On "taking a knee"

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You do realize that many of the people boycotting the NFL right now are doing so in support of the protests, right? Do you think that firing all 150+ players who took a knee yesterday, including some of the best players in the league, is going to totally fix the ratings problem? In fact, it would just drive away millions more viewers on the other side of the issue.

 

Goodell himself came out on the side of the players' right to protest, as did almost all of the owners. Trump's profane rant against the protesters is getting far more blowback than Kaepernick's original protest did.

 

A third factor in the ratings issue is the research on CTE, which is making many people pull away from football and switch to other sports. How that will play out, and whether it's even fixable, remains to be seen. But you are naive if you think the NFL ratings problem is entirely the result of white people being offended by players taking a knee.

 

Correct on all points.  The NFL ratings decline started well before 2016.

[bibiche]

Wow... https://twitter.com/dallascowboys/status/912474278410326016

Wow indeed.

 

But the comments, oh my. Only took five before we got to "how bout black on black crime?"

What a racist f*ing country.

[ktgrok]

Wow indeed.

 

But the comments, oh my. Only took five before we got to "how bout black on black crime?"

What a racist f*ing country.

 

Yeah i had the same reaction. That plus all the "but my entertainment is more important than racial injustice" crap.

[Homebody2]

I hear your pain and your frustration.

 

However, if you want to change people's minds and start them thinking with a different paradigm, talking calmly, listening well, and finding a common ground is more effective. Shouting and snark and being contentious won't make your point clearer. It will cause people to ignore and/or dig their heels in further.

 

Really, I'd like to hear your viewpoint.

This is her viewpoint.

[Homebody2]

Again, she shared her viewpoint.

If you hear me shouting it's because for the vast majority of my life I listened to people who said just keep your head down, do the right things, and you'll be OK. Well it's not ok. It's just.not.OK. and doing/saying nothing is no longer an option no matter how uncomfortable that may make some people. I am frustrated and hurt and angry that after all that's happened and continues to happen folks are still telling me to keep your head down, stay quiet, and do the 'right' thing only no one can tell me what that right thing is. It's not working. It's.not.working. When it was just me, ok, kill me. So what, who cares. I have kids now. These are my children. My children. And in the faces of Samaria Rice and Sybrina Fulton, I see myself. Do you know what that's like? Do you have ANY idea what that's like? And you want these men, fathers, to sit down and shut up so you can comfortably watch TV? SMH.

[6packofun]

What methods are acceptable and appropriate to you? MLK was REVILED at the time of his death. He was an agitator, a degenerate, and a criminal. He blocked streets. He facilitated business interruptions. He was seen exactly how these athletes are today.

 

I really need some concrete examples of protests that are acceptable because kneeling, speaking, marching, and even absence (hello Golden State!) are all too controversial.

 

I didn't say acceptable or appropriate in my post at all, those are your words. See what you did there? I merely think that people should pay attention to how their protest is being received by the people they want to reach and adjust to be EFFECTIVE as possible.  Is that a bad idea to you? 

 

Don't make your argument that meme about "Is THIS protest OK? Or is THIS one OK?" because I'm talking effectiveness.

 

Here's a question for you.  Will this become the norm and now the majority of football players just don't stand for the national anthem?  I actually don't care, but I'm curious what the end game is here.  What is it going to take for them to feel OK about standing for the anthem again?  Has anyone thought of that?  How about YOU give ME some concrete examples.

[Happy2BaMom]

 

 

The whole thing seems to be a symptom of a country that no longer knows how to solve any of the substantial problems so chooses to focus on trivial ones. And, yes, a handful (before this week, anyway) of overpaid athletes kneeling for the national anthem is a trivial issue. Good God, Puerto Rico is rapidly running out of food and water, our national debt is nearing $20 trillion, tens of millions of people in this country either can't afford health insurance or face being shoved off of it, $200B in damage was caused by two recent hurricanes, and the issue everyone (including many in the leadership of this country) is focused on is this? 

Edited September 26, 2017 by emzhengjiu
Political comment

[Sneezyone]

I didn't say acceptable or appropriate in my post at all, those are your words. See what you did there? I merely think that people should pay attention to how their protest is being received by the people they want to reach and adjust to be EFFECTIVE as possible.  Is that a bad idea to you? 

 

Don't make your argument that meme about "Is THIS protest OK? Or is THIS one OK?" because I'm talking effectiveness.

 

Here's a question for you.  Will this become the norm and now the majority of football players just don't stand for the national anthem?  I actually don't care, but I'm curious what the end game is here.  What is it going to take for them to feel OK about standing for the anthem again?  Has anyone thought of that?  How about YOU give ME some concrete examples.

 

Is it a good idea for the majority to attempt to dictate to/inform the minority as to whether their protest methods are effective? No, not to me. Historically speaking, majorities tend to be the last to embrace the need for change and prefer ignorance and the veneer of calm to knowledge and open tension. Their opinions are lagging indicators of what is appropriate, just and valuable.

