OK, watched it. Honestly, this is just not all that big of an issue for me because as that woman said, everyone IS free to sit, stand, kneel, spit, etc., etc. and that is all a citizen is guaranteed (first, fifth and 14th Amendments) is the freedom of expression, not any restrictions on what may be perceived as proper behavior.
As far as it being effective, I honestly do not know about that either: non- violent protest has long been a valid way to state a person or group's displeasure with the status quo. It is perfectly legal to do so, beyond that, it is way above my pay grade to judge if it is the smartest thing young, angry black people can or even should do to try and alter things. ??
The real issue as I see it is that it is another source of conflict, emotional inflaming in general, and creates a problem for those trying to run otherwise profitable, peaceable and generally well- liked business such as the NFL, the team owners, stadiums, vendors, that millions of paying fans clearly want. None of this is a legal matter and certainly not a constitutional matter though. But on a practical level, perhaps a compromise by the teams wherein those who may not want to stand for the anthem stay inside, out of public sight, until the anthem and maybe opening ceremonies are finished and then present themselves, respectfully, on the field. That would allow those who do not care to support the anthem to avoid it, make a perfectly obvious statement, but not outright stir up additional anger and 'blowback' far beyond whatever positive they might be trying to achieve.
So kinda' yeah, I do agree with the message other than the specific direction to conform and 'blend in'. But the overall message that those lashing out are creating more problems than they are solving I do agree with.... but as I said, it is not my 'job' or anyone else's IMO, to tell anyone or any group what they can / cannot, should / should not do beyond a suggestion (which that video was- it was NOT a directive, rule or anything else, and it was pretty well presented I think).
By the way, I personally do not like that behavior but 1) it does not make me angry and 2) it is not only legal but protected behavior so there is no question in my mind whether or not 'something should be done to stop it' (I mean in any official, rule- driven way) because THAT would be unconstitutional. Of course if fans do not like it and withhold their football dollars, why that too is perfectly fine, sends a strong message I think, and is not only a very American way to do something, it is a very capitalist way too.
Brian
something I found interesting about this whilst reading around is that Baseball Players are (from what I saw) contractually obliged to stand for the US National Anthem.
So...as long as we're playing Identity Politics what would be the most protected class. I would venture an African-Mexican-America transgender Muslim lesbian? Anybody else know of a better one?
I agree with you about the job aspect but again, that is the P.C. kicking in in this country to the point where everyone is terrified to do ANYTHING that can be perceived, in the slightest and most convoluted way, of picking or disparaging any of the 'protected' groups. And right now, the black community is the most protected group as far as I can tell.
The team owners could alter this behavior but only if they do it extremely carefully and in unison, as a group. If one team owner does it, he / she / then will be tarred and feathered for being racist.
A very poor state of affairs IMO. The P.C. wind blows so strong one cannot even tell the truth if it is not in agreement with the 'correct' thinking.
Brian
How can anyone not agree with this?
A very poor state of affairs IMO. The P.C. wind blows so strong one cannot even tell the truth if it is not in agreement with the 'correct' thinking.
But on a practical level, perhaps a compromise by the teams wherein those who may not want to stand for the anthem stay inside, out of public sight, until the anthem and maybe opening ceremonies are finished and then present themselves, respectfully, on the field.
As Rhino said, the employer should have the right to establish a conduct code that employees would be required to follow so as not to be detrimental to the business. The NFL is not the employer, the owners are. The NFL was used by the owners to avoid being the target and avoid having to make hard business decisions.
Look around at all the garbage and the ground- noise generated when a cake making company chooses not to make a cake for a particular couple
If people are really opposed to how the NFL and all involved are conducting business they should stop funding them.
I have said that for years. It is the Libertarian-approved response- speak with your wallet. Consumers have much more power than they think. Typically, businesses WILL respond to customer demand, if they value staying in business. It doesn't always work (especially if there are monopolies involved)... and there are some cases where regulation is needed. But it seems most people just want the government to step in and force businesses and people to act and operate the way they want in just about every matter.
It is tricky I tells' ya'.
Indeed it is. Shades of gray.
Hmmm...well I agree with much (most)of what she says...however....not standing...especially taking a knee is not what I would consider disrespect. True it isn't honoring the flag or the anthem but I don't consider it disrespect. Many of these athletes have been taking a knee whenever a player (of any color, from either team) is injured since they were in peewee football. Perhaps they are just showing that they think the country is still injured despite the MLK inspired improvements and having elected a black (Ok, 50%) president. I think taking a knee is more respectful than sitting on the bench or holding a fist in the air but that's just me. Most kneeling are black, but not all, yet I'll bet if interviewed in depth they would have many different explanations for what they are doing. Getting back to the video in question...she mentions that 1. "Despite what we are told by Black Lives Matter and their media allies, the police are not engaged in a coordinated campaign to destroy the black race." I have never heard anyone say that there is a coordinated campaign to destroy the black race. I'm not saying it's never been uttered somewhere, but I certainly can't find it on the Black Lives Matter website and I've never heard it in the news (but then I don't watch Fox, however I doubt she was referring to them as the media allies). She also says that Roland G. Fryer says that it isn't true that there is racial bias in police shootings (True). However he does say that "On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police." Which by itself doesn't examine whether or not black and Hispanics might be more likely to do something to trigger such a response. (I didn't read the whole paper, perhaps it does account for this). 2. She says that it makes no sense to denigrate the flag because of some racist police officers. I agree on that, but is simply taking a knee during the National Anthem denigration?. Standing up with fist raised and middle finger extended..yes, turning around with bare butt cheeks facing the flag..yes, taking a knee...I don't think so. Is it self defeating?...maybe...but then here we are typing about it. Discussing it. Whether or not it was caused by football players or by Black Lives matter, more and more police departments are now going with body cameras. I think that it is better for us (most of us) and better for the police officers (vast majority of them anyway). I believe there was a racial/racist problem with the Ferguson police department, however I also think that the jury was correct not to indict officer Darren Wilson. The only video I saw was of Brown acting like a thug in the store. I wish there had been a video of what happened between Brown and Wilson.
Far more interesting to me than if football players stand or kneel, would be if four different groups of typical citizens say 2 separate black groups and 2 separate white groups where to watch two videos of the exact same altercation (enacted with a script obviously) between a police officer and a black person that results in the shooting (theatrical, again obviously) of the black person. In one the officer would be white and the other the officer would be black. (Each of the four groups would only see one video) I'd like to hear the discussion that would follow that. I think the only way we make any progress in this area is through discussion and interaction, not by subject avoidance and not by searching for folks "that think just like me".
Somewhat related, the NFL....some say they won't watch the NFL anymore because of kneeling football players, maybe so..but I heard a lot of that kind of talk over the years about different subjects, players strikes, end zone celebrations, huge $$ contracts etc. The NFL has survived that all just fine, yes viewership and attendance is down and perhaps some is due to the kneeling, but I suspect that if the NFL ever suffers total demise, it will be from head injuries and litigation costs associated with same. Not from lack of fans due to kneeling athletes....but I'm frequently wrong.
Regardless, Thanks Conrad for the video.
50 Shades of Grey,
50 States of USA
it even rhymes