[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Where is it written that any song holds "equal status" with the Star Spangled Banner? I've never seen that. Your getting over wrought over nothing. Mountain over a molehill.

The person you were responding to is correct.

Plus, the original plan was to play this so-called black national anthem right after our ONE AND ONLY national anthem so that people would already be standing. They were afraid no one would get up and stand for it if played alone, and of course, they would be right. I don't see how that original plan could be viewed as anything other than an attempt to give it equal status. I think they were wise to alter that plan, it might have gotten ugly.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

The person you were responding to is correct.

Plus, the original plan was to play this so-called black national anthem right after our ONE AND ONLY national anthem so that people would already be standing. They were afraid no one would get up and stand for it if played alone, and of course, they would be right. I don't see how that original plan could be viewed as anything other than an attempt to give it equal status. I think they were wise to alter that plan, it might have gotten ugly.

So that’s NOT what happened? Then where is the problem?

I strongly disagree that the song was intended to be divisive. I also strongly believe that it is only perceived as divisive by a small subset of the population that WANT there to be controversy.

It was not performed after the national anthem. It was not performed adjacent to the anthem. There was not an announcement to please rise and remove hats. It was not introduced as an anthem, rational or otherwise. Those ideas originated in this thread by those who want something to complain about. They got tired of Swift/Kelce and came up with something else. (at least that’s the least offensive reason I can think of)

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

So that’s NOT what happened? Then where is the problem?

I strongly disagree that the song was intended to be divisive. I also strongly believe that it is only perceived as divisive by a small subset of the population that WANT there to be controversy.

It was not performed after the national anthem. It was not performed adjacent to the anthem. There was not an announcement to please rise and remove hats. It was not introduced as an anthem, rational or otherwise. Those ideas originated in this thread by those who want something to complain about. They got tired of Swift/Kelce and came up with something else. (at least that’s the least offensive reason I can think of)

Which is why I’m glad they changed the original plan

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Bingo! We're a melting pot, not a salad bowl.

And quickly turning into a "bowl of granola"... What isn't fruits and nuts is flakes... (apologies to Gallagher...)

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Oh, YES! Absolutely true. Seen it happen several times. You will be allowed back in, but don't, DON'T play Stairway to Heaven!
So funny!

Years ago, I was trying out an acoustic 12-String at my local music store. I started playing the opening riff of "Hotel California"...

My guitar guy said, "You know, that's the acoustic equivalent of "Stairway"..."

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

AC/DC “long ways to top if want rock and roll”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9Z39Uqybcw

Bag pipes baby!!!!!

Led Zep's "Stairway to Heaven" vs AC/DC's "Highway to Hell"...

Makes you wonder about the expected traffic patterns down the road...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Where is it written that any song holds "equal status" with the Star Spangled Banner? I've never seen that. Your getting over wrought over nothing. Mountain over a molehill.

Wouldn't that would crush the molehill?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

So that’s NOT what happened? Then where is the problem?

I strongly disagree that the song was intended to be divisive. I also strongly believe that it is only perceived as divisive by a small subset of the population that WANT there to be controversy.

It was not performed after the national anthem. It was not performed adjacent to the anthem. There was not an announcement to please rise and remove hats. It was not introduced as an anthem, rational or otherwise. Those ideas originated in this thread by those who want something to complain about. They got tired of Swift/Kelce and came up with something else. (at least that’s the least offensive reason I can think of)

Then why did they play it at the 2023 Superbowl, before they were an item?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Then why did they play it at the 2023 Superbowl, before they were an item?

Ohhh! *That's* what you are referring to!

Those who want to complain got tired of complaining about Swift/Kelce and created another issue to complain about.

Now you have me interested in what was happening at the time that led to the song being played at the superbowl.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Ohhh! *That's* what you are referring to!

Those who want to complain got tired of complaining about Swift/Kelce and created another issue to complain about.

Now you have me interested in what was happening at the time that led to the song being played at the superbowl.

My guess is that the SuperBowl was happening at that time...

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

The person you were responding to is correct.

Plus, the original plan was to play this so-called black national anthem right after our ONE AND ONLY national anthem so that people would already be standing. They were afraid no one would get up and stand for it if played alone, and of course, they would be right. I don't see how that original plan could be viewed as anything other than an attempt to give it equal status. I think they were wise to alter that plan, it might have gotten ugly.

Not trying to be a pia, who are the “they” you refer to? I missed the dialog/explanation.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Not trying to be a pia, who are the “they” you refer to? I missed the dialog/explanation.

Methinks "they" are the powers that be in the NFL...

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Not trying to be a pia, who are the “they” you refer to? I missed the dialog/explanation.

Whoever is in charge of the superbowl program schedule and content

[MightyDog]

Originally Posted by simplesimonsaid

I thought it started about eight years ago.

No, it started in earnest in 2008 and then kicked fiercely into overdrive after 2012. I remember it very well.

IMO, it is simply not possible that anyone who is middle-aged and older and follows American life, culture and politics didn't notice that massive shift around those times. Prior to that, most everything was moving along well regarding racial progress and harmony in the USA and had been for decades.

I feel badly for teens and young adults today because they wouldn't know that. ^^^ All of their young lives have been in the midst of whipped-up and engineered "racial division", the majority of which is false.

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by dhdallas

My ancestors were from Germany. I want them to play Deutschland Berber Alles for all the German-Americans! Think that will happen?

Okay, our ancestors too were originally from Germany, both sides of the family. So, like one poster on here said, include Deutschland Berber Alles in the half time "show", call it another song, do a whole costumed choreographed number, but don't call it our "national anthem". Do Danny Boy, that's nearly an Irish "anthem", O Solo Mio, let's have a true international super bowl half time show, but ONE national anthem for our country ! Once all American Mexicans, Italians, Irish, Germans, Africans, LGBT etc., our entire mix of "roots" has their own personal national anthem played at every Olympic medal ceremony you know what ? We are NOT going to get to see many events, it's all going to be "anthems" !