Your thoughts on Colin Kaepernick and the National Anthem: a poll

[MercyA]

Here's a website for children that might help with comprehension. Scroll down to the part that says "Meaning of Star Spangled Banner Lyrics Verse 3."

 

Interesting! CNN has a slightly different take:

 

"The mere mention of 'slave' is not entirely remarkable; slavery was alive and well in the United States in 1814. Key himself owned slaves, was an anti-abolitionist and once called his African brethren 'a distinct and inferior race of people.' 

 

Some interpretations of these lyrics contend Key was in fact taking pleasure in the deaths of freed black slaves who had decided to fight with the British against the United States. 

 

In order to bolster their numbers, British forces offered slaves their freedom in British territories if they would join their cause during the war. These black recruits formed the Colonial Marines, and were looked down upon by people like Key who saw their actions as treasonous.

Edited September 2, 2016 by MercyA

[gardenmom5]

If the NFL fired him, would they be within their rights? Can you fire someone for refusing to stand for the anthem? It's been upheld as a right in so many contexts. And it's usually for religious reasons. I generally think private companies can fire you for freedom of speech as it pertains to your job (your right to, say, attend a protest on your own time has been upheld - we often see media personalities fired but it's for things they said while being media personalities - it effects their jobs very directly) but I'm a little unsure about this freedom of speech in particular.

 

 

there are 49ers fans burning his jerseys.  if those fans refuse to go to games, refuse to buy swag, if vendors refuse to advertise, - resulting in a $$ loss for the 49er owners and NFL - would they have a right to terminate him because of the of the negative impact he's causing to their bottom line?

[MercyA]

he's mixed race and has white adoptive parents.   and makes tens of millions of dollars a year.  he's privileged. 

 

He's addressed this: "This stand wasn’t for me. This stand wasn’t because I feel like I’m being put down in any kind of way. This is because I’m seeing things happen to people that don’t have a voice, people that don’t have a platform to talk and have their voices heard, and effect change. So I’m in the position where I can do that and I’m going to do that for people that can’t."

[SerenityNow]

There's a popular school of thought that Colin Kaepernick was likely to be cut in the near future due to his poor play.  That he knew this, and therefore chose to do something controversial so that if he does get cut he can blame it on his "protest" and not his skills.  I have no idea if there's anything to this idea or not, but the timing does seem really convenient.....??

[ktgrok]

there are 49ers fans burning his jerseys.  if those fans refuse to go to games, refuse to buy swag, if vendors refuse to advertise, - resulting in a $$ loss for the 49er owners and NFL - would they have a right to terminate him because of the of the negative impact he's causing to their bottom line?

 

Only if there is something about that in his contract. He's got a signed contract. If he didn't violate it, no. When it is up for renewal, they can choose not to renew. 

 

That fans care more about a black man sitting down than players beating their wives boggles my mind. Never heard of anyone burning a jersey over that. 

 

Also, why all the media coverage of this but not the tribes protesting the pipeline?

[Farrar]

there are 49ers fans burning his jerseys.  if those fans refuse to go to games, refuse to buy swag, if vendors refuse to advertise, - resulting in a $$ loss for the 49er owners and NFL - would they have a right to terminate him because of the of the negative impact he's causing to their bottom line?

 

I think the backlash from black fans and BLM and so forth would be so massive. They obviously, as a business, have a line to walk to please as many people as they can. But I think it's mostly a moot question. I'd be shocked if they did anything. And, as others pointed out, how bad does it make them look when they don't even punish domestic abusers and so forth. And, honestly, I don't know. I'm really genuinely asking. I don't know how your freedom not to stand for the anthem plays out in this context. In general, you have a pretty wide leeway to refuse to engage in patriotic activities in the US. It's part of our whole sense of being American. But also, it's only the government that can't limit free speech. But then there are protections for work. And he has a contract of some kind. I don't know.

[gardenmom5]

Only if there is something about that in his contract. He's got a signed contract. If he didn't violate it, no. When it is up for renewal, they can choose not to renew. 

 

That fans care more about a black man sitting down than players beating their wives boggles my mind. Never heard of anyone burning a jersey over that. 

 

Also, why all the media coverage of this but not the tribes protesting the pipeline?

