DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Politics in Sports

I wondered how long it would take for someone to mention this.

Politics and sport have been intertwined sine the days of the original Olympics.

In just our recent history, it took Branch Rickey signing Jackie Robinson for the color barrier to break in MLB. Politics. Paul Brown's signing of Marion Motley and Bill Willis was no less ground-breaking or controversial. Politics. 68 Olympics, Mexico City: Tommie Smith and John Carlos stood 1-2 atop the Olympic podium with heads bowed and gloved fists raised in a power salute, as the Natl Anthem was played... a gesture similar to Kaep's knee. More politics. And recently, Megan Rapinoe took a knee before her soccer match. When asked, her response was: "Being a gay American, I know what it means to look at the flag and not have it protect all of your liberties. It was something small that I could do and something that I plan to keep doing in the future and hopefully spark some meaningful conversation around it.”

This is the personal face of politics and sports, and I don't really mind seeing it at all.

These are real people who risk becoming targets of the very sentiments expressed in this thread, in order to bring attention to something that is important to them. And the risk is more than just a few torqued-off fans on a message board- their professional futures could be impacted, as well. So if they are willing to climb all the way out onto the skinniest part of the limb for a cause, the least I can do is give them a minute of my time. See what they're about. What's the harm in listening? I mean, really listening... with me not feeling like I needed to immediately say something back?

The politics doesn't bother me. I don't feel personally insulted when one of these public figures speaks up about something other than the job (s)he does. Once attention has been drawn to what (s)he is saying, I'll take a listen. Any of them. Over anything they care enough to speak out on. Some of it I might find agreeable. Some I will find disagreeable. Still others might inform me about something new. All of it adds interest to the overall story. I can enjoy/be intrigued by more than tight, 40-yd spirals and circus catches.

I think when many people say they want politics out of sports, they actually mean they want politics they don't like out of sports. Because if they wanted ALL politics out of sports, they'd also be okay with no more National Anthem or F-18 flybys.

At any rate, it ain't never gonna happen. Politics in sport goes way back. Ask all those Christians who took the field against the Rome Lions, back in the good ol' days. Belichick/Pats? Pffft The Original Lions- now THAT was a dynasty. Best win/loss record in history!

.02

Oh yeah right. I forgot......The NFL lost 100’s of 1000’s of their fans to the Trump virus and 20% of us are looking for work. You’re right.

100% true.
Personally I wish they just do away with it. I turn the channel or hit mute when some marginally talented singer starts caterwauling the anthem anyway. Perfect chance to go pee before the first snap.
All these faux patriots that get bent about kneeling athletes are sitting on their butts on their couches shoving nachos into their pie holes, or standing at the bar ordering another Budweiser, during the anthem... while calling non standing athletes losers. It’s laughable.

And only the elite and rich will be able to attend. Welcome to Rome gladiators...shut up and play. They’ll Boo you as they wish, but at the end of the day..... mostly thumbs up to ya. Keep up the good fight for equality.

j/c

I still haven't figured out how a peaceful protest against police brutality is "political" other than the fact that politicians have decided to give their opinions on it. There is no rioting, destruction of property when players of a sport kneel.

Simply wanting suspects of crimes to get their day in court without being abused or killed is something I think most people can actually support no matter which party they belong to.

But I guess not.

You still don't get it. I'm not surprised. If the players were to go out and take a knee, while the PA announced a moment of silence for those victimized by police brutality, you'd have a silent stadium. People don't like the disrespect toward the country, unless they are already disrespectful toward the country.

I agree with you, but when I am out watching the Superbowl,I stand. In part because I feel it's right, in another part because I get a chuckle out of watching everyone else in the establishment look at me, then one by one they all start standing as well.

But ultimately, it's part of tradition of getting the SB started, it's my "amp up, this thing is going live" moment.

But they should drop it from the regular season. Save it for the big game.

By not adding a component you decide to add, that doesn't mean I'm not the one who isn't getting it. I do understand what you're saying, but you do realize that the players do not control announcements that are given over the PA, right? I actually didn't mention how the fans felt about it at all. I understand why some feel offended by it.

Let me clarify. Our flag doesn't belong to a political party. Neither party has a monopoly on the flag. It's a national symbol of all Americans. Whether one uses it to protest the things going on in our nation under that flag or celebrates with that flag doesn't actually have anything to do with politics.

