Colin Kaepernick Is Righter Than You Know: The National Anthem Is a Celebration of Slavery

[Restitution]

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.

All of this has exactly 0% to do with the reasons that he stated for not honoring the anthem. Do you not see that? Have you even read his statements after it?

You are making excuses for him and... as vrai stated... merely being combative. I didn't know that they had paid vacations/leave back then!

Argument for argument's sake! Plain and simple....

I would think you were too busy to argue this....

 

[Larry Gude]

All of this has exactly 0% to do with the reasons that he stated for not honoring the anthem. Do you not see that? Have you even read his statements after it?

Sorry. I was too busy fantasizing about being a veteran NFL player instead of dealing with my pathetic opinion making on an...opinion...forum. My bad.

 

[PsyOps]

I don't suppose we could agree that FSK knew slavery was legal in the US when he wrote 'land of the free'?

So that means the National Anthem was written as a celebration of slavery?

 

[Restitution]

Sorry. I was too busy fantasizing about being a veteran NFL player instead of dealing with my pathetic opinion making on an...opinion...forum. My bad.

No big deal... just to make sure we are all clear...

You believe that Kaepernick was protesting the anthem because of what happened when it was written (although all of his statements thereafter do not reference them). You also believe that NFL owners are akin to slave owners. (your "opinion") And... that NFL players are traded and or "cut" as if they were slaves working on a plantation.

Your "opinions".....Amiright?

 

[This_person]

As I understand it, the US Constitution NEVER allowed slavery so, arguments to he contrary, that it used to, are incorrect.

Of course it did. In the tenth amendment.

So, no, to me, the Constitution laid the groundwork for slavery to slowly die out.

No, that was the prohibition against the importation of slaves in 1807. However, during the revolutionary war, ALL states banned the importation of slaves. Also, Article One, Section 9 gave the Federal government the ability to restrict the importation of slaves. However, NO state had a slave trade from the Revolutionary war through 1800. The 1807 law was passed in March, giving 9 months to stop the slave trade (by Jan 1, 1808) or face pretty stiff fines.

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?

Primarily because the indoctrination of oppression is so complete as to negate the ability of free discussion. By even entering the conversation, the view opposing mine almost immediately would call into question my white privilege, and my lack of ability to understand the black community (as if it were some monolithic thing). After all, there are two Americas - just ask Whoopi.

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?

Who's fearful? I'm sick and tired of being treated, as a white American, as if I've done something wrong. As if my country is wrong, 150+ years after ending slavery, of somehow supporting slavery.

"We did it, we fixed it, and 9 generations have come and gone. Get over it." That would be my answer.

 

[Larry Gude]

No big deal... just to make sure we are all clear...

You believe that Kaepernick was protesting the anthem because of what happened when it was written (although all of his statements thereafter do not reference them). You also believe that NFL owners are akin to slave owners. (your "opinion") And... that NFL players are traded and or "cut" as if they were slaves working on a plantation.

Your "opinions".....Amiright?

No. I believe that Kaepernick, as I wrote this, is trying out his next career. I don't think he's remotely capable of making the argument that IS there to be made.

The NFL is a monopoly. As such, it has the ability to control people beyond what 'land of the free, home of the brave' implies. It's not the same as slavery, however. Not even close. Just a lot closer than it would be if the NFL were truly a business competing as they sell themselves as. This gives them enormous power including the ability to get around laws that apply to the rest of us and offer contracts that deal with the employee less a person and more as a piece of property. You don't get traded. No one in free society does. So, there are some similarities. That a person can agree to comply with a contract does not make it OK. People agree to buy and sell drugs, engage in prostitution, all sorts of things but we, as a society, say that is bad and prohibit it. However, we allow men to sell their bodies in the NFL. 75% of ex players are either bankrupt or in financial difficulties so, we're not talking about an enterprise that focus's on hiring the college educated and seeing to their welfare. The NFL eats people up and spits them out. Because we allow it to.

So, the real question is where are our values? Gladiators? If so, why not slavery? Why not prostitution? Why not drugs? Alcohol is one of the leading sponsors of the monopoly. That's OK? There is a player right now who beat his wife, several times. He's still employed. Why is that? He's white. Is that it? The monopoly power of the NFL is enormously powerful. Is it a good thing? For one, it sticks us with a jack ass like a kid who just got paid $19 million taking issue with oppression in the nation that, basically, handed him that $19 mil for being able to run and throw a ball for a few years.