 

his contract is dependent upon his performance - which hasn't been up to snuff.  he can still be cut for non-performance.  he missed quite a few games last year.

I'm apparently not the only one who has heard due to his non-performance, there were rumors he might get cut.  so the question is - is this a ploy to prevent him from being cut?

[MotherGoose]

Yup, exactly.

 

Freedom means people can do things you don't like. What he did was an expression of that. For crying out loud, you can run a dog fighting ring or beat your wife or do drugs and have a job in the NFL, but a peaceful protest (nothing illegal mind you) and everyone loses their ever loving mind. I'm ashamed I ever watched a football game with the way this is going down.

That is an excellent point. Not that I support him, mind you, or his motivation for doing this, since this country has surely given him his lifestyle and job. I checked other in the poll, but I'm not sure what that other should mean.

[zoobie]

I don't know.

We think that we have a choice to participate or not in this, but Gabby Duglas affair and now this really does point to the fact that you must participate in patriotic displays even if technically the state doesn't require you, or face not so insignificant consequences, which is where I feel my feeling of revulsion comes in. My mother almost swallowed her tongue when the first time she saw my Kindergartener parrot the pledge with his hand on his heard. She said she thought that only happened in the USSR. Maybe I just have a different perspective.

I think Gabby Douglas is a separate issue. She was standing, looking focused and emotional, and merely didn't put her hand over her heart. Attacking her was utterly ridiculous. Contrasted with Michael Phelps laughing through the anthem, for whatever reason. The similarity is that both Douglas and Kaepernick are people of color, and it seems they are held to a different standard and must continuously prove their worth and allegiance.

 

 

I voted other. I think he's an attention seeking idiot. he's mixed race and has white adoptive parents. and makes tens of millions of dollars a year. he's privileged. his "stance" isn't doing anything to benefit anyone, but generating bad PR for himself and his team. (which = $$ losses for owners and NFL) I would be interested if those who think he's doing something great exercising his first amendment rights/etc. think the same thing about tim tebow praying at games. (another over rated player). ck's not that great of a player. if he gets cut for being "not a great player" how fast do you think he'll turn around and claim he was cut because of his stance? (much like tebow fans yelled he was cut because of his beliefs.)

His white, adoptive parents don't provide some magic bubble of protection from racism. Neither does his current fame or wealth. I thought this was a good post from a white, adoptive parent to black children: http://www.rageagainsttheminivan.com/2016/08/why-that-rich-adopted-nfl-player-needs.html?m=1

[happypamama]

I do think it's his right to take that stand in that way (and I don't really know whether I think he was justified or not because I haven't read enough about it). I fully believe that you have the right to do what I believe is wrong, until it interferes with someone else's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Don't salute the flag if you don't want to, but unless you're keeping someone else from saluting it if they want to, you're not doing something unconstitutional. (Now, if he broke a law or contract, that's different.)

 

I also think we have FAR bigger things to worry about than this guy, although if it leads to changes in how we address race, then that would

be good. Would Rosa Parks go viral today?

[Paige]

There's a popular school of thought that Colin Kaepernick was likely to be cut in the near future due to his poor play.  That he knew this, and therefore chose to do something controversial so that if he does get cut he can blame it on his "protest" and not his skills.  I have no idea if there's anything to this idea or not, but the timing does seem really convenient.....??

 

Or, we could give him the benefit of thinking he had good intentions. Perhaps he did it knowing he may be cut because he thought he may not have many opportunities later to have all the cameras on him and make a difference for a cause he believes in. 

[Crimson Wife]

Legitimate concern, wrong way of doing something about it. He should get cut from the team not because of his disrespect but because he's apparently been playing terribly lately. There has been speculation that it is an attempt to garner sympathy in the event that he is cut for poor performance.

[Valley Girl]

Agreed. And if the NFL was in the routine of firing people who did things that went against the beliefs of the majority, I'd agree they would be within their rights to fire him. But to do so, when players are NOT fired for rape, assault, etc...well no. To imply that his peaceful protest is worse than criminal behavior is what people are so upset by. 

 

Certainly people have every right to be upset about the NFL giving a pass to criminal behavior. I agree many people may be understandably upset about that aspect. But that isn't what the poll was about. From my limited reading of the situation, I do disagree that it's the only reason people are upset.

