RugbyRebels

I'd also suggest that there's a big difference between a sportsman taking a stance on a wider issue, and using his/her position in the public consciousness to raise awareness; and a solitary sportsman making a point all of their own.
In this case, as in the '68 olympics, as with footballers revealing a t-shirt under their club shirt after scoring... they're part of a wider movement, and supporting that movement. It's up to the movement itself to make clear aims (in this case - "stop killing us just because we're black").

If they chose to show their support in a more, or less, contraversial manner, then that's their choice; but the more contraversial it is, the better it's likely to be at getting people's attention - and the more likely it is to make people turn against them personally, and possibly the wider cause as a whole.
In this individual case, the sportsman has a problem respecting "American values", values which include killing people because of their skin colour - I can't disagree with him; and certainly don't disagree that it his right to protest, or that it's his right to protest in this manner.

cashead wrote:

BBD wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:A whole team doing it is interesting. I don't really approve if it is mandatory or if pressure is being brought to ber in the locker room to do something or not.

My take on BBD's point is that it's over-analysis to expect a manifesto or list of demands to be met. It's an individual protest at the state of things - particularly race relations - in america. It need be no more coherent than that

So how is it resolved?

They could start by not having the police not treat every interaction with a black person as target practice. It's a radical idea, but it's crazy enough to work.

I agree entirely, I shouldn't need to point out that out but yes I agree and Ive not argued anything different to that.

However what I have argued is demonstrated by your sentence and is the type of hyperbole that suffers the same fault as Kapernicks protest

Does every police officer treat every interaction with a black person as target practice? Really? There are over a million police officers in the US and they are all going out and every interaction with black people using them as target practice? You know that's not true, but its a snappy sentence that is supposed to be a zinger across the chops, fair play, I get it.

Given that one single case of a police officer treating black people as target practice is abhorrent, evil and just plain wrong. My question is still the same. How do you resolve it? How do you go from a position of a protest slogan that points the finger at "every police officer" and "every interaction" (a false premise) to none? Kapernicks protest is a great attention grabber, but its becoming the story

In an attempt to answer my own question re how to resolve it

This issue (not the protest) needs to considered in how to resolve it from all sides
Cops - there needs to be either a change in legislation and disciplinary procedures to allow wrong doing police officers to be brought to account and sanctioned appropriately, or a change in the willingness and execution of the application of existing laws. You probably need both.
You'd need education and training, a review of procedures for all interactions and a disciplinary procedure that was robust, fair and without favour.

You also need leadership training for senior cops to ensure they were part of the solution not part of the problem. Youd have to ensure it didn't turn into a witch hunt of course as not every officer deserves to be labelled and treated
Youd have to involve the police unions and the various state and county bodies to get them on board with whatever changes you were trying to make

Societal problems need to be addressed that mean that ethnic groups are not caught in a poverty trap, that they have equal opportunity and access to education, employment & facilities. Youd have to fight the battle on drugs, and on gangs, which would of course involve all host of ethnic groups as drugs aren't a problem for any one particular group. In the meantime, You also have to continue to protect and serve all citizens against crime and the impacts of crime.

Im only scratching the surface of what needs to change
All the above takes money and its not as though these issues haven't been raised or attempted before. But even if the willingness to change were there and was supported, it would still take time given the magnitude of the change required. All of which has very little to do with the sport of American football

cashead wrote:

BBD wrote:I don't agree lizard, professional sports is an elitist profession that places unrealistic demands and expectations upon talented and slightly less talented people. I think the relevance is a weak link. The profile is high, but that's not necessarily all good for the protest given the controversy

The fact that "stop shooting so many black people for no reason" is controversial says more about the people who think it's a controversial opinion, and none of it is good. Aside from that, I don't see why doing a sports precludes one from having an opinion or the right to express it.

the controversial bit is not the stance
the controversy is the nature of the protest
Again his right to express his opinion is not something I have attempted to deny, I made that pretty clear several pages ago

Which Tyler wrote:I'd also suggest that there's a big difference between a sportsman taking a stance on a wider issue, and using his/her position in the public consciousness to raise awareness; and a solitary sportsman making a point all of their own.
In this case, as in the '68 olympics, as with footballers revealing a t-shirt under their club shirt after scoring... they're part of a wider movement, and supporting that movement. It's up to the movement itself to make clear aims (in this case - "stop killing us just because we're black").

