• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Swing Low, Sweet Chariot

I think the fact that you are in your mid 40's and only know it as a rugby song sums up the big issues with it.

If people can get over it why can't you get over your rugby song that has been sung for what 22 years (is that even half your age?) might be upsetting or awkward for others?

Also I'm sorry as a white middle man I'll take your word on racial discrimination.

Wasn't the whole protest at this targeting the establishment? They are telling you what racism is going on but your too blinkered by the statues, Tv Sitcoms and rugby song to listen mate. Also thinking that a diverse cabinet = racism gone....

How many BME are on the rugby council or admins Level?

You seem to be assuming I'm white...? Why? Bit racist, isn't it? When I said 'my culture', I was referring to myself as an Englishman. Also, you seem to be implying that white people don't understand racial discrimination. Again, you appear to be making judgements based on the colour of someone's skin. My hero MLK may have said his piece 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean it isn't still relevant, and you've just proved exactly why.

For your information, I was born and raised in London and have lived and worked in London boroughs for most of my life. London is the most diverse city in the country and the boroughs in which I've grown up, lived and worked, such as Newham and Hackney, have some of the largest percentages of ethic minorities of any areas in the UK. As a result, the vast majority of my friends and work colleagues are not white. And to a person, they are very unhappy with what is going on at the moment in their name. They hate the term BME as it indicates they are all part of one group with the same experience, as opposed to individuals; they hate the idea that this is being presented as opposition to the concept of 'whiteness'; hate being represented by the mainstream media and blm as victims; and feel that neither the mainstream media nor blm represent them in any way and that they are actually doing more harm than good with the way they are presenting the country as a vile pit of racism and white oppression. We all absolutely hate identity politics. Now, am I to form my opinions by listening to and talking with real people on the ground, individuals with individual thoughts and feelings, or should I take the word of those who tell me what ethic minorities think: the newspapers desperate to stop their circulation falling further, tv channels desperate to increase their failing viewing figures, corporations desperate to sell more product by virtue signalling? Should I just accept that my colour of skin defines me? No thank you. I certainly will never accept representation by an organisation that openly states on its website that it wants to abolish the police, capitalism, state structures, personal property and the nuclear family, raising all children in collectives. Blm are not taking my children away! That organisation does not represent me and they never will and I think you'll be surprised to see how many people say this if you start looking round the internet.

Btw, I never said that a diverse cabinet=racism gone. I was saying that if racism is at an all-time high, then we wouldn't have so many ethnic minorities in the highest positions of power in the land. I do not feel that this country is hugely racist. Maybe the odd individual, sure, but that's always gonna be the case. I, like everybody else in this country, have my rights enshrined in the Equalities Act 2010 and just do not see this institutional racism everywhere (again, a very nebulous concept). You say that people are giving actual examples of endemic racism in this country, but that just isn't the case. Everything's a just a general, nebulous, unprovable term or slogan, usually wrapped up in identity politics, which is itself wrapped up in group-think. I don't do group-think. Is racism a big problem in the US? Sure. But in the UK? Man, we've never had it so good.

Hey, it's just my view, my opinion, and as I say, everybody has one, and no-one's opinion is more valid than anybody else's.

Man, I shouldn't have got into this. I usually stick to just commenting on rugby, because all this political stuff just annoys me. Peace, Tigs Man. You sing your England song and I'll sing mine, and hopefully we can go back to vehemently disagreeing about Eddie Jones' selections in the near future. :)
 
I personally think the meaning has changed and those who try to claim English people sing it to be racist are talking a load of ********. However it's as Itoje says, the singers almost certainly aren't singing with any malice or intent to be racist but I think in this scenario if it is deemed racist then we should find something else. I have no particular attachment to the song and never sing it myself. Personally I'd like it if we could combine stopping singing sweet chariot with a change in anthem to one that the crowd could actually sing during the game (as god save the queen is dirge).

Personally I think a crowd belting out the chorus to land of hope and glory would be more rousing than Sweet chariot anyway... (4:35 onwards)
 
You seem to be assuming I'm white...? Why? Bit racist, isn't it? When I said 'my culture', I was referring to myself as an Englishman. Also, you seem to be implying that white people don't understand racial discrimination. Again, you appear to be making judgements based on the colour of someone's skin. My hero MLK may have said his piece 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean it isn't still relevant, and you've just proved exactly why.

You seem to do that yourself pretty easily.
And yeh in this country I personally don't feel that white people tend too really understand racial discrimination on the whole, for someone who hero is MLK you don't seem to understand him he was more than judge not a person by the color of their skin.
 