 

If you're talking about effectiveness, which IMHO is a semantic rather than substantive distinction, what kinds of protests do you see as effective and  are they supported by some historical evidence of effectiveness? What makes you or anyone else qualified to determine the effectiveness of these protests *right now*? It's far too soon to tell IMO.

 

I have no idea whether or not these types of protests will become the norm but, quite frankly, I'd be happy to see that happen. The levels of discomfort some folks now, finally, feel are a welcome change. I welcome new members of the disquieted club.

 

What it would take for *me* to feel less conflicted is seeing real progress being made on issues of LEO accountability, training, implicit bias and use of force. I imagine feeling some measure of hope that folks are no longer reflexively denying issues or supporting LEOs would be a significant improvement as well. Meaningful changes in any/all of those areas is the end game for *me*.

 

You are more than welcome to google statements made by the athletes themselves (there are many) to find out what their end goals are.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Sneezyone

[Pawz4me]

The whole thing seems to be a symptom of a country that no longer knows how to solve any of the substantial problems so chooses to focus on trivial ones. And, yes, a handful (before this week, anyway) of overpaid athletes kneeling for the national anthem is a trivial issue. Good God, Puerto Rico is rapidly running out of food and water, our national debt is nearing $20 trillion, tens of millions of people in this country either can't afford health insurance or face being shoved off of it, $200B in damage was caused by two recent hurricanes, and the issue everyone (including many in the leadership of this country) is focused on is this? 

 

Fortunately, most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time (so to speak), understand the attempt to manipulate the national conversation, and so I don't think the diversionary tactics really work all that well.

 

And that's as much as I can say w/o getting too political. I hope I haven't already crossed that line.

Edited September 26, 2017 by emzhengjiu
Political comment

[Sneezyone]

The whole thing seems to be a symptom of a country that no longer knows how to solve any of the substantial problems so chooses to focus on trivial ones. And, yes, a handful (before this week, anyway) of overpaid athletes kneeling for the national anthem is a trivial issue. Good God, Puerto Rico is rapidly running out of food and water, our national debt is nearing $20 trillion, tens of millions of people in this country either can't afford health insurance or face being shoved off of it, $200B in damage was caused by two recent hurricanes, and the issue everyone (including many in the leadership of this country) is focused on is this? 

 

I don't think the extrajudicial killings of people of color and individuals with disabilities is a trivial issue but YMMV. It is possible to care about more than one issue at a time for most of us. I know I have already given to PR relief efforts.

[kiwik]

I am not sure why they play the National anthem before a football game or other sports event anyway. I get it if it's the Olympics or an international game, and the play the anthems of the participants' countries. But what does a sporting event have to do with America? That's inflationary and devalues the anthem. Why not play it at the movies or the ice cream parlour?

When my mum was a kid you had to stand up for the national anthem at the movies. I think it was just a hangover from the war years when they used to show newsreels.

 

I think the poster was saying whether athletes sit, kneel or stand on their heads during the anthem is trivial not the reason they choose to sit, kneel or stand on their head. The focus seems to be on what they are doing not why they are doing it.

Edited September 26, 2017 by kiwik

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

Oh, threads gotten long already!  

 

I'll go back and read through, but in case it hasn't been mentioned, here's my only thought on it:

 

I don't mind this form or protest.  It might not be "my thing" but I think that it's a valid form of getting attention to a cause.  

 

BUT... when will the protesting end?  Will America ever be "equal enough" to stop the protest now that it's started?  By what markers will these athletes know that they can stand again for the anthem?  I cannot imagine in my lifetime that America will be equal enough that continued work is no longer necessary...  

 

So, now that it's started, how does one gracefully end it?  What are the benchmarks of equality that mean, now, at THIS moment, we are equal enough to go back to standing for the anthem?  

 

 

[Carrie12345]

Laurie. We can't do anything. We control our own thoughts and how we raise our families. We do what we already are in teaching human dignity, respect, and the values of America in allowing diversity of opinion as an expression of freedom. When we are able we vote against individuals furthering nepotism and abuses of power in their offices, especially on a local level. And we keep raising the next generation to think and act better.

 

But we were already doing that. Before Baltimore. Before Kaepernick. I am not shooting black men. My kids aren't shooting anyone either. And we cannot stop every unnecessary bullet from a gun we wouldn't fire, ourselves, in the same circumstance. There is very little else to do that isn't just moneymaking off victims and attention grabbing for, what, public shaming? Annoying people who are sympathetic and agree with you? Calling people racists who know their own motivations better than you ever will?

 

All this does is bounce off the real racists, feed the machine of violence and anger that repays wrongs with more wrong, and inoculates and inures those who are sympathetic until they hit emotional exhaustion and tune out.

