New found respect for Michigan - Take note Kaepernick

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by tshrimp, Sep 12, 2016.

  1. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #1
    http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/09/lapeer_football_team_signs_nat.html

    This gives me hope for our younger generation. Way to go Lightning!!!!!!!

    Kaepernick, doesn't stand when it is made easy. Yet an entire football team comes out of their shell and sings without music to respect our country.
     
  2. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #2
    Sarcasm/Clearly they are racist, nationalists and not accepting other cultures and ideas./ Sarcasm
    I think Kaepernick can do what he wants, I support him in his stance. I would also support the NFL if they laid out a rule that players must stand. To completely ignore the National Anthem to prevent a Kaepernick like response is disgusting.
     
  3. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #3
    THey should either stop playing the anthem before games (why do we do that anyway and not at other public events?) or go back to the way they did it prior to 2009, play the anthem before players come out on to the field.
     
  4. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #4
    why? Are we seriously so butt hurt that the national anthem is a problem?
     
  5. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #5
    Some are.
     
  6. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #6
    I've never understood the connection between sports and the anthem in the first place. It just reeks of militarism to me.
     
  7. impulse462 Suspended

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #7
    singing the national anthem before a football game is as patriotic as refusing to stand for it. both are within the rights of people as per the constitution.

    OP and the people who sung this anthem are no more american than anyone else. he and they don't own patriotism.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 12, 2016 ---
    why are people butthurt that kaepernick didn't stand for it then?
     
  8. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #8
    I honestly have no idea. I believe that it's because sport brings people together for a national event? No idea, but good historical question.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 12, 2016 ---
    Hold on, hold on. Exercising a right is different than being patriotic. I would never want a government that removes his right, by any means. But I also have the right to call him butt hurt, and to say that it's just stupid. (yet, I am not a patriot just because I exercise my right of calling him butt hurt.)
     
  9. impulse462 Suspended

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #9
    I'd argue that you are being patriotic actually by calling him butt hurt.

    Patriotism is taking pride in ones country. By exercising our rights, or trying to bring light to some injustice because this country can do better
     
  10. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #10
    I once went to a baseball game with a guy who got absolutely apoplectic about people who didn't stand for the national anthem. People who were talking or buying hot dogs when the anthem was playing. On more than one occasion I saw him curse out a guy who was taking his kid to the bathroom as some d-list celebrity was mangling the Star Spangled Banner.

    Publicly affirming one's patriotism at a sporting event is all well and good. But our Flag also stands for a level of personal freedom; one that shouldn't make it obligatory to do so.
     
  11. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #11
    I disagree. Exercising a right is not taking pride in ones country. Being pride in ones country is protect those freedoms no matter what, and standing up (no pun intended) whenever the time comes. Being patriotic is helping own's neighborhood, it's getting off the sofa to volunteer, it's going to war, it's going to teach, it's going to do stuff that pays little in terms of money but a lot in terms of society, it's doing something concrete (and not symbolic) to change things. If you ask me, standing up for the anthem is not patriotic but just respectful. I wouldn't stop respecting my adoptive country just because I am pissed. I know how much more America gives to its citizens, even with all the inevitable problems of society. But when I stand up with my hand on my heart I am not patriotic. I become patriotic whenever I volunteer my time and money, or when I try to teach something, or when I am helping poor kids getting for free at the local YMCA, or school, or whenever I spend the long evenings I could be home watching a movie discussing boring financial matters at the school district (unpaid).
    That's when I am patriotic.
    Whenever Mr. Football disrespects the anthem, which is a symbol for patriotism, he disrespects the hard work I do both paid and unpaid.
     
  12. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #12
    I think it's quite hilarious how many Republicans need a safe space from athletes exercising their Constitutional rights. ;)
    --- Post Merged, Sep 12, 2016 ---
    Too many Americans don't know the difference between patriotism and jingoism.
     
  13. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #13
    Sports function as a distraction in most peoples' minds. The event, the teams, and the anthem tap into a deeply-rooted tribalist nature in humans. In this country it is used to great advantage of the empire, as most are unaware this these traits exist and the subliminal power it holds over them.


    Why Americans Know So Much About Sports But So Little About World Affairs

    The following is a short excerpt from a classic, The Chomsky Reader, which offers a unique insight on a question worth asking -- how is it that we as a people can be so knowledgable about the intricacies of various sports teams, yet be colossally ignorant about our various undertakings abroad?

    QUESTION: You've written about the way that professional ideologists and the mandarins obfuscate reality. And you have spoken -- in some places you call it a "Cartesian common sense" -- of the commonsense capacities of people. Indeed, you place a significant emphasis on this common sense when you reveal the ideological aspects of arguments, especially in contemporary social science. What do you mean by common sense? What does it mean in a society like ours? For example, you've written that within a highly competitive, fragmented society, it's very difficult for people to become aware of what their interests are. If you are not able to participate in the political system in meaningful ways, if you are reduced to the role of a passive spectator, then what kind of knowledge do you have? How can common sense emerge in this context?

