Eyes of Texas

[bad_teammate 13132]

I know you wish that I had called you racist so you could whine about it, but I never called you racist.

If the song isn't appropriate to be sung at our student athletes then it isn't appropriate to be our school song. This is not rocket surgery to understand.

 

Why are they so unclear where they stand!?!?

So many mixed messages!

lol

It's over, guys. You're just mourning publicly.

[troph 24563]

I know you wish that I had called you racist so you could whine about it, but I never called you racist.

If the song isn't appropriate to be sung at our student athletes then it isn't appropriate to be our school song. This is not rocket surgery to understand.

 

[/url] Why are they so unclear where they stand!?!?

So many mixed messages!

lol

It's over, guys. You're just mourning publicly.

Omg Cat wants meaningful collaboration. She’s silencing voices we can’t have that!!

[bad_teammate 13132]

22 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Are you asking if it is necessary for the person claimed as the representative of a group actually has the consent and support of the group to speak on their behalf? 

No, that's not what I'm asking and it's not what you said.

You asked if he was democratically elected. No, he wasn't, because the locker room isn't a place with a formalized government. Leadership within a locker room isn't determined that way, if you have ever been in a locker room you'd know that.

Quote

You see, sometimes in large groups you get a range of views, and the first person to speak publicly might not represent the general consensus of the entire group.

You are operating under the assumption that Brennen Eagles just wrote a Tweet and sent it out without talking to people.

It's an absurd assumption without basis.

Quote

I know your system based on black athlete twitter supremacy might seem bulletproof, but what do we do if two black athletes, both with twitter accounts, claim to be the rightful representative of the ruling athlete class?  Even worse, what if they post contradicting decisions on an issue?   

Show me the argument and contradiction and we can have the conversation. All I'm seeing is unity. Why does that bother you so much?

15 minutes ago, troph said:

Omg Cat wants meaningful collaboration. She’s silencing voices we can’t have that!!

Who are you even making fun of here? Yourself?

The article you quoted is just more former athletes on the side of the current athletes.

How does it feel to be part of the group that makes black athletes feel shamed to even speak out?

---------------------------
Longhorn basketball alumnus Eric Davis Jr. said the possibility of changing “The Eyes of Texas” was regularly discussed among Black student-athletes during his time at Texas from 2015-2017, but they were hesitant to speak up due to a lack of public support. 

“It was kind of hard because you didn’t know who had your back or who was going to speak up,” Davis said. “I needed the scholarship. I wanted to play ball. You don’t want to be shunned out, and you don’t want to be blackballed. It’s a lot that goes through your mind.”
---------------------------

Probably not good, given your continuing meltdown.

--------------------------
 

“Different groups of people are going to have different ideas, ideologies and feelings on certain things,” Burt said “This is one thing that I’ve seen that both groups have agreed upon, as well as all the other sports.”

--------------------------

 

lol did you even read this before posting it?

[troph 24563]

Who are you even making fun of here? Yourself?
The article you quoted is just more former athletes on the side of the current athletes.
How does it feel to be part of the group that makes black athletes feel shamed to even speak out?
---------------------------
Longhorn basketball alumnus Eric Davis Jr. said the possibility of changing “The Eyes of Texas” was regularly discussed among Black student-athletes during his time at Texas from 2015-2017, but they were hesitant to speak up due to a lack of public support. 
“It was kind of hard because you didn’t know who had your back or who was going to speak up,” Davis said. “I needed the scholarship. I wanted to play ball. You don’t want to be shunned out, and you don’t want to be blackballed. It’s a lot that goes through your mind.”
---------------------------
Probably not good, given your continuing meltdown.
--------------------------
 

“Different groups of people are going to have different ideas, ideologies and feelings on certain things,” Burt said “This is one thing that I’ve seen that both groups have agreed upon, as well as all the other sports.”

--------------------------
 
lol did you even read this before posting it?

You. Always making fun of you bud.

[fuggled 576]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

They're the only ones required to stand and have the song sung at them. They're the ones currently on the field.

Whoever else has an interest, it's far less compelling than theirs.

What about students in the Butler School of Music?  All the students in Longhorn Band and Basketball Band?  Members of the other vocal and instrumental ensembles that perform The Eyes?  Are their interests sufficiently compelling?  

Do you have a rubric you are using to evaluate the compelling nature of the interests of these various parties?  Could you share the rules with the rest of us?

[bad_teammate 13132]

36 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

That's why I think it is ridiculous to assume that one athlete on twitter speaks for all student athletes. 

Sure, and if that were the case here wouldn't we see other student-athletes saying, "No, fuck that, Brennan is out of line."?

Do you think Eagles just got lucky?

Quote

 Decisions which involve many thousands of alumni, and current, former, and future student athletes, should not be decided by one or even a few athletes who happens to be active on twitter.

Again, you are operating on the assumption that Brennan Eagles made a unilateral decision without first seeking a lot of input and thoughts from current and former student-athletes. This assumption is a bad one to begin with and untenable given the universal support Eagles has received from current and former student-athletes.

22 minutes ago, troph said:

You. Always making fun of you bud.

Oh ok cool. Do a better job.

16 minutes ago, fuggled said:

What about students in the Butler School of Music?  All the students in Longhorn Band and Basketball Band?  Members of the other vocal and instrumental ensembles that perform The Eyes?  Are their interests sufficiently compelling?  

In terms of it being sung at the games? No, not at all. There is no acceptable situation in which The Eyes is performed at games without the full consent of all players.

In terms of playing it and singing it for themselves with their flutes up their pussies? Fine, whatever, I don't know or care.

 

[fuggled 576]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

In terms of it being sung at the games? No, not at all. There is no acceptable situation in which The Eyes is performed at games without the full consent of all players.

So your rule is that if even one individual takes offense to an act, the rest of society should agree to abolish that act?  If the athletics department undertakes the historical audit that CDC suggested and the outcome is that 99% of athletes say, "after understanding the full, accurate historical context and what this song means to so many and seeing the lengths the university is willing to go to in order to promote a culture and atmosphere of diversity and respect, I support keeping The Eyes," that wouldn't be sufficient for you?  If there's even 1 hold out who takes offense the song is a non-starter, according to you.  That just seems like a model of governance that is both unrealistic and unreasonable.  

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

And that's why y'all are wasting your time.  This was an interesting conversation until BT showed up.  Even putting him on ignore doesn't help because all of the posts since he got on a roll are responses to his posts.  He took all the oxygen out of the conversation to feel morally superior.  Hopefully the high was good for him.

