I figured this recent “Anthem Protest” would be a good update for the post. This comes to me via RIGHT SCOOP:
Gwen Berry explained today why she reacted with such contempt for the National Anthem over the weekend and it’s absolutely ridiculous (video at Twitter… click pic):
Berry claims that “If you know your history, you know the full song of the National Anthem. The third paragraph speaks to slaves in America, our blood being slang and piltered all over the floor. It’s disrespectful and it does not speak for black Americans. It’s obvious. There’s no question.”
I found this explanation unbelievable. But because I don’t know the verse, I went back and read it anyway:
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion, A home and a country, should leave us no more? Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution. No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave: And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave, O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
So it turns out she’s an idiot. Yes, it uses the world ‘slave’, but it doesn’t remotely mean what she claims it means. It’s referring to the British, which is clear from the context. Not American slaves.
Erick Erickson provides us more insight here:
…the third verse of the National Anthem has nothing to do with slave labor. She’s taking language out of context by using a modern day definition and applying it to a 17th century statement. — Kenny Webster
. . . . . .
(Originally Posted Sep 29, 2017)
✩✩✩OUR NATIONAL ANTHEM✩✩✩
(Above video description: The original file AND description can be found here in full — HOWEVER, the audio was horrible. I tried to raise the DBs but couldn’t get rid of the hiss… but it is a must watch!)
UPDATED VIDEO ADDED
The Star-Spangled Banner, long a treasured symbol of national unity, has suddenly become “one of the most racist, pro-slavery songs” in American culture. Why is this happening? And more importantly, is it true? USA Today columnist James Robbins explores the history of the song and its author to answer these questions.
A friend asked a question about a challenge via “The Root” about the National Anthem. This is the “verse” said to be “racist”
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
It is said our (yes, OUR) anthem glories in black slaves dying. Here is how it is encapsulated in the NEW YORK TIMES:
The journalist Jon Schwarz, writing in The Intercept, argued yes, denouncing the lyrics, written by Francis Scott Key during the War of 1812, as “a celebration of slavery.” How could black players, Mr. Schwarz asked, be expected to stand for a song whose rarely sung third stanza — which includes the lines “No refuge could save the hireling and slave/From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave” — “literally celebrates the murder of African-Americans”?
Here is another sport figure’s comments on the flag:
“And stop trying to sweep it under the rug. But, see, as long as you paint that narrative, oh, it’s the Anthem, I can’t — no — anybody that does something to the Anthem — well, we know what the anthem was originally written for and who it was written by, okay? The flag, okay? We understand what the flag? What does it represent? — SHANNON SHARPE
Here, the SMITHSONIANhelps set the scene for us and how the Anthem came to be:
…A week earlier, Francis Scott Key, a 35-year-old American lawyer, had boarded the flagship of the British fleet on the Chesapeake Bay in hopes of persuading the British to release a friend who had recently been arrested. Key’s tactics were successful, but because he and his companions had gained knowledge of the impending attack on Baltimore, the British did not let them go. They allowed the Americans to return to their own vessel but continued guarding them. Under their scrutiny, Key watched on September 13 as the barrage of Fort McHenry began eight miles away.
“It seemed as though mother earth had opened and was vomiting shot and shell in a sheet of fire and brimstone,” Key wrote later. But when darkness arrived, Key saw only red erupting in the night sky. Given the scale of the attack, he was certain the British would win. The hours passed slowly, but in the clearing smoke of “the dawn’s early light” on September 14, he saw the American flag—not the British Union Jack—flying over the fort, announcing an American victory.
Key put his thoughts on paper while still on board the ship, setting his words to the tune of a popular English song. His brother-in-law, commander of a militia at Fort McHenry, read Key’s work and had it distributed under the name “Defence of Fort M’Henry.” The Baltimore Patriot newspaper soon printed it, and within weeks, Key’s poem, now called “The Star-Spangled Banner,” appeared in print across the country, immortalizing his words—and forever naming the flag it celebrated….
