(07-02-2020, 07:22 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...n-openers/
Wonder if anyone will kneel
So having a separate "National Anthem" for a group of people based on the color of their skin is suddenly a good thing. We used to have drinking water fountains for the same purpose. This is supposedly "progress"?
(07-05-2020, 03:56 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2020, 07:22 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...n-openers/
Wonder if anyone will kneel
So having a separate "National Anthem" for a group of people based on the color of their skin is suddenly a good thing. We used to have drinking water fountains for the same purpose. This is supposedly "progress"?
Yes, the cannon fodder don't realize that they are demanding the re-segregation of America but they'll be very shocked when they discover what that really means for them.
(07-05-2020, 06:39 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2020, 03:56 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]So having a separate "National Anthem" for a group of people based on the color of their skin is suddenly a good thing. We used to have drinking water fountains for the same purpose. This is supposedly "progress"?
Yes, the cannon fodder don't realize that they are demanding the re-segregation of America but they'll be very shocked when they discover what that really means for them.
You guys don't understand what's really happening. A few decades ago, after the assassination of Dr. King, thousands of cities and towns all over the country decided to name a street after him. Now what was that really all about? That was a low cost way of throwing a bone to black people. Almost purely symbolic. Just calming people down, "Hey, we'll name a street after him. See how much we care?"
It's the same thing with statue removal, changing the Mississippi flag, playing the "black national anthem," and a whole lot of other cost-free, purely symbolic exercises that in the long run, are fairly meaningless.
People who have power stay in power because they understand how to occasionally appease the masses, throw them a bone, let a little of the pressure off. It's how you avoid an explosion. Throw a little oil on troubled waters. "I feel your pain." "I'm on your side."
So in the case of the NFL owners, they say, "We have to throw these guys a bone, get them calmed down a little, so we can get on with making money." So they let the players kneel, and they come up with some sort of "program" to fight racial injustice, and they play the "black national anthem" one time. These are all virtually cost-free ways of calming troubled waters so the people in power can stay in power.
(07-06-2020, 05:24 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2020, 06:39 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, the cannon fodder don't realize that they are demanding the re-segregation of America but they'll be very shocked when they discover what that really means for them.
You guys don't understand what's really happening. A few decades ago, after the assassination of Dr. King, thousands of cities and towns all over the country decided to name a street after him. Now what was that really all about? That was a low cost way of throwing a bone to black people. Almost purely symbolic. Just calming people down, "Hey, we'll name a street after him. See how much we care?"
It's the same thing with statue removal, changing the Mississippi flag, playing the "black national anthem," and a whole lot of other cost-free, purely symbolic exercises that in the long run, are fairly meaningless.
People who have power stay in power because they understand how to occasionally appease the masses, throw them a bone, let a little of the pressure off. It's how you avoid an explosion. Throw a little oil on troubled waters. "I feel your pain." "I'm on your side."
So in the case of the NFL owners, they say, "We have to throw these guys a bone, get them calmed down a little, so we can get on with making money." So they let the players kneel, and they come up with some sort of "program" to fight racial injustice, and they play the "black national anthem" one time. These are all virtually cost-free ways of calming troubled waters so the people in power can stay in power.
Ding, ding, ding.
This ^ is indeed what is happening.
We aren't even seeing the real change that should be coming from these protests, and many conservatives are upset about a little symbolic placating.
A civil rights song being sung before a weeks worth of games is the NFL's version of moving a confederate statue from the center of town to a museum. It's not a big deal.
It's a flash in the pan of awareness that ultimately does very little to actually advance the cause it is "supporting."
So far only three states have actually done anything about reforming their policing. The point of these protests is to see a widespread change in qualified immunity, banning chokeholds, building public databases of traffic stops/camera footage, independent agencies to investigate misconduct, and reform of police vetting and training.
Three states have passed legislation addressing a few of the issues listed above.
12 more have introduced legislation, 5 have done nothing as of yet, and 29 are not in session.
Conservatives are offended because they recognize that it's lip service, and progressives are offended that conservatives are offended about just lip service. Weird times.
(07-06-2020, 11:46 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]"Conservatives" are offended because they recognize suspect that it's lip service a trial balloon for something bigger, and progressives are offended that conservatives are offended about just lip service everything. Weird times.
Maybe it is a trial balloon for something bigger.
But it probably isn't. The NFL is just trying to placate the players and the advertisers.
(07-06-2020, 05:24 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2020, 06:39 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, the cannon fodder don't realize that they are demanding the re-segregation of America but they'll be very shocked when they discover what that really means for them.