It's the politicians who try to score political points by what's going on that create a political slant to it. You seem to think I was indicating that I felt people shouldn't have a feeling one way or the other about it. They most certainly do.

Yet all one has to do is look at the oath every soldier takes when inducted into the military. Their oath is to protect the Constitution. And while as an individuals we may disagree with the way they are protesting, it's certainly a constitutional right to carry out peaceful protests.

I also understood the argument made about not at work. But the owners have decided to allow it. So now it's actually "allowed" at work. So I don't begrudge anyone for feeling however they choose about "the way players have decided to protest" if that's what they wish to do. At the same time I think it may be wise to acknowledge what the underlying issue as to why these protests are happening. It's not an either and or situation.

You call it disrespectful. That doesn't mean it is.

The players don't control what's announced over the PA? Thank you, sherlock, for that brilliant deduction. If only one of the players could be smart enough to ask the announcer. Yes! I think I found a solution!

I guess people like you don't feel the same way I do about the country.

This country ended slavery, the original sin foisted upon us by the british. Unfortunately to forge a country out of the original 13 colonies, they had to let it continue, or lose the southern colonies. 76 years later, the practice was ended, at great cost. For the next 100 years a cold war was fought between for the rights of those former slaves.

Since the 1964 voting rights act, more and more freedoms are now laws. This is because this country is self correcting. Gays can marry. Interracial couples have been able to marry for a long time. Police brutality against blacks, which was much more prevalent in the past, is on its last legs.

I truly believe it would be prudent for people to come together at this pivotal moment than being divisive. This is my reasoning for the suggestion I made about the players coming together before the anthem. I think it would serve to bring everyone together, rather than dividing them over the anthem.

Telling people how they should exercise their first amendment rights is not finding a solution.

Try again.

Your version of history is not really accurate but if nothing else, it is interesting.

People like me probably feel better about this country than you do. We believe in standing in opposition to what's wrong and making it better. Which has what our nation was founded on. Our forefathers founded this nation on civil disobedience. The Boston tea party was civil disobedience. Every step we've taken forward from women voting to the civil rights was founded on civil disobedience. Abolitionist like Harriet Tubman were committing civil disobedience.

You would have been leading the charge against Rosa Parks from the way you are talking.

People have been coming together. You have just decided you aren't going to be a part of it.

If you are bringing awareness to a particular incident, that is one thing. When you start using an issue to drive change in the political structures, it almost by definition becomes a "political".

Clem you make some great points about how intertwined sports and politics has been over the years. Because sports has the ability to unify all sorts of people for at least a few hours, I have to think it inevitable that the two will cross paths. So while I find many aspects of what Kaep et al are putting out there problematic in their assertions, I don't particularly fault them for choosing that venue.

Go Big, go BOLD, or otherwise what's the point right?

But you have to decide what is more important: to simply say something needs to change, or to be effective in saying something needs to change. There is a distinction there and a conscious decision to be made. Being brash may get you the short term win, but exercising some wisdom and good judgement is what wins it all down the stretch.

I also think when one chooses such a venue, a degree of.. self awareness?... is also necessary. You can't forget the primary reasons why people tune in to sports. When you inject something from the outside, there's only so much saturation that can occur before you either start going backwards, or perhaps worse yet, people stop caring. No matter what we do, our actions can only get so much mileage out of them.

It's sort of like Fahrenheit 451.

Right now, people are more concerned about looking at the screens that distract them from the outside world. We need balance. Self-care is important as well as contributing to society in a positive manner.

We should recognize that if we participate in self-care, there's potential that someone may do an action that jostles us out of the self-care time. If I am called to think about something, that's fine. I can control my reaction rather than trying to limit someone else's activist time.

They call it civil disorder but be proud.

Costs from weeks of protests take financial toll on cash-strapped cities across US
Protests following George Floyd's death could become one of the costliest displays of civil disorder in US history

From police injuries to financial losses from looters, the aftermath from weeks of cross-country protests is bringing some cities to their knees.

