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

[Ravin]

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.

 

 

Another veteran piping up to say that I fought to defend what the flag and anthem stand for, not a piece of cloth or a song. One of the things they stand for is freedom of speech, including the right to sit through the anthem when it's played as an act of protest.

[Ravin]

 

I'm old enough to remember a country divided over Vietnam. The shout from one corner was "My country right or wrong." and from the other was "My country, right its wrongs" My beliefs fall in line with the latter. True patriotism is not nationalism. It's working to make things better for all citizens.

 

My understanding is that both of these sentiments come from the same original quote:

 

Later stated by, and often attributed to, Carl Schurz, 1872.^[1]

“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.†    I looked it up, and the first part started with an earlier quote by Stephen Decatur. However, Schurz's version is pretty much how I feel about the proper attitude towards the U.S.A. Not blind oo-rah nationalism for its own sake.

[AmandaVT]

Looks like some Seahawks might be joining Kaepernick this weekend: 

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/07/more-seahawks-may-join-lane-in-pregame-anthem-protest/

 

 

[Pam in CT]

Looks like some Seahawks might be joining Kaepernick this weekend: 

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/07/more-seahawks-may-join-lane-in-pregame-anthem-protest/

 

 

And women's soccer player Megan Rapinoe already has.

[MercyA]

Check out this Baltimore Ravens player's response:

 

I will not have the option to kneel this Sunday while the National Anthem is being played. A week ago, in what would prove to be my last pre-game opportunity of this 2016 season, I stood with my right hand over my heart as the anthem played. And if I am fortunate enough to ever be dressed for another game day I imagine I would be doing the same thing I did in my last. Standing. Not because America is ALL I desire it to be because most assuredly it is not. Racism still stews, families are fractured, the unborn are trashed, schools are struggling, religious freedom is increasingly under attack, violence pollutes our cities and our suburbs, and there is a growing divide between law enforcement and the community.

I stand, however, because I grew up in NAVY town USA and traveled overseas to support members of our armed forces who follow orders regardless of their personal sentiments. I stand for those who were forced to give their lives building the country that confined them to the tobacco fields and indigo plantations. I stand because as a child, I saw my father stand. A man who lived the tumultuous transition from "separate but equal" to the times surrounding the Civil Rights Act when angry people who held signs at his new school viscously screamed "NIGGER GO HOME!" I stand because on the contrary, no one held such a sign when I walked into my grade school.

Before competition, as I stand in shoulder pads and cleats, my helmet in my left hand, adrenaline flowing and my heart raging under my right, I never forget the ills of America but for a moment I envision its potential, remember its prosperity and give thanks to God for the land He has placed me in and the people I love who live in it.

I stand, because this mixed bag of evil and good is MY home. And because it's MY home my standing is a pledge to continue the fight against all injustice and preserve the greatest attributes of the country, including Colin Kaepernick's right to kneel.

His actions and similar actions by figures of the past and present are a vital part of our journey and a key component of the equation for social change and should be respected as such. From the country's inception, such displays against the status quo are distinctly American. My hope, though, is that these actions bring more attention to the PROBLEM than to the PROTESTOR. And that ensuing dialog discover truth and that truth give birth to justice in legitimate situations where there is none. My hope is that in this time of toil and discord we collectively use our positions in public and private life to take responsibility for our role and collectively seek solutions, not because we HAVE to but because we CARE to. Sometimes listening is of greater value than speaking. As elusive an aspiration as it may be, our goal, especially in the arena of race, should continue to be to create an America where eventually everyone can, in good conscience, stand. No matter the historical context or the present circumstance that is the unity I, perhaps naively, imagine when I see our flag and listen to our anthem.

Conflict when handled correctly strengthens. Conflict when mismanaged destroys.

 

Thanks for sharing another perspective, MSNative. I know nothing about football, so I looked up this player's website and definitely liked some of what he had to say on other issues (like, for example, his commentary on whether or not the U.S. is a Christian country).

 

Just a few thoughts:

 

As a Christian, my beliefs about nationalism, militarism, oaths, and allegiance all come into play in my own decision not to salute the flag and not to say the pledge. That's probably another topic for another day. However, I'd say we probably all have a line at which we would no longer be willing to stand during the National Anthem and/or salute the flag. The question is how bad things need to be before we feel we can no longer participate, either as a matter of conscience or as a matter of protest. Colin Kaepernick has reached that line, and Ben Watson hasn't yet. Watson sees this country as imperfect. I see it as worse than that, not only because of racism but because of the number of deaths for which this country is responsible, both here and around the world.  That doesn't mean I'm not intensely grateful to live here. I am. But we all have our line.