THE DAILY CALLERnotes (and so does SNOPES) that this verse was in reference to slaves and mercenaries that fought on the British side:
Francis Scott Key wrote the song the morning after the British bombarded Fort McHenry toward the end of the War of 1812, when he saw the American flag still waving. In these lines of the third verse he’s celebrating the death of slaves and mercenaries who opted to fight for the British in exchange for their freedom following the war.
The Star Spangled Banner lyrics “the hireling ” refers to the British use of Mercenaries (German Hessians) in the American War of Independence
The Star Spangled Banner lyrics “…and slave” is a direct reference to the British practice of Impressment (kidnapping American seamen and forcing them into service on British man-of war ships). This was a Important cause of the War of 1812
Francis Scott Key then describes the Star Spangled Banner as a symbol of triumph over all adversity
Fifty years later, in 1861, poet Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. would write a fifth verse to the National Anthem, reflecting the nation’s strife and looking toward a more peaceable future:
When our land is illum’d with Liberty’s smile,
If a foe from within strike a blow at her glory,
Down, down, with the traitor that dares to defile
The flag of her stars and the page of her story!
By the millions unchain’d who our birthright have gained
We will keep her bright blazon forever unstained!
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
While the land of the free is the home of the brave.
Here, Wendell, unlike Key, foresaw not only the inevitable emancipation of the nation’s slaves, but also the freed African Americans gaining full citizen rights and ensuring the country’s preservation. Today, this verse is not considered an official part of the National Anthem, but during the Civil War, it was printed in song books throughout the northern United States as an extension of Key’s lyrics. In this way, Francis Scott Key and the War of 1812 bequeathed to the nation not just a song, but a step toward the perpetuating of liberty—just as the Revolutionary War and Civil War did.
Again, the Left views complex history through the lens of a historical Marxist view. Something that Howard Zinn tried to do as well, but did so by rewriting history… as the Modern Left still does.
Francis Scott Key, like many during that time, had a varied history on slavery. He fought for slaves to be free in court – pro bono. But, he also fought to return runaway slaves to owners at some point in his life – probably for money. So he was an opportunistic lawyer to pay bills… nothing has changed. WIKIcontinues with this:
Key publicly criticized slavery’s cruelties, so much that after his death a newspaper editorial stated “So actively hostile was he to the peculiar institution that he was called ‘The Nigger Lawyer’ …. because he often volunteered to defend the downtrodden sons and daughters of Africa. Mr. Key convinced me that slavery was wrong—radically wrong.” In June 1842, Key attended the funeral of William Costin, a free, mixed race resident who had challenged Washington’s surety bond laws.
The SMITHSONIANagain notes that Key was a founding member and active leader of the American Colonization, of which the primary goal was to send free African-Americans back to Africa. Keys, even though he abhorred slavery, and fought to free slaves at times, was removed from the board in 1833 as its policies shifted toward abolitionist. The mood of the nation as a whole was shifting. While Keys couldn’t envision a multi-ethnic nation, others could. But Keys position wasn’t necessarily “racist,” as some ex-slaves wanted the same. To recall a portion of the above quote from the Capital Historical Society, “…Wendell, unlike Key, foresaw not only the inevitable emancipation of the nation’s slaves, but also the freed African Americans gaining full citizen rights and ensuring the country’s preservation.”
YOU SEE, people change… as do nations (because they, like corporations, are made up of people). I make this point in my post on AUGUSTINE, who is often used to support old-earth positions… but little know that later in his life he rejected the old-earth view and wrote quite a bit on the young earth (creationist) viewpoint.
A man needs to be judged by his life’s journey. As do nations.
Likewise, conservatives believe that Robert Byrd may have sincerely changed his formerly racist beliefs. But when Democrats accuse Republicans of racism because they went to Strom Thurmond’s (one of the only major Dixiecrats to change to Republican – watch here and here) funeral and gave him praise, even though he changed his views on race/racism. All we point out is that if praising an ex Dixiecrat at a funeral makes one racist… then what does lauding a KKK Grand Kleagle at his funeral make Democrats?