 

 

 

 

For the record, bibiche and others, I'm in the lattermost group.

 

There are not "real" racists and "false" racists, only explicit racism and covert racism. And I say that as a person who is trying with everything I have to be an effective ally because I believe the treatment of people of color (including, but not limited to killing human beings) in this country is so entirely vile that I get intense physiological stress responses when people try to minimize the reality.  And yet, I know that even I am an unwitting participant in systems and processes that perpetuate covert racism and provide a base for explicit racism.  Knowing my motivations does not keep my hands clean.  Refraining from murder does not win me points.  Tuning out is  not only giving up, but giving in.

 

While it's ingrained in me to be against public shaming, I can't help but flirt with the double edged idea that people who have nothing to be ashamed of shouldn't need to worry about it!

[TravelingChris]

I have watched NFL before and won't watch it anymore.  Also, I will make sure I fastforward through news talk of NFL (I record local news and watch at another time).   I am not a fan of car races but do like what NASCAR is doing. 

 

I stand not only for our anthem but for other countries' too if I am in a place where that anthem is playing. 

 

I know people have protested in entertainment arenas of which sports are one part of.  I find the protests totally inappropriate and divisive for no good reason.  NO, I don't think they get people off of their seats to deal with police shootings.  I personally have an issue with inappropriate police shootings for any reason including blacks, mentally ill, white women in Minneapolis reporting prowlers, etc, etc.  My biggest issue is that people are protesting the flag or anthem and that is okay with NFL but honoring 9/11 or assasinated police officers is not.  The blatant hypocrisy of the NFL is nauseating and I will not be watching.

[Carrie12345]

Oh, threads gotten long already!  

 

I'll go back and read through, but in case it hasn't been mentioned, here's my only thought on it:

 

I don't mind this form or protest.  It might not be "my thing" but I think that it's a valid form of getting attention to a cause.  

 

BUT... when will the protesting end?  Will America ever be "equal enough" to stop the protest now that it's started?  By what markers will these athletes know that they can stand again for the anthem?  I cannot imagine in my lifetime that America will be equal enough that continued work is no longer necessary...  

 

So, now that it's started, how does one gracefully end it?  What are the benchmarks of equality that mean, now, at THIS moment, we are equal enough to go back to standing for the anthem?  

 

Maybe when "equal enough" stops being a concept?  To me, that implies that some degree of lesserness should suffice. 

 

I haven't done as much reading on MLK as I'd like to be able to fit in, but I'm fully aware of his famous dream.  I would be interested in what he would have to say today except, you know, he was murdered before getting "too" equal.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

Maybe when "equal enough" stops being a concept?  To me, that implies that some degree of lesserness should suffice. 

 

I haven't done as much reading on MLK as I'd like to be able to fit in, but I'm fully aware of his famous dream.  I would be interested in what he would have to say today except, you know, he was murdered before getting "too" equal.

 

Perfect equality is an ideal.  It is not achievable, any more than perfect honesty, beauty, etc.  Plato's forms and all that.  

 

So at what point of imperfect equality can one end a protest?  That's my question.  

 

If we are waiting for perfect equality, it means these men can never stand for the anthem again.  

 

Maybe that's their point, I don't know.  I just find a protest without an achievable end-goal to be hard on the protestors themselves.  Once you kneel, you can't really ever un-kneel.  If that's their plan, then ok, that's fine.

 

MLK had an achievable end-goal, which was the end of racial segregation.  

 

To me, this whole protest would make more sense with some kind of statement such as, "We will continue kneeling until de-escalation techniques are a required part of all police training and continued education." or "Until a year passes with no un-armed and non-dangerous person killed by police." or...  Make it concrete.   This protest is now destined to drag on and on, and for those who kneel, there is no way to end it.  If they don't mind kneeling for the rest of their careers, then so be it.  

 

- edited to fix a typo

Edited September 26, 2017 by Monica_in_Switzerland

[DawnM]

From MLK's speech:

 

We cannot turn back. There are those who are .asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?  We can never be satisfied as long ns the Negro the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. 

 

Here is the full speech:

 

https://www.archives.gov/files/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf

 

I would argue that only some of MLK's goals were attained.  If you read the full speech, he does ask for full equality.  I would say it has not happened yet.

 

The same argument was asked back then, "How equal is enough?"  

 

 

Edited September 26, 2017 by DawnM

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Joan Baez sang that the answer to "how long" is blowing in the wind. Johnny Cash sang, "'til things are brighter, I'm the man in black."

 

There are crisis moments in history, when people are not equal, not safe, and not enjoying their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Rights not benevolently bestowed by a government, but given every person by nature and by nature's God.)

 

There are moments when the rest of the world may start to catch a glimmer of understanding as to the root causes of the crisis, and the history of the problem.

 

We are in one of those moments right now. And since the awareness and education are being spread by peaceful protestors, NOW is not the moment for them to stop. While anyone's still listening, while anyone's still learning, they must keep going!

