RIP Stick to Sports
Alright, whelp, here we go.
“Stick to Sports” is dead. Whatever semblance of existence we could pretend it still had died this past weekend when Trump said a dumb thing and the sports world was more or less put in a position where a large response was inevitable. If you don’t want politics in your sports, it’s too late. It’s dead. Too bad. Welcome to 2017. Politics was already in your sports anyway. Just because it’s a bit more overt now doesn’t mean it wasn’t there before.
I’ll start by saying I understand where the “Stick to Sports” mentality comes from. Football and the rest of sports are entertainment. They are distraction. They take us away from our lives for a little while so we don’t have to think about stuff. I don’t always want to think about racial inequality, sometimes I just want to see sick touchdowns. The real world and its very real problems are depressing and complicated. The thing is, #sticktosports and the people who say that (not always in that specific way) are not really using it in this way.
In my experience over the years as a sports commentator, both from my own interactions and after talking with my peers (fellow writers and such), it’s very clear that nobody who has ever said something like “stick to sports” to me has said it because they actually just want to read about sports. It’s because they don’t agree with whatever opinion I’ve expressed. Nobody who has ever agreed with me has told me to stay in my lane. It is always people who have a different opinion, to the point where I am absolutely certain that if I instead shared their opinion I’d see the exact same situation play out, just with the people telling me to shut up reversed. For just that reason, Stick to Sports is, and always has been, bullshit. It’s a convenient excuse to try and shame someone you don’t agree with into stopping saying things you don’t like.
The other reason #sticktosports is and always has been bullshit is because sports do not exist in a vacuum. While the majority of my work here is puns, dumb jokes, or whatever, I’ve made a lot of comics that are very much politics. It confuses the hell out of me when someone gets mad and tells me off because I come down on a specific side. Have these people actually read the site at all? I’ve never been particularly shy about making comics and sharing opinions about politics related to the sport. There is no divorcing football from politics.
The Redskins name debate? That’s politics!
Everything with Michael Sam? That’s politics!
Everything with Kaep? Politics! Tebow? Politics!
My comics about Cam being called a thug or how he is viewed because he wears a towel? Politics!
Incognito and bullying! Politics!
Michael Vick! Politics!
Every time I’ve criticized the media or types of fans! You better believe that’s politics!
Almost every comic I’ve ever made criticizing the NFL and their bullshit. That’s politics!
There is plenty of stuff I’ve never touched on that is politics too! Every time the NFL “honors the troops” with flybys and camo gear and veterans on the sidelines? That’s politicizing!
I could link more but you get the point. It’s all politics! The politics were coming from inside the comic all along!
Every joke that could possibly offend someone is politics! I could make the entire comic 100% terrible puns and it would still have bits of politics. My opinions and politics are smeared all over this site and always have been. Even elite money jokes are kind of politics, because it’s commentary on the absurd nature of sports contracts, which is business, which is labor, which is politics. Are some comics/blogs more overt than others? Sure. But nothing is devoid of politics.
No, this does not mean all I will make now are inflammatory bait comics specifically designed to make people mad. The site has always been me making jokes that I personally find funny or comics that I personally feel strongly about. I learned early on I could never hope to please everyone and it would be a waste of time to try. So if you generally liked the humor before this comic, it’ll be the same. Same ratio of dumb jokes, bad puns, satire, and the dreaded thing known as opinions.
If you are wondering if I’ll say something about the protests, I likely will. I haven’t yet mostly because it’s a big heavy subject that doesn’t lend itself well to jokes that aren’t just incredibly mean spirited and problematic, and while the comic above may look differently, I’m generally not that mean. More fatalistic, really. I don’t matter, neither do you, we shall all be dust.