If they chose to show their support in a more, or less, contraversial manner, then that's their choice; but the more contraversial it is, the better it's likely to be at getting people's attention - and the more likely it is to make people turn against them personally, and possibly the wider cause as a whole.
In this individual case, the sportsman has a problem respecting "American values", values which include killing people because of their skin colour - I can't disagree with him; and certainly don't disagree that it his right to protest, or that it's his right to protest in this manner.

Fair points Which. I think you make a good point re the movement having to identify itself and its aims made clear

Can I ask you to consider this in terms of evaluating protests
Id point out that I doubt many people would be able (without the aid of google) to identify who those two atheletes were and the significance of their protest in the context of the times. Which organisation the black gloves affiliated them to, why that was controversial at all and why it was controversial amongst the civil rights movement of the time. It certainly created controversy, it got world wide attention and created a fantastic iconic image. But what did it change? It allowed Tommie Smith and John Carlos to draw attention to their cause, but did it alienate more people or attract more people to rally to that cause. Did it allow the militant Black Panthers to gain greater support for their aims? Im not sure it did, particularly given their stance against the more peaceful civil rights movement of the time.

getting back to Kapernicks protest I think it falls into a similar pitfall. Its controversial - great. Its causing a divide - ok, sometimes the clarity of positions is really helpful, much better than a lot of apathy and undecided fence sitters anyway. Its distracting from the sport and from the issue - that's not good. I think the cause a noble one, it deserves better.
Once again I have never denied it is his right to protest. I just happen to think his method of protest to be without substance. Is it achieving anything more than controversy? I don't see it at the moment. But to be fair its relatively early days and perhaps it can grow into a wider political and social change

BBD wrote:Can I ask you to consider this in terms of evaluating protests
Id point out that I doubt many people would be able (without the aid of google) to identify who those two atheletes were and the significance of their protest in the context of the times. Which organisation the black gloves affiliated them to, why that was controversial at all and why it was controversial amongst the civil rights movement of the time. It certainly created controversy, it got world wide attention and created a fantastic iconic image. But what did it change? It allowed Tommie Smith and John Carlos to draw attention to their cause, but did it alienate more people or attract more people to rally to that cause. Did it allow the militant Black Panthers to gain greater support for their aims? Im not sure it did, particularly given their stance against the more peaceful civil rights movement of the time.

getting back to Kapernicks protest I think it falls into a similar pitfall. Its controversial - great. Its causing a divide - ok, sometimes the clarity of positions is really helpful, much better than a lot of apathy and undecided fence sitters anyway. Its distracting from the sport and from the issue - that's not good. I think the cause a noble one, it deserves better.
Once again I have never denied it is his right to protest. I just happen to think his method of protest to be without substance. Is it achieving anything more than controversy? I don't see it at the moment. But to be fair its relatively early days and perhaps it can grow into a wider political and social change

You have to put it into the context of the time - I doubt that there are all that many people outside of America who had even heard of Kapernicks before this protest - I certainly hadn't, and he plays a sport that's essentially unheard of outside of America. However, he's campaigning for a movement that most people DO know about, and has been widely discussed across the world well before his stance.
Smith and Carlos on the other hand, had just won gold and bronze in the Olympic 200m. Asking a 40 year-old now who those people 48 years ago were, and expecting them to know anything much beyond the iconic image, and what it represents. I suspect that a lot more people in 1968 knew who those 2 athletes were, than in 2016 know who Kapernicks is. The movement they were supporting was also widely known, and widely discused - probably more so, as it was the same year as the deaths of MLK, Bobby Kennedy etc. In and of itself, it didn't acheive all that much beyond an iconic image (except for Peter Norman, who received a life-time of hatred and persecution for his part). It became a(nother) focus, a rallying point (internationally as well as domestically); it became... iconic.
Did it change anything per se? no; it didn't really need to; it was a show of solidarity; it was also less about the Black Panthers, than it was the Olympic Project for Human Rights; though they (obviously) also supported the Panthers' aims (and convenient symbolism)
BLM currently has no real rallying points, it has no spokesperson, it has no manifesto (beyond, please stop killing us for giggles); it is an a movement of the masses; and IMO this is a real weakness of the movement (though thank god we haven't had the scale of flash points such as the LA riots, assassinations etc). It means that people can look at Kapernicks and complain that he doesn't have a manifesto, doesn't have clearly defined aims, doesn't have any solutions to offer to the root causes; and then dismiss him as irrelevant & irreverant etc etc. As you say - there's no real clarity; but I'd suggest that that's for the movement to provide, rather than an individual supporting the movement (unless as a recognised ambassador / spokesperson).

