Eagles not going to whitehouse

[CamMo]

21 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Boom!    THIS!!!!

 

OUM is the only poster to get this correctly.    No Philadelphia Eagles player took a knee for the anthem last year.    The White House assertion that this was in protest over the anthem issue is false.

 

 

It’s extremely unfortunate, I don’t think it matters to DT if the Eagles were kneeling, sitting, squatting, or standing in solidarity with a fist in the air. Any form of “protest” ie: not honoring the flag correctly in his eyes, (and to be fair the eyes of many who share his view) is unacceptable. I remember reading something about ‘honoring the flag with hand over heart.’ 

 

What a time to be alive. I’m 25 and I look at those pictures of Tommie Smith and John Carlos and think about how courageous and powerful their statement was at such a crazy time in history. Fists proudly in the air.

 

I think history will be kind to the NFL players and their cause.

 

 

[Cynjin]

8 hours ago, Shive said:

Malcolm Jenkins' response:

 

 

It is hard to meet with people that disagree with you and to have those difficult conversations, but those are exactly the people you should meet with.  Malcolm Jenkins should have taken the opportunity to meet with the president and try to have one of those conversations with him.  That is when some positive change may occur, but instead, he and others decided to miss the opportunity.

[Buck Showalter]

14 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Do you have anything meaningful to offer about how this stupid protest fits into the current political climate and why its a big issue?

My response was that I don't agree with the premise that this isn't a political play by the president. It all seems so very devisive.

[Cynjin]

1 minute ago, Buck Showalter said:

My response was that I don't agree with the premise that this isn't a political play by the president. It all seems so very devisive.

 

But the players disrespecting the anthem isn't.

[Coffeedrinker]

9 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

 

The narrative of what was ACTUALLY being protested was out there, yes.

 

But come on, you don't think that as soon as Trump tweeted that the players should be fired for disrespecting the flag and country and that the NFL is weak and has no leadership by employing these guys, that the message was lost and the perception changed? The second that tweet went out, MORE players protested and then it blew up. He was the catalyst, and then staging the Mike Pence walkout at the Colts game only furthered that narrative and now here we are.

Did it further it... Most definitely but that is different than saying he is the reason for people thinking the protests are disrespecting soldiers and the Country.

 

But the fact of the matter is people were fed up with the kneeling and the NFL's/TV handling of the issue long before Trump said anything.  And the TV ratings were dropping drastically before Trump said anything.  before Trump said anything all we heard on the pregame shows and sport radio/tv shows was how noble these guys are for kneeling and we may disagree with them but if we want them to stop then the problem is ours and it's probably because we are racists.  All Trump's comments did was to voice what many were thinking and feeling and showing us that others felt that way.  And I, personally, thought it was disrespecting soldiers long before Trump said anything.  I also thought it was disrespecting the country but that is kind of the idea behind protesting the country.  IMO there are some things that should be off limits (not against the law because I don't believe in legislating morality).  And the symbol of freedom is one of the things I think should be off limits and the flag and national anthem are symbols of that freedom.  To me, it's as bad as if someone caged a bald eagle to symbolize Govermental tyranny.  That would not be tolerated.  Nor do I mind protests, I protested a lot during Obama's attempt to drive this country into the ground so he could pave the way towards a global government, but I protested the powers that be, not the symbols of the freedom that give me the right to protest.

 

Lastly, the thing I don't like about these specific protests is they are protesting the symbols of freedom for the actions of a few.  

[Buck Showalter]

1 minute ago, Cynjin said:

 

But the players disrespecting the anthem isn't.

No I think it has become divisive too. Their message seems to be lost on many who are not looking at what they are saying only that it is occurring during the anthem & in turn focusing on that...

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, Buck Showalter said:

My response was that I don't agree with the premise that this isn't a political play by the president. It all seems so very devisive.

Its political for sure.  But its merely consistent with the battle that's been ongoing since the republican primary and has been brewing for a couple of decades actually.  Its not like he got involved purely to garner support, it speaks to the heart of his stances.

 

I mean its the flag for cryin out loud.  Its political, and he didn't start it.  Iranians burn the flag to make a political statement too...for decades.