All told, the unruly demonstrations following the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery could make it one of the costliest displays of civil disorder in U.S. history. In many places, the financial fallout comes as cities and states have drained their coffers trying to fight COVID-19. The end result for these cash-strapped cities could put them millions of dollars in the red and struggling for years to get out.

In Minneapolis, costs related to the protests could hit higher than $500 million. In Portland, Ore., nearly 80 nights of destruction have caused the liberal locale $23 million and counting. In Chicago, a city that's seen soaring crime rates and corruption at the highest levels, the damage done from the protests has not only hit high-end retailers but crippled hundreds of mom-and-pop stores trying to eke out a living.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/costs-protests-financial-toll-cash-strapped-us-cities

Not that this story has much if anything to do with the topic - but congrats on at least realistic numbers. If the 80 nights has cost Portland $23 million, I can believe it easily. another 100 cities across the country suffering similarly = $2300 million. $2.3 Billion. At least you aren't making up numbers like someone else did and suggest trillions. (100 cities is way generous - and that equates to $0.0023 Trillion)

We are talking about kneeling at sporting events. No bait and switch here.

There are threads to discuss what your post is about. This isn't one of them.

Political structures? I had no idea trying to stop police brutality was considered a part of the political structure. I thought it was about protecting the rights of people.

According to your definition every social change from women's voting rights to civil rights were all political. Sometimes the lines can get blurred.

You may have a hard time convincing people that police brutality is political. But then when we look at those trying to uphold all of the current structure that seem to make it harder to stop, maybe it is.

The national anthem before sporting events has been ruined forever by making it into a political statement. It will never be the way it was before. I don't know why each individual in a stadium chooses to stand during the ceremony, we all have our reasons, but there is something cool about 50,000 people standing in unity before a game in which some of us are going to be bitter rivals. 50,000 people that all have their own problems and their own beliefs, but they put their differences aside for a few minutes to stand in unity. That's now gone forever.

Taken away from us and turned into political issues that will never go away because they are not feasibly resolvable issues.

I think they are going to have to just stop playing the anthem at all because it is upsetting to so many people to see ceremony publicly denigrated.

I don't think anyone has "taken it away from you". Has somebody tried to prevent you from standing during the anthem at a sporting event?

In a matter of a few short years we have gone from "kneeling is rebellious" to "standing is rebellious".

The right, highlighting players who stand as some kind of hero are silly.. just as the left highlighting those who kneel as some kind of hero are silly. I honestly had more respect for the kneeling when it was only the deeply committed, now that it's everybody all the way around the gym/field.. it looks more like conformity than conviction.

But the silliest thing going on right now is the stupid SJW slogans on the NBA jerseys.. and the longer these riots continue and the more innocent people that get hurt and the more property that gets damaged and the more people are killing each other in the cities... without them saying anything about it, the dumber they look.

then don't watch.

You are correct in what you're saying. At least to an extent. But I do think there are some common sense questions that need to be asked. How many supported the concept of kneeling before they did so? I mean look at the price Kap paid for that. I don't see the fact that many didn't kneel earlier as a sign they didn't want to or supported the act itself. And wouldn't it seem logical to think that the more police brutality was brought to the forefront, the stronger people's feelings became about it?

As far as the rioting we totally agree. The problem being, that is what the media reports on. Even that "evil liberal media" everyone complains about. It's a destructive force in bringing about anything positive to the actual movement itself. It's certainly a very small percentage of the people that are involved in the protests but it's done a lot of damage to distract and detract from what the issue actually is.

What, the NBA? I haven't. But mostly because the Cavs are horrible..

Of course not, but I don't even need to go to a sporting event to play a bad song and stare at a piece of cloth hanging from a stick. I can do that at home for free.

I don't put any value in the solitary act and I don't think anyone else does either.

The togetherness demonstrated by a large group of people carrying out a ceremony despite our many differences is a rare and special moment in a society where we each have the freedoms to express ourselves in different ways and openly express our conflicting points of view. Outside of these brief moments, we are practically in conflict non-stop.

The number of issues over which Americans fight probably outnumber the number of things we do that show unity 1000 to 1.

From where I am standing, this is an irreconcilable political feud, so neither side is going to stop or change. So, I don't see how things go back to the way they were before. It would be nice to watch a game and see that unity, not a demonstration of political differences. If you or anyone else has ideas on how to get us back to that, I would enjoy reading them. But from where I am standing, I don't see how we ever get that back.

