Eyes of Texas

[TwiceHorn 32079]

5 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

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. 

I might further ask, what does it mean to "write a song FOR a minstrel show"?  

If you are writing something demeaning to blacks, that's one thing, whether it's performed at a minstrel show, a Klan rally, or on the Flower Power Variety Hour.

If you write a song or a skit that's not demeaning to blacks and hope it gets performed somewhere, that's something else entirely. 

If you write a song or skit that's not demeaning to blacks and hope it gets accepted for the student variety show, which also happens to be a minstrel show, which side does that fall on?

If you write a song or a skit that's not demeaning to blacks and hope it gets performed at the minstrel show as a form of relief from the blackface, what about that?

Which of those is "for a minstrel show" and which isn't?  Are they all culpable?  Are they all racist in intention?  Any of them?

And how can you divine the intentions of the author from what has been reported? 

Except that the song has no racial content, except perhaps in the fevered imagination of Donald Hawkins and some others. I have no recollection of Donald Hawkins, but I see he was a JUCO in '12-13 and was supposedly 1st Team All Big 12.

[bad_teammate 13524]

What was "inaccurate"? What was the hyperbole?

The students learned the song at a minstrel show: Fact.
The students sang the song, that they learned at a minstrel show, because they liked it: Fact.
Our football team is primarily black: Fact.
We sing the song after games: Fact.
Football is physically painful and can be (is often) life-alteringly injurious to its players: Fact.
We watch football because it entertains us: Fact.
The majority of the people watching are white: Fact.

If your problem is that I'm using facts to create a negative framing, that's fine, because I absolutely am. 

Here's an inflammatory statement: If you sing The Eyes after a football game now while knowing there are players on that field who associate that song with racial oppression you're a fucking asshole who should've gone to A&M.

But please tell me what was inaccurate. That's actually important, because if you're lying that's kind of a big deal here.

21 minutes ago, troph said:

I left this board for two months because of you.

15 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

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.

"Be nice and slow down" is what people in power say to make sure they remain unchallenged.

This "we need to have a learning and dialogue session" talk is corporate shit used to quell dissent. All that most here want is a comfortable way to tell the young blacks to shut up and stop threatening their precious traditions.

I know enough facts to know that objections to The Eyes are completely valid. And I have no emotional investment in the song because it's a song and I am happy to let tradition die because I'm not an Aggie.

A case in point...

3 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

... And hopefully we still have the Eyes after it’s over. 

Saying the quiet part loud.

If you go into this "listening and learning with a productive dialogue" talk with your end-game already set like this, it's a waste of everyone's time and you're just filibustering/running out the clock.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

3 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

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. 

Perhaps so.  I don't think the facts are ascertainable to any greater degree than what we have.  The questions lie in how to interpret those facts and what to infer from them.  

Perhaps the failure lies in not having the dialog immediately and letting it fester in a muck of half-truths and believing what you want to believe.

[bad_teammate 13524]

Me, a comfortable older white person to a young black Longhorn: "Well actually this song is fine, because it wasn't written FOR the minstrel show but was merely performed AT the minstrel show..."

[Hornius Emeritus 12804]

Just in case it hasn't been posted, here's a link to the earliest known recording of the Eyes of Texas.
 

https://jimnicar.com/audio/victor-recording-1928/

 

[burntorangebongos 10826]

Your facts are shit. Most of the student couldn't afford that Minstrel show, there was a newspaper article with people complaining about scalping going on so a lot of folks were fucked out of it. Most everyone learned it from a fairly ubiquitously scheduled event, called the Varsity Promenade, where the band walked around campus and played and sang songs of the day and mostly University songs. The student that ran that entreated Mr. Sinclair to use his talent to write a school song for Texas because there wasn't one and they played songs from Universities that did. 

Also, the student athletes aren't all the football guys and you color the rest of your facts from your white patriarchal bullshit perspective. Having conversations and listening are human and the correct thing to do. What happens next depends on EVERYONES buy in. Scream all you want, white man, your opinion is no more relevant than anyone else's. 