[DigglerontheHoof 21065]

1 minute ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

And that's why y'all are wasting your time.  This was an interesting conversation until BT showed up.  Even putting him on ignore doesn't help because all of the posts since he got on a roll are responses to his posts.  He took all the oxygen out of the conversation to feel morally superior.  Hopefully the high was good for him.

True.  I"ve had him on ignore for years and you still can't escape his idiocy.  The mods need to ban him for the health of the board. 

[Ghost of LL 15492]

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

It's over, guys. You're just mourning publicly.

This is really funny coming from the guy who posted nearly the exact same thing a few days before the South Carolina primary.

"Beat us."

[troph 24563]

In terms of it being sung at the games? No, not at all. There is no acceptable situation in which The Eyes is performed at games without the full consent of all players.

In terms of playing it and singing it for themselves with their flutes up their pussies? Fine, whatever, I don't know or care.

 

Sexist.

[troph 24563]

True.  I"ve had him on ignore for years and you still can't escape his idiocy.  The mods need to ban him for the health of the board. 

Agreed.

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2630]

13 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I don't think he is all that bad.  He is a leftest ideologue and so some of his standard talking points represent an unpopular minority view, but I don't think there are any true leftists here without him and so he fills a hole.  One positive about him is that he is willing to explain his views at length.  His posting style can be grating if you're not used to it, which is probably the case for those who are not accustomed to being called racist and a nazi for mere disagreement.  Just filter all that out as meaningless involuntary reflex.   

Same here. I enjoy reading BTs post. Even if he is out there. 
 

always nice to see a POV outside my bubble. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

This is really funny coming from the guy who posted nearly the exact same thing a few days before the South Carolina primary.

"Beat us."

Not an analogous situation at all, but it's nice for you to remind everyone what the actual emotional impetus for this multi-person meltdown is.

But to your point, did you beat us? I don't remember you being a Biden guy.

3 hours ago, troph said:

Sexist.

How?

3 hours ago, troph said:

Agreed.

You can put me on ignore if you don't like being embarrassed because your arguments are bad, get destroyed, and then you have a public meltdown because you don't know how to answer questions or respond to the issue being discussed.

[bad_teammate 13132]

5 hours ago, fuggled said:

So your rule is that if even one individual takes offense to an act, the rest of society should agree to abolish that act? 

You're doing what a lot of people are doing here and generalizing a specific issue.

We cannot, in good conscience, sing The Eyes at players who we know take offense to it. Anyone who does that is an asshole.

You're trying to fight some kind of larger cultural war, I'm just talking about the issue.

Quote

If the athletics department undertakes the historical audit that CDC suggested and the outcome is that 99% of athletes say, "after understanding the full, accurate historical context and what this song means to so many and seeing the lengths the university is willing to go to in order to promote a culture and atmosphere of diversity and respect, I support keeping The Eyes," that wouldn't be sufficient for you?  If there's even 1 hold out who takes offense the song is a non-starter, according to you.  That just seems like a model of governance that is both unrealistic and unreasonable.  

It's a good thing I'm not talking about "a model of governance" then, isn't it?

Would you seriously stand and sing The Eyes at a player you knew thought it was racist? I know no one here but me actually answers questions because it's a load of complete intellectual cowards, but please answer that one.

3 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

He took all the oxygen out of the conversation to feel morally superior.

It sucks when someone offers a divergent viewpoint when everyone had already agreed.

MY BUBBLE! :(

[bad_teammate 13132]

correct, but needlessly inflammatory

Edited June 23, 2020 by bad_teammate

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

I’m all on board with viewpoints that are not my own. It’s why I started coming to the politics board way back in the hookem.com days. His inability to argue his point is the problem. He bulls his way through and tries to overpower when he takes the floor. He’s like Trump with some brains. I’m going to let him feel his power in peace. Y’all can keep up the defensive replies to him if you want but it is a waste of time. 

[Gatorubet 30116]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You can put me on ignore if you don't like being embarrassed because your arguments are bad, get destroyed,

D'Souza absolutely DESTROYS leftist first grader!!

[bad_teammate 13132]

correct, but needlessly inflammatory

Edited June 23, 2020 by bad_teammate

[bad_teammate 13132]

correct, but needlessly inflammatory

Edited June 23, 2020 by bad_teammate

[bad_teammate 13132]

Apologies for being baited into all this off-topic kerfuffle. I should do a better job of ignoring trolling meant to derail conversation and I'm very bad at resisting those temptations.

For those who want to know what I mean by this being over, let's play this out in our minds.

Let's run with fuggled's (I think very likely) hypothetical and say that, in late August, the athletic department comes out with, "Hey it's cool, actually, the players love The Eyes now! Plus we put a black guy's name on something!"

But, would you actually believe the players actually loved The Eyes now?

We l know that the NCAA and University have tremendous power over these guys' lives. We have alumni athletes saying they didn't like The Eyes and are happy the current players are speaking out against it. How do we actually put that genie back in the bottle? How do we unlearn what we just learned about how The Eyes made former players feel?

I don't see how that happens.

I'd love for someone to explain how we actually get the genie back into the bottle.

So, next, if you agree with me that the genie can't be put back into the bottle, here's the question that's actually important: How do we move forward in unity?

Do we have an internal civil war over something that is clearly done? Or do we just say, "OK, that's painful but not worth the fight, so let's build a new thing!" and do it in immediate unity with the current and former players?

Do we believe that there is an actual future in which The Eyes is an unambiguous positive?

Do we think it has something so special and unique over any potential replacement that it's worth the headache and drama?

[bad_teammate 13132]

Things getting "politicized" isn't really new and division has always been around and will always be around.

We can't control the athlete side, but we can control the alumni side. So with that in mind, are you/we going to support the players or not? Do we force a show circus over the issue that tells the players we don't support them or do we lead by saying, "We hear you, athletes, and we're with you!"?

That's up to us, and I'm not hopeful that we're going to do a good job of it.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

On 6/21/2020 at 3:01 PM, TwiceHorn said:

 

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.

So you are looking for songs that are public domain, meaning composed pre-1924. It might be hard to find one untainted by racism, unless you went with one written by a person of color.

 

18 hours ago, Covri said:

Texas Fight, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo
Texas Fight, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo
Texas Fight, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo
Texas Fight

So did you know that "Texas Fight" is just the funerary military bugle call "Taps" played double-time?