You guys don't understand what's really happening. A few decades ago, after the assassination of Dr. King, thousands of cities and towns all over the country decided to name a street after him. Now what was that really all about? That was a low cost way of throwing a bone to black people. Almost purely symbolic. Just calming people down, "Hey, we'll name a street after him. See how much we care?"
It's the same thing with statue removal, changing the Mississippi flag, playing the "black national anthem," and a whole lot of other cost-free, purely symbolic exercises that in the long run, are fairly meaningless.
People who have power stay in power because they understand how to occasionally appease the masses, throw them a bone, let a little of the pressure off. It's how you avoid an explosion. Throw a little oil on troubled waters. "I feel your pain." "I'm on your side."
So in the case of the NFL owners, they say, "We have to throw these guys a bone, get them calmed down a little, so we can get on with making money." So they let the players kneel, and they come up with some sort of "program" to fight racial injustice, and they play the "black national anthem" one time. These are all virtually cost-free ways of calming troubled waters so the people in power can stay in power.
I would say that the part in bold is pretty insulting and divisive.
Here's another thought. Perhaps cities named streets after Dr. King in order to honor him.
(07-06-2020, 11:46 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Conservatives are offended because they recognize that it's lip service, and progressives are offended that conservatives are offended about just lip service. Weird times.
That is NOT what conservatives in this thread have been saying.
Why play any song at all before any sporting event? What does it have to do with a game?
BTW -
I can’t find ANY press release from the NFL on this proposal. I read all of their releases for the past month this morning.
The only sources referring to this as a “black nat’l anthem” are media who want you to get your parties twisted about that.
It seems to be working on many.
(07-06-2020, 01:06 PM)Rico Wrote: [ -> ]Why play any song at all before any sporting event? What does it have to do with a game?
Military recruitment quotas.
(07-06-2020, 01:03 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2020, 05:24 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]You guys don't understand what's really happening. A few decades ago, after the assassination of Dr. King, thousands of cities and towns all over the country decided to name a street after him. Now what was that really all about? That was a low cost way of throwing a bone to black people. Almost purely symbolic. Just calming people down, "Hey, we'll name a street after him. See how much we care?"
It's the same thing with statue removal, changing the Mississippi flag, playing the "black national anthem," and a whole lot of other cost-free, purely symbolic exercises that in the long run, are fairly meaningless.
People who have power stay in power because they understand how to occasionally appease the masses, throw them a bone, let a little of the pressure off. It's how you avoid an explosion. Throw a little oil on troubled waters. "I feel your pain." "I'm on your side."
So in the case of the NFL owners, they say, "We have to throw these guys a bone, get them calmed down a little, so we can get on with making money." So they let the players kneel, and they come up with some sort of "program" to fight racial injustice, and they play the "black national anthem" one time. These are all virtually cost-free ways of calming troubled waters so the people in power can stay in power.
I would say that the part in bold is pretty insulting and divisive.
Here's another thought. Perhaps cities named streets after Dr. King in order to honor him.
Do you think Lenny Curry removed the confederate statue from the front of City Hall because he wanted to do that, or because he felt pressured to do it due to current events/protests?
hint: he was pressured and placating
Marty's implication is no different.
I'm sure there were a few local government individuals and entities that chose to honor MLK from a place of honesty and integrity. I'm sure there were others that did so because they felt they needed to placate a portion of their citizenship.
Insulting and divisive as the truth behind such empty gestures may be, it's undoubtedly true. It's an indelible part of politics. Politicians seek to please disparate segments of their constituency all the time.
Hell of a lot easier for a mayor to rename a street or move a monument than it is to actually implement reform of his police department. And it's the people who want that reform he's placating.
Goodell is the mayor in this particular scenario, and "Lift Every Voice" is the renamed street.
(07-06-2020, 01:42 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2020, 01:03 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]I would say that the part in bold is pretty insulting and divisive.
Here's another thought. Perhaps cities named streets after Dr. King in order to honor him.
Do you think Lenny Curry removed the confederate statue from the front of City Hall because he wanted to do that, or because he felt pressured to do it due to current events/protests?
hint: he was pressured and placating
Marty's implication is no different.
I'm sure there were a few local government individuals and entities that chose to honor MLK from a place of honesty and integrity. I'm sure there were others that did so because they felt they needed to placate a portion of their citizenship.
Insulting and divisive as the truth behind such empty gestures may be, it's undoubtedly true. It's an indelible part of politics. Politicians seek to please disparate segments of their constituency all the time.
Hell of a lot easier for a mayor to rename a street or move a monument than it is to actually implement reform of his police department. And it's the people who want that reform he's placating.
Goodell is the mayor in this particular scenario, and "Lift Every Voice" is the renamed street.
