Swing Low, Sweet Chariot

First topic message reminder :

12 days since England played Italy and with just 10 hours to go until the first Six Nations match of Week 4, I think we have pretty conclusively discussed the major issues:

• Italy and their fox tactic and why it is the best/worst thing to ever happen to rugby and means they definitely shouldn't/should be relegated immediately
  
• How quickly and in what direction Howley should **** off
  
• Whether Wayne Barnes is secretly a terminator sent back in time to wreck Ireland's chances in various rugby games
  
• Who should start hooker for England
  
• How many tournaments between 2005 and 2010 would it have taken Scotland to match the 7 tries they scored in 3 games so far
  
• Something about France

One thing that's come to my attention this morning that I thinks merit discussion is England's use of "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" as their official song. Started off by the fans, it has been officially adopted by England Rugby and even their corporate partners. More information can be found here in this NYT article.

The argument goes that the song is about the release of death for a mistreated slave, and to sing it in a sporting context trivialises the suffering of the African-American slaves.

No doubt it has established itself as a big part of watching and supporting England, but that doesn't change the song's actual meaning and its links with the slave trade.

You can argue, as some have, that at £100 a ticket fans are free to sing what they want in the crowd. But whether they should is another issue and whether England Rugby should be encouraging it and profiting from it is another issue again.

So a Friday question: Is "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" at the rugby a harmless bit of fun, or is it a horrible cultural appropriation that trivialise the suffering of the millions of black American slaves?

Obviously this is a serious debate that will require everyone to be mature and respectful of others. If you don't think you can manage it, please log on to Twitter and engage Matt Dawson with your opinion on Italy's approach to rucking.

Do I sing it? Yes
Do I sing it because of the slave trade? No

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Do I sing it? Yes
Do I sing it because of the slave trade? No

Really? I love the slave trade and think it shows the sort of dominance we need on the rugby field.

You could also argue that a good song is now known much more widely because of the way it has been adopted.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Sigh. I wonder what will be next for the well-educated middle class whites to feel outraged on behalf of other minorities.

It's virtue signalling at its finest, nothing more. "Swing low" doesn't trivialise anything. Most people haven't any idea about the song's origins. Many old fashioned songs originated from times of great suffering which is often the very thing that makes them iconic.

I agree with the last sentence, and that's definitely a good point to note.

I'm trying to not offer too much of an opinion here, because I only read about it this morning and I guess I still don't know what side of the fence I fall on. However I don't think the objection has been raised by well-educated, middle class whites and I don't think it's inappropriate now the issue has been raised for well-educated, middle class whites to join the debate on it.

That isn't my point, of course, as I also loathe the idea that white people can't have opinions on, well, anything, due to their "privilege". However, that line of thought comes from the same people who complain about this sort of thing.

Often, these sorts of objections come from people who are actively looking for something that may be deemed "offensive". Organisations make money from this sort of thing and some people live for it. If there isn't a bad guy to fight, you have to make one up.

Well, really it's all about empathy and if you don't get it you don't get it

ebop wrote:Well, really it's all about empathy and if you don't get it you don't get it

The name 'All Blacks' offends me to be honest

Eric Clapton is looking worried - especially as he had the temerity to do a reggae version.

The shame of it...

To be honest if you criticise Swing Low, Sweet Chariot then should really be criticism for the jingoistic - Flower of Scotland which is basically glorifying a victory over England.

Also I am more annoyed by the IRB/World Rugby ripping off I Vow to Thee my Country and Gustav Holst than anything when it comes to anthems.

Can't come up with their own theme so rip off one of the most iconic British tunes of all time.

I prefer Jerusalem and I vow to thee my country anyway. Much prefer belting out Jerusalem.


I'd support Jerusalem as the England national anthem instead of God save the queen.

Okay, here's something that genuinely gets to me from time to time (in my own head, I have never articulated it publically till now.  But this seems an okay thread to do so in).  

We discuss here from time to time the New Zealand rugby team ("BOOO!!!!!  BOOOOOO!!!!" - calm down ye NH horde of basterdes! )  
But we often talk about them, and for expediency many of us try to use abbreviations to help us along on the threads.  So 'New Zealand' obviously becomes 'The All Blacks'.  But that's crap cos it has more letters than New Zealand.  So we generally shift to 'The ABs'.  
Now that's probably fine.  But it doesn't come naturally to me.  I have to make a genuine effort to call Brian O'Driscoll BOD or Paulie O'Connell POC.  I don't like abbreviations mostly.  They just disrupt my flow.  So when I'm bullschitting about New Zealand, my natural shorthand would be to call them 'The Blacks' rather than 'The ABs'.  That's what they wear - the 'ALL' bit too emphasises the black. So cut out the 'ALL' and just say 'Blacks'.