Which was used by both the Union and Confederate armies? Or that we stole it from the Ags, who once had a song called "Farmers Fight"? And that it contains snippets of "The Eyes of Texas" in some versions? And that it was likely also played at on-campus minstrel shows?

As for "March Grandioso," it contains passages from Franz Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody #14.

As such, Grandioso becomes problematic.

As a young man, Liszt  absconded with a married countess and took her to Switzerland and promptly impregnated her. They named their daughter Cosima, and Cosima grew up to marry none other than....Richard Wagner, Hitler's Muse.  Cosima was the driving force for the Beyreuth festival, where all the Nazis would go yearly and marinate in the Aryan splendor of Wagnerian opera.

And she and Richard's daughter Eva married the British-German white power author Houston Stewart Chamberlain. I am not saying there were racist themes in some of his books: pretty much all of his books were racist, anti-Semitic rants from cover to cover. Chamberlain has been called  "Hitler's Mentor." 

So March Grandioso contains a passage written by the man who fathered a daughter who married Hitler's favorite composer, who in turn gave birth to a daughter who married one of Hitler's favorite writers.

Oh, and our band's version of Wabash Cannonball comes from the Roy Acuff hit single, the one that Coach Royal loved. As a young man, Acuff toured the Appalachians as part of a medicine show led by a shady doctor who peddled a dubious tonic called Mocoton. Between spiels, Acuff, the guitarist Clarence Ashley and other musicians and entertainers would put on skits and perform hillbilly music. On pg. 21 of "Smoky Mountain Boy," Acuff's biography, we read "Sometimes he would black-up for a blackface role..." 

So now we've got three songs (including The Eyes) with blackface connotations, another with Confederate connotations, and a fourth steeped in the music of man whose child and grandchild who helped create the philosophical origins and aesthetics of Nazism. 

Yeah, it's a tenuous connection in that case, but still too close for comfort in that it was jacked from a homewrecker / patriarch of two generations of deeply committed Nazis.

Kidding, sort of...But since we hate everything about the recent past right now, much less the distant, it's easier to find reasons to fuss about songs than it is to either keep The Eyes or find a replacement.

Fuck it, I think "Home on the Range" is public domain and it was first discovered in San Antonio, I think, where John Lomax heard it from a Black saloonkeeper.  And most of us already know the words...

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Again, I'm only here with your grace and welcome, but if the schools' athletes from which I earned degrees wanted to ditch the songs for ones that better reflect the attitudes and mores of what the current players/students aspire to be (prior to going out and changing the world) then I would be cool with it. It's their time at the school I once attended, not mine. I send my support for academic scholarships, I root for the teams when I watch in person and on tv, and I learn: from current students, from others in my peer group, from strangers on an internet board at the schools I am an alumni and others. I learn new songs all the time. Heck, it was here in the CR  that I learned about some new artists I'd never listened to before and am happily growing in a new direction.

Don't you all have as many or more talented students as those back in 1903 or whenever it was? I bet they can compose a song for the new age of enlightenment. A new song specifically was listed as a request by the athletes in their letter. The origin story seems to reflect that at the time it was written no one could have imagined it would take hold and become a century plus old tradition. That seems like a long time, it's certainly more than most of our lifetimes will be, but the university of 2020 is not the university of 1903, 1950, 1966, or 1990. And it shouldn't be. As a Texas taxpayer, I want the current students to grow, to learn and to change into critical thinkers about the world around them as they enter adulthood and prepare for opportunities unknown. Here is an opportunity, honor their request.

I was interested in the historical accounts and how it related to my own knowledge base and appreciate those that had links to various info. The racial geography tour was fascinating and made me think a lot about other campuses where I have spent time. Going forward, I wish you all the best.

 

B_T: Sexist because flute players can be of any gender. Sexist because it refers only to a female body part in a derogatory manner in this context. If one uses a body part that any gender can have: piehole, butt, nostril,  then I believe the sexism is absent in either instance.

 

[troph 24563]

You can put me on ignore if you don't like being embarrassed because your arguments are bad, get destroyed, and then you have a public meltdown because you don't know how to answer questions or respond to the issue being discussed.

You don’t listen. Your arguments boil down to if you aren’t as far left as I am you suck. When you trip up - flutes and pussies - hello!?! - you can’t see it. I say sexist and you really can’t see it? Really??

There is no back and forth with you. Others may enjoy your arguments because they aren’t far left or don’t engage in progressive dialogue all day long and enjoy a stark contrast but you are a MASSIVE time waste, headache, detractor and distraction for many of us that actually live this shit in our daily lives.

[troph 24563]

[mention]Mrs Whiggins [/mention] I’m pretty much where you are with this for my university. I think the problem with The Eyes is that most schools the school song is dumb as shit. The song has virtually no redeeming value. Of course that may not be true to the alumni of that school but when compared to how we white people revere The Eyes it seems true.

 

When ranking Texas traditions The Eyes and what it means - apparently to white alumni and students only - is core to who we are.

 

No one from Boise State is singing their alma mater at births, weddings, major life events. You don’t see 50,000 fans joining in unison to sing it after a victory and you don’t see them sharing the pain of a loss while singing it.

 

My parents taught me loyalty, grit and determination in some small part around the lore and tradition of this song.

 

Some of my fondest sports memories good and bad have to do with singing this song. The Rose Bowl, Texas OU, Texas baseball in Omaha, losses like 1983 cotton bowl where it was cemented in me that you stick with your team even in a loss. Shit my dad made us stay in the 1991 cotton bowl after the Miami ass whipping to sing. Ugh. We get our horns up high and even that is my preferred exclamation for anything amazing. I could go on and on.

 

I’m willing to let it go, but this just isn’t a song for us. It’s intertwined with who we are, including many progressives who stand with the student athletes and who are dealing with broken hearts over the legacy and continued racism at our university and the loss of this song.

 

The fact that my sons won’t learn what I learned and value what I value from what The Eyes means to me tears me up.

 

That’s my personal story about The Eyes only, there is much more about handling and dealing with racism, but these vignettes every White person connected to UT are why this is so hard.

[Pancho 44487]

This thread:

[troph 24563]

[mention]Pancho [/mention] I’d love it if you’d chime in. I think your views are more valuable than mine here and some of us are trying to listen. No pressure.

[BillyBadAss 189]

I'm very close to Troph here in that the song does mean something to me. Traditional and ritual are an important human element to bond us to institutions and to each other, and this is one of those for me, and many others. Participating in singing the The Eyes, more than anything else, makes me feel connected to the University and remember my time there and what the University did for me. 

