neither do the rest of us ...... but we can discuss this guys wrong headed stance, and lack of historical education
Colin Kaepernick Is Righter Than You Know: The National Anthem Is a Celebration of Slavery
- Thread starter nhboy
- Start date
neither do the rest of us ...... but we can discuss this guys wrong headed stance, and lack of historical education
Larry Gude
Strung Out
This is why you serve as such a good check for me that I'm making a good rational point. I didn't say one word about what it's like to be a player in the NFL but somehow and your little world that's what you heard. What I did say was commentary on the NFL being a monopoly and commentary on the national anthem slavery context of the time and also make commentary on things that are common vernacular in the fandom world that how the reference of what an owner is trading players and similar sort of language again. I didn't say one damn word about what it's like to be an NFL player for a day let alone ten years so thanks for proving my point. Check!
I do not see where that is germane to the discussion. 15 years later, the Supreme Court deemed that blacks were not US citizens. In our very own Constitution, blacks were considered 3/5 of a person for population purposes.
Well, that has all changed. Now when we say "land of the free and the home of the brave" we mean black people, too. Hooray for us!
This_person
Well-Known Member
With the exception of it being written at a time when slavery was legal for some states, not much of this shows he has a point.
The anthem doesn't glorify or in any way show an acceptance of slavery. It certainly doesn't celebrate the murder of "African" Americans, as the article suggests. If you go by what the man in the middle of the controversy stated, we certainly don't, as a nation, "oppress black people and people of color." Further, there is no celebration of " …bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder." It's an ignorant rant of a racially-indoctrinated fool with no ability to see the truth in the world around him.
I fully support his stupidity, and his right to sit it out. I fully support his fans burning his jersey, so long as they paid for that jersey, and turning away from the 49ers in disgust. It's a wonderfully free country where people can do both of those things. But, that doesn't make him accurate.
Restitution
New Member
What you DID do was make the HUGE leap in assumption that when EVERY player refers to their "owner" that it is somehow related to slavery and not just the franchise/team owner in a business sense.
You also made the HUGE leap that trading players was something beyond a contractual agreement and painted it like it was trading of "slaves"
Nice try in the clean up but you fell short.
It would probably go unnoticed however, you happen to take the "I know everything about everything" stance in just about every thread and subject you post in. Like I said... its old hack.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
Like we didn't already know which side of the fence your shaved ass would land on...
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Fair enough. However, to Kaepernick and others, it's like the Rebel Flag; they're arguing that, to their tender feelings, it's a symbol of what was, not what is. Would we, white people, ever accept the Union Jack as our flag or god save the queen as our national anthem even though we'd advanced beyond what it used to mean? Of course not. Again, I doubt he could make the argument based on what he's been saying but I think that is the view point he is taking, that the national anthem is symbolic of a time of slavery just as god save the queen would be symbolic to a white person of being British subjects.
Restitution
New Member
ALL of his stated reasons for not honoring were related to CURRENT events. Not what happened when the anthem was written.
So... are you saying that he is crying about what didn't happen to him or anyone he possibly could have known hundreds of years ago OR are you saying he is crying about it because of current happenings?
Last edited:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
If I granted you each point of the above, and I don't but, if I did, that still leaves ALL your work ahead of you to explain how that is akin to me me saying "Well, you know, as a 10 year player, we feel and think like this..."
In the mean time, the actual points I made, excluding the ones I can't do anything about that come from your...thought process...is that the NFL is, in fact, a monopoly. I can say that and did say that as a NON player with 100% comfort that I am not claiming to speak for or as a player.
Next up, players do, in fact, get traded. Where else does that non sense happen in a free society? Nowhere. What is the context of 'trading' human beings? Slavery. I can say that, and did say that, as a non player and with 100% comfort that I am not and did not say that claiming to speak for the players, let alone claiming to be one.
Lastly, no one calls the boss the 'our owner' in any way, shape or form anywhere else but pro sports, especially the NFL. You or I may refer to THE owner of the business we work for but he's our boss. He's not capable of trading us. He does not own us. In sports, they refer to 'our owner' all the time.