[TwiceHorn 32079]

7 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Your facts are shit. Most of the student couldn't afford that Minstrel show, there was a newspaper article with people complaining about scalping going on so a lot of folks were fucked out of it. Most everyone learned it from a fairly ubiquitously scheduled event, called the Varsity Promenade, where the band walked around campus and played and sang songs of the day and mostly University songs. The student that ran that entreated Mr. Sinclair to use his talent to write a school song for Texas because there wasn't one and they played songs from Universities that did. 

Also, the student athletes aren't all the football guys and you color the rest of your facts from your white patriarchal bullshit perspective. Having conversations and listening are human and the correct thing to do. What happens next depends on EVERYONES buy in. Scream all you want, white man, your opinion is no more relevant than anyone else's. 

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.  Seriously, you seem to know quite a bit about the Varsity Minstrel Show in context.

Also, there seems to be a consensus from the literature that the Daily Texan had urged the composition of a school song to replace Jolly Students of Texas and that the song was written in response to that.  

Another note.  Using the music/melody of an old or folk song for a school song is pretty much going to have to be the default, because you don't want to get your school song into a copyright royalty snit.  So you need something people know and/or can sing, but you can't use current popular music.

Edited June 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[bad_teammate 13524]

6 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Your facts are shit. Most of the student couldn't afford that Minstrel show, there was a newspaper article with people complaining about scalping going on so a lot of folks were fucked out of it. Most everyone learned it from a fairly ubiquitously scheduled event, called the Varsity Promenade, where the band walked around campus and played and sang songs of the day and mostly University songs.

Cool so where did the band at the Varsity Promenade get it? Were any of them at the minstrel show? Did they hear it independently?

Quote

 The student that ran that entreated Mr. Sinclair to use his talent to write a school song for Texas because there wasn't one and they played songs from Universities that did. 

Why are you talking like this? lol

Quote

Also, the student athletes aren't all the football guys and you color the rest of your facts from your white patriarchal bullshit perspective.

"Only white partiarchs would want to stand beside young black athletes, the TRULY woke thing to do is history-scold them in a disingenuous way to tell them to fuck off!"

Quote

Having conversations and listening are human and the correct thing to do. What happens next depends on EVERYONES buy in. Scream all you want, white man, your opinion is no more relevant than anyone else's. 

See, this is where you're wrong.

Your buy-in doesn't matter at all. You're just a face in the crowd. THEY are the buy-in the matters. You don't count. You don't matter. Sit down. It's what THEY decide that matters, and none of us here are a voice in that.

[troph 25227]

If I can be white and in charge for a moment I’d want to keep the eyes and change you we and us and put out a statement that both is damning to racism and uplifting about what the eyes of Texas (the state, a diverse state at that) are upon us means. We are the people that change the world, from Barbara Jordan to all us surly assholes. We are asked and required to uphold ideals of inclusion and acceptance, excellence and determination. But I would also strip campus of all names of former UT leaders that didn’t uphold our current ideals and replace with others that do and did. I would then require orientation classes for all new students and educate them on our past our present and our future with no sugar coating and make it clear what being a Longhorn means in terms of upholding our ideals.

But again, I don’t think I’m in charge here.

[bad_teammate 13524]

So is someone going to write a new verse for The Eyes that starts with "Well, actually" and includes a numerical breakdown of attendees at the minstrel show vs. the Varsity Promenade so we white faces can tearfully sing it at a bunch of black kids who have to smile or risk losing their scholarship?

[troph 25227]

Please stop posting on this thread. You don’t add any value at all. Several folks are really trying here and others are really grappling with it. Your posts detract from that process. Again please stop.

[bad_teammate 13524]

So were you lying when you said that my statements were "inaccurate"? Can you tell me what the inaccuracy was?

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

So I'm confused a little. I've read some of the links that @TwiceHorn provided and one of the sublinks was to the Alcalde article. The Alcalde article referenced the DMN article from 1926 which discussed Prather's daughter? I've included a screenshot of the page. The bit about the skit with the boll weevil IMO does tie the song to the minstrelsy. Racial discussion aside for a moment, it was somewhat clever to poke at A&M in that way: Prather telling a boll weevil (a pest) that the eyes of Texas are upon you combined with the Aggie thinking that a boll weevil could be told anything and them being an Ag school.

