godisawesome
Sidekick
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 4,074
- Reaction score
- 872
- Points
- 103
I know this argument has been talked about on at least 3 threads, but I feel the discussion is worth maybe a general focus. If I'm wrong and this gets absorbed, I apologize.
I just got done watching this video of Skip Bayles and Shannon Sharpe about the Packers game last night: [YT]https://youtu.be/a8otVnIZoXI[/YT].
At the risk of exposing my ignorance and flaws, I do think an important talking point arises from this video: Is taking a knee during the national anthem a strategically effective form of protest in regards to the inequities of innocent African Americans being killed disproportionately by the police? Because from the standpoint of getting people to notice, getting the message out, and causing people to have a reaction, it's a success. People had to acknowledge Kaepernick's actions. But did they also go forward and address the issue Kaepernick raised?
Sharpe expresses, both emotionally and still fairly eloquently, that he perceives the refusal to address the issue being protested as prove that the majority of the Packers' fans "don't give a damn." His argument is sound, logical, and at least accurate for, at the least, some people. But I don't think Bayless is necessarily wrong in saying that the method of protest has, in effect, shot the messenger before he can deliver the message. Like, if I can be honest with you guys and gals, I've been conflicted on it. When it first started, my immediate reaction was more negative than Bayless's "getting queasy." I felt Kaepernick had a valid point to make, but I also felt that he was, in a highly visible way, showing some disrespect towards the *wrong* people in regards to the issue.
Since then, I've come around on it; initially, this was because I didn't believe Kaepernick's actions in anyway justified his de-facto blacklisting from the NFL, and since he'd effectively martyered his career on it and inspired others to keep it up, it gained my respect. *He* gained my respect. Because I felt he put his money where his mouth was, and because I saw the issue still was not being addressed, and the willingness to continue his protests by other players now made that a mark of courage and conviction. Now, I still felt the delivery system was flawed, but not wrong, if that makes sense.
The recent explosion about the protest, thanks to the misconduct of the President, has made this now national news. And I feel that while we're seeing both the ugliest side of the "No Kneeing!" standpoint, we are also witnessing a comparatively benign and sincere refusal to ever "disrespect" the sacrifice men and women have made for the flag; that people who might actually be open to discussing police training and procedural reform just *cannot* disassociate that idea from their visceral reaction to seeing a pseudo-sacred object disrespected. That, in some ways, the avenue for highlighting the issue runs too near Donald Trump's Off The Rails Express to avoid being hijacked by a semi-skilled demagogue.
I feel that shouldn't be the case. The protest is justified, and the protest is legal, the protest isn't interfering in my enjoyment of the game or in the play at all, so the protest is... Justified.
But it's aggravating how easy it is to distract us from a very serious discussion, one that has blood on it already (in the form of dead innocent men, slain unjustly by either a failed system or by ignorance or racism), will have much less blood on it in correcting the problem (because the simple law of human error and averages says that some good police officer would probably die due to less-aggression-based training), simply because the mode of protest brings in the flag, which *does* in some ways stand for the blood of the Patriots spilt for the freedoms we do enjoy.
I just got done watching this video of Skip Bayles and Shannon Sharpe about the Packers game last night: [YT]https://youtu.be/a8otVnIZoXI[/YT].
At the risk of exposing my ignorance and flaws, I do think an important talking point arises from this video: Is taking a knee during the national anthem a strategically effective form of protest in regards to the inequities of innocent African Americans being killed disproportionately by the police? Because from the standpoint of getting people to notice, getting the message out, and causing people to have a reaction, it's a success. People had to acknowledge Kaepernick's actions. But did they also go forward and address the issue Kaepernick raised?
Sharpe expresses, both emotionally and still fairly eloquently, that he perceives the refusal to address the issue being protested as prove that the majority of the Packers' fans "don't give a damn." His argument is sound, logical, and at least accurate for, at the least, some people. But I don't think Bayless is necessarily wrong in saying that the method of protest has, in effect, shot the messenger before he can deliver the message. Like, if I can be honest with you guys and gals, I've been conflicted on it. When it first started, my immediate reaction was more negative than Bayless's "getting queasy." I felt Kaepernick had a valid point to make, but I also felt that he was, in a highly visible way, showing some disrespect towards the *wrong* people in regards to the issue.
Since then, I've come around on it; initially, this was because I didn't believe Kaepernick's actions in anyway justified his de-facto blacklisting from the NFL, and since he'd effectively martyered his career on it and inspired others to keep it up, it gained my respect. *He* gained my respect. Because I felt he put his money where his mouth was, and because I saw the issue still was not being addressed, and the willingness to continue his protests by other players now made that a mark of courage and conviction. Now, I still felt the delivery system was flawed, but not wrong, if that makes sense.
The recent explosion about the protest, thanks to the misconduct of the President, has made this now national news. And I feel that while we're seeing both the ugliest side of the "No Kneeing!" standpoint, we are also witnessing a comparatively benign and sincere refusal to ever "disrespect" the sacrifice men and women have made for the flag; that people who might actually be open to discussing police training and procedural reform just *cannot* disassociate that idea from their visceral reaction to seeing a pseudo-sacred object disrespected. That, in some ways, the avenue for highlighting the issue runs too near Donald Trump's Off The Rails Express to avoid being hijacked by a semi-skilled demagogue.
I feel that shouldn't be the case. The protest is justified, and the protest is legal, the protest isn't interfering in my enjoyment of the game or in the play at all, so the protest is... Justified.
But it's aggravating how easy it is to distract us from a very serious discussion, one that has blood on it already (in the form of dead innocent men, slain unjustly by either a failed system or by ignorance or racism), will have much less blood on it in correcting the problem (because the simple law of human error and averages says that some good police officer would probably die due to less-aggression-based training), simply because the mode of protest brings in the flag, which *does* in some ways stand for the blood of the Patriots spilt for the freedoms we do enjoy.