself to think again. And again and again. I still want no changes personally. I’ll be mad when it changes. I think the solution to eradicating racism is better found elsewhere but then I’m not in charge of making these priorities because I’m not the victim. It’s really hard for me to let others have power. That’s where I’m at. Trying not to say what I want, trying not to say I’m right, they are wrong. I’m trying to make space for the ones saying they are aggrieved.

[troph 24563]

None of that contradicts anything I said regarding tunes.
As for the lyrics, we KNOW that the statement about the eyes are upon you was based on a statement of Lee and directed toward students to instill pride. This is undisputed (and, in fact, is one of the arguments used to demonstrate its supposed racist origins). To turn that around and claim that it’s promoting white supremacy by...comparing students to slaves? It’s completely nonsensical. 

And uphold southern traditions. Just like the Civil War was really about economics. #whitewashing

[TwiceHorn 31283]

7 minutes ago, troph said:

You don’t have to accept it for it to be true.

It’s well established I’ve been working on the railroad was racist, and that was the tune used for a song written with the words that the eyes are upon you and you can’t get away during a time when Black folk walked on the street afraid for their lives at the hands of white people always leering at them.

I guess I’m on the exact opposite side now. I can’t see how it’s not easily seen as racist given what we now know.

It is established that the version put down in Carmina Princetonia contains two "racist" stanzas, specifically the same words, but in a "negro dialect."  It's not established that that was the only or the dominant version of the song in 1894.   No one knows where the non-racist "someone's in the kitchen with Dinah" stanzas came from.

The song was recorded multiple times in the 20th century without the racist lyrics by noted virulent racists such as Pete Seeger.

Is it the origin of the song or the one most identified by the public?  Do the lyrics matter?

[TwiceHorn 31283]

4 minutes ago, troph said:

I haven’t written anything on this until tonight. I was hell bent on defending the song originally and that made me ask myself to think again. And again and again. I still want no changes personally. I’ll be mad when it changes. I think the solution to eradicating racism is better found elsewhere but then I’m not in charge of making these priorities because I’m not the victim. It’s really hard for me to let others have power. That’s where I’m at. Trying not to say what I want, trying not to say I’m right, they are wrong. I’m trying to make space for the ones saying they are aggrieved.

I'm probably just an asshole.

I try not to get all white-guy defensive, but it happens a lot still.

[formermav43 4599]

2 minutes ago, troph said:

And uphold southern traditions. Just like the Civil War was really about economics. #whitewashing

That good old southern tradition of comparing white students to slaves. Sure.

This isn’t really productive anymore, so I’ll bow out. But I’d encourage you to really think through that interpretation of the lyrics. Given everything we know about its origin, even as spelled out by its harshest critics,  it’s objectively irrational.

[troph 24563]

I think we white people have to practice listening not telling. That’s what matters now.

And to me I’m hearing the entire song of I’ve been working on the railroad in any version was originally racist and has been whitewashed. That’s makes black athletes uncomfortable.

Then we have General Lee and his statement which includes a culture of slavery and exclusion of blacks and similar language in a song to the culture of the time of white people keeping their eyes on black folk to make sure they don’t step out of line. That makes black athletes uncomfortable.

That’s credible and enough for me, as much as I want no changes personally. Ugh.

I simply don’t see how it’s hard to see the concerns and how it can be so easily dismissed.

[troph 24563]

That good old southern tradition of comparing white students to slaves. Sure.
This isn’t really productive anymore, so I’ll bow out. But I’d encourage you to really think through that interpretation of the lyrics. Given everything we know about its origin, even as spelled out by its harshest critics,  it’s objectively irrational.

That’s not what I said. Nothing close to it. Harkening back to General Lee and his statements about the eyes of the south are upon you and claiming there is nothing about that that’s racist or at least exclusionary is whitewashing like claiming the civil war was a war about economics.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

12 minutes ago, troph said:

Then we have General Lee and his statement which includes a culture of slavery and exclusion of blacks and similar language in a song to the culture of the time of white people keeping their eyes on black folk to make sure they don’t step out of line. That makes black athletes uncomfortable.
 

I hear you, but this one is really tenuous.