My question is, is there something about the original article by Darden regarding the origin that is false? I'm learning about this as an outsider.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Mrs Whiggins
spelling

[MrBig 5639]

1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

So I'm confused a little. I've read some of the links that @TwiceHorn provided and one of the sublinks was to the Alcalde article. The Alcalde article referenced the DMN article from 1926 which discussed Prather's daughter? I've included a screenshot of the page. The bit about the skit with the boll weevil IMO does tie the song to the minstrelsy. Racial discussion aside for a moment, it was somewhat clever to poke at A&M in that way: Prather telling a boll weevil (a pest) that the eyes of Texas are upon you combined with the Aggie thinking that a boll weevil could be told anything and them being an Ag school.

My question is, is there something about the original article by Darden regarding the origin that is false? I'm learning about this is an outsider.

I posted a link to this article a few days ago on the football thread, and several responses I got was that it couldn’t have been blackface because no A&M students were black in 1903. However, I have seen many pictures in Cactus yearbooks of blacks being presented as wearing A&M shirts in a derogatory manner before A&M was even integrated. 

The use of the term “I’se gwine” is an exaggerated form of black dialect used by whites and well documented in literary history. Do non-blackface minstrel shows use interlocutors as well? The use of this word was very surprising to me in the context of history in addition to the dialect used. 

[TwiceHorn 32079]

I don't think anyone disputes whether it was first performed at the Varsity Minstrel Show, with all that may entail.  Including "whar" and "gwine."  I'm kind of curious if they put a blackface in an aggy sweater, though, or were trying to portray an aggy.  IIRC, Huck Finn and Jim used pretty similar language in Huckleberry Finn.

While "interlocutor" seems to have a pretty set meaning within the context of a minstrel show, the device of a narrator that interacts with characters is by no means limited to minstrel shows.  Also interesting that the interlocutor, according to that quote, also used the dialect.  The traditional interlocutor was white.

That still doesn't answer the question whether the song was written with any sort of racist intent.

Edited June 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[NameAlreadyInUse 5169]

50 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

If you go into this "listening and learning with a productive dialogue" talk with your end-game already set like this, it's a waste of everyone's time and you're just filibustering/running out the clock.

Nope I’m hoping that the facts will come out and we all learn more. If our learnings lead us to keep it I’ll be happy because I would like for us to keep it. If our learnings lead us to the conclusion it is not in the interest of our school to keep it then I’m fine with that too. My end game is to do what’s right. My hope is that keeping the song is the right thing when we get there. But the chips will fall where they fall. 
 

You have a bad habit of assuming bad intent Where none exists. It’s why people who would otherwise agree with you tend to blow you off. You’d go further in these discussions if you’d temper that a bit. 

[bad_teammate 13524]

1 minute ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Nope I’m hoping that the facts will come out and we all learn more. If our learnings lead us to keep it I’ll be happy because I would like for us to keep it. If our learnings lead us to the conclusion it is not in the interest of our school to keep it then I’m fine with that too. My end game is to do what’s right. My hope is that keeping the song is the right thing when we get there. But the chips will fall where they fall. 

It's pretty clear what's right: Respect the wishes of the players.

It's really that simple.

If they decide it's cool, then we sing it.
If they decide it isn't, then we don't.
If they remain undecided, we don't until they decide.

Quote

You have a bad habit of assuming bad intent Where none exists.

I can see why you think that, but what it is is that I see through bullshit that people blind themselves with. I'm already at the end of the logical progression and I'm an asshole about people not getting to the point more quickly.

I've seen too many hand-wringing white people sessions to pretend that it's about "learnings" and not just about making sure white power authority (liberals included) is coddled and catered to even when the conclusion is in plain sight.

Quote

It’s why people who would otherwise agree with you tend to blow you off. You’d go further in these discussions if you’d temper that a bit. 

