Post by Niles Y93 on Sept 16, 2016 1:47:35 GMT
(Note to the mods: I understand that we already have a thread about the Colin Kaepernick situation, but I want to bring attention to the people "defending" him. However, please feel free to do with this thread as you wish.)
As a lot of us here in the United States know, there is a sort of movement going on where professional athletes are refusing to stand for the National Anthem. I, for one, understand that it is their right to do so. However, freedom of speech is a two way street, so while these athletes are within their right to not stand for the Anthem, others are within their right to criticize them. Because of the criticism of the athletes' actions, there are people that are coming out to "defend" them. However, the point of this post is to take a look at their "defense", as well as ask a burning question about these "defenders".
So let's start with the first argument people use to defend Mr. Kaepernick, and I will use an exact quote from these forums (Keep in mind: This is NOT an attack on the poster. He just said something in a way that I wish to use in this post.)
"God forbid he is exercising his right to protest."
Now, I agree with the previous statement...to an extent. Mr. Kaepernick, as well as the other athletes participating, have the right to not stand for the National Anthem. However, as I have said before, freedom of speech (and to protest) is a two way street, so don't be surprised if people react differently to the statement in question. In a free (and free market) society, people are able have an opinion as well as "vote with their wallet". For example, let's say a business states that they will not serve anyone with Autism (I myself have Autism-Asperger's Syndrome.). They have the right to deny services based on their criteria. However, I have the right to not only refrain from doing business with them, but I have the right to criticize their business practices. The same applies to the current situation. So whose opinion will win out? That will be left up to history to decide.
The next part of the "defense" that I see quite often is to smear the person who is doing the criticizing. For example, a NASCAR driver that I am a fan of, Tony Stewart, criticized Mr. Kaepernick for his actions (again, his right). People all of a sudden came down on him by bringing up the Kevin Ward incident, where Tony accidentally ran over and killed Mr. Ward at a sprint car race TWO YEARS AGO. (It is a long story that I will not dive into in this post. If anyone is interested in the full story, please PM me and I can give you the details....and the video, if you wish.) Now, looking at the comments about Tony, a question came to my mind: How is an incident from two years ago relevant to the issue being discussed? Just because Mr. Stewart was involved in a tragic accident two years ago disqualifies him from discussing the Kaepernick protests? The same was observed when Tony LaRussa, a team owner in American Major League Baseball, questioned Kaepernick's motives, leading some "defenders" to bring up LaRussa's previous marriages in an effort to try and disqualify LaRussa's opinion. The same question applies: What relevance does an individual's previous marriages have to the current discussion?
Finally, I want to bring up the counter-argument I hear and see the most when it comes to the situation:
"If you want mandatory flag worship, move to a place like North Korea."
I have no idea where to begin with this so I am just going to dive right in. While I will admit that some over-zealous Americans would love to see standing for the National Anthem (or the Pledge of Allegiance, for that matter) mandatory, the truth is that a lot of Americans stand for the National Anthem for a different reason. They stand because they want to pay their respects to those that serve, served, or have died, to preserve our freedoms, and our rights, to live our lives freely, which includes standing (or not) for the Anthem. This reminds me of a caricature I saw, in which a teacher is telling a boy that it is his right not to stand for the Pledge, and then introducing a disabled veteran who lost his mobility so the child wouldn't have to stand. I will post the caricature below.
Also, I want to remind the "defenders" about other countries where you don't have to stand for their Anthems, yet they seem to stand proud. Britons stand when "God Save The Queen" (or "Rule Brittania", the unofficial Anthem) plays. Germans stand for their Anthem plays. The French stand. The Spanish stand. They don't have to, but they do.
So in closing, I want to point out something that I noticed during the whole situation. It seems like a lot of these people (not all) are "defending" Mr. Kaepernick because it fits into what they believe. So I want to ask the "defenders" a question: If you are so adamant about the freedom of speech (and protest) being preserved in this situation, will you stand for someone (with whom you disagree with) if their freedom of speech is being suppressed? Or will you just stand aside and let them be suppressed into silence? For if you answer with the latter, I cannot help but think of Pastor Martin Niemoller's famous words:
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, for I am not a socialist......."