Now, I'm sorry this is some enormous leap of logic and reasoning for you and you have no obligation to agree. I don't own you and I can't trade you. What does matter is that I did not speak as a player, for the players or even "well I knew a guy...". So, that's between you and your therapist how you came to that perspective. So, there. I don't know everything about everything.
Well, he's an immature idiot and can certainly think what he wants. It doesn't mean he has a valid point.
An enormous difference being that the patriots fought their own war to emancipate themselves from Britain. With slave emancipation, the very people Kaepernick is railing against are the ones who fought and died to free black people. So when I hear of some black person bitching about whites and saying how much they hate them, I think, "Good, then go back and be a slave, you whining ungrateful ass. Impeach the black president white people elected."
Because the fact is that black people didn't do those things - white people did. AND went up against their own race to do it.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
ALL of his stated reasons for not honoring were related to CURRENT events. Not what happened when the anthem was written.
So... are you saying that he is crying about what didn't happen to him or anyone he possibly could have known hundreds of years ago OR are you saying he is crying about it because of current happenings?
As I was clear to say, I do not think he is capable of making the argument. I think he's looking for his next career now that he's reached his potential as a player and his owner can't even trade him. I'm making the point as a matter of...conversation and argument...on a forum you are 100% free to take or leave as you see fit.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Are you saying blacks did not also help and fight for their freedom? Blacks were very much a part of their own struggle. Blacks did fight and die to help free black people.
But do we agree that they had enormous help from white people? Or do you think they did it on their own?
Then why do you continue to argue?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Of course. They could not have done it without them.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Yeah, other than that.
Slavery, I am sure you know, was legal in Maryland until after the Civil war, some 50 year after he wrote it. As I say, Kaep sure ain't the one to make the point but he DOES have a point. The Star Spangled banner was written while the nation it was written for permitted slavery in support of battle against a nation that had already banned slavery. From a legacy standpoint, that is roughly to us keeping the union jack or singing god save the queen. To counter that, the symbolic nature of both the anthem and the flag ARE in fact, the symbols under which slavery was ended.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Yeah, other than that.
As I say, Kaep sure ain't the one to make the point but he DOES have a point.
Respectfully, I disagree.
The Constitution was written at a time when slavery was state law (not federal, mind you). Does that mean the constitution is racist and should not be respected?
The SCOTUS was established at a time when slavery was the law in some states. Does that mean SCOTUS is not to be respected and is racist?
His point has nothing to do with what you're speaking of. His point is that some cops seem to get away with killing black people (never mind that some are black, some are white, some are red, some are yellow, some are brown - and I mean both cops and those killed. None of that seems to matter). His stated point is that we, as a nation, systematically oppress black people.
He's wrong.
But, he has the right to be wrong, and I fully support his right.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
As I understand it, the US Constitution NEVER allowed slavery so, arguments to he contrary, that it used to, are incorrect. So, no, to me, the Constitution laid the groundwork for slavery to slowly die out. The way this was gotten around was the clear public understanding that slaves were inferior and were property, basically farm animals. Even abolitionists mostly did not believe in equality.
The problem I have is the reflexive thing we, people, do. If Colin is so wrong, and he's not totally wrong, is to take the criticism at face value; "Ok, Colin, you say this;
....so, who is being oppressed, how, why and what do we need to do about it?"
If we, white people, are so confident we live in a society that does not oppress people, then, why wouldn't this be as simple as having a conversation with someone who says slavery is still legal? Shouldn't it be pretty easy to disprove his assertions in open debate? Shouldn't a journalism major, a reporter, know enough about things to ask that?
My goal isn't to watch him blow his contention up. Clearly, we're not a prefect society. Clearly, cops have murdered some people in cold blood. So, have the discussion. If he ends up learning that he's a long way from having an informed broader perspective, then, good for him and all of us. If he's got a good contention, don't we want to deal with it? If he's just a spoiled, rich punk who wants some attention, how is that going to be made any clearer to him than allowing the guy to use the chance he has to speak out? If nothing else, that alone supports the contention that the anthem has done a FAR cry more good in ending repression than continuing it.
"Colin, whose being oppressed? Why? How? What should we do about it?"
Instead, we react. Why? What do we have to be fearful of if he's WAY wrong and way off base?