The inability of white people (liberal and otherwise) to directly confront racial animosity in America without making themselves the focus of attention is infuriating and I have zero patience for it.

"But what about ME!? Why am I not at the center of this!?"

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That still doesn't answer the question whether the song was written with any sort of racist intent.

Why does that matter?

[MrBig 5639]

I love The Eyes, I want to give our school and our fans benefit of the doubt, but looking through the yearbooks and reading about our school’s history regarding race, I am very conflicted.

We were one of the last schools in the SWC to integrate our football team. Even Baylor had a black player before we did. I thought we were more progressive than that and would be among the first. I’m surprised we were the last to do so. 

[burntorangebongos 10826]

I somehow read a historical Austin reddit that this was discussed on, maybe it was a link from the football thread. Anyway, this corresponds to what I was remembering though the reddit had the newspaper articles about the scalping and other info thrown in. This tracks with the info in that reddit. I may have to dig into the football board thread to go find it because it had more historical facts. 

https://jimnicar.com/ut-traditions/the-eyes-of-texas

I was calling him Mr. Sinclair because I couldn't remember his first name, John.  The reddit had a lot of information about the eventual copyright fight.  It was fascinating and I really couldn't follow it. I guess I need to wade into that football thread and link it here. Wish me luck. 

Edited June 21, 2020 by burntorangebongos

[SaucyJack 3520]

The original lyrics appear inclusive.

 

"Sing me a song of Texas, and Texas’ myriad eyes.

Countless as the bright stars, that fill the midnight skies.

Vandyke brown, vermillion, sepia, Prussian blue,

Ivory black and crimson lac, and eyes of every hue."

[formermav43 4630]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

“But what about ME!? Why am I not at the center of this!?"

The subtext of every bad_teammate post.

[burntorangebongos 10826]

Yes, that is part of the poem he wrote that they derived the lyrics to and then was revised into the song that they started singing but it got revised a few more times before the copyright attempts. That is fact. And the copyright was a fight not resolved easily. The lawyers here might have fun poking into all that. Bottom line, was that there may or may not have been shenanigans that made sure UT had total rights to the song. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5169]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's pretty clear what's right: Respect the wishes of the players.

It's really that simple.

If they decide it's cool, then we sing it.
If they decide it isn't, then we don't.
If they remain undecided, we don't until they decide.

I can see why you think that, but what it is is that I see through bullshit that people blind themselves with. I'm already at the end of the logical progression and I'm an asshole about people not getting to the point more quickly.

I've seen too many hand-wringing white people sessions to pretend that it's about "learnings" and not just about making sure white power authority (liberals included) is coddled and catered to even when the conclusion is in plain sight.

The inability of white people (liberal and otherwise) to directly confront racial animosity in America without making themselves the focus of attention is infuriating and I have zero patience for it.

"But what about ME!? Why am I not at the center of this!?"

Why does that matter?

I agree with your first sentence. As for your approach. This board is almost universally on board with marriage equality. When I first talked about it on this board 90% of this board was against. If I followed your style, sure it might be as much as 50/50  on that issue today here but it wouldn’t have been because of anything I did to help the conversation. You want people to agree with you because you say so and then complain about us needing to be catered to. You should think about that, man. If you aren’t here for the conversation but instead just to spout off and act superior, why the hell are you wasting your time being infuriated?  It seems like a miserable way to live. 

[bad_teammate 13524]

You can't agree with me and then say my style isn't effective lol

It works.

[bad_teammate 13524]

 

[SaucyJack 3520]

2 hours 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.   

This prof says he's neutral.  He leads tours of racist features on campus.

https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/aads/faculty/gordonet

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

42 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's pretty clear what's right: Respect the wishes of the players.

 

20 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

I agree with your first sentence.

I support this as well. However, B_T, I do not agree with the learning statement. I agree with the sentiment that often it is used to parse/explain away/amend an injustice, but every instance where the history is exposed is a moment where one should not be able to turn away from the past nor be willingly blind or ignorant of it. Understanding that IMO, helps one to listen and perhaps going forward be more compassionate, inclusive, and most importantly when to sit down and listen as others speak.