In case you are wondering my opinions on the protests, though, I side with the people who are kneeling and I am sad that so many people are focused on the way the protest is being carried out rather then the why of the protest. It seems like so many people have focused on why kneeling during the anthem is bad as a way to avoid talking about the reason the players are kneeling. This is about systematic racial inequality, not how to properly address the flag. The flag is an easy surface argument. The racial inequality issue is a lot heavier, a lot more complex, and has no easy answers. But that’s the conversation we need to be having, not how to protest “properly”, which completely misses the entire fucking point of a protest. If you feel that the players not standing are disrespecting the flag and the anthem, ask yourself why they are willing to do so, and maybe try to meet them halfway and at least listen to their arguments, so that you are at least having the correct conversation. I really respect this protest because it is peaceful, and it has gotten at least some people talking about the right thing, which is an issue that absolutely requires attention.
I also believe the NFL’s mega protest this weekend was a bunch of PR bullshit that was vague and uncommitted to any real ideal, only done because a reaction to Trump’s comments were necessary in some form. It was the “No More” of protests. The NFL looked like it cared, but it didn’t. Jerry fucking Jones took a knee for “unity” and mugged for the camera. if that doesn’t scream “this is a huge joke”, what does? Looking nice and not actually addressing the issue at hand is totally NFL comfort zone, baby.
I’m going to preemptively lock the comments on this one, for obvious reasons, but also because I am going to be camping all weekend and thus will not be able to moderate. In case you weren’t aware, I have the comment system set up so that I have to approve a comment from someone first, before they can post whenever. It’s a screen test to make sure someone isn’t spam. Once you prove you aren’t a bot, you can post comments however you like everywhere. Since I won’t be able to moderate anything, all those comments from new commenters (of which I assume there will be lots) will sit unapproved, which is likely to be misinterpreted as me “shutting down opposing views” or something. I’ll likely re-open the comments on Monday when everybody has cooled off a bit and I can approve things again. And when I do, I implore that you try and stay reasonable with whoever you are arguing with so that things don’t get really toxic again.
Enjoy week 4, and remember some things are bigger than sports, and it’s okay to have it talked about.
Edit:
I want to keep them closed but I have faith you can be civil. Comments are open. Keep it civil, or I’ll just close it again and delete everything. If you just want to come in and be rude and say hurtful things, I’ll delete the comment because you were never here to be civil.
Well, if anyone here is going to begin, let us at least remember what #takeaknee is supposed to be about. It’s a protest to bring light to the institutionalized injustice faced by people of color. This is NOT a protest against: The Flag, The Anthem, America, The military, First Responders, etc, etc. Anyone trying to peddle that is trying to lure you into a discussion that completely avoids the conversation they wish to not have.
Except, it is *also* about disrespecting the flag– that is the vehicle by which they are attempting to bring light to their issues. Of course, anyone already unaware of the nature of their grievance already lived under a rock: Black Lives Matter, and other political movements of its kind, have been dominating the internet and news cycles for several years now.
Their end goal may not be, “Let’s disrespect the flag, because screw America.” But to say that it’s not about disrespecting the flag needs to take a reality pill: it is also about that. That’s how they are choosing to make their statement, and methodology *matters*. Suggesting that it doesn’t is disingenuous.
As for “STICK TO SPORTS”… it’s not dead, and it shouldn’t be. I don’t care if an athlete wants to use their fame and fortune as a lever to profess their ideologies, religion, or political viewpoints. They are every bit entitled to leverage their fame to pursue what they see to be a greater good. The same, to a degree, goes with journalists, reporters, and others with similar influence: it would be a moral wrong, in many ways, NOT to utilize that position if you see a moral wrong enacted, or especially if you see a moral wrong encouraged.
But I will also suggest that, just as some things (many things– perhaps even most things) are more important than sports, sports are also an understatedly vital part of our society. Not for the sport itself, but because, well… your statement, “It’s all politics!” is perhaps too true, and it is unhealthy. We need areas in our lives that aren’t political in and of themselves. Yes, the NFL is surrounded by political issues, especially in a modern time that is hyper-sensitive politically, and wherein politics inserts itself to a degree unknown in most of our history. Politics matters, and political issues matter, but let’s also remember that not everything should be political. Indeed, it’s necessary and healthy for some things to NOT be political.