 

Did the players NOT understand they were stepping into a political battle when they decided to kneel?  Thats my whole point.  It was misplaced.  Trump didn't make it political.  The flag and anthem themselves are political and always will be.  A few players can't change that because they want attention drawn to their particular cause.

[Buck Showalter]

37 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Then why was the last thread on essentially the same topic shut down?  It was as respectful as this one is and was on topic.

Not 100% sure why it was shut down, but I think it was likely a result of the level of reports coming in from the thread, coupled with the fact that some posters began calling out other posters specifically by name.

[Cynjin]

3 minutes ago, Buck Showalter said:

No I think it has become divisive too. Their message seems to be lost on many who are not looking at what they are saying only that it is occurring during the anthem & in turn focusing on that...

 

It hasn't become divisive, it was divisive from the start.  It was the divisive nature of the protests that caused the message to get lost and that is a shame because it is important. 

[pgt_rob]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Its political for sure.  But its merely consistent with the battle that's been ongoing since the republican primary and has been brewing for a couple of decades actually.  Its not like he got involved purely to garner support, it speaks to the heart of his stances.

 

I mean its the flag for cryin out loud.  Its political, and he didn't start it.  Iranians burn the flag to make a political statement too...for decades.

 

Did the players NOT understand they were stepping into a political battle when they decided to kneel?  Thats my whole point.  It was misplaced.  Trump didn't make it political.  The flag and anthem themselves are political and always will be.  A few players can't change that because they want attention drawn to their particular cause.

 

Exactly. Kaepernick turned it political when he said, "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses Black people and people of color." A lot of hard working men, women, and military members took that to heart and were offended. 

[Myles]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

Did the players NOT understand they were stepping into a political battle when they decided to kneel?

I took notice of it being disrespectful when they did it during the Veterans Day celebration.  Vets from several generations were present.  They tend to honor the flag and anthem more than most.   Heck, they had friends and family return in boxes covered with the flag.   Kaep and crew should have skipped that day.   It would have been the right thing to do.  

[pgt_rob]

3 minutes ago, Myles said:

I took notice of it being disrespectful when they did it during the Veterans Day celebration.  Vets from several generations were present.  They tend to honor the flag and anthem more than most.   Heck, they had friends and family return in boxes covered with the flag.   Kaep and crew should have skipped that day.   It would have been the right thing to do.  

 

Nah, most of those protesters have no moral value. They wear vaginas on their heads, walk the streets holding signs that say explicit language and crude drawings with children present. 

[Buck Showalter]

6 minutes ago, pgt_rob said:

 

Nah, most of those protesters have no moral value. 

Im not sure, but, after hearing Chris Long discuss his reasoning behind politely declining his White House invite, I think moral character may have also played a role in his decision.

[DougDew]

33 minutes ago, pgt_rob said:

 

Exactly. Kaepernick turned it political when he said, "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses Black people and people of color." A lot of hard working men, women, and military members took that to heart and were offended. 

Well. The thread has gone back to looking like a typical anthem protest thread. 

 

 But yeah, his original protest didn't make any sense and instead of the defenders of social justice not pointing it out and calmly move that discussion to an appropriate venue, they joined him instead. Its more than being offensive to groups of people, its simply incorrect.  Incorrectness impacts everyone.

 

I mean, yeah, a lot of individuals oppress black people and people of color, but the COUNTRY doesn't do that.  Our legal entity has laws that prohibit that, and slavery itself started to become illegal in "this country" as early as 1794.  When they refer to salves being 3/4ths of a man, you know, that statement becomes legally moot when slavery becomes illegal. 

 

Oppression started to become legally moot in 1794, so Kaep's 2018 statement is simply wrong. 

 

What I find offensive is that a person who supposedly matriculated a University that receives taxpayer support could be so wrong about an 8th grade civics issue.

 

(BTW, that phrase "slaves are 3/4ths of a man in terms of rights" isn't even racial.  Slavery is economic ownership that could apply to anybody.  It wasn't invented as a ploy to keep black people down.  Slavery has no color, and the Constitution didn't define slaves as Africans, so equating that statement about slavery being 3/4ths of a man meaning that the Founding Fathers wanted black people to be defined as 3/4ths of a man is probably just public school propaganda)

 

[pgt_rob]

8 minutes ago, Buck Showalter said:

Im not sure, but, after hearing Chris Long discuss his reasoning behind politely declining his White House invite, I think moral character may have also played a role in his decision.