 

Secondly, I am not black, but I can't see that blacks ought to just be thankful they are no longer met by protestors outside of schools. People are being murdered, and very little is being done about it. 

 

Thirdly, unlike Watson, I don't believe in always supporting "members of our armed forces who follow orders regardless of their personal sentiments." If following orders means killing unjustly, no, I can't and I don't support that.

 

I do like his acknowledgement that this land is a "mixed bag of good and evil" and admire his resolution to "continue the fight against all injustice and preserve the greatest attributes of the country, including Colin Kaepernick's right to kneel."

Edited September 9, 2016 by MercyA

[JoJosMom]

Thanks for sharing another perspective, MSNative. I know nothing about football, so I looked up this player's website and definitely liked some of what he had to say on other issues (like, for example, his commentary on whether or not the U.S. is a Christian country).

 

Just a few thoughts:

 

As a Christian, my beliefs about nationalism, militarism, oaths, and allegiance all come into play in my own decision not to salute the flag and not to say the pledge. That's probably another topic for another day. However, I'd say we probably all have a line at which we would no longer be willing to stand during the National Anthem and/or salute the flag. The question is how bad things need to be before we feel we can no longer participate, either as a matter of conscience or as a matter of protest. Colin Kaepernick has reached that line, and Ben Watson hasn't yet. Watson sees this country as imperfect. I see it as worse than that, not only because of racism but because of the number of deaths for which this country is responsible, both here and around the world.  That doesn't mean I'm not intensely grateful to live here. I am. But we all have our line.

 

Secondly, I am not black, but I can't see that blacks ought to just be thankful they are no longer met by protestors outside of schools. People are being murdered, and nothing is being done about it. 

 

Thirdly, unlike Watson, I don't believe in always supporting "members of our armed forces who follow orders regardless of their personal sentiments." If following orders means killing unjustly, no, I can't and I don't support that.

 

And finally, as someone who was involved in pro-life protests, I can tell you that it's really easy for people who aren't protesting to criticize those who are. ("Don't use those signs. Don't stand there. Don't say that." And one is always tempted to respond, "Okay, what are YOU doing?") Watson's comment, "My hope...is that these actions bring more attention to the PROBLEM than to the PROTESTOR" seems like a bit of a judgmental slight against Kaepernick. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive on Kaepernick's behalf, but at least he's speaking out.  At least he's doing something. 

 

The overwhelming number of black people who are being murdered are, by and large, being murdered by other blacks.  If you are referring to police shootings, then your statement is both hyperbolic and false.

 

[ktgrok]

The overwhelming number of black people who are being murdered are, by and large, being murdered by other blacks.  If you are referring to police shootings, then your statement is both hyperbolic and false.

 

 

Her statement was, "people are being murdered and nothing is done about it." She didn't say how many, so unless you are saying no black people have been murdered by police, ever, or that it is always handled properly, she's not being hyperbolic nor false. 

[Pam in CT]

re risk of bringing more attention to the protestor than to the problem:

 

... Watson's comment, "My hope...is that these actions bring more attention to the PROBLEM than to the PROTESTOR" seems like a bit of a judgmental slight against Kaepernick. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive on Kaepernick's behalf, but at least he's speaking out.  At least he's trying. [ETA: And I'm not saying Watson isn't. I just know how easy it is for all of us to be armchair quarterbacks. Pun intended.  :) ]

 

Who knows, but I really didn't read the whole of Watson's essay that way.  

 

I read it as his work-in-progress thoughts on how he should act to work towards better justice within his beloved HOME... while simultaneously allowing that Kaepernick might well in good faith come to different thoughts on what he should do to work towards similar ends.  

 

And... to your point about "trying" -- it seems to me that the essay, itself, is trying.  Watson didn't have to write anything at all, let alone an essay in which his shared concern about at least some of Kaepernick's goals, and his empathy across their differences on means, is so palpable.  I saw the essay as Watson's attempt to carry on the very dialog he says is necessary: 

 

And that ensuing dialog discover truth and that truth give birth to justice in legitimate situations where there is none. My hope is that in this time of toil and discord we collectively use our positions in public and private life to take responsibility for our role and collectively seek solutions,

 

Certainly there is disagreement there, but It's decidedly NOT a knee-jerk "he's a privileged idiot!" slapdown as so many other Kaepernick critics have done, including some on this thread.  Watson's shared concern about our still-less-than-perfect union, and his respect and compassion for this man with whom he disagrees, emerges throughout.