I've been doing mental exercises to try to see the song as racist. I can't get there. I think if I could I'd be be all on board with ditching it.  

What bothers me most (and has been discussed a bit), is that I think the players dislike it based on false assumptions/information. All the comments I've seen from former/current players about it either directly state or seem to imply they believe the song was adapted from words intended to intimidate slaves - that the words really mean that you can't escape your master.  Based on the known facts and context I'm confident that's not true. The original and adapted quote were both addressed to either students or soldiers, predominately white - and to me clearly intended to inspire the people to be their best. 

The other connections to racism (performed at a minstrel show , adapted from quote of Confederate officer, tune of the song).. just aren't enough for me. I can find similar tangential connections to just about anything.  But if I thought these were the primary motivators rather than thinking the song was referring to slaves directly - I'd even be closer to ok with it. I'd disagree the logic, but at least I'd understand the "other side's" conclusions were drawn from facts. 

As an aside, what further sucks is that we're even focusing on this relatively trivial thing when there are real problems and real changes that need to be addressed.  Throwing this in sowed division rather than unity - which is unfortunate. 

Maybe I'm overthinking it... 

 

Edited June 23, 2020 by BillyBadAss

[FondrenRoad 4378]

8 minutes ago, BillyBadAss said:

I'm very close to Troph here in that the song does mean something to me. Traditional and ritual are an important human element to bond us to institutions and to each other, and this is one of those for me, and many others. Participating in singing the The Eyes, more than anything else, makes me feel connected to the University and remember my time there and what the University did for me. 

I've been doing mental exercises to try to see the song as racist. I can't get there. I think if I could I'd be be all on board with ditching it.  

What bothers me most (and has been discussed a bit), is that I think the players dislike it based on false assumptions/information. All the comments I've seen from former/current players about it either directly state or seem to imply they believe the song was adapted from words intended to intimidate slaves - that the words really mean that you can't escape your master.  Based on the known facts and context I'm confident that's not true. The original and adapted quote were both addressed to either students or soldiers, predominately white - and to me clearly intended to inspire the people to be their best. 

The other connections to racism (performed at a minstrel show , adapted from quote of Confederate officer, tune of the song).. just aren't enough for me. I can find similar tangential connections to just about anything.  But if I thought these were the primary motivators rather than thinking the song was referring to slaves directly - I'd even be closer to ok with it. I'd disagree the logic, but at least I'd understand the "other side's" conclusions were drawn from facts. 

As an aside, what further sucks is that we're even focusing on this relatively trivial thing when there are real problems and real changes that need to be addressed.  Throwing this in sowed division rather than unity - which is unfortunate. 

Maybe I'm overthinking it... 

 

I kind of feel the same.  And I think its use over the last 50 years should mean something too. I know players from the 90s were fond of it, but like me, they probably had no knowledge of its history.  Does that contemporary fondness provide no value?

I would leave it up to the current players though.  They are the ones who are "volunteering" to work for an enterprise that earns 220 million in revenue a year off their labor. If the players want it gone, it should be gone.

[bad_teammate 13132]

6 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Kidding, sort of...But since we hate everything about the recent past right now, much less the distant, it's easier to find reasons to fuss about songs than it is to either keep The Eyes or find a replacement.

If you approached the question with respect for the players this would be an easier call, but I think, like Axiom, you're not just looking at this issue you've got a much larger cultural and political axe to grind with it.

2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

B_T: Sexist because flute players can be of any gender. Sexist because it refers only to a female body part in a derogatory manner in this context. If one uses a body part that any gender can have: piehole, butt, nostril,  then I believe the sexism is absent in either instance.

 

 

1 hour ago, troph said:

That’s my personal story about The Eyes only, there is much more about handling and dealing with racism, but these vignettes every White person connected to UT are why this is so hard.

This is what I'm talking about with the need some people have to put themselves at the center of issues that aren't actually about them. It makes things a lot more complicated than they need to be. It's a highly reactionary tendency.

 

 

1 hour ago, Axiom of Choice said:

As you stated before, I’m more interested in the general issue of how decisions are reached on related topics moving forward.  

Like the overpersonalization I mentioned immediately above, this tendency people have to not actually talk about the subject is yet another progress-killer, because you're fighting some distant war but littering the battlefield right in front of you. Talk about the issue we are talking about; it will be a lot more productive.

And whatever axe you really want to grind? Go into a thread about that issue or start one about it and it will be a lot more satisfactory a discussion for everyone.

 

Quote

 Depending on how much we want to dig, we could find some remotely plausible derogatory racial connections to almost anything in the not too distant history. 

Sure, which makes it slightly more difficult, but... so? Sometimes worthwhile things are hard.

Quote

The other point I continue to make is that the idea that we must choose to either stand with or against some monolith known as “The athletes” is a mischaracterization.  We do not know what the vast majority of them think.  I think you believe that there is some “tweet now or forever hold your peace” policy that determines if there are any opposing views.  

All I can work with is what I see, and what I see uniformity.

Also, I'm sure you understand how polling works. We are able to get very accurate estimations of how 150M people will vote in November by polling 5-7k of them in October. Obviously a professional poll hasn't been run, but we're hearing from a diverse group of athletes and they're all saying basically the same thing.

Is there actual evidence I need to consider regarding these opposing viewpoints?

Also, does every feeling equally merit addressing? In a discussion of keeping a problematic song, is, "It's a 100% voluntary act for me, and I sang this with my dad" as strong a "vote" as "I stand in front of 100k white people who sing it at me and I'm forced/compelled/influenced to sing it and I am bothered by the song's racially problematic history"? I don't think so, not at all.

8 minutes ago, BillyBadAss said:

As an aside, what further sucks is that we're even focusing on this relatively trivial thing when there are real problems and real changes that need to be addressed.  Throwing this in sowed division rather than unity - which is unfortunate. 

Maybe I'm overthinking it... 

The athletes can't fix larger systemic problems alone, but through collective action nationwide they can use their power to change their immediate area. I think you guys are wildly underestimating their organization, communication, and intentions.

And whether or not you like it, you have some little power to either make the situation better or worse and you should decide which of those things you're going to do.

[BillyBadAss 189]

BT. We're not all idiots, and we're not all enemies of progress. Most of us wouldn't be posting here if we didn't give a shit how the young people of color representing our university feel. I think most are trying to understand it because we feel, or did feel much differently about this particular song than they do. 