 

I said most. Not all.  

[dynasty13]

8 minutes ago, pgt_rob said:

 

Nah, most of those protesters have no moral value. They wear vaginas on their heads, walk the streets holding signs that say explicit language and crude drawings with children present. 

 

No moral value? See, this is where the conversation heads south. 

 

Peaceful marches and protests by women with signs that contain language no more vile than that used by the man being protested against to stand up for something they believe it is not the sign of a lack of morality and integrity. 

 

But regardless, and as Buck mentioned above, I am fairly certain that moral character is EXACTLY what the refusal of going to the White House was based on.

[Nadine]

1 hour ago, Cynjin said:

 

 

5. No political or religious discussions.

 

Taken directly from the "rules".

 

I find it interesting how some threads like this are allowed to continue and others are shut down rather quickly.

It is true that our rules prohibit political discussion.  It is also true that from time to time there is a legitimate reason to discuss politics, specifically when politics and the NFL collide.

 

When this is the case, we do leave room for discussion. Usually these are only open for a day or two.

 

By quoting two moderators, I take it you feel that the moderators should not be allowed to post to the thread?

[Nadine]

1 hour ago, pgt_rob said:

 

As long as you're bashing Trump in some way or another, it's cool by the rules I think. 

You don't see both sides stating their opinion?

[crazycolt1]

I have stayed out of this but have been following it close.

My whole life I believed no matter what your personal issues are you stand tall and respect the country. The flag represents this country and it's colors represent what this country was founded on. Men and women have been giving their lives for what the flag represents going all the way back to the Revolution.

After I was drafted and went overseas it was the US Flag that made everyone I was with keep in mind why we were there. When one of us died for this country the flag was put on their box. The flag was then folded and given to the family of those who died.

IMO if any US citizen can't show the respect that the flag represents then I have no use for them.

 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, CamMo said:

 

It’s extremely unfortunate, I don’t think it matters to DT if the Eagles were kneeling, sitting, squatting, or standing in solidarity with a fist in the air. Any form of “protest” ie: not honoring the flag correctly in his eyes, (and to be fair the eyes of many who share his view) is unacceptable. I remember reading something about ‘honoring the flag with hand over heart.’ 

 

What a time to be alive. I’m 25 and I look at those pictures of Tommie Smith and John Carlos and think about how courageous and powerful their statement was at such a crazy time in history. Fists proudly in the air.

 

I think history will be kind to the NFL players and their cause.

 

 

The problem with protests like this and that is that the people doing their "proud acts" together, as a sign of unity, automatically put those who don't do it on the side of being oppressors.  Despite what they say or intend.

 

The modern term is erecting a silo, a wall.

 

If you have a legal entity like a country, its logical to have some segregation from other countries in order to maintain common standards among those who are within your country.  If you're talking about a group viewing themselves as a group based on race or gender, uniting together on that basis, is at least segregationist, and probably inherently racist or sexist.

 

Its probably one of the most arrogant and offensive gestures in American history actually.  Much more offensive than the american flag and anthem, which does not discuss race or gender and therefore does not unify people on that basis.

 

Its really becoming disappointing to see what is being taught.  How people are sort of being molded to see themselves in terms of race when so much supposed progress was being made in the 70's, 80's, and 90's rejecting that identity.

 

Edit:  I'm walking this comment back a bit.  I don't know the context of the gesture that was performed in the 60's, on a personal level since I was too young.  My thoughts were that if I saw a group of people today choosing to segregate and identify themselves in terms of race, and giving power to themselves on that basis, or on the basis of gender, I would consider it to be totally against how we have been educated since the 60's.

 

[Reality Check]

2 hours ago, Buck Showalter said:

Right because there is no other reason why someone wouldn't want to associate with, or have their picture taken with the President.

There are plenty of reasons why people choose not to go to these things.

 

I was just aligning the Eagles' players reasons to those of Tim Thomas ... as both are recent cases where the player(s) cited "political differences" as their reason for choosing not to go.

[Cynjin]

30 minutes ago, Nadine said:

It is true that our rules prohibit political discussion.  It is also true that from time to time there is a legitimate reason to discuss politics, specifically when politics and the NFL collide.