I don't mean to imply that you don't support his cause, or that you don't think he has the right to protest, or even that you don't think he has the right to protest in this specific manner; and I'm almost certainly addressing points that you're not making, largely because this thread isn't happening in a vacuum, and I'm involved in other discussions here and elsewhere about BLM in the USA, BLM in the UK, whether some protestors are using BLM to push an entirely different message, whether it's right for people to be offended on other peoples' behalves* etc etc. In my reply to you, I'm trying to address the points you raise - but I will inevitably fail, and get onto my own high horse, or address issues you haven't raised, or have mentioned in passing, not in support. Sorry.

* For which, see that same article I linked above about Peter Norman.

It was only a matter of time . . .

San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick came under fire in recent weeks for refusing to stand during the national anthem at games in protest of discrimination against people of color in the U.S. It’s a statement he says he hopes will bring attention to police brutality and social injustice against minorities. Or, as the bigots out there would have people believe, it’s because Kaepernick is secretly Muslim and must hate America.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/col ... 42712ca406

Good post Which, *cap doffed and apology entirely unnecessary but the explanation is useful and something I should be more considerate of.

Interesting to note that last night the games were preceded by a tribute to those in service on the anniversary of 9/11 which was observed pretty much impeccably. The only reference I saw was one player, (not sure who) who was at the end of a line of players all linking arms who held his fist aloft just like the athletes in 1968. As the evening progressed several players in different games did a similar gesture when they had just made a big play....mind you the fella who dropped the ball was a bit sheepish in his salute, but fair play he knew the cameras would be on him

The coverage on sky may have mentioned it (I was in and out of the room during the pregame) but the US broadcaster did a very respectful couple of sentences about the raised arm and that people were executing their right to protest



I

When I first went online this morning, this was in the top 3 articles on the BBC home page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/american-football/37336282

Incidentally, on Saturday, about an hour after posting the links to the article on Peter Norman and the iconic 1968 image above, I posted the same article in another forum, in another political thread, where the discussion was the BLM protest in London where a bunch of white dudes closed the runway; and the discussion was about people being offended on other peoples' behalves (sound familiar recently on this board - different threads?).
I posted the article up in support of someone who'd pointed out that if white people hadn't been "allowed" to protest on behalf of black people, then the US would still have slavery.
I got called out for being ridiculous, making a really bad point (that the Peter Norman was a symbol of oppression, as most people interpret that image) etc etc, and that I was obviously posting the article in opposition to the point I was agreeing with.
It's what got me thinking about these discussions not happening in a vacuum; and probably because I'd discussed my view here, I more-or-less just posted the article without comment there (possibly in fear of repeating myself, and partly losing track of what I've said where); so the poster I was supporting took 1 look at the image, made the same assumptions about Norman that everyone always (sic) has; and assumed I was opposing him.

I think the best point that has been made about this issue is that the man was staging a peaceful protest, whereas the 'Black Lives Matter' got pepper-sprayed for apparently being too loud and aggressive. As for 'anti-American,' Chomsky has an interesting thing or two to say about that, naturally:

Latest update from the BBC -( I didn't watch the game live as it was on at 3am - glad I didn't as the Rams got stuffed 28-0 )



San Francisco 49ers player Colin Kaepernick continued his protest about racial inequality by kneeling as the national anthem was played before a 28-0 win over the Los Angeles Rams.