[Liz CA]

I voted other.  I think it was largely a meaningless gesture on his part.   To many people, the National  Anthem is not just a song; some people I know see what he did as similar to burning the American flag.  I don't think he should lose his job over this.  But it seems that with his influence he might find something to do that would actually help.    I mean, read his clarification quote in the OP.  What did he actually do that would help anyone?

 

I agree. He has not committed any crime. But what has he accomplished? IMHO, he could take some of his considerable earnings and start a foundation for underprivileged children, adults, medical help and a thousand other things that would put some teeth into his message. Sitting down when the rest is standing seems to be effecting precious little for the people for whom he wants to advocate.

 

[Crimson Wife]

 

 

If anyone is a twitter person, there has been a pretty big #veteransforkaepernick trend over the past couple of days

 

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23VeteransForKaepernick&src=tyah

 

100% of the veterans and current soldiers I know IRL are anti-Kaepernick and see his actions as a slap in the face of their friends who have died defending our country's freedoms. It's been all over my FB feed recently.

[ktgrok]

Certainly people have every right to be upset about the NFL giving a pass to criminal behavior. I agree many people may be understandably upset about that aspect. But that isn't what the poll was about. From my limited reading of the situation, I do disagree that it's the only reason people are upset.

 

I just mean it is very eye opening that MORE people seem to be upset (in general, not here) about this than about rape, assault, etc. 

[raptor_dad]

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar had an op-ed in the Post, 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/30/insulting-colin-kaepernick-says-more-about-our-patriotism-than-his/?utm_term=.ec5cdd5ed863 about athletes protesting things.

 

I really think the last 2 paragraphs capture my view on the issue.

 

 

One sign of the maturation of American society is the willingness of those in the public eye, especially athletes, to openly take a political stand, even if it could harm their careers. The modern era of athletes speaking out began in 1967 with Muhammad Ali refusing to be drafted to fight other people of color. That year, I joined with football great Jim Brown, basketball legend Bill Russell, Muhammad Ali and other prominent athletes for what was dubbed “The Cleveland Summit.†Together we tried to find ways to help Ali fight for his right of political expression. I don’t know how much we were able to accomplish on a practical level, but seeing black athletes in support of Ali inspired others to speak out. The following year at the 1968 Olympics, African Americans Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists during the medal ceremony as a protest to the treatment of people of color in the United States. In 2014, NBA players LeBron James, Kyrie Irving, Jarrett Jack, Alan Anderson, Deron Williams and Kevin Garnett and NFL players from the Rams and Browns wore “I Can’t Breathe†shirts during warm-ups for a game to protest police killings of unarmed blacks.

What should horrify Americans is not Kaepernick’s choice to remain seated during the national anthem, but that nearly 50 years after Ali was banned from boxing for his stance and Tommie Smith and John Carlos’s raised fists caused public ostracization and numerous death threats, we still need to call attention to the same racial inequities. Failure to fix this problem is what’s really un-American here.

 

[Crimson Wife]

I think the backlash from black fans and BLM and so forth would be so massive.

 

49ers fans are overwhelmingly white. There aren't that many African-Americans in the Bay Area, but the ones who are here are concentrated in the East Bay and root for the Raiders. I've never seen a black fan wearing 49ers gear but I have seen plenty wearing Raiders stuff.

 

[redsquirrel]

The Gabby Douglas thing really confused me.  I was taught..in school... that during the pledge we were to stand quietly and we could put our hand on our heart or we could keep our hands at our sides, really do anything as long as we were quiet and respectful.  That was when I was a student athlete. If we fidgeted or laughed or whispered during the pledge or the anthem we would get demerits, but as long as we stood quietly we were fine.  I remember being told explicitly that we did not have to have our hands on our hearts, that keeping them at our side was just fine.  I should add that I grew up in a town with a HUGE air force base, so  large percentage of the kids in the school were military,  and it wasn't uncommon to see kids stand to attention during the pledge and anthem but not with their hand on their heart. 

 

I taught my kids what I was taught, that they should just be quiet and respectful and no talking or whispering during the pledge or anthem of our country or any other country. I didn't know it was a requirement to put your hand on your heart. People were talking like she broke the law or something.  Did she say she was protesting?