You don't have to argue with every single sentence somebody types. It's non-conducive to having a discussion and to a it's counterproductive to the points you are trying to get across - some of which I appreciate reading. 

 

[troph 24563]

Has anyone seen BT retract his vulgar sexist statement? I haven’t but wasn’t sure if I missed it. Eviscerates his position as the leading progressive purist on this board IMO.

[bad_teammate 13132]

 

One way to help those of you wrapped up in your personal feelings about The Eyes is to borrow the ring theory of grief.

Basically you draw a series of concentric circles and label each. In a death situation, you'd start with spouse/immediate family in the middle and then extended family/friends and then co-workers and on and on. The people closest to the middle get to dump outward and the people furthest away get to put comfort in. So basically the wife of a dead husband can dump onto a co-worker but a co-worker can only put comfort in towards the wife. 

It's helpful to give ourselves an idea of what we should be doing in a situation that's bigger than us, and it's also helpful in identifying toxic behavior and toxic personalities.

If whoever is reading this is genuinely interested in understanding the larger context, then make this chart for yourself. Here are some categories ranked in/out. I'd be interested to see any differences in categorization/ranking.

1 - Current players on the field
2 - Former players
3 - Coaches/staff
4 - Current students (frequent attendance at games)
5 - Alumni (frequent attendance at games)
6 - University Faculty/Staff
7 - Current students (infrequent attendance at games)
8 - Alumni (infrequent attendance at games)
9 - Current students (no attendance at games)
10 - Alumni (no attendance at games)
11 - Not Longhorns (lol @ non-Longhorns participating in this thread/discussion, what the hell?)

I have a feeling that a lot of us here are #8 or #10 on the list. (I was #5 for decades, but age/Charlie Strong turned me into #8.)

5 minutes ago, troph said:

Has anyone seen BT retract his vulgar sexist statement? I haven’t but wasn’t sure if I missed it. Eviscerates his position as the leading progressive purist on this board IMO.

Manufacturing false outrage about a reference to American Pie isn't catching on. Try something new to own me.

[Llano Estacado 1257]

I’d posit it isn’t the current athletes’ song and former student athletes and current athletic staff and coaches have no more say than current and former students. It is The University’s song. Not just athletes. Not athletics. Not just Alumni. Not just current students.

Put the institution, The University, in the middle ring. Our Alma Mater.

I’m absolutely trying to put myself in the shoes of a current black student athlete, but you start with a false premise in saying TEOT belongs to them first or affects them more.

[troph 24563]

48 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

One way to help those of you wrapped up in your personal feelings about The Eyes is to borrow the ring theory of grief.

Basically you draw a series of concentric circles and label each. In a death situation, you'd start with spouse/immediate family in the middle and then extended family/friends and then co-workers and on and on. The people closest to the middle get to dump outward and the people furthest away get to put comfort in. So basically the wife of a dead husband can dump onto a co-worker but a co-worker can only put comfort in towards the wife. 

It's helpful to give ourselves an idea of what we should be doing in a situation that's bigger than us, and it's also helpful in identifying toxic behavior and toxic personalities.

If whoever is reading this is genuinely interested in understanding the larger context, then make this chart for yourself. Here are some categories ranked in/out. I'd be interested to see any differences in categorization/ranking.

1 - Current players on the field
2 - Former players
3 - Coaches/staff
4 - Current students (frequent attendance at games)
5 - Alumni (frequent attendance at games)
6 - University Faculty/Staff
7 - Current students (infrequent attendance at games)
8 - Alumni (infrequent attendance at games)
9 - Current students (no attendance at games)
10 - Alumni (no attendance at games)
11 - Not Longhorns (lol @ non-Longhorns participating in this thread/discussion, what the hell?)

I have a feeling that a lot of us here are #8 or #10 on the list. (I was #5 for decades, but age/Charlie Strong turned me into #8.)

Manufacturing false outrage about a reference to American Pie isn't catching on. Try something new to own me.

stop lecturing those of us that are letting it go with your holier than thou advice.  we don't need it.  my grief or pain is nothing like that of others over this song.  my frustration with not being in power for some of these decisions is nothing like their frustration for centuries of no power.  my frustration with wanting to make sure good decisions are made without power is nothing like theirs.  your lecture is unnecessary.

and just because it was a joke doesn't mean it wasn't sexist.  in fact that is irrelevant.  be a dick, fine but don't come screaming purity next time someone else is struggling.  you're a screaming white guy lecturing everyone in ways you shouldn't.

[fuggled 576]

14 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

You're doing what a lot of people are doing here and generalizing a specific issue.

We cannot, in good conscience, sing The Eyes at players who we know take offense to it. Anyone who does that is an asshole.

You're trying to fight some kind of larger cultural war, I'm just talking about the issue.

It's a good thing I'm not talking about "a model of governance" then, isn't it?

Would you seriously stand and sing The Eyes at a player you knew thought it was racist? I know no one here but me actually answers questions because it's a load of complete intellectual cowards, but please answer that one.

There's a lot to unpack in here, so apologies for what might be a lengthy post.  I do appreciate the passion you bring to your position but I don't get the sense you're making a good faith effort to listen to what others are saying.

First, yes, I am generalizing the issue.  I'm doing so because that's the best way to achieve effective long-term change.  You are falling into the trap of taking this specific issue and trying to remove it from any broader context.  You see it as a problem that can be solved, fixed and removed.  But it's not.  It's one of many competing concerns and priorities that need to be considered and balanced. 

If you're not already familiar, I'd suggest taking a look at the Cynefin framework (https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making) which describes different domains of problems and offers guidance on how to respond.  In Cynefin, Complicated problems are those that have one or more correct solutions that can be proven to be true, but which require a high degree of expertise to diagnose and fix.  Think of a fine Swiss watch.  It takes tremendous expertise to figure out a repair, but we can tell if it's fixed or not.

Complex problems, on the other hand, don't have a correct solution and can't be controlled/fixed the way a Complicated problem can be.  Think of a garden.  Nobody fixes a garden.  You tend your garden, balancing it's needs in perpetuity and trying to grow it towards your purpose/goal.  There's no right answer, so you experiment, look for patterns and continuously evolve what works.

