Trump and NFL boycott

[Giordano]

Did any of the players actually call Pense's walkout "an act of oppression?" From the articles I've read the references to acts of oppression were in regard to the police actions that lead to the player protests, not to Pense's walkout. Did I miss something?

Reid's actual quote, for example:

“If I need to say it every time ya’ll ask me, this is not about the military, this is not about the flag, this is not about the anthem. My mother served in the armed forces. Three of my uncles served in the armed forces. In fact, my mom would have went to the Persian Gulf War if she wasn’t pregnant with me.

“I have the utmost respect for the military, for the anthem, for the flag. So I will say that every time ya’ll interview me. This is about systemic oppression that has been rampant in this country for decades on top of decades. And I will continue to say and encourage people to educate themselves of how we got to where are today, because it didn’t happen overnight. And it’s not going to happen overnight to fix these issues, so we’re going to keep talking about it.

“I know that I will keep doing what I feel is necessary to use the platform that I have to make those changes. It’s really disheartening when everything that you were raised on, everything that I was raised on, was to be the best person I can be, to help people that need help, and the vice president of the United States is trying to confuse the message that we’re trying to put out there. I don’t know what else to say about it.”

 

[Ziggurat]

Did any of the players actually call Pense's walkout "an act of oppression?" From the articles I've read the references to acts of oppression were in regard to the police actions that lead to the player protests, not to Pense's walkout. Did I miss something?

Yes, you missed something:

"But when the top two elected leaders of our democracy decide that political speech – in this case, a silent and non-violent form of political speech – is unacceptable to the point of walking out of the game where it happens, well, that’s chilling. That’s the kind of oppressive nonsense our ancestors were leaving when they crossed the Atlantic Ocean hundreds of years ago."​

That wasn't a player calling Pense's walkout "oppressive", it was some columnist, but it was absolutely a direct reference to Pence's walkout, not anything done by police.

 

[Brainster]

Yes, you missed something:

"But when the top two elected leaders of our democracy decide that political speech – in this case, a silent and non-violent form of political speech – is unacceptable to the point of walking out of the game where it happens, well, that’s chilling. That’s the kind of oppressive nonsense our ancestors were leaving when they crossed the Atlantic Ocean hundreds of years ago."​

That wasn't a player calling Pense's walkout "oppressive", it was some columnist, but it was absolutely a direct reference to Pence's walkout, not anything done by police.

Note as well, the Euro-centrism of the his comment about what "our ancestors" were leaving when they crossed the Atlantic Ocean.

 

[Mumbles]

Did any of the players actually call Pense's walkout "an act of oppression?" From the articles I've read the references to acts of oppression were in regard to the police actions that lead to the player protests, not to Pense's walkout. Did I miss something?

No. You are entirely correct. This has been about police brutality right from the start.

I will say this, though - if you're more offended by someone taking a knee at these paid patriotism events than you are by police driving up and shooting 12-year-old Tamir Rice, or by Philando Castile being shot five times for reaching for his ID after merely saying the word "gun", or by the local police laying seige toFerguson, then...these fake performances suit you. Because your patriotism is fake, you do not believe in equality or civil rights.

 

[phiwum]

It is probably because, being military, they actually understand the protocol.

Putting your hand over your heart during the national anthem is a misapplication of protocol. It's an imitation of putting your hand over your heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. You put your hand over your heart during the Pledge of Allegiance because it's a pledge, an oath. Your hand on your heart is representative of the ancient association of the heart with oaths, as in "cross my heart" to emphasize that you really mean something and are not making it up.

The national anthem is not a pledge, so there's no hand over your heart. However, a lot of people never understood the custom or why they put their hand over their heart anyway. They did it because their teacher told them to. However, they never knew why. They just associated putting their hand over their heart with participating in a short patriotic ritual, so they started doing it during the national anthem. Seeing some people do it during the national anthem made other people figure they should be doing it as well, and before you knew it, a lot of people thought that was actually part of the ritual. In fact, it wasn't. It's people stumbling though thinking they were supposed to be doing it because they confused one set of rules with another.

With due respect, I think you are mistaken.

§171. Conduct during playing
During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should render the military salute at the first note of the anthem and retain this position until the last note. When the flag is not displayed, those present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed there.

Per the code, I am supposed to have my hand over my heart during the playing of the anthem.

 

[Worm]

It is probably because, being military, they actually understand the protocol.

Putting your hand over your heart during the national anthem is a misapplication of protocol. It's an imitation of putting your hand over your heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. You put your hand over your heart during the Pledge of Allegiance because it's a pledge, an oath. Your hand on your heart is representative of the ancient association of the heart with oaths, as in "cross my heart" to emphasize that you really mean something and are not making it up.

