National Anthems Before Sporting Events

[Beastie]

On 6/2/2021 at 3:21 AM, phillyk said:

The list is missing the most important metric, # of golf courses! 

Scotland FTW!!!

[saevel25]

2 hours ago, Billy Z said:

Most eople are so far removed from the 'greatest Generation' that ever lived, and many don't respect and appreciate the country they live in as they should.

Everybody romanticizes the past, and chooses to not every have a critical eye. Just because the media (movies, TV, novels) like to make it seem like post WWII was the greatest time to live in the US. For many subsets of our melting pot of a country it was not. 

Also, being critical of your country, is respecting it. It means you care about the country you live in. I want this country to be WAY better than it is now. We have a LONG way to go. It means that I need to be critical of it. The worst thing that can happen is be complacent. To me, harping on the good old days as some sort of paradise is just complacency. 

Here is the history of the national anthem at sporting events..

Why the Star-Spangled Banner is Played At Sporting Events - HISTORY

It was played during 1918 world series. Then afterwards, some MLB teams played it on holidays or special occasions. 

In 1931 it became the official national anthem and it spread to being played at sporting events. 

Basically, it was the choice of the owners, and the leagues to play it or not. It was never a government mandate. I am for one, in favor of the leagues/owners deciding to play it or not. They should take the criticism from those who do not like it. Which is fine. 

 

 

[DaveP043]

43 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I am for one, in favor of the leagues/owners deciding to play it or not. They should take the criticism from those who do not like it. Which is fine. 

I'm on board with this approach.  I've said before, I enjoy it on the few occasions I attend a live event, so I (selfishly) hope it continues to be played.  If a league or team decides not to play it, I'll miss it but I'll still attend the games.  I just don't believe the government should be involved in the decision.

[Elmer]

52 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Everybody romanticizes the past, and chooses to not every have a critical eye. Just because the media (movies, TV, novels) like to make it seem like post WWII was the greatest time to live in the US. For many subsets of our melting pot of a country it was not. 

Also, being critical of your country, is respecting it. It means you care about the country you live in. I want this country to be WAY better than it is now. We have a LONG way to go. It means that I need to be critical of it. The worst thing that can happen is be complacent. To me, harping on the good old days as some sort of paradise is just complacency. 

Here is the history of the national anthem at sporting events..

Why the Star-Spangled Banner is Played At Sporting Events - HISTORY

It was played during 1918 world series. Then afterwards, some MLB teams played it on holidays or special occasions. 

In 1931 it became the official national anthem and it spread to being played at sporting events. 

Basically, it was the choice of the owners, and the leagues to play it or not. It was never a government mandate. I am for one, in favor of the leagues/owners deciding to play it or not. They should take the criticism from those who do not like it. Which is fine. 

 

 

This is this far fetched concept that the past was the "good ole days". As one who has a history degree and spent most of my academic career reading history, It is simply not true.
most people (race, religion, gender) are better off today than 50 years ago, and certainly better than 100 or 150 years ago.

As far as the anthem, I could care less. You want to stand, take your cap off, go for it. You don't, then don't. To me the anthem has no place in sports. it is just part of the larger DOD advertising effort.

Sport teams are largely privately owned companies, if they do not want to play it, they are under no obligation to do so.
Please spare me the "patriotic gesture" talking points. The pledge and anthem are nothing more than simple indoctrination and promoting nationalism. 

Military paid sports teams $10.4M for tributes

---

The McCain/Flake reports finds $53 million in Department of Defense spending for patriotic displays at sporting events.

 

[ChetlovesMer]

24 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I'm on board with this approach.  I've said before, I enjoy it on the few occasions I attend a live event, so I (selfishly) hope it continues to be played.  If a league or team decides not to play it, I'll miss it but I'll still attend the games.  I just don't believe the government should be involved in the decision.

This

[Billy Z]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Everybody romanticizes the past, and chooses to not have a critical eye. Just because the media (movies, TV, novels) like to make it seem like post WWII was the greatest time to live in the US. For many subsets of our melting pot of a country it was not. 