 

 

[Murphy101]

I just mean it is very eye opening that MORE people seem to be upset (in general, not here) about this than about rape, assault, etc.

Indeed. Rape, assault, illegal drug use, cheating...

Well boys will be boys.

 

Doesn't stand up for a song and it's OMG red scare all over again.

 

I don't follow sports so I don't care about that. He's a nobody to me.

It doesn't matter if I agree with his politics. He is free to have any opinion or stance he wants, and if all he does is sit down during a song, then I certainly have no issue with his method of protest either.

[Farrar]

The whole veterans and military thing is such a... distraction in these situations. Veterans and people serving in the military have experience and important voices... but they tend to be as divided on matters like this as any other diverse group of Americans. Saying, "the military people support him" or "the military people are against him" is false.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If the NFL fired him, would they be within their rights? Can you fire someone for refusing to stand for the anthem? It's been upheld as a right in so many contexts. And it's usually for religious reasons. I generally think private companies can fire you for freedom of speech as it pertains to your job (your right to, say, attend a protest on your own time has been upheld - we often see media personalities fired but it's for things they said while being media personalities - it effects their jobs very directly) but I'm a little unsure about this freedom of speech in particular.

He has not violated any of the NFL code of conduct for players, so the NFL has no grounds to suspend him. I don't think the NFL can technically fire him regardless, but a lengthy suspension would effectively terminate his contract.

 

The 49ers can choose to not retain his services for any reason they choose, but they would still be obligated to pay any guaranteed money in his contract.

[Guest]

I don't really care about him and his refusal to stand doesn't bother me one way or another. I think writing editorials is better than doing it on tv and making controversy about you rather than your cause, but suspending him or whatever is WAY over the top.

 

I'm also not a football fan, so this is not really in my sphere.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Crimson Wife]

The whole veterans and military thing is such a... distraction in these situations. Veterans and people serving in the military have experience and important voices... but they tend to be as divided on matters like this as any other diverse group of Americans. Saying, "the military people support him" or "the military people are against him" is false.

 

Usually they are, but in this they're not. It's actually kind of weird that they're uniformly outraged over it. Doesn't matter if they're generally sympathetic to BLM and the reasoning that Kaepernick has given, they all think it's disrespectful.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Usually they are, but in this they're not. It's actually kind of weird that they're uniformly outraged over it. Doesn't matter if they're generally sympathetic to BLM and the reasoning that Kaepernick has given, they all think it's disrespectful.

 

Really? I read numerous tweets today from veterans who support his stand. There were also articles trending all over Facebook about veterans supporting his stand.

[ktgrok]

Usually they are, but in this they're not. It's actually kind of weird that they're uniformly outraged over it. Doesn't matter if they're generally sympathetic to BLM and the reasoning that Kaepernick has given, they all think it's disrespectful.

 

 

Um...no? All veterans are NOT uniformly outraged over it. Many many many veterans are posting letters, stories, tweets, etc about their support of his action. This image is being shared quite a bit on the stuff I'm seeing. (although the most poignant was a photo of a man in uniform, and another of his grandfather in uniform, saying his grandfather fought so Rosa Parks could sit, and he fought so Kaepernick could sit.)

 

[Haiku]

I voted other. I think he's an attention seeking idiot. he's mixed race and has white adoptive parents.

Somehow, having white parents doesn't protect my kids from racism. They experience it regularly.

[HomeAgain]

Usually they are, but in this they're not. It's actually kind of weird that they're uniformly outraged over it. Doesn't matter if they're generally sympathetic to BLM and the reasoning that Kaepernick has given, they all think it's disrespectful.

 

 

I don't think we're reading the same thread.

[eternalsummer]

In a side note, I had someone tell me her son (who is in the Air Force, I think, and good on him) was fighting for my right to eat a vegan diet.  (I was looking for preschools for DD4, and this one provides lunch, so I said we ate a mainly vegan diet and I'd have to send food with her).  I thought, where in the world are you not allowed to eat a vegan diet?

 

 

side note over - I find Kaepernick a bit ridiculous and I don't agree with him on the merits, but I also figure it's a free country :)

[poppy]

People get really, really mad when racism gets mentioned at all (except in the context of "We triumphed over it").   Really, really mad.  