So I always feel that's how I'd prefer shorhandise New Zealand rugby but of course always hold myself back lest I offend and draw the conversation away from the rugby.  

I actually think one of the most offensive words in the English language in this 21st Century so far is that very word "offended".

TrailApe wrote:Eric Clapton is looking worried - especially as he had the temerity to do a reggae version.

The shame of it...

Did he re-jig it after he scored coke from three black guys?

beshocked wrote:To be honest if you criticise Swing Low, Sweet Chariot then should really be criticism for the jingoistic - Flower of Scotland which is basically glorifying a victory over England.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/alastair-cameron-time-to-cut-flower-of-scotland-1-4384330

Broken and/or unworking link Tiger! Do not attempt to come onto these boards with a dodgy link!!! It infuriates us!

Hmm, working just fine for me.

anyway, the scotsman has been having a big debate about "Flower of Scotland"

Wet lunch SecretFly?

Jeepers that was a journey, was holding onto my seat for a bit

I would cut it because it's a boring anthem.

Still 10,000,000 times better than "Ireland's Call". I mute the TV.

LondonTiger wrote:

beshocked wrote:To be honest if you criticise Swing Low, Sweet Chariot then should really be criticism for the jingoistic - Flower of Scotland which is basically glorifying a victory over England.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/alastair-cameron-time-to-cut-flower-of-scotland-1-4384330

Fair point and I agree. Good article.

I wanted Scotland to stay in the union. Sure I like to have a little dig here at other countries and other posters but we should all get along when it comes down to the crunch. I am talking about the serious stuff.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I would cut it because it's a boring anthem.

Still 10,000,000 times better than "Ireland's Call". I mute the TV.

I think me and Phil Coulter are the only ones who like Irelands Call, I think its the chest raising kind of tune an anthem should be

LondonTiger wrote:Hmm, working just fine for me.

anyway, the scotsman has been having a big debate about "Flower of Scotland"

It's working now for me

On the article.  This world is going absolutely mad.  Crazy hysteria.   Let's ban all wonderful WW2 movies because they show Nazis and have swastikas in'em.  Sorry Where Eagles Dare, you're a lovely adventure movie set in a fantastic mountainous snowy terrain.  I love you but you are f**ked 'cause you let Nazi's be the bad guys!

ebop wrote:Wet lunch SecretFly?

Jeepers that was a journey, was holding onto my seat for a bit

Oh great. Glad you liked the movie, ebop. So it's okay to call you guys 'The Blacks' for short?

If you must, I cannot control what others wish to say or write

The Blacks

But not the Dark Destroyers

marty2086 wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I would cut it because it's a boring anthem.

Still 10,000,000 times better than "Ireland's Call". I mute the TV.

I think me and Phil Coulter are the only ones who like Irelands Call, I think its the chest raising kind of tune an anthem should be

Agree, it's a catchy tune, I like it

SecretFly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Hmm, working just fine for me.

anyway, the scotsman has been having a big debate about "Flower of Scotland"

It's working now for me

On the article.  This world is going absolutely mad.  Crazy hysteria.   Let's ban all wonderful WW2 movies because they show Nazis and have swastikas in'em.  Sorry Where Eagles Dare, you're a lovely adventure movie set in a fantastic mountainous snowy terrain.  I love you but you are f**ked 'cause you let Nazi's be the bad guys!

How is it progress to have your national anthem about glorifying victory over your neighbour?

Nah, the equivalent would be banning Mel Gibson's Braveheart but no one's asking for that. Sturgeon probably watches it every night before going to bed...

No I am not a big fan of her efforts to break up the union.

I love you but you are f**ked 'cause you let Nazi's be the bad guys!

It's a good point though innit?

Modern navel gazing ersewholes with too much time and a good broadband set up getting all uppity about what previous generations thought was 'normal'.

God knows what the people of 2050 will think of us - what 'crimes' are we unwittingly committing at this very minute?

Union as a whole is pretty well steeped in problematic historical associations.

The Springbok made Luke Watson sick
The sport as a whole had a bad rep with Irish republicans
Saracens, Chiefs and Tigers all have their issues as club names
Then there's the Welsh tradition of going down coal mines to black up

The haka is a really interesting case in that for many years it was the most extreme example of disrespectfull cultural appropriation but has now been reclaimed and reinvented as a symbol of respect and shared heritage.