Part of the NFL’s importance in America now– and Baseball’s importance in decades past– is that it’s something that transcends politics. In an era where, increasingly, a differing political viewpoint doesn’t just mean we disagree, but that our opponent is an amoral, vicious evil whose viewpoints and perspective cannot be tolerated, and where those who disagree aren’t simply wrong about the issue but *wrong as people*; in an era where political isolation is growing, as people find comfort in challengeless echo-chambers, wherein they exist less to foster meaningful growth than to be told by all who agree with them just how right they are; in an era where political debate is a series of misleading statistics, gotchaisms, and 30-second talking points… we need something that we can gather around the water cooler, or at the bus stop, or at the lunch table, and talk about with politics blessedly absent.
Politics is part of the NFL; it involves the public trust, and it, like all things that involve money, touches on a great many other social issues. And we have 7 months of the year, and 3 days of the week throughout the year to touch on those issues. Players can make their comments, and anything truly noteworthy, new, or inspiring *WILL* make it to press– for good or for ill, we’re in a 24-hour news cycle that makes that happen. But what we really do need is a break from that. Monday, after the Sunday games, and Tuesday, after the Monday Night game, have been providing us that escape from politics for years. The politics, wherever else it was, was not in those 3 hour blocs where we watched our teams play.
As for the protests themselves… my opinion on this is long, it is nuanced, it is angry at both sides of the issue for very different reasons (and I’m angry at the notion that it’s “both sides” and not “all sides”). If anyone really wants it, I’ll work it out, though it’s likely to feel like it rambles a bit.
I agree completely with Averien.
Go on as much as you wish, I just want to say you’ve always presented your side of the argument reasonably through the years and I really appreciate that. You’re one of my favorite commenters here.
Like I said, I understand where the desire to stick to sports comes from. It is absolutely nice to have something like football to talk about with other people. My point and this comic was never really that, it was more specifically against the people who use the phrase as a sort of weapon to belittle people who don’t agree (but would totally be fine with it if they did agree). This is ultimately one of my “fan hypocrisy” comics more than anything.
Here goes, it’s long:
Let me preface a lot of this by stating I’m not going to cite every source. My background in education is in history, and while there is a degree of race relations and city planning in that, such studies are largely limited to my local area (the Pacific Northwest). More broadly, I also studied the Civil War in great detail– less the battles, and more the politics and economics that occurred before, during, and immediately afterward, again with a fairly strong focus on race relations. Over the last 8~ years since I’ve (for now) finished formal education, I’ve spent a *LOT* of time both professionally and as a hobby examining successful cultural and political movements of the 20th century, both in America and abroad. I have my ideals and beliefs, but above all, I am a pragmatist and am interested in efficiency. I approach politics with the eye of someone who sees cultural movements take decades, if not generations or centuries, to truly coalesce– and my primary focus (the influence and impact of technology, and how it has driven social change from the 1200s through the modern day), can answer many of these questions of “how” fairly well– and that will come in later. For now, I want to say: this is something that I study professionally, that I studied to some degree formally, and that I do not take lightly or flippantly. As in all things political, I will ask everyone who reads this to do two things: First, if you are offended by anything I write, make absolutely certain you understand what I am saying– and if there are two ways to interpret it, assume (at the start), that I intend the one that means no offense. I will attempt to do the same. Second, assume that I am not your enemy. I’m not. I might be the enemy of a piece of your ideology or belief system, but it is with the goal of elevating others that the most happiness and peace may be found by the most people.
Preamble out of the way…
I will begin the political aspect by saying that, whether you agree that kneeling players should be fired or not, it is an egregious use of the Presidential platform to call for any kind of consequences for utilizing free speech. It would be one thing if, say, Marc Rubio were to make that declaration (not that he has, nor do I think he ever would)– he’s a private business person, and not an elected official. But the President making such a statement is wholly unacceptable. No President should *EVER* encourage negative consequences for the utilization of any speech, and most especially not for political speech. *EVER*. It h as no place in America, period. It doesn’t matter if you agree with him (and, on this instance, I’m close to agreement in sentiment if not in absolute detail), or not. His job is to safeguard free speech, even free speech he hates, not to persecute it. It’s the #1 right that he is supposed to protect.
