DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Racism

So you don't hold the president of The United States to a higher standard than anyone else? That's good to know. Because other than a very few left wingers in congress, you can't name one in our government from "the other side" that lays the vitriol down like Trump does. And you know that.

While I generally don't like the leap to Nazi's either.. it is kind of the most universally accepted example of evil when one needs to make an analogy or a point..


Those people who fought the Nazis, to those who sacrificed their lives, who are rubbed the wrong way... what would they say to to Edward Carter who was a black man in WWII who fought the Nazis along side them? Of course he had to be stripped of his Staff Sgt rank to go into combat for fear that he might be in battle and outrank a white person... couldn't have a black man giving a white man orders.... he was shot multiple times and eventually won the Medal of Honor.. he saved countless white lives as the allies moved into Germany by disrupting a gun post along the route and obtaining information on other gun posts (because he was the only guy in the unit who spoke German).... but when he returned from Germany he was stationed at a POW camp in the USA... where he was not allowed to eat in the same mess as Nazi's and if they were in transport he had to give up his seat on the bus... to a Nazi... because that's how much respect we had for an AMERICAN black soldier... you don't think he looked at the symbolism of that flag a little differently than Johnny Suburbia (who is now offended) who came home from the war to crowds and parades, a nice job, his HS sweetheart, and a comfortable life? Yea, pretty sure he did... but he fought anyway... for a country that viewed him as less worthy of respect and dignity than the Nazi's they asked him to kill... think about that for a second.


See my response above about who knows the sacrifice that freedom demanded... but to add to that, those (white people) who have sacrificed are allowed to feel however they want about that flag and what it represents.. they are also allowed to feel however they want about somebody protesting the simultaneous injustice that flag represents to others...

But I can almost assure that those who feel that way have never woken up one day under that flag and felt like a lesser citizen, like they aren't totally free, like they don't enjoy all of the rights that others enjoy on a daily basis under the same flag... perhaps if they had, perhaps if they could find the empathy to try to understand those who had, perhaps if they could have walked just one day in Edward Carter's shoes in 1945 being treated with less respect than a Nazi, or been one of his kids who showed up to receive his Medal of Honor after he was dead.. because he didn't get it until the Clinton administration because, y'know, they wouldn't give a black man that high of an honor back then... perhaps they would feel a little different, I don't know, maybe.


The board has been through this before and I won't apply this to you.. but the general consensus seemed to be that Kaep should be able to protest... just do it somewhere that I don't have to see it, to feel it, to be a part of it, or that doesn't interrupt my ability to enjoy football on Sunday.

So you're saying that there are no Black individuals that would rather not have the flag used in the way Kaepernick did?

Would Edward Carter and all those African American soldier like him, who chose to fight under that flag, want it used as Kaepernick did? I feel like you are making assumptions. (Although Carter also apparently fought in the Chinese army and in Spain during its Civil War in the 30's, so maybe he was not so particular about the flag he fought under Link )

They could support the fight for better treatment while still thinking his choice of method wasn't the greatest.

Kaepernick has every right to protest. He is free to do so. I don't have to like his methods. The during a football game part doesn't bother me at all. It's a great platform.

If he wanted to hold up his hands and shout "don't shoot" like Peyton Manning's "Omaha" every snap, more power to him.

I think silently sitting on the bench during the anthem which later turned into kneeling wasn't very well thought out. The message didn't come around until later. There's also the mixed messaging as the flag means different things to different people. Some of those feelings quite strong.

Doing something divisive in order to bring people together seems counter-productive.

Sadly, many in our country hold to the "there's no such thing as bad publicity" idea, much like our current President.

I do think the President should be held to a higher standard. I don't think any of the likely candidates on either side rises to that standard.

Understanding how someone could possibly support Trump is not the same as personally supporting him.

I don't support any of the bought and paid for politicians.

Impeach Trump. He probably should be. Who replaces him? Is Pence much better?

Until we come to a system that produces candidates that meet a higher standard, I'll continue to point at the corrupt system that is currently in place. Both sides of the aisle are on the messed up merry-go-round.

When I read comments like this, it sends me back into my family's time in this country.

Eloquent "I have a dream" -type speeches at a rostrum in front of rapt audiences were deemed inappropriate by some.
Peaceful protest marches in public places were deemed inappropriate by some.
Silent sit-down strikes were deemed inappropriate by some.
Raised fists on Olympic podiums were deemed inappropriate by some.
Bowed heads with hands clasped in front were deemed inappropriate by some.
Kneeling players before football games were deemed inappropriate by some.
Bowed heads and human chains before basketball games were deemed inappropriate by some.
Hands up/don't shoot protests were deemed inappropriate by some.
The 'Million Man March' and King's 'Poor Peoples' March' were deemed inappropriate by some.