 

And -- as I know you know, dear -- where there is respect and compassion, people can work towards a better place even amidst disagreement.

 

 

I like his tagline: Conflict when handled correctly strengthens. Conflict when mismanaged destroys.  I see the essay as his effort to move the conflict onto more correctly handled, strengthening ground.  May the effort bear fruit.

 

 

[MercyA]

re risk of bringing more attention to the protestor than to the problem:

 

Who knows, but I really didn't read the whole of Watson's essay that way.  

 

I read it as his work-in-progress thoughts on how he should act to work towards better justice within his beloved HOME... while simultaneously allowing that Kaepernick might well in good faith come to different thoughts on what he should do to work towards similar ends.  

 

And... to your point about "trying" -- it seems to me that the essay, itself, is trying.  Watson didn't have to write anything at all, let alone an essay in which his shared concern about at least some of Kaepernick's goals, and his empathy across their differences on means, is so palpable.  I saw the essay as Watson's attempt to carry on the very dialog he says is necessary: 

 

Certainly there is disagreement there, but It's decidedly NOT a knee-jerk "he's a privileged idiot!" slapdown as so many other Kaepernick critics have done, including some on this thread.  Watson's shared concern about our still-less-than-perfect union, and his respect and compassion for this man with whom he disagrees, emerges throughout.

 

And -- as I know you know, dear -- where there is respect and compassion, people can work towards a better place even amidst disagreement.

 

I like his tagline: Conflict when handled correctly strengthens. Conflict when mismanaged destroys.  I see the essay as his effort to move the conflict onto more correctly handled, strengthening ground.  May the effort bear fruit.

 

Pam, I think you are most likely correct. Based on the other essays I've read on Watson's website, I would say he seems to be a thoughtful man who is very much concerned with doing right and speaking rightly.  My reaction towards his respectful disagreement with Kaepernick may have been too hasty, especially regarding the particular point you've addressed here. I will edit that portion of my post. 

[MercyA]

The overwhelming number of black people who are being murdered are, by and large, being murdered by other blacks.  If you are referring to police shootings, then your statement is both hyperbolic and false.

 

Black people have been murdered by law enforcement officers, and not all of those murders have been dealt with justly. The fact that murders are also committed by black civilians, in larger numbers, doesn't negate the horrible injustice that is occurring or lessen my concern about it.

 

However, words are powerful, and I want to be truthful and accurate in what I write. I will change my post to read "very little" instead of "nothing." (And there is no snark intended, JoJosMom. I appreciate your input.)

 

Edited for clarity. I should never post first thing in the morning.  :)

Edited September 9, 2016 by MercyA

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The overwhelming number of black people who are being murdered are, by and large, being murdered by other blacks. If you are referring to police shootings, then your statement is both hyperbolic and false.

 

 

I hold the police to a higher standard than other members of society.

[laundrycrisis]

The players are at work. I never expected free speech and demonstrations of any kind to be acceptable at work. IMO it's a very entitled attitude. I support people attending events or students at a public school declining to stand, but professional athletes are at work. If standing for the anthem is required, fine. If it isn't required, fine. But the protests by taking a knee are unprofessional. The league runs the events. It's not the right place for athletes to wave their personal flags.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The players are at work. I never expected free speech and demonstrations of any kind to be acceptable at work. IMO it's a very entitled attitude. I support people attending events or students at a public school declining to stand, but professional athletes are at work. If standing for the anthem is required, fine. If it isn't required, fine. But the protests by taking a knee are unprofessional. The league runs the events. It's not the right place for athletes to wave their personal flags.

 

You would have a point except that a lot of the behavior on an NFL sideline wouldn't fly in a typical workplace.  The NFL does not have a policy specifying what conduct is/is not acceptable during the national anthem.  Any policy they would want to put in place would have to fall within the guidelines of the collective bargaining agreement they have with the players' union.  As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the 49ers do have the ability to cut CK if they choose, but they would still be on the hook for any guaranteed money on his contract.

[zoobie]

The players are at work. I never expected free speech and demonstrations of any kind to be acceptable at work. IMO it's a very entitled attitude. I support people attending events or students at a public school declining to stand, but professional athletes are at work. If standing for the anthem is required, fine. If it isn't required, fine. But the protests by taking a knee are unprofessional. The league runs the events. It's not the right place for athletes to wave their personal flags.