 

Since the moral and civics education of our country has somehow been entrusted to late night talk show hosts, they have to keep going. While anyone's still listening, using all their tools of humor and entertainment, they labor for education. In my opinion, Oliver, Colbert, Kimmel, Cordon and others should go down in history for filling a tremendous gap in a unique way. When citizens have been manipulated into believing that they can't trust mainstream journalism, yet they'll tune into late night TV because nobody told them not to...the talk show hosts have risen to the occasion and are discussing current events.

 

Since folk singers, other musicians, YouTube video creators, and meme creators on social media can grab a moment's attention, can make people think about things for a split second before they click away - whether raising awareness for social justice or fundraising for natural disasters - they have to keep working. To quote another Johnny Cash song, "They don't believe that no one wants to know."

 

It's all of a piece.

 

People with heads in sand (at best) keep whining,

 

Don't let sports be political!

Don't let entertainment be political!

Don't let religion be political!

Don't let my FB news feed be political!

Don't let this forum or coffee klatch or family reunion be political!

 

Until nobody may speak up for justice without being banned because of policy, ostracized for being liberal...

 

Read Orwell and Bradbury. Listen to the Forrest Gump movie soundtrack. Watch the musical, 1776. Just start somewhere, anywhere, learning the history of peaceful protest in this country, studying civil rights, learning the bill of rights, and trying to be more like Johnny Cash.

 

Seriously. This is a disjointed post because I am just SO shocked that anybody would ask, "What, are they gonna do it forever, how will they know when they're free enough..."

Edited September 26, 2017 by Tibbie Dunbar

[Laurie4b]

 

 

What it would take for *me* to feel less conflicted is seeing real progress being made on issues of LEO accountability, training, implicit bias and use of force. I imagine feeling some measure of hope that folks are no longer reflexively denying issues or supporting LEOs would be a significant improvement as well. Meaningful changes in any/all of those areas is the end game for *me*.

 

 

 

 

Exactly. And the thing is: those reforms would be a win-win for everyone, including everyone in law enforcement. 

 

I absolutely believe that most people in law enforcement have the hearts of public servants. They do it to do good and to make a difference. Their reputation and their ability to be effective is tainted by actions of the minority who go into LE to satisfy their inner bully. It's best for the good guys to be able to extract the bad guys. 

 

The good guys are going to have a deeper sense of fulfillment if they can help more people while risking harm to fewer. Using de-escalation is very satisfying in terms of knowing you've made a positive difference. Helping people who are mentally ill get help avoid physical violence to themselves or others and get help also provides a very satisfying  sense of fulfillment to people who specifically get involved with LE to contribute to their community. Identifying any implicit bias you have is uncomfortable, but also again, satisfying, for people who don't want to be biased, who want to treat every one equally. It is all so win-win-win that if the narrative hadn't gotten to be pro-cop vs. anti-cop I can't see a single reason to oppose any of that.

 

Even if the issue is money: of course good training costs money, but so does providing trauma counseling for a good cop who shot an unarmed man for reasons within department and state policy but finds out the situation actually didn't warrant it. It also costs money to settle civil lawsuits. I'd so much rather the lesser amount of money be spent on prevention. 

[catz]

 

Seriously. This is a disjointed post because I am just SO shocked that anybody would ask, "What, are they gonna do it forever, how will they know when they're free enough..."

 

:iagree:    To me that's like saying, well the Red Cross helped those in Hurricane Harvey, so they should be done now and we shouldn't have to hear them droning on and on about another hurricane.   :crying:   I don't see why always working to rid the world of injustices isn't the right and proper thing to do.  Bringing awareness is just one step in making change.

[bettyandbob]

I don't know that the injustices of race in this country will end anytime soon. This protest isn't interrupting anything, so why couldn't it continue as a reminder that we have work to do. We definitely have a lot of work to do and no one should feel complacent on this issue.

And honestly, most people I know are also following, donating and generally concerned about Puerto Rico.

Edited September 26, 2017 by emzhengjiu
Political comment

[Dmmetler]

I think part of what is being missed is that there were really two protests, not one.

 

The first was the original BLM, the country really doesn't offer liberty and justice for all, which was only a handful of players.

 

The second was because of some tweets by a person in authority that said that these guys should be fired for not being patriotic and respectful enough and called for a boycott of the NFL if they weren't. It is a support of the original protesters and their rights, not necessarily a sharing of the beliefs that led them to protest in the first place.