The national anthem is not a pledge, so there's no hand over your heart. However, a lot of people never understood the custom or why they put their hand over their heart anyway. They did it because their teacher told them to. However, they never knew why. They just associated putting their hand over their heart with participating in a short patriotic ritual, so they started doing it during the national anthem. Seeing some people do it during the national anthem made other people figure they should be doing it as well, and before you knew it, a lot of people thought that was actually part of the ritual. In fact, it wasn't. It's people stumbling though thinking they were supposed to be doing it because they confused one set of rules with another.

Not quite.

Military personnel salute. Everyone else places their hand over their heart.

36 U.S. Code § 301 - National anthem

(b)(1) (A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and
(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart;

seems pretty clear.

 

[The Greater Fool]

With due respect, I think you are mistaken.

Per the code, I am supposed to have my hand over my heart during the playing of the anthem.

Notice again "should."

Because, of course, their can be no law that mandates patriotic behavior, per 1943 Supreme Court decision.

 

[phiwum]

Notice again "should."

Because, of course, their can be no law that mandates patriotic behavior, per 1943 Supreme Court decision.

I don't see any reason that focusing on the word "should" would change what Meadmaker said. It's right there in the code. This is how we ought to behave during the anthem.

I'll grant you it's unenforceable (I think). But what Meadmaker said was that it was improper to place one's hand on his heart during the anthem, because it isn't a pledge. Clearly, that is not the case.

 

[Travis]

AMERICA!

Where the cultish worship of an object is more important than racist murders!

 

[Andy_Ross]

What kind of country has laws that tell the citizens how they should treat their own flag or anthem?

 

[phiwum]

AMERICA!

Where the cultish worship of an object is more important than racist murders!

Not sure if you're replying to me, but I have no issues with the kneeling players. It is a perfectly reasonable protest about a serious problem. Nn

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Agatha]

What kind of country has laws that tell the citizens how they should treat their own flag or anthem?

The sort of country that is led by a P and a VP who get all worked up about people protesting injustice, but who continue to perpetrate that injustice?

 

[BobTheCoward]

What kind of country has laws that tell the citizens how they should treat their own flag or anthem?

The UK for one

The Department for Communities and Local Government in November 2012 released the Plain English guide to flying flags for England, a "summary of the new, more liberalised, controls over flag flying that were introduced on 12 October 2012".[7] In England, the statute governing the flying of flags are The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2007[8] and 2012.[9]

 

[Andy_Ross]

Planning regulations cover the construction of flag poles. They say nothing about how flags should be treated or where and when flags can be displayedor how you should treat them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... The attempt to portray Trump's current criticism of the NFL as being somehow outside the bounds of acceptable politics is just an attempt to avoid arguing on the merits.

The attempt to make the protest about the flag and soldiers is just an attempt to avoid arguing the merits of the NFL players' protesting police excessive use of force against black males.

 

[quadraginta]

Yes, I agree.

Do note that I'm not personally offended by the kneelers. Just explaining why kneeling is regarded as disrespectful. For whatever reason, other abuses of the flag code are accepted, heck, even viewed as displays of one's patriotism. Conventions, even those enshrined in law, do change over time.

Or ... they stay the same and pseudo-patriotic, virtue signalling, conservative snowflakes pick and choose whichever ones are convenient to their pearl-clutching diatribe of the moment.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Planning regulations cover the construction of flag poles. They say nothing about how flags should be treated or where and when flags can be displayedor how you should treat them.

The US writes everything down. Having explicit rules on things such as half mast written down is very American. Call it the difference between a written and unwritten Constitution.

 

[johnny karate]

The attempt to make the protest about the flag and soldiers is just an attempt to avoid arguing the merits of the NFL players' protesting police excessive use of force against black males.

Not to mention that claiming what Trump did was merely a "criticism of the NFL" is wildly dishonest.

 

[Oystein]

The US writes everything down. Having explicit rules on things such as half mast written down is very American. Call it the difference between a written and unwritten Constitution.

This sort of detailed, written protocol is actually common, at least across Europe and her former colonies. But nowsdays, it mostly covers only how offices of the state handle national symbols. The typical US things are a) the expectation that private citizens doing private business or even leisure play along with that carnival and b) that nothing is holier (I less subject to legitimate critique) than the military. In those two regards, the USA resembles North Korea more closely than for example Germany.

 

[quadraginta]

Notice how all those are suggestions.

As are the descriptions of how performances of the national anthem should be observed.

§171. Conduct during playing

During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should render the military salute at the first note of the anthem and retain this position until the last note. When the flag is not displayed, those present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed there.

How does one pick and choose which observances should be followed, and which shouldn't?