A man needs to be judged by his life’s journey.
So does a nation.
Here is the rest of the SMITHSONIANpiece I wish to excerpt:
A religious man, Key believed slavery sinful; he campaigned for suppression of the slave trade. “Where else, except in slavery,” he asked, “was ever such a bed of torture prepared?” Yet the same man, who coined the expression “the land of the free,” was himself an owner of slaves who defended in court slaveholders’ rights to own human property.
Key believed that the best solution was for African-Americans to “return” to Africa—although by then most had been born in the United States. He was a founding member of the American Colonization Society, the organization dedicated to that objective; its efforts led to the creation of an independent Liberia on the west coast of Africa in 1847. Although the society’s efforts were directed at the small percentage of free blacks, Key believed that the great majority of slaves would eventually join the exodus. That assumption, of course, proved to be a delusion. “Ultimately,” says historian Egerton, “the proponents of colonization represent a failure of imagination. They simply cannot envision a multiracial society. The concept of moving people around as a solution was widespread and being applied to Indians as well.”
You see, Americans’ belief then was “not merely in themselves [shocker to millennials] but also in their future…. lying just beyond the western horizon” (ibid). And that is key. As Paul Johnson rightly notes in his history book on America:
“…can a nation rise above the injustices of its origins and, by its moral purpose and performance, atone for them? All nations are born in war, conquest, and crime, usually concealed by the obscurity of a distant past. The United States, from its earliest colonial times, won its title-deeds in the full blaze of recorded history, and the stains on them are there for all to see and censure: the dispossession of a indigenous people, and the securing of self-sufficiency through the sweat and pain of an enslaved race. In the judgmental scales of history, such grievous wrongs must be balanced by the erection of a society dedicated to justice and fairness.”
(Just some reminders of how I am — and those Trump voters — are thought about by many) After more than 4-years of relentless attacks on Trump and those who voted for him (me)… calling us NAZI’s, racists, bigots, and the like — now the MSM and Democrats are calling for unity. Really?
Here is a small sample of what NEWSBUSTERS could probably have posted but chose just a few examples: “The Media’s ‘Unity’ Chickens From 2016 Coming Home to Roost”
….After spending four years assailing Donald Trump, suddenly the media wants to give peace a chance. Fox’s Greg Gutfeld astutely observed this the other night on Fox’s The Five. Said Greg:
GREG GUTFELD: “It’s like a miracle! The media and Democrats converge on one message! It’s time to just move on. Time to heal! Here’s how the president-elect and some in the liberal media described it over the weekend:
JOE BIDEN ON SATURDAY: This is the time to heal in America!
CNN ANCHOR DON LEMON: America needed a release valve at that moment. Finally, the relief came.
MSNBC ON SUNDAY: We’re getting decency back in our country.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: [It’s] a time to heal America but a time to heal the world as well.”
And I would add The Washington Post’s columnist Alexandra Petri headlined her post-election column this way: “It’s time to unite, but if it’s not too big a bother, could you accept the results?”
Then there’s MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: “It’s time for us to take a deep breath and move forward.”
Really? Really? These media figures and oh so many more want us to “unite”, “heal” and “accept the results”?
Let’s take a look back at the media’s idea of healing and moving on over the last four years after the 2016 election won by President Trump.
“CNN’s Brian Stelter speculated Sunday on President Donald Trump’s mental health and called for more media coverage of the issue.
‘So something is wrong,’ Stelter said in the opening monologue of his show, Reliable Sources.
‘There are lots of theories about what it is. There are some doctors who think they know,’ he said. ‘Others say we shouldn’t speculate. There are ethical questions about having this conversation at all, but we can’t tiptoe around it anymore. We’ve got to talk about this.’”
Here is CNN’s Chris Cuomo in 2019 interviewing Kayleigh McEnany: The President, he said, is “patently racist.”