[SaucyJack 3520]

2 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

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". 

[Mole 4340]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

 

This is a big point. Even if the basis for the claim turns out to be incorrect, without buy-in, singing the song against the objections of the black athletes would be a problem. At best, it would be racially insensitive even if they are incorrect as to why they are hurt. It will take real leadership to navigate this issue.
 

And while the athletes are taking on a leading role on this ( that is admirable and I support their efforts), they aren’t the only ones impacted. If the song is representative of the community, then the entire community needs to be engaged in the process  - athlete, non-athlete, faculty, staff, and alumni are all part of the community. Boiling this down to the athletes (specifically the black athletes) as being the final arbiters of this ignored the purpose of a university. There’s no doubt though, that the black athletes are probably most impacted by this and their voices should carry a lot of weight, but this is a community-wide issue.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5169]

26 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You can't agree with me and then say my style isn't effective lol

It works.

That makes no sense man.  Does no one have original thoughts but you?  It is perfectly reasonable that I have my own thoughts on this issue, I come to a conclusion, and you also happened to state some of your thoughts, a portion of which I agreed with.  That doesn't make your style affective, it just means you have a god complex.  So I'll ask again, why do you hang out here if it isn't to try to help move the conversation constructively along?  The way you are doing it today seems like so much banging your head against the wall.  Good luck with that.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

1 hour ago, MrBig said:

I love The Eyes, I want to give our school and our fans benefit of the doubt, but looking through the yearbooks and reading about our school’s history regarding race, I am very conflicted.

We were one of the last schools in the SWC to integrate our football team. Even Baylor had a black player before we did. I thought we were more progressive than that and would be among the first. I’m surprised we were the last to do so. 

Our school's history with race is terrible.  There is absolutely no question about that.  The Varsity Minstrel Show, or the later incarnation as the Cowboy's minstrel show is but a small facet of it.

To the point that you could argue that damn near everything in UT's history is the product of a racist system.  The "hookem" sign was first used at a pep rally from which black students were excluded.  Longhorn cattle were brought to Texas by imperialistic Spaniards and raised with slave labor.  Half the campus, to include TMR-DKR, was constructed before the University was integrated.  

But I don't think we should create problems out of things that aren't really problematic.  Or we could just burn the whole fucking thing down and start over.

Edited June 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Poolflood 845]

33 minutes ago, Mole said:

This is a big point. Even if the basis for the claim turns out to be incorrect, without buy-in, singing the song against the objections of the black athletes would be a problem. At best, it would be racially insensitive even if they are incorrect as to why they are hurt. It will take real leadership to navigate this issue.
 

And while the athletes are taking on a leading role on this ( that is admirable and I support their efforts), they aren’t the only ones impacted. If the song is representative of the community, then the entire community needs to be engaged in the process  - athlete, non-athlete, faculty, staff, and alumni are all part of the community. Boiling this down to the athletes (specifically the black athletes) as being the final arbiters of this ignored the purpose of a university. There’s no doubt though, that the black athletes are probably most impacted by this and their voices should carry a lot of weight, but this is a community-wide issue.

I'm not disagreeing with your take, or the reality of the situation, but find this abhorrent. 

[TwiceHorn 32079]

55 minutes ago, Mole said:

This is a big point. Even if the basis for the claim turns out to be incorrect, without buy-in, singing the song against the objections of the black athletes would be a problem. At best, it would be racially insensitive even if they are incorrect as to why they are hurt. It will take real leadership to navigate this issue.
 

And while the athletes are taking on a leading role on this ( that is admirable and I support their efforts), they aren’t the only ones impacted. If the song is representative of the community, then the entire community needs to be engaged in the process  - athlete, non-athlete, faculty, staff, and alumni are all part of the community. Boiling this down to the athletes (specifically the black athletes) as being the final arbiters of this ignored the purpose of a university. There’s no doubt though, that the black athletes are probably most impacted by this and their voices should carry a lot of weight, but this is a community-wide issue.

Nicely stated.