I am also angry that an issue that was (mostly) dying down has now been not only re-politicized, but polarized. Everything that President Trump touches– love him or hate him, there’s almost no one in the middle, and if he takes one side of any issue, you can bet that a ton of people will instinctively either take his side or instinctively oppose him. He makes everything political, by virtue of being himself and the President. It didn’t need addressed by the President, and the fact that it’s primary influence has been to sour the NFL leaves me bitter.
As for the kneeling itself… I don’t think there’s any way to talk about it without discussing Black Lives Matter, and with it very broadly the modern social justice movement.
First, areas that I think are legitimate: there noticeably higher incarceration rates for blacks than anyone else, and higher incarceration rates for Hispanics than whites. This bears true not only as a percentage of the population (a statistic I will get to in a bit), and not only in terms of arrests (again– will get to in a bit), but in terms of conviction before a jury. I do *NOT* believe that any of this is a legal problem, however. Along with this, I very, very firmly believe that our prison system needs readjusted. There should be no hint whatsoever at profit motive with our correctional facilities. The twin goals of our prisons should be rehabilitation (when such is possible), and protection of society by removing dangerous elements from it, either temporarily or permanently. Rape, torture, murder, treason, and some kidnapping (I do not necessarily include a parent who kidnaps their own child in this, but most other forms), are pretty much the only crimes that I see as “Go to Jail, go directly to Jail, and we’ll throw away the key” levels of crime. Perhaps some degree of violent burglary, particularly recidivist. But in most other cases? Our goal should be rehabilitation– and even in lock-’em-up situations, the goal should not be to make their lives as awful as possible, but to rehabilitate them, even if the nature of their crimes demands their permanent incarceration. Compassion is always– always– a better weapon against evil than anger or hate.
But now we get into some of the higher rates of arrests, and higher rates of interaction with police officers generally. Often, this has been played as a racial thing; I do not believe that it is. I believe it’s a matter of two things that interact in such a way that will inevitably have the correlation of people of color interacting with the police more frequently, but is not motivated in any way, shape, or form by racism (today, at least– there are historic racist roots that I’ll get to in a moment). A lot of the issue here is our inadequate capacity to police. In urban areas, with high industrial revenue for the city, and with rich neighborhoods, and high tourism– essentially, a ton of cash flow– and a high population density, police forces make up a relatively substantial portion of the population, and their area of patrol is geographically rather small. Even if the ratio of officer-to-citizen is lower in some cities than in some rural areas, the reality is those officers in the city are better able to patrol their assigned areas simply because of geographic limits. And, generally, crime (particularly non-domestic violent crime) happens more often in areas of poverty; as such, police tend to be there more. These officers still have their non-quota quotas for citations, and are still going to issue them when they aren’t responding to a call. Due to a vast number of issues– some of which involve past systemic racism (not just in the south), and some of which stem from economic and cultural issues (white flight in the 1960s, for example, which was *mostly* not racially motivated), our urban poor tend to be people of color. There are a lot of forces of cultural inertia that have conspired to prevent upward mobility (it is my contention that most of these forces are internal, rather than external, but that the *cause* of those inertial forces are entirely rational given the systemically repressive historic experiences that led to their current display).
When you contrast this with the vast majority of white poverty, it’s in rural areas that are *dramatically* harder to police. I live in rural Washington; we have a city of about 5,000 people, and have two full time police officers, and we make relatively large use of the county sheriff. We have a LARGE drug problem (meth, not pot, though, y’know, it IS Washington…). Most of it goes unchecked; we simply don’t have the manpower to effectively patrol the areas that need patrolled, in part because the city doesn’t have the ability to raise enough money to hire more police officers. As such, there are any number of people who, if they were scrutinized as heavily as people of color are in cities– because of larger police forces and smaller geographic footprints– they would in all likelihood be arrested and charged with much, much greater frequency. I do not contend that this is the ONLY reason, but based on arrest records compared to economic status from the 1940s in predominantly white, major cities and today, it at least appears to bear a very large degree of truth. Multigenerational poverty among whites has tended for centuries to be a rural thing– and I will note that it carries most of the same cultural inertial problems that afflict people of color in the cities, but for far less valid reasons.