 

Me...well, I turned on my TV for an NFL game for the first time in my adult life, so that if they were electronically collecting viewer statistics, it would be noted. I hate football. I find it horribly boring and barbaric. But the NFL is in the right here, legally speaking. I had to take education law as a teacher. The rulings are on the side of those who choose not to participate, not on those who wish to force participation. As a teacher, I had to teach the National anthem because it was part of our curriculum. I did not have to stand for it, even in my classroom with students present. Nor did my students have to stand. They had to study the anthem at an academic level, but they did not have to stand when it was played, although usually all but those with significant beliefs did so. The NFL would lose in court if they fired players for refusing to stand for the anthem. They do not deserve, as an organization, to be vilified for not doing so.

Edited September 26, 2017 by dmmetler

[Homebody2]

I didn't say acceptable or appropriate in my post at all, those are your words. See what you did there? I merely think that people should pay attention to how their protest is being received by the people they want to reach and adjust to be EFFECTIVE as possible. Is that a bad idea to you?

 

Don't make your argument that meme about "Is THIS protest OK? Or is THIS one OK?" because I'm talking effectiveness.

 

Here's a question for you. Will this become the norm and now the majority of football players just don't stand for the national anthem? I actually don't care, but I'm curious what the end game is here. What is it going to take for them to feel OK about standing for the anthem again? Has anyone thought of that? How about YOU give ME some concrete examples.

I'm having a hard time understanding this. Historically, haven't there always been people offended by protests of any kind? And why is it the responsibility of those protesting to make their protest as effective as possible to reach those with the most deaf ears?

 

Isn't the point that even one act of protest, no matter how small, is effective because it had the ability to inspire more protests, and that can eventually start a movement? And isn't the end goal to make that movement so mainstream that people begin to talk about it at their kitchen tables?

 

If a protest offends someone, then I think it's been very effective. It's caused someone to think and reflect, even if they don't agree. And this is what America and it's freedoms are all about.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

You are more than welcome to google statements made by the athletes themselves (there are many) to find out what their end goals are.

If someone has to do a bunch of research to determine the end goals of a protest, it's not a particularly effective one at accomplishing those.  FWIW.

[KarenC]

If someone has to do a bunch of research to determine the end goals of a protest, it's not a particularly effective one at accomplishing those.  FWIW.

But somewhere, somehow there has to be a start.  I bet there are significantly more people aware of the issue today than there were last year when Colin Kaepernick started his protest.  Really, the protests won't make a lot of waves until more white people become involved.  If that happens, the momentum toward progress could take off.

[goldberry]

I think there is a difference between saying they can require employees not to initiate political speech vs. require them to engage in political speech. 

 

This is the real issue here, and I am surprised it is being ignored by most.  This is a reference from the Supreme Court case when it was ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses had the constitutional right to abstain from saluting the flag, 1943, West Va Board of Education vs Barnette:

 

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

 

It was also stated:

To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.

 

I know that many feel, yes, it's their right, but it's my right to call them anti-American and disrepectful to our country and our military.  I would ask you first to think about how many of our military are NOT offended by this at all, and consider it part of what they fight for.  I am not alone in hearing that from military family members. The military defends and upholds the constitution of the United States, because they believe it is the best in the world. These rights are part of that.  At the core of it, these players are simply abstaining from something that they cannot be compelled to do in the first place.  I understand disagreeing with their reasoning.  But there are few things more in line with our constitutional freedoms and less actively causing harm.

 

Second, I would ask you to think about what happens when exercising a right to ABSTAIN from something becomes unAmerican, disrespectful and disgusting.  It is not just an opinion with no consequences.  There are consequences to advancing that position.  The 1943 Supreme Court ruling above overturned an opposite ruling from 1940.  What were the results of that 1940 ruling?

 

The American Civil Liberties Union reported that by the end of 1940, "more than 1,500 Witnesses in the United States had been victimized in 335 separate attacks". Such attacks included beatings, being tarred and feathered, hanged, shot, maimed, and even castrated, as well as other acts of violence. As reports of these attacks against Jehovah's Witnesses continued, "several justices changed their minds, and in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the Court declared that the state could not impinge on the First Amendment by compelling the observance of rituals."

 

I am sure most of you would never advocate violence like that.  But that is the result of nationalism taking priority over the very constitutional rights our nation was founded on.  Especially when words of derision are used so casually not by just everyday people but by our leaders themselves.  Disagree with their reasoning.  Disagree with the effectiveness.  But the extreme anger and disgust and name-calling that is being promoted and spreading like wildfire... please think about where that leads.  It leads to a place that in the end, is not very American.

[Xuzi]

I think you'd have to be living under a rock to not know that putting an end to police brutality, and improving our skewed justice system is at the root of a lot of the protests going on right now.

 

Ferguson. St. Louis. Kaep's initial kneeling protest over a year ago... it's been on magazine covers and on headline news and talk radio... I think some people would just rather be obtuse than take a long hard look at our society.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Xuzi

[Pawz4me]

I'm having a hard time understanding this. Historically, haven't there always been people offended by protests of any kind? And why is it the responsibility of those protesting to make their protest as effective as possible to reach those with the most deaf ears?