I guess the point is trying to bury the past and eradicate anything that has any negative associations is going to pretty much wipe out union altogether.
We can't change history, we can stay aware of it and make decisions about what we want the future to be.
Meanings change over time.

beshocked wrote:

How is it progress to have your national anthem about glorifying victory over your neighbour?

Nah, the equivalent would be banning Mel Gibson's Braveheart but no one's asking for that.  Sturgeon probably watches it every night before going to bed...  

No I am not a big fan of her efforts to break up the union.

What the hell is 'progress', shocked?  If you have a definition we can all agree on, print it.

And on that second highlighted bit.  Sturgeon, and people who share her views, are fans and do agree with her.  That's just how it is.  The 'let's all agree with each other' blueprint won't work.  We're humans.

That's just how it is. The 'let's all agree with each other' blueprint won't work. We're humans.

I disagree.

Secretfly yes I admit progress can be subjective.

Yes we are humans but doesn't mean we should always be at each other's throats.

I don't think what Sturgeon is doing is helpful. Scotland had their vote, she shouldn't just pick and choose to have another almost straight away just because it didn't go her way.

Rugby IMO should be about friendly rivalries and shouldn't be about serious animosity.

Wow, beshocked I agree 100%.

TrailApe wrote:

That's just how it is.  The 'let's all agree with each other' blueprint won't work.  We're humans.

I disagree.

Ban this lad. His disagreement offends me.

beshocked wrote:

Rugby IMO should be about friendly rivalries and shouldn't be about serious animosity.

The auld anthems are friendly rivalries. You don't have rivalry unless you have history.

What is this thread about? Some precious lefty saying something is offensive? Get a life, life's too short and there are far more important things to worry about! Ffs.

TrailApe wrote:

That's just how it is.  The 'let's all agree with each other' blueprint won't work.  We're humans.

I disagree.

Well I agree...........with both of you because I am a lily-livered liberal............or maybe neither of you of you because I am the oracle......or, feck where am I?

Rugbyjk wrote:What is this thread about? Some precious lefty saying something is offensive? Get a life, life's too short and there are far more important things to worry about! Ffs.

It's really just an opportunity to poke fun at England

Tried putting in a link to Waterloo as a proposed new anthem but it wouldn't let me

Rugbyjk wrote:Tried putting in a link to Waterloo as a proposed new anthem but it wouldn't let me

F**king Russians!

Leave us alone, you Commie Basterdes!

Lol

ebop wrote:

Rugbyjk wrote:What is this thread about? Some precious lefty saying something is offensive? Get a life, life's too short and there are far more important things to worry about! Ffs.

It's really just an opportunity to poke fun at England

I'm okay with that bit.

Rugbyjk wrote:What is this thread about? Some precious lefty saying something is offensive? Get a life, life's too short and there are far more important things to worry about! Ffs.

I think this sort of comment actually sums up why many people think theres an issue with stuff getting dismissed out of hand.


As it is I do agree a tha there is a bit of fishing for a reason to be offended or being offended on otehrs behalf withthe swing low issue.
If you look for it rugby is steeped in problematic traditions.
The game itself represnets colonial oppression to Irish Republicans. As it is its managed to reinvent itself as a force beyond the divides and represneting a modern forward looking succesful Ireland ...funny what a bit of money and on the field success can do
The Springbok...dont ask Luke Watson about that
The Haka has gone from appropraited embaressment to reclaimed symbol of repsect and celebration
Half the clubs in the premiership have their roots in something empire related or that carries distcinctly racial conatations (Cheifs, Saracens...Tigers taking their name and colours form a regiment involved in the organised detention and murder of South African civilians)

You dont have to look far for this stuff. Be aware of it. Dont be a dick about it. Understand that the world has moved on and not everyone is holds the Top Gear " well its not a problem for me so I can do what I like " attitude. But banning it or pretending it never happened...its not a thing really is it.

Hats off to the Welsh though for ending their tradition of digging big holes in the ground and blacking up to mock slaves...never understood that one.

Classic deflection

Bringing up all those red herrings to deflect from the point of this thread being the embarrassment of England rugby fans singing an American negro slave song at a rugby game, a rugby game!!! What's that about? After the black guy scored 3 tries? Wow.