Do you have to stand with your hand over your heart during the national anthem at work? NFL players have more thorough/restrictive contracts covering their lives than most workers. Sitting or taking a knee during the national anthem isn't a disruption to the football game, and I can't imagine many private places of business that would discipline an employee for sitting or kneeling if the national anthem played. Or government outside of a military setting. If the player is sitting for religious reasons, I don't see any difference between that and another strong, personal conviction.

[laundrycrisis]

My point is that it's not "free speech" because it has nothing to do with the government requiring certain behavior - it's the league, not the government.  When people stage protests at work, it's a workplace issue, but it is not a free speech issue.  Since their employer does not have a policy, there shouldn't be an issue with employees choosing not to stand.  But if there was a policy, they would have to comply with it and free speech ideas wouldn't matter.   Not standing is a pretty low-key protest.  The knee is a step further.  I wonder what else players will come up with and how far it will go before they do decide a policy is needed ?  IMO it is unprofessional for these employees to be using their paying jobs during work time as a stage to broadcast their own personal political opinions.  I have never had a job where that would have been okay.  I don't disagree with what they are objecting to, but they should do it on their own time, not while they are at work. 

Edited September 10, 2016 by Laundrycrisis2

[ktgrok]

  Not standing is a pretty low-key protest.  The knee is a step further. 

 

Actually, he switched to taking a knee after a discussion with others where it was stated that people would find it less offensive and more respectful if he took a knee rather than sat. He was actuating toning it down, not escalating. 

[laundrycrisis]

Actually, he switched to taking a knee after a discussion with others where it was stated that people would find it less offensive and more respectful if he took a knee rather than sat. He was actuating toning it down, not escalating. 

 

 

Interesting - to me it seems more attention-drawing than just sitting, but whatever, if people are more comfortable with it, makes no difference to me.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

My point is that it's not "free speech" because it has nothing to do with the government requiring certain behavior - it's the league, not the government.  When people stage protests at work, it's a workplace issue, but it is not a free speech issue.  Since their employer does not have a policy, there shouldn't be an issue with employees choosing not to stand.  But if there was a policy, they would have to comply with it and free speech ideas wouldn't matter.   Not standing is a pretty low-key protest.  The knee is a step further.  I wonder what else players will come up with and how far it will go before they do decide a policy is needed ?  IMO it is unprofessional for these employees to be using their paying jobs during work time as a stage to broadcast their own personal political opinions.  I have never had a job where that would have been okay.  I don't disagree with what they are objecting to, but they should do it on their own time, not while they are at work. 

 

Pro athletes are celebrities and therefore get attention when they make statements about current events.  The NFL benefits from promoting the players as role models/spokesman for various issues/topics, but it is hard to control what players will say when the mic is in front of them. 

[Slojo]

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.

Thanks for this perspective! I don't know how to address the "he's privileged" argument. It doesn't make sense. One - even if the experiences of biracial folks raised by white parents guaranteed that they would be insulated from racism (which it does not), I would hope that there is room in this country for people to take up causes that don't affect them directly. It's called empathy and allyship. Doubly so for "celebrities" that have an elevated platform and who might be able to get the attention of millions. Secondly, his white parents don't follow him everywhere he goes -- he actually has to walk out of his house and interact with people who have no clue about his upbringing -- and if just a fraction of those people have an anti-black bias, then, well, it just really doesn't matter who your parents are. Lastly, so we're acknowledging white privilege, now? We're acknowledging structural racism, now? Great! That's progress because so many people are stuck on "race and racism doesn't matter/we solved most of that years ago" that I was beginning to get worried. So to clarify we're saying that Kaep shouldn't protest because his upbringing with white parents and his class status insulates him from any disadvantages he might have had otherwise? Interesting. Fine - we'll just swap him out for another black dude whose experiences are "more authentically black" (whatever that means). Because surely that will go down really well, and everybody will just be oh so understanding of that?

 

JojosMom,

Thank you so very much for this link http://www.american-historama.org/1801-1828-evolution/star-spangled-banner-lyrics.htm

The 3rd verse "hireling and slave" DO NOT in any way refer to the black slaves. I like the interpretation in this website. Teachers can use this when teaching the anthem.

I , a legal immigrant from a communist country, am very grateful to this United States of America and respect the flag, the anthem, and the pledge of alligence.

Stomping on the flag and burning the flag makes my blood boil. To me, the flag is not just a piece of cloth. No country is perfect. The U. S. is a great country and I love living here.