My dad's all time favorite soldier is Sargent York, who started out as a conscientious objector / pacifist who ended up being a sharpshooter in WWI all while sticking to very firm principles.  Very highly principled man who did unpopular things because he felt morally obligated to. I think this guy is the same way.  It is a principled political stance. Part of a long, great American tradition.

 

[zoobie]

The Gabby Douglas thing really confused me. I was taught..in school... that during the pledge we were to stand quietly and we could put our hand on our heart or we could keep our hands at our sides, really do anything as long as we were quiet and respectful. That was when I was a student athlete. If we fidgeted or laughed or whispered during the pledge or the anthem we would get demerits, but as long as we stood quietly we were fine. I remember being told explicitly that we did not have to have our hands on our hearts, that keeping them at our side was just fine. I should add that I grew up in a town with a HUGE air force base, so large percentage of the kids in the school were military, and it wasn't uncommon to see kids stand to attention during the pledge and anthem but not with their hand on their heart.

 

I taught my kids what I was taught, that they should just be quiet and respectful and no talking or whispering during the pledge or anthem of our country or any other country. I didn't know it was a requirement to put your hand on your heart. People were talking like she broke the law or something. Did she say she was protesting?

No--and the poor woman issued an apology after being attacked over it. :( https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/olympics/2016/live-updates/rio-games/scores-and-latest-news/gabby-douglas-apologizes-for-not-placing-her-hand-over-heart/

 

"I always stand at attention out of respect for our country whenever the national anthem is played,†Douglas tweeted in part. “I never meant any disrespect and apologize if I offended anyone. I’m so overwhelmed at what our team accomplished today and overjoyed that we were able to bring home another gold for our country!â€

[Liz CA]

The whole kerfuffle is just proof that a non-white man can't win. If he was protesting in the streets, everyone would be all "Ooh, thuggish, and also now the ambulances can't get to the hospital, what a selfish man".

 

But now, apparently, peacefully SITTING in no-one's way is bad too, and what he should be doing is starting foundations and writing editorials. 

 

Because there's a 'right/white' way to protest, apparently. One can't help but think the goal post will just keep shifting, no matter what such a man writes to the editor. 

 

No. For me, this is not an issue about color just being pragmatic.

[SproutMamaK]

I agree. He has not committed any crime. But what has he accomplished? IMHO, he could take some of his considerable earnings and start a foundation for underprivileged children, adults, medical help and a thousand other things that would put some teeth into his message. Sitting down when the rest is standing seems to be effecting precious little for the people for whom he wants to advocate.

 

One doesn't preclude the other, though. Hasn't he raised millions of dollars for charity? He can engage in both silent protest and active advocacy. Aside from which, opening up a national debate about the issue seems, at least in a democracy, to be quite an effective method for creating change. As the people think, so the people vote, as the people vote, so goes the nation.

 

WRT those who say this is convenient timing and just for publicity so he can't be fired, I read somewhere today that he's actually been sitting through the anthem for quite a while. No one even noticed (let alone cared) until recently. he didn't even bring it up himself. An African-American reporter heard through social media about his recent involvement with BLM, paid a little more attention to him and noticed him sitting during the anthem, put 2 and 2 together, and asked Kaepernic about it directly in private. 

 

ETA: I found the link to the article I read earlier. It has a very obvious bias, but also has interesting info on how this became a story nonetheless. 

Edited September 2, 2016 by SproutMamaK

[goldberry]

Usually they are, but in this they're not. It's actually kind of weird that they're uniformly outraged over it. Doesn't matter if they're generally sympathetic to BLM and the reasoning that Kaepernick has given, they all think it's disrespectful.

 

 

I find that odd, as someone who does not salute the flag or sing the national anthem, I have had numerous veteran/military people be very supportive and not consider my stance disrespectful.  I think their stand on issues like that reveals a lot about the true reasons they are in the military.

[Farrar]

Usually they are, but in this they're not. It's actually kind of weird that they're uniformly outraged over it. Doesn't matter if they're generally sympathetic to BLM and the reasoning that Kaepernick has given, they all think it's disrespectful.