Like, if Emanuel Acho sat in a chair across from me and tried to tell me this, I would be pretty incredulous.  As solemn, and respectful as that occasion would be, I have a difficult time seeing Manny articulate that out loud and me being able to just shut up and listen.

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[troph 24563]

I hear you, but this one is really tenuous. Like, if Emanuel Acho sat in a chair across from me and tried to tell me this, I would be pretty incredulous.

 

 

Well if you think the pride of the south and southern tradition didn’t mean keeping black folk in line with whatever means necessary in 1903 then I’d agree with you.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I just think the perception is really poorly founded. [...] I don't mind telling Trumpers they're full of shit  . . . .

Yeah that’s my point. How well do you think the conversation is going to go after you tell them they are full of shit?

its time to have a conversation. Maybe there is a reasonable way to end up not changing anything. If we start from a position of hearing and learning maybe we can also do some teaching here as well. But also, maybe there isn’t a way to save it.
 

But there 100% sure isn’t a way to finish this discussion with The Eyes still intact if we are starting the conversation with “you are full of shit.”

That’s the point I’m trying to make. Meet people where they are, have a conversation. Learn, teach, come to an agreement on the best path forward together. This is the way you heal wounds and win hearts and minds. 

Edited June 21, 2020 by NameAlreadyInUse

[Hookah Horns 3082]

12 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

There was a post upthread talking about some of the athletes thinking some of the lyrics were a call back to slavery.  That seems like a pretty decent reason to be offended, tbh.  

It would be if they actually were. Putting a little brain grease into it should help anyone figure out that UT students didn't write a school song about slavery 40 years after it was abolished. 

[Hookah Horns 3082]

9 hours ago, troph said:

You don’t have to accept it for it to be true.

It’s well established I’ve been working on the railroad was racist, and that was the tune used for a song written with the words that the eyes are upon you and you can’t get away during a time when Black folk walked on the street afraid for their lives at the hands of white people always leering at them.

I guess I’m on the exact opposite side now. I can’t see how it’s not easily seen as racist given what we now know.

You seriously believe the song is about watching black people? As in that was the intent of the writer? That would be a weird ass choice for a school song. 

Edited June 21, 2020 by Hookah Horns

[TwiceHorn 31283]

7 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

You seriously believe the song is about watching black people? As in that was the intent of the writer? That would be a weird ass choice for a school song. 

No, his point is that some black students may think that.

I get that much.  But, like you, I think it strains credibility.

I understand that this was a minor issue briefly before, apparently with basketball players.  I can't help but maybe think that some of our students that aren't the clearest thinkers, and maybe subject to manipulation by those smarter than they are, have been sold a bill of goods.  If it were a clearer case of oppressiveness/offensiveness, I think we might have seen this be a smoldering issue for quite some time now as with the Confederate statues and memorials.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

9 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Yeah that’s my point. How well do you think the conversation is going to go after you tell them they are full of shit?

its time to have a conversation. Maybe there is a reasonable way to end up not changing anything. If we start from a position of hearing and learning maybe we can also do some teaching here as well. But also, maybe there isn’t a way to save it.
 

But there 100% sure isn’t a way to finish this discussion with The Eyes still intact if we are starting the conversation with “you are full of shit.”

That’s the point I’m trying to make. Meet people where they are, have a conversation. Learn, teach, come to an agreement on the best path forward together. This is the way you heal wounds and win hearts and minds. 

That wasn't what I was trying to say.  I'm sitting here, trying to make the points without being overly strident about it.

[Spankytoes 1736]

No, his point is that some black students may think that.
I get that much.  But, like you, I think it strains credibility.
I understand that this was a minor issue briefly before, apparently with basketball players.  I can't help but maybe think that some of our students that aren't the clearest thinkers, and maybe subject to manipulation by those smarter than they are, have been sold a bill of goods.  If it were a clearer case of oppressiveness/offensiveness, I think we might have seen this be a smoldering issue for quite some time now as with the Confederate statues and memorials.

His?

[TwiceHorn 31283]

5 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

His?

Aw fuck.  Sorry troph.

[Bojack 2073]

I've been staying for the Eyes through blowouts both ways, bad weather, and all that going back to the early '90s.  I've always thought of it as a way to honor the efforts and commitment  of the players.  If the players aren't seeing it that way, then I'm done with it unless there's some kind of resolution.  