Here's the thing as far as I see it, Grimm: protest of any sort will always be deemed 'inappropriate' by some segment of the population. Let's be honest here- it's not the form of protest that is rejected... it's the protest itself. Observe the list above. As varied, creative and diverse as it is, it doesn't even come close to exhausting the litany of various forms of protest we've had, and each and every one has been met with disapproval by someone. It's not that they have a quibble about style... it's that they don't like the protest in the first place. Lion's share of the time, their 'style' talking point is a surface rationale to explain away their fundamental resistance. Because our protests have been a smörgåsbord for 100 years or more. Don't like the flavor of Farrakhan? we got some King for you. Have a problem with Jesse Jackson on your plate? No problem. We have Langston Hughes and WEB DuBois. Maya Angelou. Hundreds of others. In every discipline. From any angle.


Here's where I am with all of this. It's a two-fold stance that will make me unpopular to many who read this post.

1. Those who disapprove of the methods weren't consulted for a reason. That reason: their approval or acquiescence was not required for our 1A to be faithfully exercised.
2. A protest event that is approved of by the very people who need the message isn't a protest at all- it's performance art for an appreciative audience.

Protests, by their very nature are designed to generate discomfort. Why? Because a comfortable, complacent person isn't required to ask him/herself the hard questions. Protests are purposely designed to bring temporary discomfort to the unaffected. It is in the tension generated from civil unrest that the discomfort is finally shared, because it's no longer possible for the unaffected to remain unaffected.

That is that point at which dialogue begins.

I support Kaep's message and have no problems with his methodology. They don't make me uncomfortable. They make me get to see another version of the same message that has remained unchanged since some Americans were unchained. My Pop was a Top Cop in my hometown when I was growing up. He stood on the blue line to protect property during the 68 riots in our town, and he stood the blue line to protect National leaders of the Black Panthers when they held a rally a year and a half later. He saw it as I do: there are many voices in the chorus, but the song is still the same. I get my tolerance and versatility from him.

The real point is this: pick a style you like and run with it. Learn the Story from that conduit. It's all good with me as long as you find The Story somehow.

j/c:

I wish that people would actually research how Kaep's protest started and the motivation behind it. I wish they would research how and why he was chosen to be this honorable spokesperson for fighting social injustice. Man, just do the research.

I don't blame the African American leaders who saw this as an opportunity to raise awareness for social justice. That was intelligent. It was a noble cause. What bothers me is that people just automatically believe what they are being sold because that is what they want to believe. And that fits for both sides on almost every issue known to mankind.

Rosa Parks was not the first person to refuse to give up her seat on a bus. She was chosen because who the hell is going to get on Rosa Parks? The March on Washington was a well-planned, strategic event. I applaud such planning. Beat them at their own damn game. Thus, once again, I applaud the black civil rights leaders who used Kaep's kneeling as a spring board to raise more awareness about social justice.

But please, stop confusing what they did w/what Kaep's intentions were. Do the research. Dude is as shallow as they come. He is not the hero. He was the face for the heroes behind the scenes. Educate yourselves.

I would never presume to know how people of any group think...


Before you can bring people together in a productive and positive way, first people must accept their contribution to the problem... or that a problem exists at all. Prior to Kaep and even to this day, think about the responses you would get if you brought up the disproportionate number of blacks killed by cops, falsely accused, falsely imprisoned, etc... Here are a few:

- Why didn't he just listen to the cop?
- Cops kill white people too right?
- What about the cops that are killed?
- What about black cops that kill blacks?
- What about blacks killing other blacks?
- All lives matter right?

It's just a long list of deflection and denial that a problem even exists... you can't "bring people together" when a significant % of the people refuse to admit or accept that there is even a problem and that they are either an active participant in the problem or a passive enabler defender of the problem. Getting people to admit there is a problem (and that they are on the wrong side of it) is often dirty work and it requires tactics that make people feel uncomfortable.. because it challenges your norms, it challenges your personal order for the way things are and the way they should be...

The immediate impact of Kaep's actions was that white NFL players started talking to their black teammates.. they had black teammates their entire lives but admitted they had never really talked to many about racial struggles.. a lot of them had their eyes opened and joined, not just to show solidarity with their teammates but because they finally started to understand the problem.

And for that they were called spoiled, entitled, ungrateful, whiny millionaires... over and over again by the people who still want to deflect and deny that the problem they are standing up for (or in this case kneeling down for) actually exists.

