Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "Nate The Lawyer"
channel.
-
219
-
43
-
38
-
28
-
23
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
13
-
13
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As an Australian with no skin in the game, I think the issue here is ignorance about the words being used and not the intent of the words.
I humbly suggest that the INTENT is to have an uplifting song that recognises "black history" and makes people who need it, feel more equal. Consider it an affirmation. Such an INTENT can be unifying.
The execution, however, was to call such an affirmation a "black nation anthem" and, in so doing, undermined itself. Anyone who understands what the words "national anthem" mean knows that's a nonsensical description. In an environment of high sensitivity, using such an erroneous descriptor is divisive.
It gives the impression to those who understand the words being used that a cohort wish to separate themselves along racial lines and form their own nation through secession. Whilst I'm sure a small minority of such people do exist, I don't believe that was the actual intent here. I again humbly suggest the intent was to describe a song to unify and uplift a racial group. I suspect that is what Charlemagne is attempting to communicate, yet lacks sufficient vocabulary to articulate it. Charlemagne appears to be making the argument that this is a song that acknowledges the complexities of the past elevated on a national stage (ie. It's sung at important domestic national events) makes him feel like his grievances with the past are taken seriously and presents an opportunity to heal. That I would suggest is where he comes to "if you don't like the song you must still want slavery". The latter, of course, is its own logical fallacy. However, it makes much more sense as I've contextualised it.
I suspect when those who gave it such a nickname say "national," they mean the "black" collective as a racial group affected in a historical context but don't have words to express that. Potentially, I could be wrong and it's simply a cynical attempt to use a word to elevate the song in importance. I don't believe the latter however.I feel all parties should be met with good faith until they demonstrate otherwise.
I strongly believe this is a misunderstanding based on the erroneous use of a word. The result of poorly educated individuals being elevated into positions they have no business being in on merits, and not understanding the significance or meaning of the words used.
I think the problem arises because words have defined meanings not just whatever you feel and not everyone seems to understand that anymore. We see it regularly in online conversation where people use words inappropriately to form seemingly nonsensical sentences then brush the onus of interpretation off to the reader with "you know what I mean". This is what happens when the education system is not adequately designed and supported. It's what happens when the average IQ of a nation is allowed to drop from the global average of 100 down to now 97.3. It's what happens when the correct use of words as unifying labels for communication is not taken seriously or taken for granted.
Replacing the word "national" with "american" seems as though it more or less would scuttle the controversy and allow for healing to take place. Calling it such would no less mean it could be sung at domestic national events. Yet such a change would acknowledge the importance of the national anthem as the singular unifying song of the nation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2