[softlynow 1783]

6 minutes ago, Bojack said:

I've been staying for the Eyes through blowouts both ways, bad weather, and all that going back to the early '90s.  I've always thought of it as a way to honor the efforts and commitment  of the players.  If the players aren't seeing it that way, then I'm done with it unless there's some kind of resolution.  

Exactly. If we get to the other side of this conversation with the song still uniting us, great. If not, we have to unite behind something new.

[troph 24563]

Aw fuck.  Sorry troph.

Didn’t see it don’t care it wasn’t intentional and spanks calling you out for it is rather ironic.

[Neonmoon 38127]

The Texas Monthly article already proves the song was written in 1903 for a minstrel show. If you choose to google the history of I’ve Been Working on the Railroad, or read the football thread, you will see it’s a historical racist song. Even the lyrics have connections to Robert E Lee. Those are all facts. 

The rest is people (most likely white) arguing why that doesn’t matter, or those aren’t facts, things have changed, “tradition”, and to me it feels like, etc. All to keep racist song THEY like. 

which highlights part of the problem. Black people want to be treated equally. And when they speak up about it, the majority says no, you’re wrong, you’re being treated fine, but the rich donors think differently. We don’t see a problem with [insert flag, statute, song, police behavior, bail, water fountains, bus seats]

Instead of really reading about the song, the minstrel shows, the lyrics, and listening to how Black People do not want the song, imaging what it would be like in their shoes. The fans deflect. 

Even if the school keeps the song. I’m not singing it again. I’m not going to celebrate something that was created to denigrate another race, even it “evolved” since then. 

[troph 24563]

That’s my point too. Thank you for saying it.

 

We White folk tell Black folk why they are wrong about how and why they feel something even when there is a rational basis to feel the way they do all the time. It happens to all minority groups all the time.

 

There is plenty of credible facts to conclude the song is an issue and as sad and depressed as it makes me - again I was one of those that had it sung at my freaking birth - it’s not my place to tell another they are wrong here because I love the song.

 

In my selfish place I hope we can change you to us and you to we and be happy as a UT family but if we can’t then I need to get with the program and understand that this isn’t my issue to control because I’m not the aggrieved. Ugh.

 

In the place where I’ve evolved I think the decision making table should include a majority of black individuals who have a vested interest in our University (including historians, athletes, administrators, professors, staff), white folk should have a seat at the table too, and we should trust that they know we white people love the song for non-racist reasons, and we should trust that this group of empowered individuals led by our black community will make the best decision. Honestly that’s what empowerment really is - letting others decide. We white folk aren’t so good at doing that and it’s about time we empower others.

[Skyline 325]

I've been going back and forth on this issue since it was brought up, but ultimately I've decided that the University of Texas is greater than one fight song. If that's the hangup with the boosters/alums/fans, then is it really something that important? Even though I am younger than most of you, I've already seen lots of new traditions and changes take form at UTexas. Is it really so difficult to start a different one? 

I guess what I'm trying to say is, this doesn't feel like a deal breaker to me. I'd imagine that if we make the change, some will be bitter. But in time most people won't remember this debate, or care, once the dust settles.

[burntorangebongos 10681]

I think it matters that the song evolved from whatever it might have originally been and that no one in the last at least 60 years of singing this song as their alma mater song has ever sang it with intent to denigrate others. I know this is true because I have felt the unity with my fellow students, alumni and all Texas fans who sang it at events with pride at singing it with the quality of people that lifted their voice to sing it as well. I liked that feeling and I'm sure student athletes liked that feeling, especially after a win. I'd like to keep that feeling even if we have to change the words up.

 I think the main fault that the collective we are guilty of that is being pointed out by the student athletes is that there is a lot of ignorance about the origins of things that have ignoble pasts. Like some childhood songs that got white washed the fuck out of. Or the ignorance about the police brutality that black people have dealt with forever, for instance. The main issue is unopened eyes and ignorance about the hurt that is felt by allowing racist symbols to exist in an environment that should be inclusive to all the citizens of Texas because The University aspires to be a thought leader and a symbol of greatness. You can't be that with the ugly scars being left on campus. Is our song an ugly scar too? At the end of the day, I just want to feel the unity with the people who love my University as much as I do. I am for whatever makes that happen but hope like hell we can lift our song away from its ignoble origin to the thing we all thought it was, a song about how great our University is that you can't escape its gaze and that you are expected to do great things at all times because you are a product of it.  