Here is The Washington Post headline on an Op-Ed by one Erika Lee, the director of the Immigration History Research Center at the University of Minnesota. “Trump’s xenophobia is an American tradition — but it doesn’t have to be
Here is The Washington Post on January 20, 2017 at 12:27 pm – a mere 27 minutes after Trump was sworn into office. “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.”
Got all that? The media spent their time after Trump was elected demanding a special prosecutor and impeachment, calling the president mentally unstable, a racist, xenophobic and more. They were utterly unwilling to accept the 2016 results, and made it their mission to overturn those results in whatever way feasible.
One could go on and on and on with examples like this from the mainstream media over the last four years.
And now they demand Americans come together in a kumbaya moment?
Somehow, in someway, I suspect the answer from most if not all 70-plus million Trump voters will listen to all this be a resounding, decidedly emphatic no.
Or put another way? I suspect that the liberal media’s last four years of chickens are about to come home to roost.
MORE EXAMPLES AND ARTICLE’S HERE:
Liberal Opponents ‘Trashed’ Trump’ s Presidential Transition In 2016 (WASHINGTON TIMES)
Democrats Labeled Me and Now They Want Unity? No Way (TOWNHALL)
LARRY ELDER notes some of the “unity” proffered by Democrats:
…Yes, nearly all polls show Biden ahead both nationally and in the battleground states. Imagine where Trump would rank in the polls but for the constant, relentless negative media coverage and deranged opposition that would have suffocated the average politician. Nearly one-third of the Democratic caucus boycotted Trump’s inaugural address. Several Democrats never attended a single State of the Union speech.
Immediately after Trump’s election, Democrats attempted to invoke the 25th amendment, arguing that the real-estate-developer-turned-politician lacked the mental fitness to hold a job. To counter this perception, Trump allowed his personal physician to hold a press conference to assure the country and the world that yes, this man is actually sane.
For nearly three years, a special counsel investigated thin and, in retrospect, virtually baseless allegations of collusion, conspiracy and/or coordination with Russia to win the election and to then, presumably, become a Russian stooge. Critics called Trump “soft on Russia.”
Never mind that it was the Obama administration that, to curry favor with the Iranians and Russians, turned its back on missile agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic negotiated during the previous administration. At the beginning of the Obama administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced their “reset” policy, a major policy redirection to change what President Barack Obama perceived as President George W. Bush’s dangerously hawkish relationship with Russia.
It was Obama who, during the 2012 presidential debate, ridiculed opponent Mitt Romney for calling Russia our biggest geopolitical threat. It was Obama who, on a “hot mic,” told then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, “This is my last election … After my election, I have more flexibility” to negotiate a missile defense treaty between our two countries.
Oh, and Trump was impeached on grounds so weak that neither Biden nor running mate Sen. Kamala Harris even bring up impeachment while campaigning….
…You want unity? That’s fair. We will give you unity:
1. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and deny the legitimacy of the 2020 election for the next four years.
2. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and investigate the Biden family’s every business dealing at home and abroad.
3. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and question Biden’s mental fitness to hold office.
4. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and question Biden’s physical fitness to hold office.
5. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and blame Biden for every person who dies from the coronavirus.
6. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and blame Biden personally for every Black person who is shot anywhere in America.
7. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and never stop publicizing that Biden has been accused of grabbing a woman’s crotch against her will.
8. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and emphasize that, any time a woman makes a claim of sexual harassment against Biden, she must be believed.
9. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and continue publicizing that Kamala Harris, like Evita Perón, slept her way into public life.
10. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and remind people that, no less than Stormy Daniels, Kamala Harris was a public figure’s mistress.
11. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and accuse Biden of treason for consorting with enemies like the wife of the Moscow mayor, who gave the Bidens $3.5 million, the Chinese who put the Bidens on their payroll, and the Ukrainians of Burisma.
12. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and investigate the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, and if and when those photos can be released, they will be distributed to the tune of Maurice Chevalier’s “Thank Heaven for Little Girls.”
13. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and demand that Biden condemn racism, anti-Semitism, and misogyny every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every month of every year.
14. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and remind the American public that, even with dead people casting votes for Biden — Democrats just dying to oust Trump — and with Republican poll watchers kept outside of range in the counting rooms of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin; and with mail ballots without postmarks being accepted after election deadlines … Biden still did not receive 50 percent of the vote, so lacks the mandate that would have come from winning support from at least a majority of the living electorate.
15. In unity with you, and to advance the national healing, we humbly will acknowledge that Biden indeed won the coveted Obituary Vote, as Democrats, shrouded amid grave circumstances, emerged furtively from their plot to flock in from their cemeteries and mausolea to cast ballots for the candidate to whom they most related in style and substance — and the the one with the most skeletons in the closet. Biden knew how to urn every dead voter’s ballot by invoking the ultimate rule of social distancing: every extra needed Democrat vote must come from a distance of six feet … under. Perhaps on Memorial Day, Biden will lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Voter.
16. In unity with you, we will follow your example of the past four years and will work to disrupt and slow down every cabinet appointment and every nomination that requires Senate advice and consent. However, we will make one small exception and will not impeach. Just as Richard Nixon knew precisely what he was doing when he made Spiro Agnew his running mate (aka his life insurance policy), so did Biden by running with his.
(James Klug) In this video I talk to people about how I believe Donald Trump is NOT a racist. Trump says and Tweets obnoxious things all the time, but after closely examining his actions and the change that he’s doing policy wise I am not convinced that he is a racist. This video was a difficult one to create because the overwhelming majority of people that walked by and said he was wouldn’t talk to me. Thankfully we had a handful of people that wanted to defend their stance!
(Mike Luso) I visited Cal Poly Pomona with the task of debating the students on campus on whether or not President Trump is a racist.
Larry poses this question to Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute.
Here is NATIONAL REVIEW discussing the indecent, as well as the 40-minute lecture she and Larry discussed in the opening of the above video:
Yesterday (July 30th) American Experiment hosted Heather Mac Donald for an online presentation on the conjunction of crime, race and policing, a topic on which Heather is acknowledged to be the country’s leading expert. Her presentation is a comprehensive refutation of the myth of “systemic bias” in policing. The data prove the opposite. Here is yesterday’s program, in its entirety: (Support the MN Police)
Mayor Bill de Blasio has canceled a graffiti-eradication program that cleaned private buildings, thus deliberately sending the city back to its worst days of crime and squalor.
Nothing sent a stronger signal in the late 1980s that New York was determined to fight back from anarchy than the transit system’s campaign against subway graffiti. That campaign was based on broken-windows policing, a theory that recognizes that physical disorder and low-level lawlessness, such as graffiti, turnstile-jumping and litter, telegraph that social control has broken down. That low-level lawlessness invites more contempt for norms of behavior, including felony crime.
The subway authority declared victory over the graffiti vandals in 1989, even as privately funded business-improvement districts were increasing graffiti cleanup in retail corridors across the five boroughs. Inspired by broken-windows theory, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, serving then under Mayor David Dinkins, removed the squeegee men who menaced helpless drivers queuing for the city’s bridges and tunnels. And with the mayoralty of Rudolph Giuliani in 1994, public-order maintenance entered the city’s governing philosophy.
The steepest crime drop of any big city in the country — nearly 80 percent over three decades — followed. Newly restored storefronts and avenues cleared of aggressive panhandlers invited a flood of tourists and new residents.
To a progressive, by contrast, graffiti is a “political statement,” as The New York Times recently put it, a courageous strike against stultifying bourgeois values. It represents urban grit and resistance to corporate hegemony. The property owner whose building has been unwillingly appropriated is a non-entity, the tagger is the vibrant anti-capitalist soul of the city.
The official reason for the termination of the graffiti-removal program, which allowed building owners and residents to report graffiti to 311 and receive city assistance in removing it, was New York’s straitened coronavirus finances.