Team-mate Eric Reid knelt with Kaepernick, while two others - Antoine Bethea and Eli Harold - raised fists during the Star Spangled Banner.

The game was broadcast nationally to a Monday Night Football audience.




The Rams' Kenny Britt and Robert Quinn also held their fists in the air.

Back-up quarterback Kaepernick has refused to stand for the national anthem to highlight what he says is oppression of black people in the United States.

His stance has divided opinion in America - Kaepernick's jersey is now the best-selling replica kit in the NFL, but opponents say he is disrespecting the American flag.

Several players joined his protest in the NFL's opening weekend - which also marked the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

Many raised fists or knelt to support Kaepernick.

Four Miami Dolphins players - Arian Foster, Jelani Jenkins, Michael Thomas, and Kenny Stills - knelt as the Star Spangled Banner played.

Their opponents, the Seattle Seahawks, locked arms as they stood.

Kansas City Chiefs players also locked arms to show unity, while Marcus Peters raised a black-gloved fist - a gesture reminiscent of US sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos as they stood on the podium following their 200m final at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City.

In a statement, the Chiefs players said it was their goal to be "unified as a team and to be respectful of everyone's opinions" as well as remember 9/11.

It continued: "It's our job as professional athletes to make a positive impact on our communities and to be proactive when change is needed."

Dolphins linebacker Jenkins said: "I chose to get involved to see if I could create change, raise awareness.

"I want to make it clear that there is no disrespect to the military or to police officers. I'm not about that.

"I would like to keep moving forward in the right direction with everybody: equal rights, equal opportunity.

"It doesn't seem that it's happening. That's why I took a stand."

Seahawks players and staff had been in talks before their game to discuss how best to show support, and now want to meet law enforcement officials.

New England Patriots duo Martellus Bennett and Devin McCourty also held up their right arms, while team-mate Danny Amendola was seen to grab the unfurled American flag on the field during the anthem.

In Thursday's season-opener between the Denver Broncos and the Carolina Panthers - a repeat of last season's Super Bowl - Denver linebacker Brandon Marshall knelt during the national anthem.

Analysis

James Cook, Los Angeles correspondent, BBC News

"As the Star Spangled Banner was played on a violin, tens of thousands fans stood in silence. The entire field was covered in a huge American flag and on the sidelines Colin Kaepernick and teammate Eric Reid knelt in protest.

"Some fans shouted at them to get up. They have been accused of disrespecting their flag and their nation but many other fans say they approve of the demonstration - which is aimed at highlighting inequality in the United States. The quarterback, who is African-American says too many black people are killed by police officers - and too many still do not have the same opportunities as white people.

"The protests, which began in pre-season games, have spread, with players from other teams raising their fists in the air during the anthem - recalling a controversial salute by two black American sprinters at the 1968 Olympics."

Latest nasty twist in this ongoing saga:

"Some believe DaiShon, Mohamed and myself should be kicked off the team or suspended, while some said we deserved to be lynched or shot like the other black people who have died recently," Rose-Ivey said before collecting himself. "Another believed that since we didn't want to stand for the anthem that we should be hung before the anthem at the next game."

http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... em-protest

Interesting to see how this has spread

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37423901

a very good article but too lengthy to quote here

BBD wrote:Interesting to see how this has spread

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37423901

a very good article but too lengthy to quote here

I think that's why I was so laissez faire about his objectives. It was always going to be about the statement. US doesn't really do the issues.
I suppose you're going to ask where do we go from here..?...and I have no answer other than to say he's a sportsman and it's not really his responsibility to create policy.

kk67 wrote:

BBD wrote:Interesting to see how this has spread

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37423901

a very good article but too lengthy to quote here

I think that's why I was so laissez faire about his objectives. It was always going to be about the statement. US doesn't really do the issues.
I suppose you're going to ask where do we go from here..?...and I have no answer other than to say he's a sportsman and it's not really his responsibility to create policy.

Disagree, if I understand you correctly. Everyone has the right - and indeed a moral obligation - to deal with injustices within their own environs. Anything else amounts to acquiesence through passivity.