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by burntorangebongos

[Mole 4320]

To the “a melody can’t be racist” argument, this is essentially arguing that a melody alone can’t carry symbolic meaning, which is both inconsistent with our culture as well as music history.

If you were to pull out an instrument and play Dixie in the middle of a BLM protest, there would likely be a strong negative response. No lyrics needed. Even if you were to sing new, wonderfully inclusive lyrics to the tune of Dixie, you’d get a similar response. Would you be mocking the new lyrics or the tune? The melody itself carries meaning that would change the perception of the lyrics.

Much of music making throughout history involves trading in cultural references and associations. It’s one of the fundamental reasons why we make music and why it carries meaning.

Dismissing the connection with I’ve Been Working On The Railroad just isn’t coherent. There’s a case to be made that the connection between the original lyrics for the melody and the Eyes isn’t sufficiently strong enough to carry that racial baggage, but that’s a different argument.

Melodies get reused and often are divorced from their origins, but that isn’t a given and it isn’t inherently permanent. Remarriages happen. Once we’re aware of the historical lyrics to Railroad, particularly if the writers of the Eyes would have been aware of these lyrics, you kind of have to deal with it. 

I’m hopeful that a more inclusive revision will bring everyone together. My Old Kentucky Home was revised to remove openly racist lyrics, so surely a reasonable solution can be found here. If no solution is found, I don’t see how the song can stay.

[tx 3 putt 76396]

the school can't risk having all the black players leave the field as the white players run to the corner to sing the eyes. it's a horrible optic 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

20 minutes ago, Mole said:

To the “a melody can’t be racist” argument, this is essentially arguing that a melody alone can’t carry symbolic meaning, which is both inconsistent with our culture as well as music history.

If you were to pull out an instrument and play Dixie in the middle of a BLM protest, there would likely be a strong negative response. No lyrics needed. Even if you were to sing new, wonderfully inclusive lyrics to the tune of Dixie, you’d get a similar response. Would you be mocking the new lyrics or the tune? The melody itself carries meaning that would change the perception of the lyrics.

Much of music making throughout history involves trading in cultural references and associations. It’s one of the fundamental reasons why we make music and why it carries meaning.

Dismissing the connection with I’ve Been Working On The Railroad just isn’t coherent. There’s a case to be made that the connection between the original lyrics for the melody and the Eyes isn’t sufficiently strong enough to carry that racial baggage, but that’s a different argument.

Melodies get reused and often are divorced from their origins, but that isn’t a given and it isn’t inherently permanent. Remarriages happen. Once we’re aware of the historical lyrics to Railroad, particularly if the writers of the Eyes would have been aware of these lyrics, you kind of have to deal with it. 

I’m hopeful that a more inclusive revision will bring everyone together. My Old Kentucky Home was revised to remove openly racist lyrics, so surely a reasonable solution can be found here. If no solution is found, I don’t see how the song can stay.

I would retort that it isn't the melody itself, it's the association that comes from the lyrics.

Dixie is offensive because everyone knows it, because of its lyrics, as a paean to the Old South.  If there had been an original version that was a "negro spiritual," that wouldn't count for anything.  Yet, that's what we're essentially arguing here.

Most people know "I've been working on the railroad" without the offensive dialect.  The music itself is neutral.  Its origin is largely irrelevant unless it was so well known in that original, offensive form that its significance is primarily offensive, as in the case of Dixie.

Here is the earliest known recording of it, sans racist lyrics, from 1927, nearly 100 years ago.  And in an era where there would have been few qualms about going 100% "darkie dialect." 

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31283]

And, yes, I am doing a "deep dive" to defend The Eyes.

I submit that you have to do an equivalently deep dive to criticize it.

In for a penny, in for a pound.  Goose/gander and all that.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

37 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

the school can't risk having all the black players leave the field as the white players run to the corner to sing the eyes. it's a horrible optic 

This is the part that bugs me the worst.  Banned or not, this song has now become a racial division point for pretty spurious reasons.