*IF* one accepts the premise that poverty leads to increased crime (and while there are some who dispute the notion, it is rather evident through every major study on the issue; the direction of causality is sometimes disputed, but certainly not the correlationality), then it makes sense that there would be more police in an area of poverty. Of course, if there are more police, they will witness more crimes in progress, and so statistics will inflate things cyclically; how much this is an effect is exceptionally difficult to measure, simply because we have no real methodology of establishing a functional test group and removing literally-God-only-knows what variables. But let’s go with the premise. This means, unfortunately that many more people of color, relative to their percentage of the overall population, will be stopped by police. YES, this has many cultural and socioeconomic roots in America’s very racist *past*, but is not indicative of endemic racism *today*. It *DOES* lead, though, to what I think is the primary cause of higher conviction *rates* for people of color– namely, long-standing media portrayal in the news and entertainment of people of color being more likely to be criminals. It’s a “truth”, but it’s a truth that is deceptive– whites are just as likely to be criminals (I would argue poor whites are much more likely to be criminals than poor people of color); they’re just caught less because their crimes are less observable in rural areas. To date, I have heard no legal solutions to this problem that do not involve gross violations of civic rights for the vast majority of the population, black and white. It is something that could be solved by deliberate decisions by the majority of media, but I am skeptical it will be undertaken, because it would involve a vast paradigm shift from “If it bleeds, it leads” to “We have civic responsibility to promote peace and prosperity.”
Now, it is also true that our police force are *VERY* inadequately trained across the nation. They draw heavily from the military, but– speaking as a former Marine– our training is not in the protection of citizens, but in the killing (and hate) of bad guys. That’s not to say that I’m opposed to former military personnel becoming police officers; I think many of the same patriotic and protective instincts work well for each profession. But military members definitely need more rigorous training to better de-escalate, both for their own sake and for their interractions with other police officers– aggression feeds on and breeds aggression. Our police should be wary, they should absolutely protect themselves if there is ANY worry of their own safety or that of other citizens, but their impulse should be toward peace, not confrontation. In the *VAST*, and I do mean vast, overwhelming number of situations, that is exactly what happens.
But not in all situations. And while it is a truth that “Once is too often” from an ideological standpoint, pragmatically, “Once” is an acceptable fail-rate in a nation our size. The question really needs to be, “What is the acceptable fail-rate”, given that police officers are humans and, as are all humans, flawed? It’s true– we should expect higher success rates than other professions; the consequences are so dire elsewise. I, personally, believe that the rates of police brutality now are much, much too high. But here’s something to consider, for why I don’t believe it’s racially motivated, in spite blacks and Hispanics being victims much higher to their population percentage than whites: whites are killed and assaulted more frequently as a percentage of their interactions with the police. To me, this speaks not of systemic racism, but of systemically poor training or poor screening for dangerous personality traits in an officer. I want to be clear: THIS IS AN UNACCEPTABLE PROBLEM, AND IT NEEDS ADDRESSED AND FIXED.
But here’s the rub, and this is why I hate Kaepernick’s protest the most: by making it a racial issue, several things happen. Police officers feel attacked (and Kaepernick has attacked them), which means, like almost any group of people, they circle the wagons. If you proscribe a motive, instead of simply diagnose an action, you invite that kind of instinctive resistance. Maybe there is some degree of merit to it– I don’t know that my hypothesis can account for the entirety of discriminate interaction. But if racism becomes the ONLY motivator, then no, people will call you full of crap, because you are. When people came in with the “All lives matter” response to BLM, the response should have been, “Yes, this is an issue that affects us all,” not “You’re racist for saying that.” It created hostility from potential allies in the primary cause of ending police brutality.