Yes. I see that.
There's a report today that the use of vest cams in this country has led to a 90% ?? drop in complaints made about the Police.

kk67 wrote:Yes. I see that.
There's a report today that the use of vest cams in this country has led to a 90% ?? drop in complaints made about the Police.

I tried to convince Mrs WG that if she let me wear a VestCam it would address 90% of her complaints about our love life; she accused me of making revenge porn and tipped her Ovaltine down my pyjamas!

Id pay good money to watch a video of you playing an invisible banjo as you try and mop up the ovaltine

kk67 wrote:

BBD wrote:Interesting to see how this has spread

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37423901

a very good article but too lengthy to quote here

I think that's why I was so laissez faire about his objectives. It was always going to be about the statement. US doesn't really do the issues.
I suppose you're going to ask where do we go from here..?...and I have no answer other than to say he's a sportsman and it's not really his responsibility to create policy.

I get that you don't think the clear objective is necessary. I totally disagree. I think its a massive omission
As this grows that omission will become more problematic and divisive

So far the reaction on the anti side has been negative, aggressive but not violent. As this spreads to College football, high school football and even peewee football, perhaps that reaction may be less restrained - Particularly when there is not the clarity of purpose, for example the protest has evolved not just grown. Taking a knee was the start, then linking arms, then a raised clenched fist. that last one is where it starts to get blurry given the history of that gesture and its association with the Black panthers
Secondly the lack of clear objective or exit process exposes the protest campaign to being hijacked for other more nefarious purposes

Im trying to think how a solution can be reached, and yes I do get the "stop the cops killing black people" answer, I understand it and agree with it entirely. But its hardly a solution unless you have a magic wand. You need some kind of boundary that says X will be sufficient evidence for me to stop taking a knee, give people something to work towards, a clear goal. then you can actually start to plan and take the actions in the training, justice, education etc etc which is what needs to change

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

kk67 wrote:Yes. I see that.
There's a report today that the use of vest cams in this country has led to a 90% ?? drop in complaints made about the Police.

I tried to convince Mrs WG that if she let me wear a VestCam it would address 90% of her complaints about our love life; she accused me of making revenge porn and tipped her Ovaltine down my pyjamas!

BBD wrote:Id pay good money to watch a video of you playing an invisible banjo as you try and mop up the ovaltine

Blydi Irish foreplay......'and here's a good stick to beat the lovely Lady, Sor'.

BBD wrote:

kk67 wrote:

BBD wrote:Interesting to see how this has spread

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37423901

a very good article but too lengthy to quote here

I think that's why I was so laissez faire about his objectives. It was always going to be about the statement. US doesn't really do the issues.
I suppose you're going to ask where do we go from here..?...and I have no answer other than to say he's a sportsman and it's not really his responsibility to create policy.

I get that you don't think the clear objective is necessary. I totally disagree. I think its a massive omission
As this grows that omission will become more problematic and divisive

So far the reaction on the anti side has been negative, aggressive but not violent. As this spreads to College football, high school football and even peewee football, perhaps that reaction may be less restrained - Particularly when there is not the clarity of purpose, for example the protest has evolved not just grown. Taking a knee was the start, then linking arms, then a raised clenched fist. that last one is where it starts to get blurry given the history of that gesture and its association with the Black panthers
Secondly the lack of clear objective or exit process exposes the protest campaign to being hijacked for other more nefarious purposes

Im trying to think how a solution can be reached, and yes I do get the "stop the cops killing black people" answer, I understand it and agree with it entirely. But its hardly a solution unless you have a magic wand. You need some kind of boundary that says X will be sufficient evidence for me to stop taking a knee, give people something to work towards, a clear goal. then you can actually start to plan and take the actions in the training, justice, education etc etc which is what needs to change

The solution is "stop killing innocent people" and probably "stop having racist laws". Until thsat happens then why shouldn't peaceful protests continue? If that grows, so much the better. Protest isn't a negation. It isn't a strike. It doesn't require an endpoint. The individuals involved will decide for themselves when they will stop. I can't think of a single protest in history that DID have a schedule of aims and said "do this and we'll stop". An example from history. The Million Man March didn't have clearly defined aims. It had a simple message "I am a man".