Not one time has a detractor cited The Eyes of Texas, in its near 120 year history, being used as a tool of oppression or insensitivity.  It's just this contrived origin story that turns it into the Horst Wessel Song.

That breaks my heart and makes me want to explain it at least as well as the detractors.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

5 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

You seriously believe the song is about watching black people? As in that was the intent of the writer? That would be a weird ass choice for a school song. 

Your question was directed to @troph but begging forgiveness I would like to comment. No one can say for certain the intent of the writer, long dead, unless there is written documentation stating exactly the frame of mind upon composition. However, a couple of things to bear in mind. When the song was composed in 1903, one has to consider the culture of the times. While former slaves were now free, by the turn of the century many of the codes and restrictions used to segregate and disenfranchise African Americans were being or had been put into place. After rural/poor farmers had begun to pursue a populist agenda, the white 'elites' tightened their hold on the Democratic Party.

These young men didn't need to write a song about 'watching black people,' they wouldn't have given that a second thought. They were young men (white) writing a ditty for a school minstrel show using a popular melody of the time (also written by whites depicting black sterotypes) somewhat lampooning their school's leader (also white) who used a phrase by Confederate general whom he admired (also white). They probably gave it about as much thought as Clayton Williams did when he uttered his off color joke during the race for governor. In the case of Williams, there was some accountability. But no song writer was going to give explicit consideration or thought to it, because the concerns of blacks (or in William's case, rape victims) didn't matter unless the dominant holder of power said they did.

If a portion of attendees see the song, to borrow from @burntorangebongos, as an ugly scar, perhaps it is better to listen to what type of pain that scar has caused and perhaps continues to cause in order that the wound may heal.

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

20 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Your question was directed to @troph but begging forgiveness I would like to comment. No one can say for certain the intent of the writer, long dead, unless there is written documentation stating exactly the frame of mind upon composition. However, a couple of things to bear in mind. When the song was composed in 1903, one has to consider the culture of the times. While former slaves were now free, by the turn of the century many of the codes and restrictions used to segregate and disenfranchise African Americans were being or had been put into place. After rural/poor farmers had begun to pursue a populist agenda, the white 'elites' tightened their hold on the Democratic Party.

These young men didn't need to write a song about 'watching black people,' they wouldn't have given that a second thought. They were young men (white) writing a ditty for a school minstrel show using a popular melody of the time (also written by whites depicting black sterotypes) somewhat lampooning their school's leader (also white) who used a phrase by Confederate general whom he admired (also white). They probably gave it about as much thought as Clayton Williams did when he uttered his off color joke during the race for governor. In the case of Williams, there was some accountability. But no song writer was going to give explicit consideration or thought to it, because the concerns of blacks (or in William's case, rape victims) didn't matter unless the dominant holder of power said they did.

If a portion of attendees see the song, to borrow from @burntorangebongos, as an ugly scar, perhaps it is better to listen to what type of pain that scar has caused and perhaps continues to cause in order that the wound may heal.

 

 

Interesting point.  If the song had been intended to demean blacks, in 1903 Texas, they wouldn't have needed to use code, or veiled or oblique references.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

No, there may have been plenty of songs at the minstrel show that did do those things explicitly, as explicitly as blackface. The difficulty lies with the casual use/enforcement, that is something that the person holding the pen, scrapping the job application, denying the loan, etc would not have seen. Why would they?

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not one time has a detractor cited The Eyes of Texas, in its near 120 year history, being used as a tool of oppression or insensitivity. 

What is a minstrel show?

[burntorangebongos 10681]

My understanding is that sometime in the  20's or 30's, a man who worked for the university and was the glee club leader secured a copyright to the song with some Boston company and wanted royalty when it was used for commercial purposes. At the time, some Texas people were trying to copyright it to secure it for the university but he beat them to it. The man said that he wanted the University to have full use but he wanted to be paid for any commercial use. They finally contacted Mr. Sinclair that originally wrote the song. He said he never copyrighted it because he wrote it as the school song and wanted the University to be able to use it always as that.