 

When this is the case, we do leave room for discussion. Usually these are only open for a day or two.

 

By quoting two moderators, I take it you feel that the moderators should not be allowed to post to the thread?

 

No, Mods should be allowed to post whenever they want.  I personally like hearing from people of all viewpoints for the most part, as long as they are being respectful.  My comment was that some threads are allowed to go on and others are shut down even though they are respectful for the most part.  Maybe it is a duration of time issue.

[ColtsBlueFL]

2 hours ago, Myles said:

Lots of pettiness on both sides of this. 

 

Agreed, but appears to me to be a power ploy from both sides as well.

 

2 hours ago, dynasty13 said:

What I don't like is that Trump has managed to totally change the perception of what the kneeling was supposed to represent...and as a result he has riled up the masses and cause further division in the country.

 

But it was reported in a way which was sensitive from the beginning-

 

Kaepernick - "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,"

 

Many folks didn't get that (message) right there (because of the bold part). Now Pres gets involved and the division in the country grows wider.  I's sad and leaves the subject of the message on the back burner smoldering.    It's very depressing, misses the message and creates more division.

 

Quote

 

When the players kneel, they aren't disrespecting soldiers and demonstrating that they hate America and aren't thankful for what they have here...but unfortunately that is the narrative that Trump has created. And then on top of that to straight up LIE about the reason the even was cancelled...I don't see how anyone can defend that.

 

Yeah, but see above.  What is implied and what people infer can be two different things. Or not.

 

2 hours ago, pgt_rob said:

 

As long as you're bashing Trump in some way or another, it's cool by the rules I think. 

 

2 hours ago, Buck Showalter said:

Not speaking for all mods, but, when the protests started, there was an obvious intersection between sports & politics. At the time mods let the conversation go, keeping the discussion centralized in one thread, and asking that posters keep posts respectful etc.

Since then, when specific events have occurred, like the current situation, a discussion on the specific topic has been allowed with the same expectation that things stay respectful & on topic.

 

 

Some subjects overlap, and as long as the topic is discussed, stays relevant, and without any rules violations, I think Mods decided to let fans interact.  But be assured, myself and the other mods have a padlock in our hand at the ready.

 

1 hour ago, Buck Showalter said:

No I think it has become divisive too. Their message seems to be lost on many who are not looking at what they are saying only that it is occurring during the anthem & in turn focusing on that...

 

Yes, many did not know or care about the root message... it was lost in the perception of disrespect. The Eagles protested last year, but not by kneeling.  They locked arms (including owner Jeffrey Lurie), and Malcolm Jenkins raised his fist, etc.  Jenkins explains he did not kneel not because he felt the others kneeling was disrespect, but that he felt/knew the message would be lost. And it was.

 

I'm not going deep into researching this, but it looks like both sides were playing political chess. Players team accept invitation.  80+ members vetted and cleared.  Team cancels late in the game, looking to reschedule.  Preseident can't meet dates Eagles asked for (G7 summit and a denuclearization talk with Kim Jung Un) tries to negotiate gathering of a smaller group which falls through. President cancels all players invitation.

 

Definitely seems political, keeps players from getting their protest message on the country's biggest stage., which opposes their protest. A protest to protest protests?  Now people discuss why it never happened at all, not the success of players getting out their message. 

 

OTOH, the Players have to cancel Wash. DC community events (NFLPA report!).  If only 1 or two (or 5 or 10) were to attend Whitehouse ceremony, then how (and how many) were other players planning on performing community service acts in DC?  On who's dime was all this to take place? Why do they have to cancel those now?

 

Too many fishy actions all around and I'm sure there's more. But  I just put up my firewall until the next attack...

 

[Cynjin]

18 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I have stayed out of this but have been following it close.

My whole life I believed no matter what your personal issues are you stand tall and respect the country. The flag represents this country and it's colors represent what this country was founded on. Men and women have been giving their lives for what the flag represents going all the way back to the Revolution.

After I was drafted and went overseas it was the US Flag that made everyone I was with keep in mind why we were there. When one of us died for this country the flag was put on their box. The flag was then folded and given to the family of those who died.

IMO if any US citizen can't show the respect that the flag represents then I have no use for them.