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: The solution is "stop killing innocent people" and probably "stop having racist laws". Until thsat happens then why shouldn't peaceful protests continue? If that grows, so much the better. Protest isn't a negation. It isn't a strike. It doesn't require an endpoint. The individuals involved will decide for themselves when they will stop. I can't think of a single protest in history that DID have a schedule of aims and said "do this and we'll stop". An example from history. The Million Man March didn't have clearly defined aims. It had a simple message "I am a man".

Protest doesn't,...but BBD is right that a solution does. And he's also right that this is something that does trickle down.
How do you convince an entire country that their patriotism is out of control..?.

kk67 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: The solution is "stop killing innocent people" and probably "stop having racist laws". Until thsat happens then why shouldn't peaceful protests continue? If that grows, so much the better. Protest isn't a negation. It isn't a strike. It doesn't require an endpoint. The individuals involved will decide for themselves when they will stop. I can't think of a single protest in history that DID have a schedule of aims and said "do this and we'll stop". An example from history. The Million Man March didn't have clearly defined aims. It had a simple message "I am a man".

Protest doesn't,...but BBD is right that a solution does. And he's also right that this is something that does trickle down.
How do you convince an entire country that their patriotism is out of control..?.

This is nothing to do with patriotism.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: This is nothing to do with patriotism.

Sorry,...I was talking about institutionalised racism and his protest (which involves patriotism), not murder (which doesn't).

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: The solution is "stop killing innocent people" and probably "stop having racist laws". Until thsat happens then why shouldn't peaceful protests continue? If that grows, so much the better. Protest isn't a negation. It isn't a strike. It doesn't require an endpoint. The individuals involved will decide for themselves when they will stop. I can't think of a single protest in history that DID have a schedule of aims and said "do this and we'll stop". An example from history. The Million Man March didn't have clearly defined aims. It had a simple message "I am a man".

Protest doesn't,...but BBD is right that a solution does. And he's also right that this is something that does trickle down.
How do you convince an entire country that their patriotism is out of control..?.

This is nothing to do with patriotism.

The million man march was a little vague in its purpose, as such it has attracted criticism as it was trying to bring a lot of things about justice, education, civil rights, judicial inequality etc in under one banner headline. Again Im not criticising the intent, (I think Rowan above made an excellent point about our duty to stand up to injustice etc, a very noble sentiment and one where I certainly must hold my head in shame

However I think that closer examination would suggest that there are loads of protests throughout history that were fairly precise about what they wanted

Justice for the 96 - Hillsborough disaster.
Womens Suffrage,
Ghandis civil disobedience march in the 1930s against the British Salt Laws,
Martin Luther - the reformation
Martin Luther King, I have a dream"speech,
the black panthers 10 point program,
No taxation without representation, been used a few times
The Magna Carta
The Peasants revolt Wat Tyler
The Russian Revolution 1917- Peace Bread Land
Mein Kampf



nothing to do with patriotism? if we accept that on face value that makes the timing and circumstance of his protest more than a little bizarre doesn't it?

As I understand it, he is protesting during the national anthem because he no longer feels able to feel pride in a nation that has a murderous and racist element in its police force and a whole host of other issues besides.
The reason he is getting an adverse reaction in some parts is because patriotism, the stars and stripes and the national anthem are considered sacrosanct. So that choice is deliberately targeted at peoples "patriotism"
The manner of how his actions have been explained by the media in live commentary (I cant quote it verbatim) was fairly explicit that he was making an individual protest as was his right to do so under the freedoms of the constitution of the USA.

He has correctly identified that the rot in the system is endemic and deep rooted, he is choosing a particular form of protest designed to point out the scope and scale of that rot. Its use of the anthem is brilliant in that regard. His use of taking a knee (which in American football terms I understand to be a literal shorthand for "take a breather/break") is again a really well conceived tool. Precisely because it asks people to consider just what "their" nation stands for, to consider how they are governed and policed