 

Isn't the point that even one act of protest, no matter how small, is effective because it had the ability to inspire more protests, and that can eventually start a movement? And isn't the end goal to make that movement so mainstream that people begin to talk about it at their kitchen tables?

 

If a protest offends someone, then I think it's been very effective. It's caused someone to think and reflect, even if they don't agree. And this is what America and it's freedoms are all about.

 

 

This is the real issue here, and I am surprised it is being ignored by most.  This is a reference from the Supreme Court case when it was ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses had the constitutional right to abstain from saluting the flag, 1943, West Va Board of Education vs Barnette:

 

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

 

It was also stated:

To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.

 

I know that many feel, yes, it's their right, but it's my right to call them anti-American and disrepectful to our country and our military.  I would ask you first to think about how many of our military are NOT offended by this at all, and consider it part of what they fight for.  I am not alone in hearing that from military family members. The military defends and upholds the constitution of the United States, because they believe it is the best in the world. These rights are part of that.  At the core of it, these players are simply abstaining from something that they cannot be compelled to do in the first place.  I understand disagreeing with their reasoning.  But there are few things more in line with our constitutional freedoms and less actively causing harm.

 

Second, I would ask you to think about what happens when exercising a right to ABSTAIN from something becomes unAmerican, disrespectful and disgusting.  It is not just an opinion with no consequences.  There are consequences to advancing that position.  The 1943 Supreme Court ruling above overturned an opposite ruling from 1940.  What were the results of that 1940 ruling?

 

The American Civil Liberties Union reported that by the end of 1940, "more than 1,500 Witnesses in the United States had been victimized in 335 separate attacks". Such attacks included beatings, being tarred and feathered, hanged, shot, maimed, and even castrated, as well as other acts of violence. As reports of these attacks against Jehovah's Witnesses continued, "several justices changed their minds, and in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the Court declared that the state could not impinge on the First Amendment by compelling the observance of rituals."

 

I am sure most of you would never advocate violence like that.  But that is the result of nationalism taking priority over the very constitutional rights our nation was founded on.  Especially when words of derision are used so casually not by just everyday people but by our leaders themselves.  Disagree with their reasoning.  Disagree with the effectiveness.  But the extreme anger and disgust and name-calling that is being promoted and spreading like wildfire... please think about where that leads.  It leads to a place that in the end, is not very American.

 

Sigh. I'm out of likes and hugely frustrated because of it!

 

Consider both of your posts liked. Very, very much.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Joan Baez sang that the answer to "how long" is blowing in the wind. Johnny Cash sang, "'til things are brighter, I'm the man in black."

 

There are crisis moments in history, when people are not equal, not safe, and not enjoying their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Rights not benevolently bestowed by a government, but given every person by nature and by nature's God.)

 

There are moments when the rest of the world may start to catch a glimmer of understanding as to the root causes of the crisis, and the history of the problem.

 

We are in one of those moments right now. And since the awareness and education are being spread by peaceful protestors, NOW is not the moment for them to stop. While anyone's still listening, while anyone's still learning, they must keep going!

 

Since the moral and civics education of our country has somehow been entrusted to late night talk show hosts, they have to keep going. While anyone's still listening, using all their tools of humor and entertainment, they labor for education. In my opinion, Oliver, Colbert, Kimmel, Cordon and others should go down in history for filling a tremendous gap in a unique way. When citizens have been manipulated into believing that they can't trust mainstream journalism, yet they'll tune into late night TV because nobody told them not to...the talk show hosts have risen to the occasion and are discussing current events.

 

Since folk singers, other musicians, YouTube video creators, and meme creators on social media can grab a moment's attention, can make people think about things for a split second before they click away - whether raising awareness for social justice or fundraising for natural disasters - they have to keep working. To quote another Johnny Cash song, "They don't believe that no one wants to know."

 

It's all of a piece.

 

People with heads in sand (at best) keep whining,

 

Don't let sports be political!

Don't let entertainment be political!

Don't let religion be political!

Don't let my FB news feed be political!

Don't let this forum or coffee klatch or family reunion be political!

 

Until nobody may speak up for justice without being banned because of policy, ostracized for being liberal...

 

Read Orwell and Bradbury. Listen to the Forrest Gump movie soundtrack. Watch the musical, 1776. Just start somewhere, anywhere, learning the history of peaceful protest in this country, studying civil rights, learning the bill of rights, and trying to be more like Johnny Cash.

 

Seriously. This is a disjointed post because I am just SO shocked that anybody would ask, "What, are they gonna do it forever, how will they know when they're free enough..."

 

I wish there was a more appropriate applause emoji, but since this is what I have...

 

:hurray:  :hurray:  :hurray:  :hurray:

[Homebody2]

If someone has to do a bunch of research to determine the end goals of a protest, it's not a particularly effective one at accomplishing those. FWIW.