So, it wasn't written for a minstrel show, it debuted in one because that was the kind of event of entertainment of the day and the man that they intended to tease was in the audience. He retired shortly thereafter. Eventually, the students spontaneously sang it at a football game and a tradition was born.   

[troph 24563]

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Interesting point.  If the song had been intended to demean blacks, in 1903 Texas, they wouldn't have needed to use code, or veiled or oblique references.

now to me and you it's a song meant to unite all of us.  That I agree with.  But it might not have been then.  We really can't separate Southern or Texas culture from the oppression of black folk during those times, just like you can't say the Civil War was about states rights or economics and not about slavery.  We white people today may wish to separate Texas pride or Southern pride extolled by white people during the early 1900's as benign but it was part and parcel with exclusion, coercion, violence and instilling fear in the black community.   

What Mrs Whiggins may be trying to say is white culture at that time was dominated by phrases and actions intended to oppress, scare and coerce black people.  White culture entertainment was in large part built around making fun of Black culture.  And so it can be both "no big deal" and a "very big deal" that the song contained casual and seemingly irrelevant messages about the culture of the time.  It makes no sense to us today as white people because I suspect without a single exception on this thread the idea of coercing black culture with fear and ridicule is not in our personal DNA.  But it is in our past cultural DNA and there in lies the problem.  Back then, it probably was as simple as saying if the Eyes of Texas are upon you - they are either *not* on black people because black people are systematically excluded or they *are* on black people because at every turn, in every way, and at all times, white culture was watching, and keeping black people separate.  And even a step further, it could be that there was no thought of Black people in the song, because "they" are not part of the culture.  That exclusion as well is problematic.  Of course, this is all my attempt to understand and learn, so I'm always going to be open to being told I'm wrong or don't have it quite right by those in our community that raised the concern.

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by troph

[TwiceHorn 31283]

I was re-reading some of the articles on it, and came across this one.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/the-case-against-singing-the-eyes-of-texas/ar-BB15pVDd

Which includes this quote:

Quote

Former offensive tackle Donald Hawkins says he was told that it was originally a slave song featuring a verse that went, “The Eyes of Master is watching you.”

That is a statement about The Eyes that is wholly without factual basis.  Which makes one wonder what other kind of bullshit rumors have been spreading around the locker room about it.  I can easily envision one of the brighter student-athletes having taken Dr. Gordon's class and relaying the factoids we are discussing here.  And the rumor mill burning out of control among the lesser intellectual lights of the football team.

So, setting aside historical bases, is it "right" to ban something allegedly racist when the factual basis for the alleged racism is flat wrong?  In that case, does the perception of the oppressed minority control?*

*before anyone jumps my shit, I concede that the record supports the racist notion somewhat better than Hawkin's quote.  But I'm trying to find a delineation here.

Edited June 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[troph 24563]

I agree that appears to be fabricated.  and in my ideal scenario a Black historian with deep ties to UT would be part of the leadership team to find a solution - which could include keeping the song - and in that scenario statements like this would be debunked.   

[TwiceHorn 31283]

1 minute ago, troph said:

I agree that appears to be fabricated.  and in my ideal scenario a Black historian with deep ties to UT would be part of the leadership team to find a solution - which could include keeping the song - and in that scenario statements like this would be debunked.   

Somewhere I read that Dr. Gordon himself is ambivalent about banning the song.  I have read so much about it that I can't remember where.

The facts, such as they are, have been "out there" since at least the 1985(3?) Alcalde article and if they made the alumni mag, I'm sure were of record within the history or archival departments far earlier.  It does seem that Gordon is responsible for bringing it to the attention of the modern black student and student athlete via his racial geography series.

But, and I think this is the thing that galls me the worst, the cat is out of the bag.  The Eyes is now ruined.  It's untenable.  And I fear the reasons for that have more to do with statements like Hawkins than the true state of affairs.  It's a slander, but it's now irretrievable.

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

12 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

So, it wasn't written for a minstrel show, it debuted in one because that was the kind of event of entertainment of the day and the man that they intended to tease was in the audience. He retired shortly thereafter. Eventually, the students spontaneously sang it at a football game and a tradition was born.   

So it became a tradition because a bunch of students sang it at a football game after hearing it at a minstrel show.