Because here’s the thing when it comes to politics: optics *matters*. Perception *matters*. I write. I write a lot. I read a lot, and I study issues in as much depth as I possibly can; my perspective and viewpoints change as credible evidence demands, insofar as my capacity to recognize my own biases allows. Most people don’t do that– most people don’t have the time or inclination to do that. So, I get it: Black Lives Matters folks say that “This doesn’t mean that white lives don’t matter; we’re just pointing out our localized frustrations.” But the soundbite version doesn’t sound good. It *FEELS* exclusionary– and make no mistake, right, left, or center, politics is driven by emotion. Stalin and Hitler (SORRY FOR GODWINNING, BUT THIS ISN’T TO COMPARE ANYONE TO HITLER!), understood this, and utilized their propaganda *masterfully*– I mean, hate Hitler all you want, but learn from his fields of genius lest we suffer through similar manipulations later. Feelings, politically, matter more than facts.
And here, in the end, is the crux of it: Blacks Lives Matter fails the feeling test for many allies to the broadest causes, because it *feels* exclusionary. It has since failed because it has *felt* to most people (yes, most white people but they’re still the national majority), like it’s in opposition to *all* police officers, and the police are still pretty widely trusted and supported So, losing more allies– even though most of those allies would like to see the police they love better trained and better supported by their communities, which *should* be BLM’s goals. Essentially, they let their identity politics and ideology get in the way of pragmatism and expediency, and anything that furthers that trajectory is going to foster division and rancor instead of a positive, justice-seeking peace.
And here’s the other part of that truth bomb: people feel incredible pride in the American flag, and what it represents. MANY of them violate proper decorum of the flag daily, but here we must ascribe some degree of motivation: they think it is a display of pride and respect to wear the flag, or to put it on plates or cups or whatever. Personally, I correct such misconceptions where possible (I used to hand out copies of the flag code), but recognize that no disrespect is intended. That is very different from kneeling during the anthem, or worse– sitting or stretching. And when people see that, they *FEEL* like the flag is being attacked (and, in fairness, it was– that was the point, if not the motivation). And they will respond with hostility to that which attacks the flag.
This makes the movement dumb, whether you agree with my perspective on the issues behind the movement or not. If your goal is social progress and change, you *MUST* recognize the things that motivate middle America, and work toward it, whether you think they are a massive conglomerate of ignorant lackwits or not. Their experiences, their perspectives, their educations, and their feelings must be accounted for, every bit as much as those of the people whose lives you are attempting to better. You cannot win without them.
Allow me to present an alternative history: Kaepernick kneels during the anthem. When questioned about it, he responds instead thusly: “I felt compelled not to stand, but to kneel before the flag. Its message is overwhelming, and it is awe-inspiring. It is a call to freedom, and I am so incredibly blessed to have lived a life where I experienced and witnessed the very best that it has to offer. I won’t kneel to a President or to a king, but I needed to kneel before what the flag represents, and to bow before those who have fought to protect it. And the extremity of my good fortune, and of the good fortune of so many, demanded that I kneel, because there are some who cannot stand. We have a problem in our nation of people dealing with the remnants of our racist past– people who need the help of good, honest Americans to escape the traditions of poverty and fear of education that have crippled so many of us, black and white. We have issues in our cities where our police, overwhelmed and whose training has been insufficiently funded, too often find themselves reacting violently when, perhaps, violence is not always necessary– white, black, or Hispanic, no honest citizen should ever have to fear their police, but sadly, some do, feeding a cycle of mistrust and justified caution from the police and from a degree of our citizenry. We live in an amazing time, in a nation unparalleled in its force for goodness in the world. And that goodness, in our flag, in what it means, in what it represents, demanded not that I stand in respect, but that I kneel in respect, and that I honor not only all of its ideals– so often met and represented in this amazing nation and wonderful game– but in tribute to those unfortunate few who live in this great nation and are striving to realize the flag’s promise.”