I'm still not quite sure how people protesting police brutality is a political issue unless someone just decides to describe it that way. Politicians have decided to get themselves involved in the issue, however do the police represent Republicans while those wanting accountability and fair treatment from the police represent Democrats?

When women fought for the right to vote, was that political? How about those fighting for civil rights? I do agree that political parties do get involved and choose the side they feel benefits them the most.

But I don't think it beaks down to Republicans being pro anthem and Democrats being anti anthem. The protest isn't even about the anthem itself for anyone willing to listen.

People throughout our nations history have protested things in order to make our nation better. Republicans actually claim to stand on the principal of personal responsibility. I would think as such they would advocate that the police be responsible for their actions and not be railing against it.

Our constitution allows for peaceful protest. Our soldiers take an oath to uphold the constitution, not a flag or a song. When you look back across the history of our nation, it was actually founded on rebellion. It's as American as anything.

While I do see what you're saying, it's our diversity and ability to peacefully protest that make America special, not a song. Maybe people sometimes celebrate the wrong thing.

That is not what I am saying at all.

The topics original post defined the kneeling and other actions as political and questioned whether this should be mixed into sports and particularly into the playing of the anthem. You can call it something other than politics, does not change the question of whether it belongs in professional sports and during the anthem.

The fact that protest is legal is almost irrelevant because nobody is debating that.

There are simply times when it is smart and appropriate to behave certain ways and certain times when it is absolutely dumb and inappropriate to behave certain ways. and I just don't see how that is a contentious point.

You wouldn't protest at a funeral, or a wedding, or a child's birthday party. You wouldn't make a spectacle during a moment of silence for breast cancer awareness. You wouldn't interrupt a Muslim prayer to protest even if your a non-Muslim.

Being an opportunist and taking advantage of 50000 peoples silence and attention to make a spectacle of yourself in pursuit of your own agenda is not going to win you many friends, so I don't really see the point either because it is not a very effective way of winning people over to your cause.

Good point. I think that a lot of the strategies actually alienate the very people they are trying to recruit.

I think you are right back into the middle of an important and current issue: Whether the mainstream media and
"Whites" are in the best position to dictate how Black people who want to protest should or should not protest.

I don't doubt that there is a big slice of the population that feel like you and are turned off by the protests that don't conform to their sensibilities ..... but at the end of the day, those that are the most deeply entrenched in those sentiments and feelings are possibly the least likely to be influenced by ANY protest whether it conforms to their preferred methods or not .... And lastly - an age old maxim / adage says there is no such thing as bad publicity.... maybe that's appropriate for raising awareness for something that has been going on for generations and people have been unsuccessful shining a light on it?

Putting aside your first paragraph in which you contend that this is somehow a white or black thing (It's not. Every social norm that I mentioned is a worldwide social norm), I actually agree with you. 100% on your second paragraph. The fact that the protests will turn people off by running afoul of social norms only makes them a great way of creating resistance against your political goals (and in this case also hurting your business interests). I also think it is easy to take for granted these ceremonies and social norms because we don't spend a lot of time thinking about the value they bring to our lives. Demonstrating civic and national pride is a critical precursor to building the cooperation that is needed to solve big, complicated problems. Casually degrading and devaluing these rare occasions where we express our national pride and unity is something that we do at our own peril.

You asked if the objective to shine light on a problem for raising awareness would in some way justify this...
I see the validity of this argument, but I would say I think this is only a useful strategy in very rare circumstances, mostly in countries where citizens have very little authority over their own lives, but not in the U.S. where I feel there is tremendous freedom to share information and take action to change the world around you for the better. There are too many other more effective ways for smart, resourceful, and dedicated people to work toward the changes that they want to see.

Specifically with regard to the kneeling of NFL players to highlight racial abuse at the hands of law enforcement - I think it's not unreasonable to characterize that as Black Protesters being chastised by White fans/neutrals. . . . There were some in the Black community that spoke out against the protest - and a great number of Whites that supported it. But I don't think it's unreasonable to highlight that separation. The vast majority of athletes kneeling were Black, the loudest voices condemning the kneeling were White males ... isn't that a fair 5,000 ft view?