Umm... not sure I buy this. There were actual slaves around at the time who were commonly referred to as slaves -- hundreds of whom sought to fight with the British in the hopes of gaining freedom. Why would Key celebrate the idea that American sailors FORCED to fight for a side they didn't want to fight for would find no refuge from "terror of flight or gloom of the grave?" Why lump them in with the far more willing (and perhaps opportunistic) hirelings? I actually get why one would include hirelings and slaves who willingly went to the other side in lyrics that were basically about triumph over the opposing force. But the interpretation of "slaves" as "captured sailors" just sounds silly at the very least, and perhaps - since this is a children's site -- at best, the site was trying to shield children from the full truth. That's kind of an awful history wrapped up in those lyrics, and I can get the sentiment of wanting to shield children. It's nicer/cleaner for the American narrative if we don't complicate the story. Raising questions in young minds about slaves and just who were "the good guys and bad guys" in this story runs counter to the typical ways in which we handle retellings of the American story to young children. Are we really to believe that Key didn't ever notice, at least every once in a while, that there were brown people running around with the British, many of whom were former slaves who joined to secure their freedom? Are we really to believe that he didn't want to triumph over those former slaves "at least a little bit" for running off with the British? But, sure, we'll just tell Little Jimmy that it was "captured sailors!" 

 

A lot of those fans went out to buy his jerseys so they could burn them. Suddenly, it became a top seller.

Yeah. Perhaps. Kaep should just give that a big shrug IMO. I hope they don't mind donating to BLM and affiliated causes because that's where the money's going ;-)! (Obligatory SNAP!) The phrase "that just burns" takes on a whole new level of meaning right there!

 

re risk of bringing more attention to the protestor than to the problem:

 

I like his tagline: Conflict when handled correctly strengthens. Conflict when mismanaged destroys.  I see the essay as his effort to move the conflict onto more correctly handled, strengthening ground.  May the effort bear fruit.

 

I liked the essay a lot. Though I would say that it can honestly be really difficult to ascertain whether "conflict is being correctly handled or mismanaged" in the context of social injustice. What does "correctly handled" conflict look like? It's almost never clear until decades later. The majority of people thought that Dr. King was going too far (many people deemed the Civil Rights movement as one long series of "mismanaged conflicts"), and yet decades later, we teach millions of kids to "do as Dr. King did" (those actions - with the hindsight of history - are now deemed as "conflict correctly handled" and even nobly so). KWIM? Decent people of all stripes can genuinely grapple with "just what is the right thing to do" in the face of injustice. The human condition is filled with all kinds of moral/ethical dilemmas. Of the range of actions people can take, I'd think that sitting and now taking a knee (after being in dialogue with some vets), donating money, and continuing to articulate matter-of-factly and peacefully one's views is about as "constructive" as one can be and still be actually calling attention to the issues. Otherwise, one is kind of left with "just keep your mouth shut and don't ever force anyone to have to sit with being uncomfortable or inconvenienced" -- which kind of defeats the purpose of protest, and isn't what the now revered leaders of the Civil Rights movement did (including a few of the celebrities of the time that lent their celebrity to the cause -- you actually have to speak up, and sometimes, it is most effective to do so when the cameras are rolling). I know there are folks on this board that would have a hard time coming up with ANY scenario in which protest would be acceptable. And that I find -- unacceptable.

 

IMO it is unprofessional for these employees to be using their paying jobs during work time as a stage to broadcast their own personal political opinions.  I have never had a job where that would have been okay.  I don't disagree with what they are objecting to, but they should do it on their own time, not while they are at work. 

In a normal job, I would agree, but "celebrity" is this this really interesting phenomenon, and the regular rules get broken all of the time. They do have a platform unlike any other, and an organization that is comprised of 67% African American athletes and makes money off of their bodies (literally) might do well to - maybe - demonstrate that they want to see justice come to a community that has produced so many of its most talented players. That's my social justice-y bent, but, yeah, a little "gratitude" (and leeway) back for those players who, as wealthy as they are, are making YOU even wealthier. The "gratitude" thing can work both ways. We always talk about the "grateful athletes" and never the folks making money off of those athletes developing greater sympathies and "gratitude" for the communities from which those athletes come. 

[ktgrok]

Ugh. Read this, and it made me cry. People are threatening to lynch little kids who also took a knee during the anthem. CHILDREN! And calling them racial slurs. Ugh. And people wonder why they are protesting. This is why. Makes me sick. You can disagree with the protestors and their point of view. That is what discourse and intelligent conversation are for. But threatening to kill children? I can't even handle this. 