You, BT, have fallen into the trap of approaching this issue as a Complicated problem.  You believe you have the expertise to prescribe a solution which everyone else is too ignorant or racist to see.  By removing this issue from the Complex context in which it exists, you are ignoring the decisions, values and structures that brought us to this situation.  Only by considering these can anyone hope to achieve systemic change.  Yes, it takes more time to reflect on the broader context and history.  It can be difficult to sustain a dialog that considers competing views.  It is much easier to look for tactical, moment-in-time "solutions", but as you said:

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Sometimes worthwhile things are hard.

To offer another angle, within systems thinking there is a distinction between Helping and Meddling.  Here's an illustration:

https://thesystemsthinker.com/leading-ethically-through-foresight/

Quote

Dr. Edwards Deming, a pioneer in the quality improvement movement, often illustrated the difference between helping and meddling with a marble-dropping experiment. Let’s say we drop a marble 40 times, aiming for an “X” marked on a tabletop. If we mark the spot where the marble comes to rest each time, we will eventually have a random pattern of dots surrounding the X.

Now, instead of aiming for the X, we change our aim to compensate for where the marble ended up in the previous round. For example, if the marble ended up an inch to the right of the X, the next time we will aim it an inch to the left. If we dropped the marble 40 more times following that strategy, would the pattern of dots form a circle that is smaller, the same, or larger than in the first round and why?

In this (clearly simplified) experiment, trying to compensate for every miss results in getting farther and farther away from the target.  The same occurs in human systems, where repeatedly shifting our aim leads to more problems.  Instead, we should stop focusing on individual actions and instead look at the broader system.  What goals are we trying to achieve?  Why are these our goals, what are the value underlying them?  How do we measure success or failure?  Who is involved in pursuing these goals and why?

 

Shifting gears, you've used a interesting choice of words (more than once) when describing "singing The Eyes at players."  Why "at"?  I don't know that I've ever heard someone use the phrase "sing at."  I've sung to someone.  I've sung with someone.  I've performed a song for someone.  But I don't think I could say I've ever sung "at" someone.  I don't know if this phrasing comes from the athletes or if it's your creation.  Personally, I've always thought of singing The Eyes as if I'm singing with my classmates, family, friends and community.  We stay to the end of the game to "sing with the team."  Or even singing/performing for the team to show gratitude and respect.  If you're starting from the point of reference that The Eyes is something inflicted upon players, I think you should examine what led you to that framing of the situation.  It seems counter to how the world generally views singing and it's very likely your own biases have crafted a non-standard interpretation.

 

Regarding governance, you may not realize that you're talking about a model of governance, but that doesn't change the fact that you are .  Governance is how a group reaches a decision.  It's the roles, rules and practices we put in place to help ourselves make good decisions.  Lack of formalized roles and practices is still a governance model, it's just one that's based on something else.  Popularity?  Who screams loudest?  First opinion wins?  So, we're in a situation where you can't or won't articulate the governance model behind the decision you'd like enforced, but you still believe it's the right decision.  You also seem to imply that whatever governance model is underlying the decision may not be relevant, important or repeatable beyond the question of The Eyes.  If you've reached a decision via a model that you don't believe is reliable beyond this specific instance, you should really question whether you have any reason to be confident that you've reached a good decision.

 

Lastly, regarding your question, "Would you seriously stand and sing The Eyes at a player you knew thought it was racist?"  I'll answer by saying that I'm not so arrogant to presume I can predict how the best solution will present itself.  So I won't comment on the outcome, and instead focus on the approach.  Before making any decision for myself (or for others), I would start by seeking to understand, ideally by talking directly with that player.  Why does that player think it's racist?  What intent, if any, does he assume when I sing the song?  Is he open to hearing what the song means to me?  What does he want from a school song?  What's his goal in protesting the song (is it just the song, or is there a broader objective)? What other ways can I be an ally?  

I know you think that because I'm a) white and b) not an athlete that this isn't my issue and I'm just inserting my "personal feelings" where they don't belong.  But, this is how adults solve problems.  We seek to understand.  We listen with empathy and compassion.  We approach problems with good intentions and hope others will do the same.  We challenge our underlying assumptions and ask difficult questions or ourselves and others.  I may be naive, but I truly believe when people come together in this spirit of growth and partnership, we can overcome seemingly insurmountable differences. #intellectualcoward

[troph 24563]

and BT you don't have the right to claim faux outrage by any woman who thinks your American Pie joke is dumb, stupid and sexist.  Just like (according to you) we have no right to question student athletes the moment they say no to the Eyes of Texas.  and in fact, the bigger problem with that post was that you missed the point entirely.  if black student athletes are the most impacted here, what about band members (some of whom are black) who are forced to play it?  you didn't even address that issue, nope, straight to pussies and flutes.

so apply the same fucking standard to yourself that you apply to others. 

(I'm not trying to own you, this isn't a game, for you it is and you're un-ownable, everyone already gets that, I'm just unwilling to let it slide, until I'm not)

Edited June 23, 2020 by troph

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 hour ago, Llano Estacado said:

I’m absolutely trying to put myself in the shoes of a current black student athlete, but you start with a false premise in saying TEOT belongs to them first or affects them more.

Who The Eyes "belongs to" isn't the same question about is performance at games. I am talking specifically about its performance at games (which is what the players are talking about which is the subject of this thread).

You're talking about something else, I guess.

1 minute ago, fuggled said:

... but I don't get the sense you're making a good faith effort to listen to what others are saying.

If so, am I alone in that? Look at the last 4 pages of discussion. Do you think that people are talking to me in anything approaching good faith?

But whatever, I appreciate your response and will respond in the best possible faith I can manage given the incessant rain of trolling that falls and my highly imperfect nature. I'll do the best I can.

Quote

You, BT, have fallen into the trap of approaching this issue as a Complicated problem.  You believe you have the expertise to prescribe a solution which everyone else is too ignorant or racist to see. 

It might help to distinguish between Problem A (what to do about The Eyes at games) and Problem B (what to do as Alumni).

Problem A: I don't think I have the answer. My entire point is that I/we are not the ones to answer this.

I'm literally just arguing, "The players should decide this."

Which is the opposite of me thinking my expertise prescribes the solution.

Problem B: You're closer to being right here. I am an alumnus who has been to hundreds of games (less now that I'm older and we perpetually disappoint, which makes it less worth the increased physical cost). So where I feel that I don't make the call as to what happens on the field, I do feel that I represent alumni interests because the question for Problem B is about alumni.

But I don't think everyone is too ignorant or racist to see it. A lot of people agree with me that we should just follow the players' lead. I'm not alone in that overall. Many here agree with me. It's just that they also hate me, so it's complicated.