As said repeatedly, I am comfortable with the concept of yielding majority rule to an oppressed minority as a remedial measure.  I am also at least sympathetic to the notion of giving the oppressed minority lots of leeway in defining what's offensive so that majority rule should yield.  I'm not sure complete deference is appropriate, seems like that is ripe for abuse,  intentional, or otherwise. But maybe that's the price you pay.

I am kind of curious for the basis of your statement that "black athletes are most impacted by this."  I can guess at what you mean in that they're the ones that have to sing it after every game, but I don't want to assume.

Edited June 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 32079]

1 hour ago, SaucyJack said:

This prof says he's neutral.  He leads tours of racist features on campus.

https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/aads/faculty/gordonet

Thanks for posting that.  I knew I had seen that somewhere.

[bad_teammate 13524]

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I support this as well. However, B_T, I do not agree with the learning statement. I agree with the sentiment that often it is used to parse/explain away/amend an injustice, but every instance where the history is exposed is a moment where one should not be able to turn away from the past nor be willingly blind or ignorant of it.

It's fine to learn all about it, but all of these "learnings" are practically irrelevant to the question of what to do with The Eyes.

It's just white alumni injecting themselves into an issue in which they do not matter.

Quote

Understanding that IMO, helps one to listen and perhaps going forward be more compassionate, inclusive, and most importantly when to sit down and listen as others speak.

And that's all great. Let's have the historical discussion completely absent the question of what should actually be practically done with The Eyes, because it's dead now.

1 hour ago, Mole said:

This is a big point. Even if the basis for the claim turns out to be incorrect, without buy-in, singing the song against the objections of the black athletes would be a problem. At best, it would be racially insensitive even if they are incorrect as to why they are hurt. It will take real leadership to navigate this issue.

The song was introduced at a minstrel show. That is not in question and it's already enough to justify any offense that black Longhorns take to it. It's settled. All of this parsing of further historical details and nuance is just hand-wringing. Which, hey fine, if we want to discuss Longhorn history as a curiosity that's cool.

51 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

So I'll ask again, why do you hang out here if it isn't to try to help move the conversation constructively along? 

Is always being polite how constructive conversation works? No. Adhering to a desire for social cohesion is often how we maintain systems of oppression.

So I see a bunch of white alumni completely obfuscating the practical issue and making their own feelings of sentimentality central and I say, "Fuck off with that bullshit."

 

37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But I don't think we should create problems out of things that aren't really problematic. 

Who determines what is "really problematic"?

Quote

Or we could just burn the whole fucking thing down and start over.

Now THIS is some good pouting.

[troph 25227]

Actually I see a number of white alumni doing the exact opposite of what you say and those that are struggling through it are grappling with it. But keep screaming “fuck off with that bullshit” because you couldn’t stop if you wanted to.

[BillyBadAss 197]

BT, you keep saying that nobody matters in the conversation except the black athletes. I reject that contention. They certainly have an important voice in the conversation, but they aren't the only voice that belongs in the conversation. As someone else said, the University is a large community. 

And truth matters. It's right there on the main building. "Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Make You Free". Others on this thread are trying to parse out and make sense of that truth for themselves. I'm glad you have it all figured out for yourself, but the issue is not 100% black and white (no pun intended) for many of us. Facts matter, context matters, intent matters. 

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by BillyBadAss

[Mole 4340]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am kind of curious for the basis of your statement that "black athletes are most impacted by this."  I can guess at what you mean in that they're the ones that have to sing it after every game, but I don't want to assume.

Essentially, yes. “This” being whatever hurt may be caused by the singing of the song. If we grant that the song could be causing hurt to anyone, it would be black athletes having to sing it that would be most harmed by it. I guess any non-black athlete allies would also be forced as well, but the harm is a little more indirect. Anyone else could simply avoid the situation, although they shouldn’t have to.