And now we sing it after watching a bunch of black kids beat each other up for our entertainment.

I think these questions are answering themselves.

[formermav43 4599]

🙄

[troph 24563]

So it became a tradition because a bunch of students sang it at a football game after hearing it at a minstrel show.
And now we sing it after watching a bunch of black kids beat each other up for our entertainment.
I think these questions are answering themselves.

That’s a bit much.

[burntorangebongos 10681]

Until a dialog is had and the student athletes with objection to it explain what they understand and object to, then nothing is learned nor answered. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That wasn't what I was trying to say.  I'm sitting here, trying to make the points without being overly strident about it.

Ok sorry man, I’m misunderstanding what you are trying to say.  I’m not going to be offended if you are strident, I’d like to understand what you mean because I am still trying to talk out what I think about this as well.

I’m in a spot now where I Am pretty sure we ought to have a conversation about this and an honest conversation. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, troph said:

That’s a bit much.

For whom? and why?

Seems perfectly fair to me. It became popular because a bunch of white people who learned it at a minstrel show liked it. White people completely dominated all aspects of society for a century and made the singing of that song a tradition. Now it wears the armor of tradition and is surrounded by the landmines of white feelings and sentiment.

The idea that we need to venue-shop black Longhorns until we find one that tells us that our probably-not-OK traditions are actually OK is Aggie as hell, and we are not Aggies.

The purpose of the school song is to promote unity, right?

As soon as any constituency within that school decides the song is divisive, it's dead. Are you loyal to the song or to the unity of the school? What actually matters here?

It's not the song. Fuck the song. Let all things die.

This focus on, "Well those people might have gotten a few facts wrong so I'm going to either ignore their valid complaints or hand-wave them away" is very Ben Shapiro.

[troph 24563]

I left this board for two months because of you. I’m not even willing to read your post. Not interested in discussing the fact that dozens of players are also white on an 85 player roster when you make claims like you did. It was a bit much, hyperbole, inaccurate, probably to make a point but while doing so you cheapened the arguments we are trying to understand. Please don’t ruin this thread the discussion is actually really good right now.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

4 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

The Texas Monthly article already proves the song was written in 1903 for a minstrel show. If you choose to google the history of I’ve Been Working on the Railroad, or read the football thread, you will see it’s a historical racist song. Even the lyrics have connections to Robert E Lee. Those are all facts. 

The rest is people (most likely white) arguing why that doesn’t matter, or those aren’t facts, things have changed, “tradition”, and to me it feels like, etc. All to keep racist song THEY like. 

which highlights part of the problem. Black people want to be treated equally. And when they speak up about it, the majority says no, you’re wrong, you’re being treated fine, but the rich donors think differently. We don’t see a problem with [insert flag, statute, song, police behavior, bail, water fountains, bus seats]

Instead of really reading about the song, the minstrel shows, the lyrics, and listening to how Black People do not want the song, imaging what it would be like in their shoes. The fans deflect. 

Even if the school keeps the song. I’m not singing it again. I’m not going to celebrate something that was created to denigrate another race, even it “evolved” since then. 

I didn’t read the Texas monthly article that way. I read that it debuted there, not that it was written for the show. From my point of view it makes a huge difference in how this conversation is going to turn out. 

[burntorangebongos 10681]

Yup. As far as I know, a dialog hasn't taken place. The listening to the objection and pain hasn't happened, nor anything learned nor answered. 

You have points BT, but you take too much for granted as fact because you are too in love with your thinking to give a fuck about anyone else's opinion. Shut up and listen dickhead, if all you are going to  offer is answers in your patriarchal voice that "This is how it is because I pronounced it so". 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

47 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

So, setting aside historical bases, is it "right" to ban something allegedly racist when the factual basis for the alleged racism is flat wrong?  In that case, does the perception of the oppressed minority control?*

Going back to my trumper analogy above, once you have had a fact based discussion where you have proven you are factually correct about what actually is, your expectation should be that people will adjust their thinking to match the facts. That’s when you say what you wanted to start with and tell those that won’t adjust to the facts to fuck off. But that comes after the determining of facts and having the conversation about them. And that’s where I want this to go. And hopefully we still have the Eyes after it’s over.