Quote

Shifting gears, you've used a interesting choice of words (more than once) when describing "singing The Eyes at players."  Why "at"?  I don't know that I've ever heard someone use the phrase "sing at."  I've sung to someone.  I've sung with someone.  I've performed a song for someone.  But I don't think I could say I've ever sung "at" someone.  I don't know if this phrasing comes from the athletes or if it's your creation.  Personally, I've always thought of singing The Eyes as if I'm singing with my classmates, family, friends and community.  We stay to the end of the game to "sing with the team."  Or even singing/performing for the team to show gratitude and respect.  If you're starting from the point of reference that The Eyes is something inflicted upon players, I think you should examine what led you to that framing of the situation.  It seems counter to how the world generally views singing and it's very likely your own biases have crafted a non-standard interpretation.

I choose "at" because that's the preposition that fits the reality that the current and former players have now educated me about.

"With" implies shared experience, which isn't uniformily the case (and likely never has been). "To" implies a desire to honor or show affection/appreciation for. This is more fitting, but if they don't want to hear it, it's not an honor or sign of affection.

So since the players are obligated to listen to me and the song is something they don't want to hear, "at" is the preposition that most fits the occasion.

I have been, hundreds of times at this point, a white face in the crowd singing The Eyes AT certain players. ("With" many more, "to" some others.) The realization that when I sang The Eyes after a game that some of the players there felt assaulted by me doing so breaks my heart for them. (not for me, but for them)

I participated in the collective delusion while players suffered in silence and pantomimed for me and there's nothing I would hate more to be than someone who forces pantomime out of a young black man because I'm the Big Boss Man with the Big Checkbook. It makes me feel sick to think of it.

- I'm not mad at myself, because I didn't know.
- I know now, so I have no excuse. 

Quote

So, we're in a situation where you can't or won't articulate the governance model behind the decision you'd like enforced, but you still believe it's the right decision.  

False!

Locker room leadership isn't determined formally, but through a more nebulous social construction. Leaders emerge organically and they get ideas and share ideas and talk with others and then those informally/organically determined leaders make statements.

It's very obvious that Eagles merely released a set of demands/ideas that were developed within the group of athletes and he had their approval to do so.

If Eagles were acting out of line, current and former players would tell us so.

Take, for instance, a player who goes off on Twitter and then deletes it after his teammates get to him. Happens all the time. Not only did Eagles's teammates not do that, they came out to voice support and so did former players.

Quote

Lastly, regarding your question, "Would you seriously stand and sing The Eyes at a player you knew thought it was racist?"  I'll answer by saying that I'm not so arrogant to presume I can predict how the best solution will present itself.  So I won't comment on the outcome, and instead focus on the approach.  Before making any decision for myself (or for others), I would start by seeking to understand, ideally by talking directly with that player.  Why does that player think it's racist?  What intent, if any, does he assume when I sing the song?  Is he open to hearing what the song means to me?  What does he want from a school song?  What's his goal in protesting the song (is it just the song, or is there a broader objective)? What other ways can I be an ally?  

I know you think that because I'm a) white and b) not an athlete that this isn't my issue and I'm just inserting my "personal feelings" where they don't belong.  But, this is how adults solve problems.  We seek to understand.  We listen with empathy and compassion.  We approach problems with good intentions and hope others will do the same.  We challenge our underlying assumptions and ask difficult questions or ourselves and others.  I may be naive, but I truly believe when people come together in this spirit of growth and partnership, we can overcome seemingly insurmountable differences. #intellectualcoward

I respect all that, but...

Would you sing The Eyes right now after a game knowing that a significant number of players don't want it sung?

Because you're not going to speak to the players. You won't even talk to one of them.

So what would you do?

(Are you an alum? Do you go to games?)

Quote

What goals are we trying to achieve?  Why are these our goals, what are the value underlying them?  How do we measure success or failure?  Who is involved in pursuing these goals and why?

These are excellent questions!

These types of questions should guide our discussions and thoughts on Problem A.

8 minutes ago, troph said:

and BT you don't have the right to claim faux outrage by any woman who thinks your American Pie joke is dumb, stupid and sexist. 

Do you genuinely think the reference to American Pie is sexist?

If so, can you explain how?

Quote

Just like (according to you) we have no right to question student athletes the moment they say no to the Eyes of Texas.

The student-athletes articulated their objection to The Eyes already. At length and repeatedly.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[troph 24563]

it's already been explained. you didn't respond with anything other than "hey it's an AP reference" relax.  If you can't see how you play games here to the detriment of your status as the purist of the pure then I'm done.  you do it often.  you don't see it.  that's fine but I'm calling it here.  you are a privileged white dude that thinks he's right about everything and you suck all the air out of a discussion to tell everyone why and how you are right.  that's as gross as anything else on this board in these types of discussions, despite the substance of your positions.  I'm officially out of this thread.  have at it.

Edited June 23, 2020 by troph

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, troph said:

it's already been explained.

Whiggins's explanation assumed I was making up the joke instead of referencing the film. I don't think she knew it was a reference to a movie.

Can you explain how it is sexist?

Quote

If you can't see how you play games here to the detriment of your status as the purist of the pure then I'm done.  you do it often.  you don't see it.  that's fine but I'm calling it here.  you are a privileged white dude that thinks he's right about everything and you suck all the air out of a discussion to tell everyone why and how you are right.  that's as gross as anything else on this board in these types of discussions, despite the substance of your positions.

No I get all this, I get that you're perpetually angry with me and you hate me and think I'm an asshole, yes. I get it.

What I'm asking is simple:

Do you think my reference to American Pie was genuinely sexist? Yes or no.

If yes, can you explain how so I can learn?

Because if I'm being sexist I'd like to change that.

[BillyBadAss 189]

 

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The student-athletes articulated their objection to The Eyes already. At length and repeatedly.

Can you, or anyone, point me to some more information on this?  Seriously. I have only seen the original request and like two tweets from former players. 

The original request is this:

Changes regarding the entire black community at UT
 - The replacement of The Eyes of Texas with a new song without racist undertones.
 - Lifting the requirement of athletes to sing the song

It doesn't articulate the problem at all the problem beyond "racist undertones". The wording there again implies to me that they think the lyrics are referring to slaves that "cannot get away". 

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, BillyBadAss said:

It doesn't articulate the problem at all the problem beyond "racist undertones". The wording there again implies to me that they think the lyrics are referring to slaves that "cannot get away". 