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-black-children-threatened-knee-protest-article-1.2788828

[MercyA]

Ugh. Read this, and it made me cry. People are threatening to lynch little kids who also took a knee during the anthem. CHILDREN! And calling them racial slurs. Ugh. And people wonder why they are protesting. This is why. Makes me sick. You can disagree with the protestors and their point of view. That is what discourse and intelligent conversation are for. But threatening to kill children? I can't even handle this. 

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-black-children-threatened-knee-protest-article-1.2788828

 

And people don't understand why Kaepernick refused to stand for the anthem. This is why!! Racism is alive and well.

[ktgrok]

And people don't understand why Kaepernick refused to stand for the anthem. This is why!! Racism is alive and well.

 

Exactly. When your children are being threatened, you feel the need to take action somehow, even if others think it isn't the right way. I'd be desperate to do something, anything. 

[Tanaqui]

But if there was a policy, they would have to comply with it and free speech ideas wouldn't matter.

 

This is not, strictly speaking, true. You don't give up your Constitutional rights when you are employed. (And given that the US Government pays the NFL to do these patriotic displays, the gov is very much involved in this case. Do you realize that other nations do not play their anthems before domestic sports games? It's creepy weird.)

[Alte Veste Academy]

I liked this piece written by Theodore Johnson, a retired US Naval Officer, now Georgetown University professor. I found the inclusion of the Veterans For Kaepernick hashtag of special relevance to this thread. One of my favorite bits: "I don’t know a single black vet who feels disrespected by Kaepernick, and I don’t know a single black vet who would employ this form of protest."

Edited September 14, 2016 by Alte Veste Academy

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is not, strictly speaking, true. You don't give up your Constitutional rights when you are employed. (And given that the US Government pays the NFL to do these patriotic displays, the gov is very much involved in this case. Do you realize that other nations do not play their anthems before domestic sports games? It's creepy weird.)

 

Small point of clarification, various military branches have paid NFL teams (not the NFL itself) to hold various events that they see as recruiting tools.

 

And you do give up certain Constitutional rights while on the job, and behavior that could be seen as an exercising a Constitutional right can lead to termination under employment contracts even when it occurs in non-work hours.  Religious beliefs are an exception (to a point) due to being protected under Civil Rights legislation.

Edited September 14, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Pam in CT]

I liked this piece written by Theodore Johnson, a retired US Naval Officer, now Georgetown University professor. I found the inclusion of the Veterans For Kaepernick hashtag of special relevance to this thread. One of my favorite bits: "I don’t know a single black vet who feels disrespected by Kaepernick, and I don’t know a single black vet who would employ this form of protest."

 

 

That is a fine description of the tension of holding two competing ideas at once - thanks for passing it along.

 

I also liked this bit, just after his affirmation that he himself will continue always to stand and salute:

 

...But sitting during the national anthem is no more disrespectful to the men and women who serve in the military than standing during the national anthem is respectful of those who committed race crimes in the name of the state. When I salute the flag, I am not saluting the denial of veterans’ benefits to black service members for decades. I am not saluting civic and economic disenfranchisement. I am not saluting the aggressive policing and incarceration of black Americans.

 

I salute the founding idea that distinguishes the United States. And I salute all those who have fought to bring that idea closer to reality.

 

Similarly, Kaepernick doesn't kneel because he doesn't believe in the promise of America or doesn't value the founding principles; he kneels because the country has fallen short of these things. Kaepernick kneels because of the things I do not salute. This does not put us at odds.

[MercyA]

Here's an article on another football player, Brandon Marshall, who has also chosen to kneel during the anthem. 

 

He says, "I prayed long and hard about it and I felt it was the right thing to do. It is what it is; I’m standing up for what I believe in. I know my family will support me. I’m not against the police. I’m not against the military. I’m not against America. I’m against social injustice. This movement is something special. People are going to bash me on social media but at the end of the day I’m going to go home and sleep peacefully knowing what I did was right. I will not lose any sleep.â€

 

When Marshall received a blow to the head during the game, some celebrated on Twitter. :( Marshall's response, “So many people have trouble understanding and empathizing. I saw somebody say ‘Go back to where you’re from.’ I’m from Vegas. It’s hate and it’s exactly what we talk about. People celebrating a possible concussion are proving my point."

[ktgrok]

Ugh. People celebrating his head injury? And they think THAT is America? People before things. Even important, symbolic things. People, and love, are more important than flags, banners, or anthems. 

[Zock]

possible copyrighted photo deleted by moderator

[El...]

 

It's a great picture, with a good point, but we can't have photos on this forum unless we took 'em ourselves.   No memes, no nothing.  Sorry! 