I don't agree. The point of protest is for people to see it and ask why. That is the effectiveness. One will work as hard as they want in order to learn more if desired. Then more will join the movement, and the voice becomes louder.

 

I still struggle with understanding how peaceful protest is unAmerican. I can think of nothing more American!

 

There are those stating that we should all salute/honor the flag because it is what binds us together as a nation. I again disagree. What should bind us all as Americans is our freedom to protest, share our ideas freely, and disagree! I am shocked at how many patriotic Americans disagree with this.

[historically accurate]

If someone has to do a bunch of research to determine the end goals of a protest, it's not a particularly effective one at accomplishing those.  FWIW.

 

I don't think it's too uncommon for a protest to have little to do with the issue.

 

Gandhi went on hunger strikes; imo, that has little to do with new Indian constitutions and a caste system. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/gandhi-begins-fast-in-protest-of-caste-separation

 

Marching has very little to do with voting rights, but it was used in both the civil rights movement and the suffragette movement. 

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't agree. The point of protest is for people to see it and ask why. That is the effectiveness. One will work as hard as they want in order to learn more if desired. Then more will join the movement, and the voice becomes louder.

 

I still struggle with understanding how peaceful protest is unAmerican. I can think of nothing more American!

 

There are those stating that we should all salute/honor the flag because it is what binds us together as a nation. I again disagree. What should bind us all as Americans is our freedom to protest, share our ideas freely, and disagree! I am shocked at how many patriotic Americans disagree with this.

Well, I am not one of the ones who is saying this is unAmerican.

Actually, I support the aims of the protest, big time, as I have said repeatedly.

I just am of the opinion that this particular one is not effective, although I defend the right to do it.

So you seem to be doing a straw man thing in addressing your post to me.

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't think it's too uncommon for a protest to have little to do with the issue.

 

 

I agree, but the connection is usually explained better.  For instance, the connection with the Birmingham public transit strike was made clear.  So it was both legal and effective.

[Happy2BaMom]

nm. 

 

Edited September 26, 2017 by Happy2BaMom

[ktgrok]

If someone has to do a bunch of research to determine the end goals of a protest, it's not a particularly effective one at accomplishing those.  FWIW.

 

A bunch of reasearch? Or...read one single news article or interview with one of the protestors. Yeah, that would take up SO much energy and time. How about the people freaking out on twitter spend less time posting slurs and more time reading an article? 

 

By your logic, people who had sit ins to protest segregated restaurants shouldn't have done that, because hey, maybe they were protesting bad meat, or high prices, or the style of cuisine. How could anyone know what it was about? I mean, they would have to "research". 

[bibiche]

I think at this point people who are not getting it are not getting it on purpose. As Xuzi said, you really would have to be living under a rock to not understand what is behind the protests. Which leads me to ask, why is it that people don't want to confront this issue?

[ktgrok]

I agree, but the connection is usually explained better.  For instance, the connection with the Birmingham public transit strike was made clear.  So it was both legal and effective.

 

How, exactly was it made clear? Newspaper articles? News coverage? Interviews with protestors? Cause those things are happening right now with this one, people just can't be bothered to notice if it isn't in their Facebook feed. 

[Carol in Cal.]

A bunch of reasearch? Or...read one single news article or interview with one of the protestors. Yeah, that would take up SO much energy and time. How about the people freaking out on twitter spend less time posting slurs and more time reading an article? 

 

By your logic, people who had sit ins to protest segregated restaurants shouldn't have done that, because hey, maybe they were protesting bad meat, or high prices, or the style of cuisine. How could anyone know what it was about? I mean, they would have to "research". 

FWIW, I think the twitter stuff is absolutely disgusting.

 

And again, I support the rights of this protest to go forward.  

I just think that there are other things that would actually work better--that is what 'effective' means.

 

And you are entirely mistaken about my logic.  The sit ins were very clear in their message, inherently.

[Homebody2]

FWIW, I think the twitter stuff is absolutely disgusting.

 

And again, I support the rights of this protest to go forward.

I just think that there are other things that would actually work better--that is what 'effective' means.

 

And you are entirely mistaken about my logic. The sit ins were very clear in their message, inherently.

So I am truly asking, what would work better?

 

And a side note, I wasn't directing my post at you. I was using your post as a starting point to continue the conversation. When I stated "There are those stating" I was referring to people in society, not you.

[Carol in Cal.]

So I am truly asking, what would work better?

 

And a side note, I wasn't directing my post at you. I was using your post as a starting point to continue the conversation. When I stated "There are those stating" I was referring to people in society, not you.

Things that are explicitly related to what is being protested.  And things that build the society you want to see.  It is always most effective to build.  Hardest, but most effective.

 

There were a bunch of them mentioned upthread, in several places.  I can look them up later to link to, do not have time to do so right now.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Things that are explicitly related to what is being protested. And things that build the society you want to see. It is always most effective to build. Hardest, but most effective.