Since the problem is with the racial history of the song, which is worth exploring and fully understanding, the victims of the situation deserve to have more weight to their voices. Black members of the community in general, and more specifically, black athletes forced to participate need to be heard and understood. It’s encouraging that most of what I see suggests that this is happening. It’s ok if it’s a little messy as long as the community gets it right.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Mole

[David Dennison 19542]

Why would the university continue to sanction something that will be so divisive from here on out? The Eyes of Texas will no longer unify students, alums, and fans.

It sucks, but that's the way it is.

 

[BillyBadAss 197]

Because maybe it won't be divisive if people know the facts and the context of it.  Or maybe it still will be. 

I haven't seen any of our athletes say: 'I'm offended because it was first performed at a minstrel show'. (I could have just missed it, and I could certainly understand if they were). 

I have heard two people say they are offended because the think the song refers to, or is adapted from a song, warning slaves that the eyes of their masters are upon them and they can't ever escape. I don't think that is anywhere close to  factual. 

Some could still be offended by the association to a minstrel show- but there is a large degree of difference, to me, if our school song was intended to warn/intimidate slaves vs being first performed at an event I find egregious. 

I find the fact that we HAD a minstrel show more offensive than any songs that were performed there.  It would not surprise me to learn they said the Pledge of Allegiance, sang the Star Spangled Banner, said a group prayer, or were served tea at the same event. I would find none of those things offensive on their own based on their inclusion in the show. The show itself, now that I find offensive. 

[Pancho 46314]

3 hours ago, MrBig said:

I love The Eyes, I want to give our school and our fans benefit of the doubt, but looking through the yearbooks and reading about our school’s history regarding race, I am very conflicted.

We were one of the last schools in the SWC to integrate our football team. Even Baylor had a black player before we did. I thought we were more progressive than that and would be among the first. I’m surprised we were the last to do so. 

You probably thought this way because some people confuse the progressiveness of Austin as meaning UT itself is progressive, and that hasn’t been the case for the most part of our history.  I’ve said it before on this board (well shaggy) that UT really is an SEC school—the majority of our fan base is just too proud to admit it. 

[David Dennison 19542]

55 minutes ago, BillyBadAss said:

Because maybe it won't be divisive if people know the facts and the context of it.  Or maybe it still will be. 

I haven't seen any of our athletes say: 'I'm offended because it was first performed at a minstrel show'. (I could have just missed it, and I could certainly understand if they were). 

I have heard two people say they are offended because the think the song refers to, or is adapted from a song, warning slaves that the eyes of their masters are upon them and they can't ever escape. I don't think that is anywhere close to  factual. 

Some could still be offended by the association to a minstrel show- but there is a large degree of difference, to me, if our school song was intended to warn/intimidate slaves vs being first performed at an event I find egregious. 

I find the fact that we HAD a minstrel show more offensive than any songs that were performed there.  It would not surprise me to learn they said the Pledge of Allegiance, sang the Star Spangled Banner, said a group prayer, or were served tea at the same event. I would find none of those things offensive on their own based on their inclusion in the show. The show itself, now that I find offensive. 

Regardless, it's going to be a bad look when some players stay and sing and others choose not to. 

[Gatorubet 30720]

22 minutes ago, Pancho said:

You probably thought this way because some people confuse the progressiveness of Austin as meaning UT itself is progressive, and that hasn’t been the case for the most part of our history.  I’ve said it before on this board (well shaggy) that UT really is an SEC school—the majority of our fan base is just too proud to admit it. 

[Poolflood 845]

1 hour ago, BillyBadAss said:

 

I find the fact that we HAD a minstrel show more offensive than any songs that were performed there.  It would not surprise me to learn they said the Pledge of Allegiance, sang the Star Spangled Banner, said a group prayer, or were served tea at the same event. I would find none of those things offensive on their own based on their inclusion in the show. The show itself, now that I find offensive. 

If the "Eyes" were as offensive as that little ditty.....

[Spankytoes 1748]

6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

What was "inaccurate"? What was the hyperbole?

The students learned the song at a minstrel show: Fact.
The students sang the song, that they learned at a minstrel show, because they liked it: Fact.
Our football team is primarily black: Fact.
We sing the song after games: Fact.
Football is physically painful and can be (is often) life-alteringly injurious to its players: Fact.
We watch football because it entertains us: Fact.
The majority of the people watching are white: Fact.