I personally think the meaning has changed and those who try to claim English people sing it to be racist are talking a load of ********. However it's as Itoje says, the singers almost certainly aren't singing with any malice or intent to be racist but I think in this scenario if it is deemed racist then we should find something else. I have no particular attachment to the song and never sing it myself. Personally I'd like it if we could combine stopping singing sweet chariot with a change in anthem to one that the crowd could actually sing during the game (as god save the queen is dirge).

Personally I think a crowd belting out the chorus to land of hope and glory would be more rousing than Sweet chariot anyway... (4:35 onwards)


I don't people are claiming the singers are racist?
I also don't think the singing of it is racist.

But it doesn't mean that's it's fitting.
Especially in a sport that has struggle to widen it's demographic and broaden it's image.

Like let's be real it won't be ban, I just feel that maybe people should be educated on what the song means and does it really fit the England International rugby POV at least.
 
I'm not wading in on Swing Low except to say that it's a dull tune I'd be happy never to hear again.

But where do some of these protests end? Flower of Scotland overtly celebrates the Scots beating the English at Bannockburn. As an Englishman at a Calcutta Cup match why should I have to listen to that? Why should the Scots be able to celebrate a victory over England before games against Wales, Argentina.....

The Calcutta Cup itself was named after a sports club formed by British expats. No doubt many of those will have had appallingly paid Indian servants working in dire conditions. Should the trophy be returned and the contest renamed?

I had no issue with Colston's statue being removed - his slavery profiteering should disbar him from being celebrated irrespective of his subsequent philanthropy. But having opened that door I have no idea where the line is drawn.
 
I have meeting in a few mins then I'm off to play video games, just wanted to say this kinda of complex conversation we should be having over the matter not nonsense about pyramids, Churchill or Roman Roads (that only lie in direction of the old roads and were built fairly recently).
 
1965 was ending of the Jim Crow days.
1964 technically ;)

But ok, obivosly there isn't a single statistical measure of racism (i dont think) but that seems a tad overdramatic...

How do you think it has got worse since, say the 90's or early 2000's?
 
I don't people are claiming the singers are racist?
I also don't think the singing of it is racist.

But it doesn't mean that's it's fitting.
Especially in a sport that has struggle to widen it's demographic and broaden it's image.

Like let's be real it won't be ban, I just feel that maybe people should be educated on what the song means and does it really fit the England International rugby POV at least.

I know? That's why I said if people from the black community feel that it is inappropriate we should change it. I just feel it would be nice to change our anthem while we are at it. Can we claim our anthem is offensive to our ears to get it done?
 
Yeh, get rid of "God save the Queen" and keep it for Royal occasions only. Dullard tune and lyrics and uninspiring IMO.

I vote for Bohemian Rhapsody as our new National Anthem.:D
 
I know? That's why I said if people from the black community feel that it is inappropriate we should change it. I just feel it would be nice to change our anthem while we are at it. Can we claim our anthem is offensive to our ears to get it done?

Well the anthem is celebrating an expensive unelected Head of State so of course it should go as it's offensive to Republicans who have no choice but to pay their taxes to support the RF.

Replace it with Land of Hope & Glory. Or maybe not - wider bounds and making mightier yet all smacks of international power and empire building with all the connotations that brings (don't forget it was written pre WWI).

Jerusalem then. Except no one knows what it really means, but there's bound to be scope for offence in there somewhere.
 
Well the anthem is celebrating an expensive unelected Head of State so of course it should go as it's offensive to Republicans who have no choice but to pay their taxes to support the RF.

Replace it with Land of Hope & Glory. Or maybe not - wider bounds and making mightier yet all smacks of international power and empire building with all the connotations that brings (don't forget it was written pre WWI).

Jerusalem then. Except no one knows what it really means, but there's bound to be scope for offence in there somewhere.

Jerusalem talks about Jesus and might offend teh Jooz as well. Offend everyone who doesn't think Jesus was English.

 
I'll carry on singing it even if it is banned. The world has truly gone mad. Racism is at an all time low in the UK. Looking back at history and only focusing on the black slaves is pretty racist in itself. Let's just forget what the romans did and then the normans and the Danes etc.

You can't judge history by today's standards, that's just idiotic.
 
I'll carry on singing it even if it is banned. The world has truly gone mad. Racism is at an all time low in the UK. Looking back at history and only focusing on the black slaves is pretty racist in itself. Let's just forget what the romans did and then the normans and the Danes etc.

You can't judge history by today's standards, that's just idiotic.
Ditto.
 
jAarAbU.jpg
 

I mean out of everything I get why that statue went into the river, but why are they spending so much energy looking for tedious links to slavery and racism rather than dealing with racism today?

Or even dealing with modern slavery today which is still a massive issue in the UK.
 

Latest posts

Top