So we are going to further divide by playing "their" national anthem and throwing "them" a bone. Got it.
(07-06-2020, 01:04 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2020, 11:46 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Conservatives are offended because they recognize that it's lip service, and progressives are offended that conservatives are offended about just lip service. Weird times.
That is NOT what conservatives in this thread have been saying.
Obviously, that is a super reductionist point of view. It's an oversimplification meant to juxtapose the positions.
You may not think that is what conservatives are upset about, but it definitely plays a role in their ire. When they complain about this, they are basically asking the question, whether they realize it or not, "What's the point?" I get frustrated with many conservatives, because I don't think they really take the time to process their feelings. They are really susceptible to "moral" impulses, much like their progressive counterparts. The difference, for me, is that I more closely share the same world view as conservatives, so it's easier for me to understand those "moral" principles.
What you are seeing the conservatives express here, is that the national anthem is supposed to be a time for unity. Playing a different song to placate the black players in the league does not effectuate change. In fact, it distinctly highlights a division that exists specifically along racial lines. Personally, I don't believe this is going to bring about any positives. Everything we do to highlight racial differences is only going to drive people apart. I don't believe this gesture isn't going to make some blacks feel more important or heard. In fact, I don't believe this is lip service to blacks, but to white liberals. There is a long history in this country of white liberals offering up platitudes to the black community so they can maintain moral authority, and, by extension, actual authority.
I see nothing wrong with conservatives fighting for unity by holding firm to the belief that there should be occasions where we all see each other as one nation, indivisible. It is a solid principle. I wish they would do more to help their black brothers and sisters feel included, but the way democrats have chosen to "help" the black community has only made things in this country worse. And the fact they admit they have to pacify the black community from time to time should be a strong indicator of how ineffective their solutions have been.
(07-06-2020, 02:49 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2020, 01:04 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]That is NOT what conservatives in this thread have been saying.
Obviously, that is a super reductionist point of view. It's an oversimplification meant to juxtapose the positions.
You may not think that is what conservatives are upset about, but ...
....There is a long history in this country of white liberals offering up platitudes to the black community so they can maintain moral authority, and, by extension, actual authority.
I see nothing wrong with conservatives fighting for unity by holding firm to the belief that there should be occasions where we all see each other as one nation, indivisible. It is a solid principle. I wish they would do more to help their black brothers and sisters feel included, but the way democrats have chosen to "help" the black community has only made things in this country worse. And the fact they admit they have to pacify the black community from time to time should be a strong indicator of how ineffective their solutions have been.
There you go again. Blindly just pinning something conveniently on "democrats" that is true of politicians in general.
Weak [BLEEP] sauce.
You do that frequently.
(07-06-2020, 02:15 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2020, 01:42 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Do you think Lenny Curry removed the confederate statue from the front of City Hall because he wanted to do that, or because he felt pressured to do it due to current events/protests?
hint: he was pressured and placating
Marty's implication is no different.
I'm sure there were a few local government individuals and entities that chose to honor MLK from a place of honesty and integrity. I'm sure there were others that did so because they felt they needed to placate a portion of their citizenship.
Insulting and divisive as the truth behind such empty gestures may be, it's undoubtedly true. It's an indelible part of politics. Politicians seek to please disparate segments of their constituency all the time.
Hell of a lot easier for a mayor to rename a street or move a monument than it is to actually implement reform of his police department. And it's the people who want that reform he's placating.
Goodell is the mayor in this particular scenario, and "Lift Every Voice" is the renamed street.
So we are going to further divide by playing "their" national anthem and throwing "them" a bone. Got it.
You making it an "us" and "they" thing is precisely where you are [BLEEP] this up.
It's a song. And again - the only people calling it the "black national anthem" or portraying this musical tribute to civil rights to serve as a
separate "anthem" at all are the media and a few posters here.
The NFL has not deemed it such and they haven't even confirmed the report as far as I can tell.
If YOU personally want to make this into a
"THEY" get their own "anthem" now thing, well, that's all on you. 100%.
Because - as far as I can tell - there's merely a report that, for one week, a song is going to be performed before games.
No one is raising a flag during this song.
No one is asking you to take your hat off and place a hand over your heart.
No one is saying this is the anthem for one group of people
in place of the Star Spangled Banner.
No one is making you get offended by it but you.
Thread title altered for clarity/accuracy.
The song "reportedly" to be performed prior to the 1st week of games is sometimes referred to as "the black nat'l anthem."
There is no report that the performance of that song is intended to serve as a separate anthem in any way, and that makes the article headline linked by the OP as well as the original title of this thread misleading.