That justification is unpersuasive. The administration found the resources this June to pay city workers to paint massive Black Lives Matter logos on the road in front of Trump Tower and on avenues in Harlem and Brooklyn, in the process putting the government’s imprimatur on a political viewpoint; de Blasio himself, on the taxpayer’s dime, joined the BLM paint-in on Fifth Avenue to make sure that President Trump understood the taunt against him.
And when two women scattered black paint on those BLM logos to protest anti-cop hatred, de Blasio’s administration found further resources to arrest and charge them with criminal mischief — for graffiti vandalism, no less — and to repaint the BLM slogans.
The decision to bow to the vandals will accelerate the city’s slide back to being ungovernable, a slide terrifyingly exemplified by ongoing violence against police officers. Ending graffiti cleanup shows that the understanding of what made the city governable was never universally shared.
South Africa’s parliament on Tuesday passed a motion brought by the radical left party, Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), to carry out land expropriation without compensation, a key pillar of the ruling ANC government and new President Cyril Ramaphosa.
The motion, which would include a review of the constitution, was brought by leader of the EFF Julius Malema and was passed by an overwhelming majority of 241 votes in favour versus 83 votes against the proposal.
At least ten White South African farmers have already abandoned their home country in the face of offers of land and ultimate citizenship of the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, one of their largest farmers’ unions has announced.
The Transvaal Agricultural Union of South Africa (TAU-SA) confirmed in a statement that their memorandum of understanding, signed with the previous Georgian government in August 2010, would still be honored by the newly-elected government in Tbilisi.
Earlier, one of the first Boer farmers to move to Georgia under the scheme, 66-year-old Piet Kemp, was quoted as saying that “I have a new life here,” he explained.
“I try to make friends with all the people in Georgia, learning their culture. I have been here since 3rd of March, and I have not heard of one murder in Georgia in this time. I didn’t hear about any bank robbery. I didn’t hear about any one hijacking.”
“There is no security of land, absolutely no security of land in South Africa,” he stressed.
Kemp said that over the last decade he successfully helped hundreds of white farmers hold on to their farmland in face of legal challenges from black farm workers and squatters. But now, he says white farmers face threats of farm seizures.
“They have done exceptionally great job over the years in South Africa, and to give them an opportunity to do the same thing here and for Georgian farmers to learn from the experience they will receive from their new neighbors, from the South African farmers,” said Georgia’s Canada-educated Economy Minister, Vera Kobalia.
Kobalia praises Sandra Roelofs, the Dutch-born wife of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, for promoting the program. Dutch is the mother language of Afrikaans.
“It helped in terms of making them feel more secure in Georgia,” Kobalia noted. “There is definitely that connection, the Holland connection in Georgia.”
“I do not want to live in constant fear,” the 67-year-old said emotionally as he recalled the widespread killings of other white farmers in South Africa. “We tried to defend our rights, but we lost this war.”
Amid the violence, Kemp said that he felt he had no choice but to leave.
“In Georgia there is no violence, the crime rate is extremely low. So I will never go back,” Kemp declared, comparing the situation here to the high violent crime rates back home, which include some 46 murders a day.
He sold his farm in South Africa’s Mpumalanga province, was given Georgian citizenship in 2011 and in March that year rented 700 hectares (1,730 acres) of land in the village of Sartichala, where he now cultivates maize and wheat.
“I moved to Georgia because I see tremendous opportunities here — there is a good climate, fertile soil and a good market,” he said.
Some of the recent radicalism is linked with communist/Marxist groups held in check by Mandela (as a leader among them). This restraining influence is gone now, and what many worry about may come true more-so than it has as of late.
An amazing story via LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN (<<<now defunct — which is too bad, it was a great site), take note that in the video seen at LR’s website the shirt being worn is that of Nelson Mandela:
No hyperbole. No exaggeration. This really happened.