If your problem is that I'm using facts to create a negative framing, that's fine, because I absolutely am. 

Here's an inflammatory statement: If you sing The Eyes after a football game now while knowing there are players on that field who associate that song with racial oppression you're a fucking asshole who should've gone to A&M.

But please tell me what was inaccurate. That's actually important, because if you're lying that's kind of a big deal here.

"Be nice and slow down" is what people in power say to make sure they remain unchallenged.

This "we need to have a learning and dialogue session" talk is corporate shit used to quell dissent. All that most here want is a comfortable way to tell the young blacks to shut up and stop threatening their precious traditions.

I know enough facts to know that objections to The Eyes are completely valid. And I have no emotional investment in the song because it's a song and I am happy to let tradition die because I'm not an Aggie.

A case in point...

Saying the quiet part loud.

If you go into this "listening and learning with a productive dialogue" talk with your end-game already set like this, it's a waste of everyone's time and you're just filibustering/running out the clock.

You’re a moron. You should feel bad.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

2 hours ago, Pancho said:

You probably thought this way because some people confuse the progressiveness of Austin as meaning UT itself is progressive, and that hasn’t been the case for the most part of our history.  I’ve said it before on this board (well shaggy) that UT really is an SEC school—the majority of our fan base is just too proud to admit it. 

Well, that, and the progressiveness of Austin tends to be more mythical than real, particularly as it affects people of color.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

3 hours ago, BillyBadAss said:

Because maybe it won't be divisive if people know the facts and the context of it.  Or maybe it still will be. 

I haven't seen any of our athletes say: 'I'm offended because it was first performed at a minstrel show'. (I could have just missed it, and I could certainly understand if they were). 

I have heard two people say they are offended because the think the song refers to, or is adapted from a song, warning slaves that the eyes of their masters are upon them and they can't ever escape. I don't think that is anywhere close to  factual. 

Some could still be offended by the association to a minstrel show- but there is a large degree of difference, to me, if our school song was intended to warn/intimidate slaves vs being first performed at an event I find egregious. 

I find the fact that we HAD a minstrel show more offensive than any songs that were performed there.  It would not surprise me to learn they said the Pledge of Allegiance, sang the Star Spangled Banner, said a group prayer, or were served tea at the same event. I would find none of those things offensive on their own based on their inclusion in the show. The show itself, now that I find offensive. 

Very much agree with all of this.  I tend to believe that there may be quite a bit of disinformation circulating in the locker room about the song.  It's not exactly a Plan II seminar in there.  

[troph 25227]

Well, that, and the progressiveness of Austin tends to be more mythical than real, particularly as it affects people of color.

It’s undeniably great for LGBTQ folk, probably second only to Seattle/Tacoma/Portland, especially for white and professional folk. Racial progressiveness is lagging for sure.

[burntorangebongos 10826]

No, don't Spanky….don't. Shhhh, there is very little difference between you and BT. You both try to impose your will without listening to anyone because you get to your conclusion without considering to the feelings of others. It is only by happenstance that you are not on the same side of the debate.

It is best for you two to listen to others who try to weigh it and not reach conclusions with impatient haste. Maybe The Eyes is dead now, perhaps none of our feelings matter at all but maybe the reckoning of the song's past and the understanding of it is the thing that needed to happen in the minds of those that questioned it. It is uncomfortable but what we need to do is look at this tradition in the face and see if it is worth keeping. Our community, all of us have a right to voice concerns and our hopes but you both get to conclusions with closed minds and that is wrong. I lump you together because it is what your closed minds deserve. Sit down and listen and know that in the end, the community's consensus is most important no matter how much better you think you know.

We are just internet assholes so really none of this discussion really matters but if they, the University admins and the student athletes see how much we are trying to grapple with this, then maybe it imbues the pending discussion with goodwill because we are truly discussing this with open minds.

 

[Nivek 17415]

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." 
 

Actually I had a black music professor who loved it when whites sang/whistled it. I do not recall it’s origins.