 

 

I agree, for the most part, I still have use for those people but I still find it incredible that the ones protesting completely disregard those that are feeling disrespected by their actions.  It is a very selfish view imo, it is like they are saying your opinions don't matter only ours do.  That, again imo, is not a very effective way to gain support for their cause.

[PrincetonTiger]

11 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Agreed, but appears toi me to be a power ploy from both sides as well.

 

 

But it was reported in a way which was sensitive from the beginning-

 

Kaepernick - "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,"

 

Many folks didn't get that right there. Now Pres gets involved and the division in the country groes wider.  I's sad and leaves the subject of the message on the back burner smoldering. 

 

 

Yeah, but see above.  What is implied and what people infer can be two different things. Or not.

 

 

 

Some subjects overlap, and as long as the topic is discussed, stays relevant, and without any rules violations, I think Mods decided to let fans interact.  But be assured, myself and the other mods have a padlock in our hand at the ready.

 

 

Yes, many did not know or care about the root message... it was lost in the perception of disrespect. The Eagles protested, but not by kneeling.  They locked arms (including owner Jeffrey Lurie), Malcolm Jenkins raised his fist, etc.  Jenkins explains he did not kneel not because he felt the others kneeling was disrespect, but that he felt/knew the message would be lost. And it was. And it was.

 

I'm not going deep into researching this, but it looks like both sides were playing political chess. Players team accept invitation.  80+ members vetted and cleared.  Team cancels late in the game, looking to reschedule.  Preseident can't meet dates Eagles asked for (G7 summit and a denuclearization talk with Kim Jung Un) tries to negotiate gathering of a smaller group which falls through. President cancels all players invitation.

 

Definitely seems political, keeps players from getting their protest message on the country's biggest stage., which opposes their protest. A protest to protest protests?  Now people discuss why it never happened at all, not the success of players getting out their message. 

 

OTOH, the Players have to cancel Wash. DC community events (NFLPA report!).  If only 1 or two (or 5 or 10) were to attend Whitehouse ceremony, then how (and how many) were other players planning on performing community service acts in DC?  On who's dime was all this to take place? Why do they have to cancel those now?

 

Too many fishy actions all around and I'm sure there's more. But  I just put up my firewall until the next attack...

 

The events were going to be in DC 

   

[NFLfan]

2 hours ago, Reality Check said:

I remember when Tim Thomas chose NOT to go to the WH after the Bruins won the Stanley Cup in 2011, based on his political beliefs...

 

IT WAS A BIG DEAL!

 

He was blistered by many, including his team/teammates, the media, and politicos.  The Washington Post, NY Times, and ESPN (among many others) ran articles very similar to this one...

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/fallout-tim-thomas-decision-skip-white-house-boston-bruins-goalie-spotlight-article-1.1011712

 

Few excerpts ...

 

Playing Thomas in the nation's capital one day after he refused to visit the White House with his Boston teammates would have created a stir, though none equal to the controversy Thomas sparked with his snub of President Obama and his subsequent explanation on his Facebook page.

 

The goaltender failed to recognize that in his absence, he was demonstrating a lack of support for his teammates – not just making an individual political statement. If he wasn't anticipating such a harsh reaction from the hockey community and beyond, he should have taken another look at the game he plays – one that steadfastly adheres to team-first values, known for its selfless and approachable personalities and commitment to a workmanlike mentality.

 

Let's not sugar coat the Eagles' players individual decisions not to attend as "it happens all the time".  Their decision was as politically motivated as Tim Thomas' decision to do the same thing.

 

Instead, maybe we should as why The Eagle's are looked at differently?   IMO, it is the definition of "Political Hypocrisy" no matter which side you see it from.

 

There is one difference that you failed to mention. This is the first president that has ever made an issue of players' declining to show up for the White House celebration. Tim Thomas was not the only player who refused an invitation to the White House. Some Patriots have not gone to previous White House celebrations. There have been others that I cannot recall. But no President has called players out for it. This is the only President who has done so.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, NFLfan said:

 

There is one difference that you did not mention. This is the first president that has ever made an issue of players' declining to show up for the White House celebration. Tim Thomas was not the only player who refused an invitation to the White House. Some Patriots have not gone to previous White House celebrations of team championships. There have been others that I cannot recall. But no President has called players out for it. This is the only President who has done so.