Something like that– something calling for unity, not accusing fault; something praising the good of what the flag represents, instead of condemning the extraordinarily rare failures of the flag to live up to its promises; something that appealed to peoples pride of nation, and the desire to see that nation live up to its goals as a point of that pride… that would have gone *MILES* further to generate unity. A message like that– humble, respectful– still addresses every issue that Kaepernick intended, but does so without division.
And (I swear I’m almost done), that’s the key: appeal to the moderate. It’s not manipulation: it’s truth. But instead of proscribing misogyny, or racism, or homophobia, or xenophobia or whateverophobia, it focuses not on the motivations of those who are not seen as doing enough, but focuses on the issue at hand, seeks a solution to the problem, identifies a possible solution to the problem *without casting, intentionally or otherwise, aspersions on those who have not already identified or solved the problem*, and appeals to feels.
The very tl;dr: the kneeling is dumb, because *even if you agree with the message* (and in some ways, I very much do not), the methodology is divisive– whether it should be or not, it is. And it was known ahead of time that it would be. It is an extremely ineffective means to what could have been a very laudable end, because it fails to account for human nature or the successful methodology of politics.
I can appreciate why some people might be upset over the kneeling, but the gesture is not intended to offend. It’s actually the opposite.
http://www.snopes.com/veteran-kaepernick-take-a-knee-anthem/
I think you have many interesting legitimate points, especially about some parts of our culture serving as a binding force separate from the political realm. I do disagree, however, about the nature of the protests as also disrespectful to the flag. Of course, every NFL fan and their grandma knows that the protests started with Colin Kaepernick back last year during the preseason. I think it gets lost in the media coverage that he and teammate Eric Reed chose to kneel specifically because kneeling was more respectful than sitting during the anthem. “After hours of careful consideration, and even a visit from Nate Boyer, a retired Green Beret and former NFL player, we came to the conclusion that we should kneel, rather than sit, … during the anthem as a peaceful protest,” said Reid. “We chose to kneel because it’s a respectful gesture. I remember thinking our posture was like a flag flown at half-mast to mark a tragedy.” (Source: Wikipedia article on the U.S. national anthem protests, which quoted a New York Times opinion piece by Eric Reid)
I do also find it easy to understand how people would consider this form of protest offensive to veterans and disrespectful to the flag; I would argue though, that intention is as important as actions in such circumstances. One may feel disrespected by another’s actions, but if the other person’s intent is not to be disrespectful (especially when the intent was to raise awareness whilst remaining respectful), then why would one take personal offense?
Also, if you at all feel like expounding upon your opinion regarding the protests, I for one would like to hear it, especially since nuanced understandings of social situations are seemingly in short supply in this day and age.
I think the best argument was made by Nick Wright. Here’s the link:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/28/16378846/nfl-protests-trump-nick-wright
Becuase if Keap was protesting the treatment of our vets, the lack of quality medical care and jobs for them, and how PTSD forces alot of them to discharges, people probably wouldn’t be having such a fit. It’s now the how of the protest, but the why. And that should make people think.
I don’t disagree that framing of the issue is problematic… but it was bound to be. And for A Guy– it was the sitting at first that really drove it; the kneeling afterward could have been non-controversial if he had knelt in respect, instead of sitting in disrespect, from the start. It tainted everything that followed afterward, and it really painted Kapernick in a light of poor thought and emotional impulse. And as I said above, while I think many of the things he points out do have problematic truths– blacks *ARE* arrested more and *ARE* incarcerated more and *ARE* killed more relative to their population as a whole– I ascribe much more (currently) benevolent (though seated in historic malevolent) causes to the witnessed effect. I don’t oppose what he wants to see changed; I oppose his (and BLM’s) methodologies because they don’t work and they foster resentment and hostility.
I think (as I said) there’s a world where Kaepernick could have done essentially the same thing but presented his message in a more positive, hopeful, and humble light.
I feel like the protest has become diffrent. First it was for the police brutality to mainly black people. Now you add trumps comments into it now everyone has to do something from either kneeling or locking arms showing unity. Before trump a few players went out and protested, but now you have whole teams doing something.