 

[Larry Gude]

Of course it did. In the tenth amendment. .

Wouldn't we repeal an amendment that allowed slavery?

 

[Larry Gude]

Primarily because the indoctrination of oppression is so complete as to negate the ability of free discussion. By even entering the conversation, the view opposing mine almost immediately would call into question my white privilege, and my lack of ability to understand the black community (as if it were some monolithic thing).

I reject that, totally. I have free discussion on here all the time. It can be done. I just laid out a path whereby a reporter could let Colin either make his case or blow it up. It can be done. That we support the monopoly that is the NFL means they can handle this and control this.

 

[This_person]

Wouldn't we repeal an amendment that allowed slavery?

No, that would be stupid.

What we did is restrict the tenth amendment to not allow slavery, or government discrimination, or.....

The goal is states are supreme, except in the limited cases where the federal is; and those are specifically delineated in Article 1, Section 8 (and some other places). The goal is NOT the federal being the supreme arbiter of all facets of Americans' lives.

 

[This_person]

I reject that, totally. I have free discussion on here all the time. It can be done. I just laid out a path whereby a reporter could let Colin either make his case or blow it up. It can be done. That we support the monopoly that is the NFL means they can handle this and control this.

How many times has your status as a white male been brought up when you've tried to discuss issues associated with black culture (like it is a consistent thing among all black people)? Mine has multiple times. Yours has, too (I've read it). If not directly, indirectly through it being brought up regarding someone else.

I'd love to see the argument you are suggesting. Of course there are bad cops, and bad citizens. Those are the things laws are made for. If we were all good, there'd be no need for laws or law enforcement. But, the mere suggestion that Michael Brown was not killed for being black, or Trayvon Martin, or a host of others, would be met by someone like this QB as ludicrous.

 

[vraiblonde]

If we, white people, are so confident we live in a society that does not oppress people

Stop right there. We "white people" are certainly aware that we live in an oppressive society. However, it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with your willingness to be oppressed.

Black people are clearly oppressed, but not by who they think their oppressors are. They are oppressed by the people they continue to support and beg to be oppressed by. There's not a lot we "white people" can do about that. They have chosen to be oppressed, and that's on them. Whenever anyone tries to get them out of oppression and slavery, they kick and scream and run right back in.

So what is anyone supposed to do about that?

 

[Larry Gude]

Stop right there. We "white people" are certainly aware that we live in an oppressive society. However, it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with your willingness to be oppressed.

Black people are clearly oppressed, but not by who they think their oppressors are. They are oppressed by the people they continue to support and beg to be oppressed by. There's not a lot we "white people" can do about that. They have chosen to be oppressed, and that's on them. Whenever anyone tries to get them out of oppression and slavery, they kick and scream and run right back in.

So what is anyone supposed to do about that?

Well, for one, stop acting guilty. That's not directed at you. Time was that Republican's could effortlessly make the case why liberal policies destroy black lives. How cities would pay women to have more babies and NOT have a man. How the welfare systems become dependency systems. How gun laws were and are still rooted in racism.

Now, I can't think of ONE GOP'er who even tries. So, if no one else is gonna do it, why not allow Colin to do the job? He seems to want it. I'll interview the guy and ask him. Someone pay me to do it.

 

[Larry Gude]

So that means the National Anthem was written as a celebration of slavery?

It was written in celebration of a victory of a nation that allowed slavery over one that did not. If that's an over simplification it's also no irrelevant.

 

[This_person]

Stop right there. We "white people" are certainly aware that we live in an oppressive society. However, it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with your willingness to be oppressed.

Black people are clearly oppressed, but not by who they think their oppressors are. They are oppressed by the people they continue to support and beg to be oppressed by. There's not a lot we "white people" can do about that. They have chosen to be oppressed, and that's on them. Whenever anyone tries to get them out of oppression and slavery, they kick and scream and run right back in.

So what is anyone supposed to do about that?

We see it similarly, but express it differently. Nothing is being done to oppress people by anyone but the people being "oppressed". It is a choice, not oppression.

Now, before anyone comes here with "my friend Sally couldn't get a job with Acme because she's [insert race here]", of course bad people exist and will be racist/sexist/ageist/etc.-ist. But, that's NOT the norm by any means.

 

[This_person]

It was written in celebration of a victory of a nation that allowed slavery over one that did not. If that's an over simplification it's also no irrelevant.