Gooseberry personally I don't think there is anything wrong with the name Saracens, as the naming is a positive one rather than focus on the negative connotations.

Saladin was a medieval role model of Chivalry, the Saracens in his time were his warriors.

If you are going to criticise a name you have to understand the topic.

In comparison it would be worse to glorify the bloodthirsty Crusaders who were far more guilty of violence than Saladin himself.

ebop wrote:Classic deflection

Bringing up all those red herrings to deflect from the point of this thread being the embarrassment of England rugby fans singing an American negro slave song at a rugby game, a rugby game!!! What's that about? After the black guy scored 3 tries? Wow.

Is it offensive for black chaps to score tries?

Rugbyjk wrote:What is this thread about? Some precious lefty saying something is offensive? Get a life, life's too short and there are far more important things to worry about! Ffs.

I'm not saying it's offensive. Nor am I saying I'm personally offended. It's asking for comment on an article claiming the song is inappropriate to be sung at rugby games.

"Life's too short" (to worry about the feelings of others) however isn't an argument I subscribe to though. Sorry, guess we just disagree on that one.

beshocked wrote:

In comparison it would be worse to glorify the bloodthirsty Crusaders who were far more guilty of violence than Saladin himself.

For example by dressing up as one at a rugby game

Gooseberry wrote:

beshocked wrote:

In comparison it would be worse to glorify the bloodthirsty Crusaders who were far more guilty of violence than Saladin himself.

For example by dressing up as one at a rugby game

This thing called 'Right' - it's so difficult to be these days.  An argument with no holes in it is as rare today as a 1952 M class interstellar Flying saucer.

embarrassment of England rugby fans singing an American negro slave song at a rugby game

So, you are saying it's inappropriate to sing that song by those people at that particular event.

When would you consider it appropriate - does it have to be people of a particular race/culture/ideology/religion at a specified event?

Gooseberry wrote:

ebop wrote:Classic deflection

Bringing up all those red herrings to deflect from the point of this thread being the embarrassment of England rugby fans singing an American negro slave song at a rugby game, a rugby game!!! What's that about? After the black guy scored 3 tries? Wow.

Is it offensive for black chaps to score tries?

If they play for England, then no.

I always thought Swing Low was based on a psalm:

I looked over Jordan, what did I see
Coming for to carry me home

Why would slaves be looking over Jordan?

Anyway, does anyone own copyright on the song?

"I looked over Jordan and what did I see"

 Am I the only one that has images of Ola?

Yup

beshocked wrote:To be honest if you criticise Swing Low, Sweet Chariot then should really be criticism for the jingoistic - Flower of Scotland which is basically glorifying a victory over England.

Also I am more annoyed by the IRB/World Rugby ripping off I Vow to Thee my Country and Gustav Holst than anything when it comes to anthems.

Can't come up with their own theme so rip off one of the most iconic British tunes of all time.

I prefer Jerusalem and I vow to thee my country anyway.  Much prefer belting out Jerusalem.


I'd support Jerusalem as the England national anthem instead of God save the queen.

Never thought I would see the day that I not only agree with BS above, but most of what else he has said regarding this post.

Having a large number of my family members who are or have been in the forces, I go with I Vow to Me my Country, however it is not a very bright song, originating from soldiers in the trenches of WW1 making the "final sacrifice" and re-written by Rice after the war was over I believe. Being ridiculously patriotic just the first verse stirs all sorts of emotions in me.

Let the Scots have their tiny victory, just about the only one they have had against the English, a battle does not win a war and I believe Wallace got a bit more than his just deserts shortly after, being hung drawn and quartered. I do not understand why any modern anthem would need to go back that far, Scotland is a beautiful place if you can get up their in the week that they have a summer, concentrate on that, not a minor skirmish victory that ultimately resulted in the Scots being annihilated. Silly thing is, that we shortly after invited THIER king to be king of England and Scotland, presumably Wales as well.

Having said that, we could always sing the full version of GSTQ, Marshall Wade and all.

I'm happy for countries to have their triumphant tunes of patriotism without getting all uppity about the "other" side's feelings. It has historical relevance and as I said before part of what gives these songs their iconic nature is the fact that they rose out of great times of strife or suffering. These songs often have an immensely rich historical context and you can imagine what it meant to those who sung them.

For example, I'm okay with the Soldier's Song as the Irish national anthem even if I don't agree with it politically (being a hateful Unionist). I hate the PC "shoulder to shoulder" nonsense. The Irish nationalists achieved their vision of an independent republic - let them celebrate it.