Edited September 17, 2016 by elroisees

[Zock]

It's a great picture, with a good point, but we can't have photos on this forum unless we took 'em ourselves.   No memes, no nothing.  Sorry! 

 I think you're misunderstanding the copyright laws and the requirements of this forum. 

 

REgardless, the point stands. 

[KungFuPanda]

It's hard to have any respect for the NFL or their fans if THIS is the issue that has them wanting to clean house.

[Guest]

I think you're misunderstanding the copyright laws and the requirements of this forum.

 

REgardless, the point stands.

No, that's pretty much exactly the way the rule works in practice. For liability purposes links are allowed, but not a screen cap or image you don't personally own.

 

Susan Wise Bauer's PhotoSusan Wise Bauer

05 Jun 2015

IMAGES UNDER COPYRIGHT!!!

 

That includes ANY photos that you did not take yourself or are not in the public domain. Just because you've seen them on other websites does NOT mean it is legal to post them here.

 

WE WILL GET SUED. See our Terms of Use!!

 

If you've posted photos recently, please take down any that don't fall under those two categories.

 

SWB

Since this image is in the public domain as a program but not necessarily legal in YouTube or screen cap for at its safer to not post it since usage could be construed as unclear.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[ktgrok]

It's a great picture, with a good point, but we can't have photos on this forum unless we took 'em ourselves.   No memes, no nothing.  Sorry! 

 

As long as it is a link, that leads back to the original website it is fine. Or if properly cited I think is also fine. 

[Zock]

There seems to be a basic mis-undserstanding of copyright law on this site. 

[zoobie]

There seems to be a basic mis-undserstanding of copyright law on this site. 

 

And when you run a site, you can foot the bills for fighting The Man when greedy businesses have their attorneys send you cease and desist letters. 

[Guest]

There seems to be a basic mis-undserstanding of copyright law on this site.

You're welcome to find another site to post on, but we don't make the rules here, we just agree to follow them when we join and post. It's Susan's site and her choice, and she has made this pretty plain precisely because of a prior legal headache.

 

And since she is awesome and so is her site, we do her bidding for the privilege of being part of this community. It's symbiotic like that :)

Edited September 15, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[emzhengjiu]

The owner of these forums has asked that we not post photos unless we have taken them ourselves or are absolutely certain those photos are in the public domain. Celebrity photos are especially not allowed!  Let's not create problems for Susan!  Please remove any photos that don't adhere to this policy. 

 

ETA:  This policy is included in the "terms of use" for the forums.

[zoobie]

Another horrifying example of why he's taking a knee: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57e0411fe4b0071a6e08db5f

[MercyA]

Another horrifying example of why he's taking a knee: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57e0411fe4b0071a6e08db5f

 

Awful, awful, awful. Why does this keep happening? The man was having car trouble, and they shot him, and let him bleed out in the street and die. People, are you getting angry yet? 

 

If my car was stalled in the middle of the road, and I was walking towards a police car for help, I don't know that I would even think to put my hands above my head. He did, and they still shot him. Why?!?

[happi duck]

Heart breaking.

 

Damn.

[Pam in CT]

re fatal shooting of Terence Crutcher 

Awful, awful, awful. Why does this keep happening? The man was having car trouble, and they shot him, and let him bleed out in the street and die. People, are you getting angry yet? 

 

If my car was stalled in the middle of the road, and I was walking towards a police car for help, I don't know that I would even think to put my hands above my head. He did, and they still shot him. Why?!?

 

It keeps happening because not all Americans yet accept that there's a pattern of its happening.  That's the spotlight that Kaepernick is trying to bring into focus - these incidents are not just disconnected isolated one-offs. 

 

 

 

In addition to the "Hands Up" / Doesn't Matter that Mercy raised, the interval between the time he was shot and any effort to stem his bleeding is particularly troubling.  Surely by then it was quite clear he was not threatening anyone.

 

The time code in the video taken from the dashcam of Officer Tyler Turnbough shows that Crutcher was shot around 1:50 into the recording. Over the radio, an officer can be heard referring to him as a "suspect" — although the situation was initially called in as a traffic incident, possibly involving a broken-down vehicle.

 

After Shelby shot Crutcher, two officers walked to the opposite side of the vehicle to ensure the scene was safe; a female officer is then seen running away from the immediate area. Moments later, three officers, seemingly including Shelby, backed slowly away from Crutcher's body. They then crouched down behind a police cruiser.