Personally, and this is just my opinion, those who are most outraged about "the flag" being the object of the protest.. are just the ones most unwilling to accept that a problem exists because the flag, TO THEM, has always stood for freedom and noble ideals.. and they don't want to admit that to others, it has also stood for oppression and mistreatment..

In my job, I have performed the National Anthem probably 500 times or more. In each performance, I encounter an internal conflict.

On one hand, I feel a sense of gratitude that I've had the opportunity to live My American Dream. At the same time, I'm also keenly aware of the sacrifices made by my forebears under the yoke of almost unbearable oppression to earn me that dream.

I see the audience singing out lustily, hands on hearts, and realize that they have no such internal conflict.

This is the very definition of privilege.

.02

I couldn't agree with you more with the bolded section. However, I don't think it's only a "privileged white" issue. There are issues there, obviously, but acting like it's entirely the problem is part of the problem.

Deflection and denial aren't the exclusive realm of white America.

Blanket refusal to look at questions because they are deemed "deflection and denial" is itself deflection and denial.

Who exactly is denying that there is a problem? I imagine it is a rather small number.

Honestly, I don't know why I even bother. In the big picture, I agree that something needs to be done. I think pointing fingers only in one direction without some introspection on how an individual can personally do better is part of the problem.

There are ways to be combative and there are ways to be constructive. We could use more of the latter.

Playing the blame game and getting angry fixes nothing.

Taking up the task of discussing statistics and causes of black on black crime or how many white people are shot by cops is not inherently deflection or denial.... using it as a response to a conversation about why, statistically, so many black people are harassed or shot by cops is deflection.


Wow, I kind of thought we were being constructive.. we are like 4 responses in and nobody has called anybody names or started making mocking jokes.. we just haven't reached a consensus agreement, and perhaps we never will... but that counts as a very constructive conversation around here.

I agree that there is blame to go around and that a person who robs a convenience store, sells drugs, or attacks a cop is making a personal decision for which they, and they alone, are responsible..... but taken in greater context, plenty of us white people blame black people for being poor, being on drugs, being in the streets, etc... when we, as white people, need to accept the roll of our ancestors in creating that condition.. we have passed laws (and inserted our own biases) for hundreds of years that have disproportionately made it significantly more difficult for blacks to work their way out of that situation.

I may not have done it, you may not have done it, our parents and grandparents might have been the most accepting and open minded folks of their generations.. but collectively, white people own the vast majority of the responsibility for the conditions that have been created.... and we own the vast majority of the obligation to try to fix it.

Interesting, we seem to have lost a poster on this thread. Things that make you go hmmmm

For here yes, it hasn't been too bad. The broader topical discussion in the world all too often ends up combative.




I think this attitude is part of the problem. What dead people of the same "race" did should have little relevance to the present. Did the race do it, or did certain members of the race do it?

Now if you wanted to blame the "government" for it, or more specifically than all white people rather rich, white oligarchs- it'd make more sense.

The whole racial guilt thing is just another face of racism. It's not that simple.

Everyone should want to fix the problem because it is the right thing to do.

If you feel obligated because it is the right thing, great. Feeling obligated because you are white subliminally reinforces the message that skin color matters.

It reinforces that the race that held all of the power created it.

Let me give you a far more recent example.

Cocaine is a drug that I think we can all agree is destructive force in the life of people.

Yet laws were passed that made a conviction for small amounts of crack more severe than the same amount of powdered cocaine. We all realize that crack is much cheaper and used for more in black neighborhoods where more affluent people of the time used powdered cocaine. This was a law that targeted urban neighborhoods for stiffer penalties.

I'm not much up on drugs, but I thought one was more potent than the other - regardless of who's using it.

It's the same drug. That would be like saying that THC oil should have a higher penalty than weed because it's more potent. But that's not the case because it's the same drug.

Poor white people are/were more likely to use crack than the more expensive cocaine as well.

The people in power were more likely to use cocaine, in most cases they happened to be white. It has more to do with power and money than race.

It's not the race that holds the power. It is individuals. Powerful people of African descent are just as able to take advantage of others of their "race" with less power as numerous stories of genocide have shown.

Power corrupts. Checks and balances were supposed to combat that, but when both sides of the balance are corrupt, corruption becomes the norm and power is abused.

Really?

The Irish never faced discrimination? The Italians? The Hispanics? The Asians? The Native Americans? Just y'all?

Attaching labels to entire groups of people is very definition of bias and prejudice.

I prefer to judge individuals on their own merits and do not subscribe to the practice of placing negative labels on entire groups of people.