 

Did you not read the hashtag linked above where all the ex military people were in support? This is exactly what I mean. Maybe all the military people you know feel that way, but this is the folly of trying to use that as a point of support. They don't agree.

[Crimson Wife]

Really? I read numerous tweets today from veterans who support his stand. There were also articles trending all over Facebook about veterans supporting his stand.

 

I'm not on Twitter but I am FB friends with a bunch of vets and can see where my DH has commented on the topic on his FB friends' pages that are set to "friends of friends". I'm going to go by the people I actually know are vets/servicemembers rather than 2nd or 3rd hand accounts of supposed vets.

[ktgrok]

I'm not on Twitter but I am FB friends with a bunch of vets and can see where my DH has commented on the topic on his FB friends' pages that are set to "friends of friends". I'm going to go by the people I actually know are vets/servicemembers rather than 2nd or 3rd hand accounts of supposed vets.

 

In which case, I don't think you can say that "all veterans agree". The veterans that are friends with your husband agree. Much smaller subset i imagine. 

[Crimson Wife]

Let's put it this way, if 100% of the women you knew IRL were outraged by the Brock Turner rape verdict, would you find a #WomenforBrock hashtag on Twitter to be persuasive evidence that "women support Turner"? Or would you go by the people you actually know?

[HomeAgain]

I'm not on Twitter but I am FB friends with a bunch of vets and can see where my DH has commented on the topic on his FB friends' pages that are set to "friends of friends". I'm going to go by the people I actually know are vets/servicemembers rather than 2nd or 3rd hand accounts of supposed vets.

 

*I* am a vet.  I don't care what the man does.

[ktgrok]

Let's put it this way, if 100% of the women you knew IRL were outraged by the Brock Turner rape verdict, would you find a #WomenforBrock hashtag on Twitter to be persuasive evidence that "women support Turner"? Or would you go by the people you actually know?

 

It would depend how many I knew. How large a sample size? If hundreds of women I knew were all unanimous that would be very different than if I knew say, 10. 

 

Also, I am very aware I'm in a bit of an insular bubble...most of the people I know agree on a lot of issues. And yet, I also know that those stances are not indicative of the society at large. I don't know a SINGLE person that voted for our current govenor. Everyone I know hates him, calls him names, etc. And yet, the man was elected not once, but twice. Obviously, my little bubble is not representative of my state as a whole, let alone my country. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I voted other.  I think he's an attention seeking idt. he's mixed race and has white adoptive parents.io   and makes tens of millions of dollars a year.  he's privileged. his "stance" isn't doing anything to benefit anyone, but generating bad PR for himself and his team.  (which = $$ losses for owners and NFL)  I would be interested if those who think he's doing something great  exercising his first amendment rights/etc.  think the same thing about tim tebow praying at games.  (another over rated player).  ck's not that great of a player. if he gets cut for being "not a great player" how fast do you think he'll turn around and claim he was cut because of his stance?  (much like tebow fans yelled he was cut because of his beliefs.)

 

1.) Please tell me you aren't seriously arguing that someone being "mixed race"insulates them from racism.

2.) Same for being raised for white parents.

3.) Wealth doesn't automatically insulate someone from racism.  It also doesn't erase what someone may have experienced in the past.

[Farrar]

Let's put it this way, if 100% of the women you knew IRL were outraged by the Brock Turner rape verdict, would you find a #WomenforBrock hashtag on Twitter to be persuasive evidence that "women support Turner"? Or would you go by the people you actually know?

If there were polls, I'd go with that. If there aren't, but there are vocal people on social media, I assume there's disagreement. I mean, we all live in a bubble to some extent. Refusing to believe you live in a bubble is a problem if you want to understand how the world thinks, not just your friends.

[Reefgazer]

He's an idiot (the national anthem doesn't have squat to do with slavery, and protesting it isn't advancing the cause of equality for all in any way), but I will defend his right to do it.  My DH and every other military person has fought for his right to protest in ineffective and idiotic ways.

Edited September 2, 2016 by reefgazer

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm not on Twitter but I am FB friends with a bunch of vets and can see where my DH has commented on the topic on his FB friends' pages that are set to "friends of friends". I'm going to go by the people I actually know are vets/servicemembers rather than 2nd or 3rd hand accounts of supposed vets.

 

Sampling bias much?