Many interesting points you have made, but I didn't say the post-world War II was the greatest time to live. Although it did breed a group of people that appreciated what they had because of the hard times they had endured. Today I think many people are spoiled and too far removed from hard times. Personally, I think we are ripe for a fall. It is strange, but hard times produce and appreciation for the few good things that you have, as opposed to having many things and being spoiled.

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, Billy Z said:

Many interesting points you have made, but I didn't say the post-world War II was the greatest time to live.

You specifically call out the "Greatest Generation"... Why are they called that, because decades later people romanticize that generation. Don't get me wrong, they did very good things and sacrificed a lot. You mentioned that generation in the same sentence as people not appreciating the country they live in. Now, how am I suppose to take that sentence. 

3 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

Personally, I think we are ripe for a fall. It is strange, but hard times produce and appreciation for the few good things that you have, as opposed to having many things and being spoiled.

Hard times also breed contentment. You just can't say hard times just breed appreciation all around. Again, we romanticize the past. 

Just like today, there are a good number of people younger than 35 who work hard. Blindly following generalizations is just a waste of time. 

[ncates00]

11 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

Although it did breed a group of people that appreciated what they had because of the hard times they had endured.

Maybe. But you’re assuming that war is the only “hard time” one can endure. You’re also assuming that people today don’t appreciate what they have or that they haven’t endured their own personal “hard times.” 

 

11 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

Today I think many people are spoiled and too far removed from hard times.

Again, you’re assuming only one kind of “hard time.” Financial crises, family strife, work problems, mental issues, physical limitations, disability, lost loved ones, health issues, and countless other things are also “hard times” one can endure. You’re also assuming there were less spoiled people back in the day. 

 

11 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

It is strange, but hard times produce and appreciation for the few good things that you have, as opposed to having many things and being spoiled.

Sure, but so can being successful. You’re assuming that only hard times can produce that. Growth and success can also produce appreciation. For instance, going to grad school and getting a great job can make you proud of your accomplishments and appreciate what you now have. 

19 minutes ago, Elmer said:

As one who has a history degree and spent most of my academic career reading history, It is simply not true.

One doesn’t even have to have a history degree (of which I also have and a law degree) to know this. It’s pretty much common sense. 

Edited June 9, 2021 by ncates00

[ChetlovesMer]

Just now, saevel25 said:

Hard times also breed contentment. You just can't say hard times just breed appreciation all around. Again, we romanticize the past. 

Just like today, there are a good number of people younger than 35 who work hard. Blindly following generalizations is just a waste of time. 

I think @saevel25 has hit the nail on the head. It's human nature to remember things better than they actually were. 

I've kinda lost the forest in the trees. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the Anthem being played before a sporting event. So to get it back on track my issue isn't with or against the anthem itself. My issue is making a law to require the anthem. It feels like a slippery slope to me. 

[ncates00]

1 minute ago, ChetlovesMer said:

My issue is making a law to require the anthem. It feels like a slippery slope to me.

I agree. And, as I have already laid out above somewhere in this thread, it’s likely unconstitutional. 

[Elmer]

4 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

 

One doesn’t even have to have a history degree (of which I also have and a law degree) to know this. It’s pretty much common sense. 

I wish it was common sense. I hear a lot of "things were so much better back then", "you kids just have no idea", "disrespectful youth" etc...etc..
You think it was common knowledge, or you would think people would have picked this up if they read 1 book, say about the Great Depression, may the Jim Crow South, etc...
but no!

3 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

I agree. And, as I have already laid out above somewhere in this thread, it’s likely unconstitutional. 

I do not think there is any doubt that it is unconstitutional.
Govt dictating to private business on free speech and expression.

[ncates00]

7 minutes ago, Elmer said:

any doubt

Hardly is the case in law. 

 

8 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Govt dictating to private business on free speech and expression.

Yeah, but the law requires a little more analysis than that. There are rules and elements that must be met. 

[DaveP043]

18 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

I've kinda lost the forest in the trees. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the Anthem being played before a sporting event. So to get it back on track my issue isn't with or against the anthem itself. My issue is making a law to require the anthem. It feels like a slippery slope to me. 

I was just thinking the same thing, the discussion has moved quite a ways .  I think its a good idea to move back to the Anthem, and to governmental efforts to require it to be played.