Personally I think you can talk about these incidents and talk about what the majority of the Black community does, what the majority of the White community does ... and everyone one in between and the group as a whole, without it being racist or perpetuating any negative sort of vibe.

You may wish to consider the fact that a part of what they're protesting is that they don't feel they have as much "authority over their own lives" as you may feel.

I did consider this, which is why I stated what I stated. I know that we have the necessary freedoms to speak out and be heard in this country because I am governed by the same laws that give me those freedoms. I can support political causes in protest, by putting up signs, and putting information on the internet without fear of being unfairly prosecuted. There are very few limitations on free speech as long as you don't infringe upon other people's rights or property. Furthermore, as celebrities, professional athletes have even more ability to gain attention for the causes that they are passionate about, and if they are even moderately intelligent, they can figure out ways to do this without alienating most people.

Like I said, 50000 people are standing in unity. They all have problems. They all have things that they are passionate about. They certainly don't agree on many things. One person chooses not to stand. That does not mean that this person is right or wrong on the issues that they are passionate about, but it says a lot about who they are and how important they think they are, and how important they think the other 50000 people are.

Good luck winning allies to those that demonstrate and inflated view of their own importance and a lack of respect for everyone else.

Peaceful protests is a guaranteed right in the constitution. Riots and committing criminal activity are not. Those are two different things.

How blacks and whites have been treated in large part by the police have been two different things. Sentencing for the same crimes between blacks and whites have been two different things.

It sounds as if you don't believe that peaceful protestors should have the ability to be protected by the constitutional right they have to do so.

People can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution they stand for and which parts they don't.

I 100% support the first amendment.

I try to be very careful with what I write, so I am confident that I have been consistent in communicating my support for the first amendment.

Constitutional rights are a matter of law and are limitations on the powers of the government. Exercising those rights does not make a person noble. It doesn't make them intelligent. It doesn't make their ideas any better. No thoughtful person would disagree with that.

But that is also irrelevant to the conversation over whether mixing politics into sports is desirable, particularly from a consumer perspective. I have been consistent in writing that politics in sports is quite tolerable, but if a player mixes their personal politics into a special ceremony, moment of silence, or similar event, then they are being disrespectful to the 50000 people that are participating in that event and it is a reflection on the type of person that they are.

Maybe you could explain to me what wanting police brutality to end has to do with politics? Is that an idea Republicans oppose? Is it a concept so divided that there is a part of America on the political spectrum that supports police brutality?

Earlier this week, Thom Brennaman made a homophobic slur on TV. He thought he was off-air, and said something like It's the gay capital of the world, but instead of saying gay, he used the F word.

He was immediately suspended from broadcasting Reds' games and Fox dropped him for their NFL games in this upcoming season.

The other night, Montrez Harrell called Luka Doncic a "b.... ass white boy." The NBA did not suspend Harrell. They didn't even fine him. This is in the aftermath of all the BLM and social justice messages that the NBA is shoving down the throats of their viewers.

I guarantee that if a white player had called a black player a derogatory racial name, he would be suspended.

Double standards that are plaguing our country. Something is either right or wrong. Picking and choosing which side can say what is unfair and will only serve to widen the divide between tribes.

translation:

"athletes make me support a white supremacist in Trump"

- Vers

by the way, since you're now a trump supporter, you PICKED A SIDE.

god you're so clueless lmfao.

i hate picking a side, so imma pick a side!!!

I was surprised the broadcast team had the guts to take this on. Even Marc Jackson said if it was white against black the white player would have been punished, and I think he said that's not right.

The NBA does alot of things right. They completely fumbled this. It's these types of double standards that the non vocal are watching closely.

Exactly right.

I will add that other blacks agree w/us. Jay Williams, the former Duke PG and high draft choice whose career ended due to injury and is now a commentator for ESPN spoke of the double-standards.

We will never make things "right" by applying double standards, no matter which side they favor.

I always hated the double-standards that favored whites and other majority groups. I'm not changing my tune about it when the minority groups are favored.

What right is right and what's wrong is wrong.

I should add this...............I don't think Thom Brenneham should have been fired and I don't think Montrez should have been suspended. Stuff happens and people make mistakes. Punish repeated patterns that display a pattern. Don't freak out over an isolated incident.