[Reefgazer]

Now I understood that this line refers to the hired Hessians and American prisoners taken aboard British warships.

Or people of other religious persuasions (like me) who also don't salute the flag or say the Pledge?  

 

 

 

Understandably:

 

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.

 

[FaithManor]

there are 49ers fans burning his jerseys. if those fans refuse to go to games, refuse to buy swag, if vendors refuse to advertise, - resulting in a $$ loss for the 49er owners and NFL - would they have a right to terminate him because of the of the negative impact he's causing to their bottom line?

This is so whacked! How many of these players have been caught for sexual assault, abuse, murder and no one was out burning their jerseys? It makes me queasy.

[SKL]

I think he has a right to do whatever, but the team and fans etc. have a right to do whatever in response.  I think he has enough intelligence to foresee that.

 

It struck me that all sorts of people rushed to his defense.  A similar fuss was made about Gabby Douglas inadvertently forgetting to put her hand over her heart - even after she apologized - and I didn't see anyone get up to defend her.  What's the difference?

 

True, there is unpleasant language in the verses of that song which we never sing.  There's unpleasant language in the Quran (which people do read and recite regularly), so does this person refuse to express respect for that work?

 

I would not be opposed to changing the anthem to a better song.  I'm partial to America the Beautiful.

[Farrar]

He's an idiot (the national anthem doesn't have squat to do with slavery, and protesting it isn't advancing the cause of equality for all in any way), but I will defend his right to do it.  My DH and every other military person has fought for his right to protest in ineffective and idiotic ways.

 

I'm pretty sure his main goal was to get people talking. We're talking. Goal achieved. Thus, not *that* ineffective.

 

But two, the anthem stands for "America" in a broader sense and I think most people would agree that the song is not about what it's about - I mean, the War of 1812 and the defense of Baltimore (of all places) is not exactly our nation's defining moment nor is it what most people think about when they hear the anthem, which is often played instrumentally anyway. Many people - including, quite famously and iconically athletes such as Muhammad Ali or Tommie Smith and John Carlos - have used refusing to stand or hold one's hand over one's heart as a means of protest against perceived American oppression.

[Farrar]

I think he has a right to do whatever, but the team and fans etc. have a right to do whatever in response.  I think he has enough intelligence to foresee that.

 

It struck me that all sorts of people rushed to his defense.  A similar fuss was made about Gabby Douglas inadvertently forgetting to put her hand over her heart - even after she apologized - and I didn't see anyone get up to defend her.  What's the difference?

 

True, there is unpleasant language in the verses of that song which we never sing.  There's unpleasant language in the Quran (which people do read and recite regularly), so does this person refuse to express respect for that work?

 

I would not be opposed to changing the anthem to a better song.  I'm partial to America the Beautiful.

 

I saw many people posting in support of her - both for having been criticized so harshly over the anthem thing, as a comparison to the treatment Ryan Lochte got for what was obviously a much worse issue, and several articles about the racist trolling she got on Twitter in the leadup to the games. She's a totally different case in every way in that she stood, she intended to be respectful, and her gesture was not intended to be political or forethought at all.

[redsquirrel]

Let's put it this way, if 100% of the women you knew IRL were outraged by the Brock Turner rape verdict, would you find a #WomenforBrock hashtag on Twitter to be persuasive evidence that "women support Turner"? Or would you go by the people you actually know?

 

I would never, ever go with who I know as a reason to say that any large group was 'uniformly united". It just doesn't make sense. It is not a true statement. I know quite a few public school teachers. They are all very supportive of homeschooling. It doesn't mean that all public school teachers are united in their support of homeschooling.

 

I would only every go as far as saying 'every member of the group that I personally know is uniformly united"  because that would be true. 

 

Now, if you mean that the group you know is uniformly united, that makes sense. But I wouldn't use my personal 'sample size' to judge the opinions of a large and diverse group.

 

And I can say that 100% of the military people that I know (I have several members in my family, both immediate and extended and over several generations, both retired and active) don't give a rat's patootie about the whole issue and don't like the military being dragged into it, thank you very much.

 

and as for hashtags, it's pretty easy to see if it is being promulgated by 5 or 6 people or 5 or 6 thousand etc. It isn't a difficult thing to determine.