So true

   

[Freenyfan102]

23 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

 

 

Sorry if I was being condescending.

 

I know capitalism isn't a political system.  But I think it does have a larger negative impact on our political system than some want to admit.  When some politicians are basically bought and paid for by the uber-rich, it starts to undermine the intent of a true democracy.

We are not  a democracy

 

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Kaepernick - "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,"

 

Many folks didn't get that right there.   I's sad and leaves the subject of the message on the back burner smoldering. 

 

But isn't this at the heart of the controversy?  People are assuming that his message was actually rooted in truth.  That it is accepted fact.   All I ever heard is the acceptance of this message but not a clear explanation of how he got to that opinion.

 

 It would be nice if someone took the time to explain the truthfulness of his comments because I think that is really at the heart of the disagreement.

 

And isn't it the same message that we heard back in the 60s.  Despite all of the progress made since then it seems like the same message is being sent.  I wish someone would explain what the message actually is and how it differs from the message of the 60s.

 

If Kaep can't do that, then he's just parroting a slogan that he doesn't even understand.

[ColtsBlueFL]

8 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

The events were going to be in DC 

   

 

When , who, what, how was it being paid for, and why does it have to be cancelled (because the Whitehouse celebration was cancelled) ?  That are my questions.  Just some specifics.

[PrincetonTiger]

4 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

When , who, what, how was it being paid for, and why does it have to be cancelled (because the Whitehouse celebration was cancelled) ?  That are my questions.  Just some specifics.

The whole team was going to DC but while the few were going to the White House the others were going to do community work(Lurie gave them a choice)

   No DC trip no Community Events

 

  I hope that clears things up

     I originally thought the events were going to be in the Philly Area

[Nadine]

9 minutes ago, Freenyfan102 said:

We are not  a democracy

 

We are a representative democracy

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/democracy

 

[ColtsBlueFL]

20 minutes ago, Freenyfan102 said:

We are not  a democracy

 

 

True, were are a Representative democracy (Republic)... often lacking in representation unfortunately.

 

17 minutes ago, DougDew said:

But isn't this at the heart of the controversy?  People are assuming that his message was actually rooted in truth.  That it is accepted fact.   All I ever heard is the acceptance of this message but not a clear explanation of how he got to that opinion.

 

 It would be nice if someone took the time to explain the truthfulness of his comments because I think that is really at the heart of the disagreement.

 

I actually left clarification out in my response to explain the oppression issue was lost on many becasue of the bolded part, unfortunately.

 

Kaepernick - "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,"

[Nadine]

27 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

No, Mods should be allowed to post whenever they want.  I personally like hearing from people of all viewpoints for the most part, as long as they are being respectful.  My comment was that some threads are allowed to go on and others are shut down even though they are respectful for the most part.  Maybe it is a duration of time issue.

It's a combination of allowing people to express their thoughts up until it gets nasty.

[ColtsBlueFL]

4 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

The whole team was going to DC but while the few were going to the White House the others were going to do community work(Lurie gave them a choice)

   No DC trip no Community Events

 

  I hope that clears things up

     I originally thought the events were going to be in the Philly Area

 

OK, if true then it seems Trump also wasn't interested in financing that (I assume the Government was to pay for all the travel and expenses for the trip) tproject and also subject himself to the prospect very few went to the Whitehouse ceremony; which is the original purpose of the trip.

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

True, were are a Representative democracy (Republic)... often lacking in representation unfortunately.

 

 

I actually left clarification out in my response to explain the oppression issue was lost on many becasue of the bolded part, unfortunately.

 

Kaepernick - "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,"

I'm still not seeing a point. 

 

I think the controversy stems from the idea that some see Kaep's comments as being accurate, that the flag does represent a country that oppresses black people and people of color, and others do not see that in the flag, because they don't think the country oppresses black people or people of color.

 

So, IMO, If Kaep or his defenders cannot explain how the country oppresses black people or people of color in some sort of logical fashion, it seem to me he's simply repeating a popular slogan for whatever reason he would do that.

[ColtsBlueFL]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'm still not seeing a point. 

 

 

Some people didn't see a protest to oppression, just the disrespect to the country (that permits it).