As a lot of us here in the United States know, there is a sort of movement going on where professional athletes are refusing to stand for the National Anthem. I, for one, understand that it is their right to do so. However, freedom of speech is a two way street, so while these athletes are within their right to not stand for the Anthem, others are within their right to criticize them. Because of the criticism of the athletes' actions, there are people that are coming out to "defend" them. However, the point of this post is to take a look at their "defense", as well as ask a burning question about these "defenders".
So let's start with the first argument people use to defend Mr. Kaepernick, and I will use an exact quote from these forums (Keep in mind: This is NOT an attack on the poster. He just said something in a way that I wish to use in this post.)
"God forbid he is exercising his right to protest."
Now, I agree with the previous statement...to an extent. Mr. Kaepernick, as well as the other athletes participating, have the right to not stand for the National Anthem. However, as I have said before, freedom of speech (and to protest) is a two way street, so don't be surprised if people react differently to the statement in question. In a free (and free market) society, people are able have an opinion as well as "vote with their wallet". For example, let's say a business states that they will not serve anyone with Autism (I myself have Autism-Asperger's Syndrome.). They have the right to deny services based on their criteria. However, I have the right to not only refrain from doing business with them, but I have the right to criticize their business practices. The same applies to the current situation. So whose opinion will win out? That will be left up to history to decide.
The next part of the "defense" that I see quite often is to smear the person who is doing the criticizing. For example, a NASCAR driver that I am a fan of, Tony Stewart, criticized Mr. Kaepernick for his actions (again, his right). People all of a sudden came down on him by bringing up the Kevin Ward incident, where Tony accidentally ran over and killed Mr. Ward at a sprint car race TWO YEARS AGO. (It is a long story that I will not dive into in this post. If anyone is interested in the full story, please PM me and I can give you the details....and the video, if you wish.) Now, looking at the comments about Tony, a question came to my mind: How is an incident from two years ago relevant to the issue being discussed? Just because Mr. Stewart was involved in a tragic accident two years ago disqualifies him from discussing the Kaepernick protests? The same was observed when Tony LaRussa, a team owner in American Major League Baseball, questioned Kaepernick's motives, leading some "defenders" to bring up LaRussa's previous marriages in an effort to try and disqualify LaRussa's opinion. The same question applies: What relevance does an individual's previous marriages have to the current discussion?
Finally, I want to bring up the counter-argument I hear and see the most when it comes to the situation:
"If you want mandatory flag worship, move to a place like North Korea."
I have no idea where to begin with this so I am just going to dive right in. While I will admit that some over-zealous Americans would love to see standing for the National Anthem (or the Pledge of Allegiance, for that matter) mandatory, the truth is that a lot of Americans stand for the National Anthem for a different reason. They stand because they want to pay their respects to those that serve, served, or have died, to preserve our freedoms, and our rights, to live our lives freely, which includes standing (or not) for the Anthem. This reminds me of a caricature I saw, in which a teacher is telling a boy that it is his right not to stand for the Pledge, and then introducing a disabled veteran who lost his mobility so the child wouldn't have to stand. I will post the caricature below.
Also, I want to remind the "defenders" about other countries where you don't have to stand for their Anthems, yet they seem to stand proud. Britons stand when "God Save The Queen" (or "Rule Brittania", the unofficial Anthem) plays. Germans stand for their Anthem plays. The French stand. The Spanish stand. They don't have to, but they do.
So in closing, I want to point out something that I noticed during the whole situation. It seems like a lot of these people (not all) are "defending" Mr. Kaepernick because it fits into what they believe. So I want to ask the "defenders" a question: If you are so adamant about the freedom of speech (and protest) being preserved in this situation, will you stand for someone (with whom you disagree with) if their freedom of speech is being suppressed? Or will you just stand aside and let them be suppressed into silence? For if you answer with the latter, I cannot help but think of Pastor Martin Niemoller's famous words:
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, for I am not a socialist......."