Note – it’s not being covered at all in any of the American media. Only here at Libertarian Republican.
From Arutz7, “South African BDS Protesters: ‘Shoot the Jew’ — A South African protest against an Israeli musician quickly deteriorated into a call for the murder of Jews”:
Anti-Israel students and activists showed their “true colors” last Wednesday night, Jewish students at Wits University in Johannesburg, South Africa said.
Moving quickly from “anti-Zionism” to classic anti-Semitism, a melange of students and BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) activists began screaming “Shoot the Jews” at a concert featuring religious Jewish jazz saxophonist Daniel Zamir.
Of course, the South African blacks were urged on by Muslims in the crowd.
Dozens of South African Muslims and BDS supporters gathered outside Wits’ Great Hall, with security personnel keeping them outside. Several scuffles were reported, and concert-goers were subject to a great deal of verbal abuse.
At that point, said witnesses, the protesters broke into a sing-song chant of “kill the Jews,” (“Dubula e Juda” in Zulu), a take-off on a protest song sung in the 80s against whites. When questioned, Muhammed Desai, coordinator of the protest and leader of “BDS South Africa,” said that the protesters did not mean the term “kill the Jews” literally. (Emphasis added.)
Note – this “Kill Whites” song has been sung at political rallies by numerous political leaders in the South African left, including Nelson Mandela.
FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE noted this about the revival of this song and why many farmers/ranchers are on the move:
For decades, the country of South Africa was the focus of an international rallying cry against the injustices of apartheid. On June 17, 1991, South Africa’s Parliament abolished the legal framework for the practice of racial persecution. In 1994, Nelson Mandela and his Marxist African National Congress (ANC) assumed the reins of power. The international community looked away, satisfied that justice had prevailed. They continue to look away, even as South Africa has degenerated into another racist pit, best described by an Afrikaner farm owner: “It’s politically correct to kill whites these days.”
In July of 2012, Dr. Gregory Stanton, head of the nonprofit group Genocide Watch, conducted a fact-finding mission in South Africa. He concluded that there is a coordinated campaign of genocide being conducted against white farmers, known as Boers. “The farm murders, we have become convinced, are not accidental,” Stanton contended. “It was very clear that the massacres were not common crimes,” he added — especially because of the absolute barbarity used against the victims. “We don’t know exactly who is planning them yet, but what we are calling for is an international investigation,” he added.
The number of farm murders, or “plaasmoorde” as it is called in Afrikaans, is staggering. Over the last decade, it is estimated that at least 3000 Boers have been killed. Estimating the number of murders is necessary because the ANC has banned crime statistics from being compiled, claiming they scare off foreign investment.
The ANC, whose leader Jacob Zuma was reelected with over 75 per cent of the total voting delegates at the ANC National Conference held in Bloemfontein last December, denies that genocide is occurring, insisting that such attacks are part of the larger crime problem. Yet a report filed by the South African Institute of Race Relations notes that while crime has ostensibly declined between 1994 and 2011, “substantial numbers” of police stations have manipulated their crime statistics. The report sub-headline underscores the corrupt nature of crime statistics in the country: “Is this a true reflection of the crime statistics in South Africa? Who knows!” it states.
What is known is that the ANC celebrated in 100th year anniversary with a song led by President Zuma himself. “Dubula iBhunu” or “Shoot the Boer” was a line in the lyrics of an apartheid-era song, “Ayesaba Amagwala” (“the cowards are scared”) that violates the South Africa constitution prohibiting the “advocacy of hatred that is based on race … and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.” Yet Zuma apparently felt no compunction to refrain from singing it, because the ANC considers it an integral part of the anti-apartheid movement that is part of their heritage.
In 2010, Julius Malema, then leader of the ANC Youth League, revived the practice of singing the song after many years. After the South Africa High Court ruled it was hate speech, the ANC appealed. Last October, the ANC and AfriForum, a lobby group that wanted the song banned from public performance, reached an out-of-court settlement.