 

Crutcher was left alone on the asphalt until around the 3:45 mark in the video, when an officer checks his pockets; it isn't until around 4:30 that anyone crouches down to render any aid.

(NPR)

 

 

 

It does appear, thus far, that Tulsa police chief Chuck Jordan is approaching this incident with greater purpose and transparency, and less reflexive defensiveness, than some of his colleagues faced with similarly troubling incidents:

 

"I'm going to tell you right here and now: There was no gun on the suspect or in the suspect's vehicle," Jordan said of Crutcher. The police chief said he contacted the U.S. Attorney's Office about the case immediately after the shooting, and he added, "We will achieve justice in this case."

 

Jordan said that the first time he watched the police-cam footage was when he viewed it with Crutcher's family — something he said he did on Sunday, to give the slain man's relatives a chance to see the video before anyone else.

The bolded is no small thing -- that takes a lot of personal courage.  Hopefully this man will be able to provide the leadership needed to go forward towards justice.

[MercyA]

I really like what David West, a basketball player, had to say about Kaepernick:

 

West compared Kaepernick’s actions to someone being drowned with "the environment around you, and the waves and current getting stronger," and once the person’s head is above water, "you hear people in the boat complaining about you splashing.â€

 

“We’ve got to look at ourselves and ask whether folks are capable of treating other people like human beings,†he told The Undefeated. “That’s a fundamental question we have to ask before we get to the color of your skin. Do people have the capability to recognize humanity in other people? When you shoot somebody with their hands up, as a human, you should feel that. When you’re choking someone to death and you have your arm around their neck and they say, ‘I can’t breathe,’ you should be able to feel that s—."

 

“And if you can’t feel that s—, then I’m wondering if you have the capacity to recognize humanity. That’s what all of this is about. And until we’re ready to have a serious conversation like that, people are going to continue to fuss about somebody taking a knee." 

 

[MercyA]

Here's an infuriating article about 11- and 12-year-old football players who have been threatened with *lynching* for taking a knee during the anthem. Their head coach has been suspended for the season for doing the same.

 

And I'm sure most of you have heard about the high school football announcer who suggested that people not standing for the anthem be shot.  :rolleyes:

[poppy]

I just saw an editorial cartoon that showed a picture of Kaepernick kneeling side by side with a picture of a dead black man with a t-shirt that said "unarmed".

In the cartoon, a (white) guy in a flag t-shirt was pointing to Kaepernick saying "That's an outrage!"

[Mama Geek]

I didn't read all the responses, I voted other.  He has the right and to that and I wouldn't want to take that away.  The NFL has the right to fire him and the general public has the right to decide they don't like him, aren't going to watch him, aren't going to buy his jerseys etc.

[Farrar]

I had the most circuitous conversation about this on FB yesterday (in response to a college band taking the knee).

A woman was basically like, "They better be thankful that they live somewhere that they're allowed to protest."

Rest of us: "Yeah, I think they are."

Her: "If they don't appreciate it, they should just leave the country."

Us: "So, you think protest is bad?"

Her: "Protest is protected by our great country. And if you don't like it, you should leave!"

Us: "What in the world are you even saying!?!"

[poppy]

I had the most circuitous conversation about this on FB yesterday (in response to a college band taking the knee).

A woman was basically like, "They better be thankful that they live somewhere that they're allowed to protest."

Rest of us: "Yeah, I think they are."

Her: "If they don't appreciate it, they should just leave the country."

Us: "So, you think protest is bad?"

Her: "Protest is protected by our great country. And if you don't like it, you should leave!"

Us: "What in the world are you even saying!?!"

 

I think the logical conclusion is, people who don't like what this guy is doing should just leave the country.

[Farrar]

I think the logical conclusion is, people who don't like what this guy is doing should just leave the country.

 

I think there is no logic there.

 

I read it as being someone holding two thoughts that didn't go together and not realizing their incompatability. As in, "I don't like this and feel those people are betraying the country on some level," coupled with, "protest is an important part of our country's rights and founding story." Of course, some people manage to work them together into some sense of coherence, but I think a lot of people know the latter without having it really incorporated into their emotional response to things. I think that's true of a lot of things - most people know now that "racism is bad" yet don't know how to filter the world they see around them through that lens if no one actually says "I hate black people."

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I didn't read all the responses, I voted other. He has the right and to that and I wouldn't want to take that away. The NFL has the right to fire him and the general public has the right to decide they don't like him, aren't going to watch him, aren't going to buy his jerseys etc.

Under the collective bargaining agreement I don't believe the NFL has the right to "fire" him.