I think if they thought the lyrics themselves were the problem they wouldn't have said "undertones" because racist lyrics are pretty overt.

I take "undertone" to mean the base or background, which refers to the minstrel history of The Eyes. Also, while the lyrics aren't specifically written to warn slaves, I can see the combination of the song's minstrel history and the ominous warning of minding your business being, pardon the word usage, triggering.

If I have an abusive father and I hear him yelling at the dog, he isn't threatening me specifically but I am still upset by his fury, even if it is directed at someone else.

At the time of The Eyes being written, "The Eyes of Texas" didn't include black people and those same eyes who were looking disapprovingly at Aggies were also looking disapprovingly at blacks.

[BillyBadAss 189]

So you were being hyperbolic with the 'repeatedly and at length' statement. In fact, we don't really know. 

An abusive father yelling at the dog? Upset by his fury?  Really?

And where are the eyes looking disapprovingly at Aggies in the song  from which you make the jump to disapprovingly at blacks?

I think you're using emotional language to try to sway the conversation, and it strikes me as a bit disingenuous.  

 

I think it is likely that people took out of context the factual history  "it came from a minstrel show and a quote by Robert E Lee"  and jumped to "it's a veiled warning to slaves that they eyes of their master is on them" - without really examining it. And this interpretation has become the 'truth" of it for some. 

Now, maybe that factual history is enough to damn it for many - and that's fine - but that's the conclusion I'm drawing so far lacking more information. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

41 minutes ago, BillyBadAss said:

So you were being hyperbolic with the 'repeatedly and at length' statement. In fact, we don't really know. 

I was responding to the one statement that you provided. Even in that, the specification of racist "undertones" is more explanation than they give for most of the rest of the list of demanded changes. And the historical explanation they draw from is widely available and widely explained. I operate under the presumption that they are not ignorant and that they learned the history and are referring to that commonly-available history.

This is distinct from the supposed sexism problem behind my reference to a scene in American Pie. My suspicion is that no one actually thinks it was sexist, but is instead trying to hurl the accusation at me to take me down a peg, which would explain the lack of explanation as to why that scene or my reference to it is racist. Perhaps counter-productive to the cause of valid social justice needs for its supposed allies to be so cavalier with weaponizing it in such an openly dishonest way to fight highly personalized personality wars, but hey shit's complicated so whatever.

Quote

An abusive father yelling at the dog? Upset by his fury?  Really?

The refrain here is "I want to learn", but every idea that doesn't immediately conform to the common/white interpretation is met with, at best, open incredulity.

But that's OK, allow me to explain...

Regardless of who the eyes are looking at, the eyes themselves are of a white authority structure that, at the time of its writing, was brutally oppressive to blacks. If that statement makes you incredulous or scornful, think about why. And also explain the problem.

It's a metaphor, and I would be interested to hear what your specific problem with it is. I think comparing white authority structures of the early 20th century to abusive fathers is pretty fair.

And not to badger or belabor the point, I'm going to ask a question for the third time and I hope you can answer:
Would you sing The Eyes right now after a game knowing that a significant number of players don't want it sung?

[BillyBadAss 189]

" I operate under the presumption that they are not ignorant and that they learned the history and are referring to that commonly-available history."

That's a loaded word - ignorant.  I don't think the players are ignorant. But based on two former players saying otherwise and the use of the word "undertones" in the statement - I don't operate under the presumption that they are only referring to the available history, and I think they are perhaps misinformed - which I've stated a few times so I won't go into it again.  

"I think comparing white authority structures of the early 20th century to abusive fathers is pretty fair."

Maybe, but we're not really talking about white authority structures. We're talking about a song - and you're conflating some "really bad shit" with something that I don't think is "really bad shit" - that is - the lyrics to our Alma Mater which are all positive, to me. The song has nothing to do with abusive fathers or white authority structures of the 20th century. It is disingenuous to frame the argument in those terms, IMO. 

"Would you sing The Eyes right now after a game knowing that a significant number of players don't want it sung?

I don't know, we'll see how this plays out. Maybe the "Baber's Compromise" becomes a popular idea with the players, student, and alumni alike. Maybe the discussion around this causes people who initially reacted negatively to The Eyes to see it in a different light. Maybe the school drops The Eyes and I don't have the opportunity to sing it again in the presence of the players. 

If your're asking if none of this is resolved yet the band still strikes it up, if I'd essentially be a dick and sing it at a game knowing some people think it means something painful which I don't think it means - I don't know. That would be somewhat antithetical to what I think is the spirit of the song in the first place. I don't see it coming to that - but who knows.  

Edited June 23, 2020 by BillyBadAss

[bad_teammate 13132]

10 minutes ago, BillyBadAss said:

Maybe, but we're not really talking about white authority structures. We're talking about a song - and you're conflating some "really bad shit" with something that I don't think is "really bad shit" - that is - the lyrics to our Alma Mater which are all positive, to me. The song has nothing to do with abusive fathers or white authority structures of the 20th century. It is disingenuous to frame the argument in those terms, IMO. 

And therein lies the rub.

My intention isn't to convince you to feel any certain way, but to explain how others might feel or interpret the lyrics. After all, the supposed purpose of this conversation is to learn perspectives right?

 

 

[fuggled 576]

For those who may not have seen the email from Hartzell today:

https://president.utexas.edu/messages-speeches-2020/a-more-diverse-and-welcoming-campus?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=UTAustinSocial

Quote

“The Eyes of Texas,” in its current form, will continue to be our alma mater. Aspects of its origin, whether previously widely known or unknown, have created a rift in how the song is understood and celebrated, and that must be fixed. It is my belief that we can effectively reclaim and redefine what this song stands for by first owning and acknowledging its history in a way that is open and transparent.

Together, we have the power to define what the Eyes of Texas expect of us, what they demand of us, and what standard they hold us to now. "The Eyes of Texas" should not only unite us, but hold all of us accountable to our institution’s core values. But we first must own the history. Only then can we reimagine its future, and I look forward to partnering with our campus community to do just that.

I wish he would have offered some more specifics on this.  How exactly are they planning to do this?  Who from the student body have they engaged with and are they supportive of this path forward?  I agree with Hartzell's sentiment and I hope this if the right approach, but it's hard to tell without more detail.

[fuggled 576]

Not a ton in the comments so far, but did see one reaction from a student group that is encouraging.

 

[David Dennison 18661]

The song is going to continue to be an issue.