Dr. Stanton concluded that Malema’s revival of a song advocating murder moved South Africa from the fifth stage on his genocidal scale to stage six. When the South African judiciary ruled it to be unlawful hate speech, Genocide Watch put South Africa back at stage five. When President Zuma was caught on tape January 2012 singing, “We are going to shoot them with the machine gun, they are going to run/You are a Boer, we are going to hit them, and you are going to run/shoot the Boer…” South Africa was raised to stage six once again.
Stage six is known as Preparation: “Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity. Death lists are drawn up. Members of victim groups are forced to wear identifying symbols. Their property is expropriated. They are often segregated into ghettoes, deported into concentration camps, or confined to a famine-struck region and starved.”
The sixth stage is followed by stage seven: Extermination….
Embedded in that platform is the idea that making peace with white South Africans following the end of apartheid has “hampered” the transfer of wealth to black South Africans. Thus, a “second transition,” was proposed, which even the see-no-progressive-evil New York Times was forced to concede represents a “sharp leftward shift for the A.N.C., which despite its roots has largely backed a free-market economy with minimal state intervention.”
Stanton sees a bigger picture. In a speech in Pretoria, organized by the Transvaal Agricultural Union, Stanton claimed the ANC was demonizing white farmers, who have been in South Africa since the 1600s, by calling them “settlers.” A Genocide Watch reports reveals the strategy behind those efforts. “High-ranking ANC government officials who continuously refer to Whites as ‘settlers’ and ‘colonialists of a special type’ are using racial epithets in a campaign of state-sponsored dehumanization of the White population as a whole,” it stated. “They sanction gang-organized hate crimes against Whites, with the goal of terrorizing Whites through fear of genocidal annihilation.”
ANC President Jacob Zuma continues to fan the flames of racial division. Last December, he admonished black South Africans for being dog owners, saying that doing so amounts to copying white culture. Zuma’s office contended the message was aimed at “the need to decolonize the African mind post-liberation.”….
I don’t like to speak ill of the dead, especially when they still haven’t even been buried. (I also don’t like to speak ill of the Pope, although I’ve been tempted to at least speak ill of his ideology.) But I do think it’s important to add some perspective to the legacy of Nelson Mandela that you aren’t going to get from the media.
Those who escaped Cuba, and those who are still there, probably aren’t shedding too many tears this morning over the passing of Nelson Mandela, who seemed to have no problem with the ruthless ways of the Castro regime. Fellow travelers and all.
….Mandela also was always an enthusiastic supporter of Ugandan Muslim dictator Idi Amin, and Mandela met with his fellow terrorist Yasser Arafat in the 1970s to publicly deplore Israel’s “barbaric” rescue of innocent Jews who were taken hostage by PLO-Fatah airplane hijackers in 1976 and then flown to Uganda’s Entebbe Airport where Amin and Arafat planned to murder them.
To this day, Mandela strongly supports other “progressive” Third World dictators like Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Hafez el-Assad of Syria and Moammar Khadafi of Libya.
In South Africa itself, since Mandela and other savages seized power from the white minority, the country now has more than five times the homicide rate of Washington, DC, the murder capital of the United States….
Some more commentary by Joel Pollak who offers a more fair-and-balanced [conservative] approach to Mandela’s legacy. And while Mandela was not anti-Israel… many in his own party and those he had as fellow contemporaries were. All that being said, we must remember Jerusalem’s Post commentary that Mandela was no Martin Luther King Jr., but more like a BILL AYERS type:
Imagine a person who planned acts of sabotage and incited violence, resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians and damage to public property. A man who embraced brutal dictators throughout the Third World, such as Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi and Cuba’s Fidel Castro, singing their praises and defending them publicly even as they trampled on the rights and lives of their own people. A person who hugged Yasser Arafat at the height of the intifada, hailed Puerto Rican terrorists who shot US Congressmen, and penned a book entitled, How to be a good Communist.
Picture all this and, believe it or not, you will be staring at a portrait of Nelson Mandela….