 

There were a bunch of them mentioned upthread, in several places. I can look them up later to link to, do not have time to do so right now.

If you're black and live in Missouri, and the NAACP puts out a travel advisory for black people to avoid Missouri, how do you build others' perspective, actions, and political cover to keep yourself safe?

 

If you're the worm in the dust, what can you do but protest the heel of the boot that is grinding you further down? Knowing that the response will merely be that the worms are annoyingly loud! (Reference: Charles Dickens)

[Pawz4me]

I agree, but the connection is usually explained better.  For instance, the connection with the Birmingham public transit strike was made clear.  So it was both legal and effective.

 

I think the people actually doing the protesting have been crystal clear. Unfortunately, the waters have been muddied by various other actors trying to re-frame the issue in order to benefit their own agendas.

[sassenach]

I only read about half of this thread, and I have no desire to vilify anyone, but this is how I feel.

 

In my mind: 

 

*The national anthem represents all of those who have served.

*Standing for it is an act of solidarity and respect to service men and women.

*It has zero to do with politics.

*Taking a knee is a well-intentioned, but wrong way to protest. To me, it's like egging your doctor's car because you're frustrated with our healthcare system. It's going after the wrong people.

*I don't think any of the people taking a knee intend for it to be disrespectful to the armed forces. Intent vs. Impact. Even if they don't intend the disrespect, that is the impact it is having on many.

*I prefer taking a knee to sitting on your butt.

*Colin Kaepernick was overrated. Always. He's not an employed quarterback for 2 reasons- First, he was never consistently that good. Second, he made himself controversial. You can stay in football (sometimes) if one of those factors applies, but definitely not if both do. 

 

I don't need anyone to agree with me. 

 

 

[Matryoshka]

Thought this was very well said.

 

 

[Ravin]

There are methods if the rules of the system are inherently, reinforcingly racist. That's where there needs to be a hammer slam on departments that are brushing these incidents under the rug or circumventing due process. But when there is nothing tangible or even unspoken that is generating the action? You can't do anything on a meta scale. It's all individual choice from there.

 

And you must be very careful about stamping out expressions or thoughts that might be problematic, as our founders knew well.

 

If we were dealing with a caste system, segregation, or other tangible institutions that reinforce racism? There could be broader action. In isolated instances there still can be, where a policy or person can be changed or held to account for their crookedness. But that's not the issue at hand. It is ALL individuals mamas and their babies. On both sides. And the hearts of men with conceive evil and act cruelly even with the best breeding because sin is endemic to the human condition. However working against it on the smallest level of society is exactly how we change it, long term, all the way up to the macro level. There is no other way that affects true change. It can't be imposed from the top and it. Ant be bludgeoned into someone else who already agrees but who doesn't have the power to change anything outside their own mind and home.

 

This is numbing people and annoying them, not fixing problems. It is actually crossing the line and doing harm as the audience is shrinking. It's not effective, even if it makes them feel big and important and crusading.

 

You should consider reading up on unconscious biases. There ARE things people can do to become more aware of their own biases and start building accountability systems. Prosecutors, law enforcement, judges, and defense attorneys can all work to make systemic change happen. It's not true that it's all just "individual choice" in the sense that systems can be built to hold individuals accountable for how they use their individual discretion. 

 

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/abanews/aba-ldf_statement.pdf

[Murphy101]

We are NOT a nation standing in solidarity.

 

So taking a knee during the anthem is about as honest a non violent expression of that fact as a guy can get.

[Guest]

You should consider reading up on unconscious biases. There ARE things people can do to become more aware of their own biases and start building accountability systems. Prosecutors, law enforcement, judges, and defense attorneys can all work to make systemic change happen. It's not true that it's all just "individual choice" in the sense that systems can be built to hold individuals accountable for how they use their individual discretion.

 

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/abanews/aba-ldf_statement.pdf

I'm well versed on the topic. I'm also not a prosecutor, law enforcement officer, or even a county clerk. Hence my statements and qualifiers.

 

Outside of votes on these matters, change comes for the bottom up for people like moi.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[Xuzi]

Where did the idea that the *national* anthem was only to honor our military? We need a new anthem, if that's the case.

 

America seems to have this borderline cult mindset about our military. We must always honor them, thank them, never criticize the things they're doing, or point out that some of it isn't actually defending America's freedom (Iraq?!) unless you want to deal with serious social repercussions. Military is sacred. Military First.

[Tanaqui]

You know, I'm really concerned with the number of people who seem to think that patriotic gestures - like showing a flag or standing for the anthem or pledge - specifically are to show solidarity with the armed forces. Can't we be patriotic without being militaristic?

[bibiche]

Thought this was very well said.

 

https://youtu.be/BNJUsE7pEs4

Thanks for that, Matryoshka. Very well said indeed. (I'm out of likes.)