Actually, Britain allowed the slave trade at the time of the revolutionary war. One of the reasons the states banned the slave trade here in the US was the major slave trader was a Royal shipping company, and the rebels/states were not going to support trade with the UK.

 

[Larry Gude]

Actually, Britain allowed the slave trade at the time of the revolutionary war. One of the reasons the states banned the slave trade here in the US was the major slave trader was a Royal shipping company, and the rebels/states were not going to support trade with the UK.

We're talking 1812, yes?

 

[Restitution]

No. I believe that Kaepernick, as I wrote this, is trying out his next career. I don't think he's remotely capable of making the argument that IS there to be made.

The NFL is a monopoly. As such, it has the ability to control people beyond what 'land of the free, home of the brave' implies. It's not the same as slavery, however. Not even close. Just a lot closer than it would be if the NFL were truly a business competing as they sell themselves as. This gives them enormous power including the ability to get around laws that apply to the rest of us and offer contracts that deal with the employee less a person and more as a piece of property. You don't get traded. No one in free society does. So, there are some similarities. That a person can agree to comply with a contract does not make it OK. People agree to buy and sell drugs, engage in prostitution, all sorts of things but we, as a society, say that is bad and prohibit it. However, we allow men to sell their bodies in the NFL. 75% of ex players are either bankrupt or in financial difficulties so, we're not talking about an enterprise that focus's on hiring the college educated and seeing to their welfare. The NFL eats people up and spits them out. Because we allow it to.

So, the real question is where are our values? Gladiators? If so, why not slavery? Why not prostitution? Why not drugs? Alcohol is one of the leading sponsors of the monopoly. That's OK? There is a player right now who beat his wife, several times. He's still employed. Why is that? He's white. Is that it? The monopoly power of the NFL is enormously powerful. Is it a good thing? For one, it sticks us with a jack ass like a kid who just got paid $19 million taking issue with oppression in the nation that, basically, handed him that $19 mil for being able to run and throw a ball for a few years.

This same thing applies to the NBA, MLB, NHL, etc.... etc...

As far as Colin is concerned.... One cannot eat the entire dessert tray and then complain that they have a stomach ache!

He could have been the best used car salesman in Nevada BUT... he FREELY AND WILLINGLY decided to work for the NFL. He's a grown man and making excuses for his decisions (especially about who he works for) is BS!

Funny.. I don't remember this being an issue when he was signing that fat contract! If it was THAT important, why wasn't it an issue then?

This is nothing more than a classic case of a whiner using his notoriety to push an agenda. Personally, I think he should be fired!

 

[vraiblonde]

Now, before anyone comes here with "my friend Sally couldn't get a job with Acme because she's [insert race here]", of course bad people exist and will be racist/sexist/ageist/etc.-ist. But, that's NOT the norm by any means.

And it could also be that Sally just sucks and (insert race here) had nothing to do with it.

Certainly there are racists and bigots in this country, but it's not the standard, nor is it the norm, nor is it particularly wide-spread. Oh, and it's not limited to white people, either.

 

[This_person]

We're talking 1812, yes?

Yes, they were still transporting slaves (though not to the US because it was outlawed here) until 1833.

 

[Larry Gude]

We see it similarly, but express it differently. Nothing is being done to oppress people by anyone but the people being "oppressed". It is a choice, not oppression. .

Look, I think the way the economy is being run is oppressive. I think Too Big To Fail, by definition, oppresses people of all skin colors. The further down the trough you are, the more it hurts. Illegal immigration obliterates a poor black mans leverage with the local job be it washing dishes or mowing lawns or working a trade. NAFTA, same thing. TPP is going to do it again, only worse. Obviously, I think blacks are their own worst enemies by supporting Democrats who support illegal immigration. Yet, what choice do they have? The GOP can at least be given credit for being honest enough, via Mitt, to say "WE DON"T GIVE A DAMN".

A lot of black folks problems are difficult for them to place blame, to figure out what is wrong and why. White people are, more and more finding out that the GOP is no friend of theirs. It's a globalism party and if you're engaged in that space, great but not too many folks lower do the ladder are able to prosper from that.

It always amazes me how much a natural ally blacks are for white conservatives; Christian, dislike gays, prefer a more traditional male-female power structure, stay on top of your kids, pro military, sports oriented and more of a 'mans man' thing and yet, where is the relationship building? Jack Kemp lead the way for awhile and that's long gone. No matter how much BS it is, the D's do at least say "We care". At least that is something.