 

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

I think the controversy stems from the idea that some see Kaep's comments as being accurate, that the flag does represent a country that oppresses black people and people of color, and others do not see that in the flag, because they don't think the country oppresses black people or people of color.

 

So, IMO, If Kaep or his defenders cannot explain how the country oppresses black people or people of color in some sort of logical fashion, it seem to me he's simply repeating a popular slogan for whatever reason he would do that.

 

This was the beginning-

 

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/super-bowl-philando-castile-mother-minnesota-police-shooting-keeping-memory-alive-colin-kaepernick/1kq1l594l1k841f6qulozn2nqn

 

and the others. Here's another article -

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2018/04/21/colin-kaepernick-police-killings-protest/539240002/

 

[DougDew]

28 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Some people didn't see a protest to oppression, just disrespect to the country (that permits it).

Yeah, I get that.

 

I think the problem is that he believes the country permits it, but doesn't explain why he believes it and accepts it as undeniable truth, when many don't believe that at all.  

 

To repeat myself.  Unless he explains why he thinks the country permits oppression of brown skinned people, I'm assuming he just repeated a divisive slogan in order to garner support from a bunch of people after being benched, and that his protest really had no substance.

 

[Bshultz]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'm still not seeing a point. 

 

I think the controversy stems from the idea that some see Kaep's comments as being accurate, that the flag does represent a country that oppresses black people and people of color, and others do not see that in the flag, because they don't think the country oppresses black people or people of color.

 

So, IMO, If Kaep or his defenders cannot explain how the country oppresses black people or people of color in some sort of logical fashion, it seem to me he's simply repeating a popular slogan for whatever reason he would do that.

 

African Americans are shot and killed by police at a rate 2.5 times higher than white people. 

https://www.vox.com/cards/police-brutality-shootings-us/us-police-racism

 

Drug usage is the same among both white and african american citizens, yet african americans are detained and arrested at 4x the rate.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/29/16936908/marijuana-legalization-racial-disparities-arrests

 

African American sentences are twenty percent longer than whites for the same crime.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/black-men-sentenced-time-white-men-crime-study/story?id=51203491

[CamMo]

33 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The problem with protests like this and that is that the people doing their "proud acts" together, as a sign of unity, automatically put those who don't do it on the side of being oppressors.  Despite what they say or intend.

 

The modern term is erecting a silo, a wall.

 

If you have a legal entity like a country, its logical to have some segregation from other countries in order to maintain common standards among those who are within your country.  If you're talking about a group viewing themselves as a group based on race or gender, uniting together on that basis, is at least segregationist, and probably inherently racist or sexist.

 

Its probably one of the most arrogant and offensive gestures in American history actually.  Much more offensive than the american flag and anthem, which does not discuss race or gender and therefore does not unify people on that basis.

 

Its really becoming disappointing to see what is being taught.  How people are sort of being molded to see themselves in terms of race when so much supposed progress was being made in the 70's, 80's, and 90's rejecting that identity.

 

Edit:  I'm walking this comment back a bit.  I don't know the context of the gesture that was performed in the 60's, on a personal level since I was too young.  My thoughts were that if I saw a group of people today choosing to segregate and identify themselves in terms of race, and giving power to themselves on that basis, or on the basis of gender, I would consider it to be totally against how we have been educated since the 60's.

 

 

I read your comment multiple times, but I’m still not sure I fully grasp your message. Feel free to set me straight.

 

There is a division, but the division isn’t between white/black, woman/man. One of the (many!) divisions in the 60s was that there were those Americans who believed black people shouldn’t share the same public spaces as whites, and those that believed that was wrong - that separate was inherently unequal. I’m not black and I know which side of that “division” I stand on. It doesn’t offend me to see black men raise their fist for civil rights. It doesn’t offend me or make me feel like an oppressor to see black men kneel because black men and women are disproportionately targeted by police and the judicial system. Why would it? I understand their message and it’s one I, too, see as an issue. I think there is a discussion to be had. This thread is a perfect example of that.

 

It sounds like you don’t see inequality ie racism/sexism in our society today, and those that do are separating themselves needlessly? If that’s the case, we may be too far apart to have a meaningful discussion. But, I always love hearing another side.