    CHOMSKY: Well, let me give an example. When I'm driving, I sometimes turn on the radio and I find very often that what I'm listening to is a discussion of sports. These are telephone conversations. People call in and have long and intricate discussions, and it's plain that quite a high degree of thought and analysis is going into that. People know a tremendous amount. They know all sorts of complicated details and enter into far-reaching discussion about whether the coach made the right decision yesterday and so on. These are ordinary people, not professionals, who are applying their intelligence and analytic skills in these areas and accumulating quite a lot of knowledge and, for all I know, understanding. On the other hand, when I hear people talk about, say, international affairs or domestic problems, it's at a level of superficiality that's beyond belief.

    In part, this reaction may be due to my own areas of interest, but I think it's quite accurate, basically. And I think that this concentration on such topics as sports makes a certain degree of sense. The way the system is set up, there is virtually nothing people can do anyway, without a degree of organization that's far beyond anything that exists now, to influence the real world. They might as well live in a fantasy world, and that's in fact what they do. I'm sure they are using their common sense and intellectual skills, but in an area which has no meaning and probably thrives because it has no meaning, as a displacement from the serious problems which one cannot influence and affect because the power happens to lie elsewhere.

    Now it seems to me that the same intellectual skill and capacity for understanding and for accumulating evidence and gaining information and thinking through problems could be used -- would be used -- under different systems of governance which involve popular participation in important decision-making, in areas that really matter to human life.

    There are questions that are hard. There are areas where you need specialized knowledge. I'm not suggesting a kind of anti-intellectualism. But the point is that many things can be understood quite well without a very far-reaching, specialized knowledge. And in fact even a specialized knowledge in these areas is not beyond the reach of people who happen to be interested.



    QUESTION: Do you think people are inhibited by expertise?

    CHOMSKY: There are also experts about football, but these people don't defer to them. The people who call in talk with complete confidence. They don't care if they disagree with the coach or whoever the local expert is. They have their own opinion and they conduct intelligent discussions. I think it's an interesting phenomenon. Now I don't think that international or domestic affairs are much more complicated. And what passes for serious intellectual discourse on these matters does not reflect any deeper level of understanding or knowledge.

    One finds something similar in the case of so-called primitive cultures. What you find very often is that certain intellectual systems have been constructed of considerable intricacy, with specialized experts who know all about it and other people who don't quite understand and so on. For example, kinship systems are elaborated to enormous complexity. Many anthropologists have tried to show that this has some functional utility in the society. But one function may just be intellectual. It's a kind of mathematics. These are areas where you can use your intelligence to create complex and intricate systems and elaborate their properties pretty much the way we do mathematics. They don't have mathematics and technology; they have other systems of cultural richness and complexity. I don't want to overdraw the analogy, but something similar may be happening here.

    The gas station attendant who wants to use his mind isn't going to waste his time on international affairs, because that's useless; he can't do anything about it anyhow, and he might learn unpleasant things and even get into trouble. So he might as well do it where it's fun, and not threatening -- professional football or basketball or something like that. But the skills are being used and the understanding is there and the intelligence is there. One of the functions that things like professional sports play, in our society and others, is to offer an area to deflect people's attention from things that matter, so that the people in power can do what matters without public interference.


    QUESTION: I asked a while ago whether people are inhibited by the aura of expertise. Can one turn this around -- are experts and intellectuals afraid of people who could apply the intelligence of sport to their own areas of competency in foreign affairs, social sciences, and so on?

    CHOMSKY: I suspect that this is rather common. Those areas of inquiry that have to do with problems of immediate human concern do not happen to be particularly profound or inaccessible to the ordinary person lacking any special training who takes the trouble to learn something about them. Commentary on public affairs in the mainstream literature is often shallow and uninformed. Everyone who writes and speaks about these matters knows how much you can get away with as long as you keep close to received doctrine. I'm sure just about everyone exploits these privileges. I know I do. When I refer to Nazi crimes or Soviet atrocities, for example, I know that I will not be called upon to back up what I say, but a detailed scholarly apparatus is necessary if I say anything critical about the practice of one of the Holy States: the United States itself, or Israel, since it was enshrined by the intelligentsia after its 1967 victory. This freedom from the requirements of evidence or even rationality is quite a convenience, as any informed reader of the journals of public opinion, or even much of the scholarly literature, will quickly discover. It makes life easy, and permits expression of a good deal of nonsense or ignorant bias with impunity, also sheer slander. Evidence is unnecessary, argument beside the point. Thus a standard charge against American dissidents or even American liberals -- I've cited quite a few cases in print and have collected many others -- is that they claim that the United States is the sole source of evil in the world or other similar idiocies; the convention is that such charges are entirely legitimate when the target is someone who does not march in the appropriate parades, and they are therefore produced without even a pretense of evidence. Adherence to the party line confers the right to act in ways that would properly be regarded as scandalous on the part of any critic of received orthodoxies. Too much public awareness might lead to a demand that standards of integrity should be met, which would certainly save a lot of forests from destruction, and would send many a reputation tumbling.

    The right to lie in the service of power is guarded with considerable vigor and passion. This becomes evident whenever anyone takes the trouble to demonstrate that charges against some official enemy are inaccurate or, sometimes, pure invention. The immediate reaction among the commissars is that the person is an apologist for the real crimes of official enemies. The case of Cambodia is a striking example. That the Khmer Rouge were guilty of gruesome atrocities was doubted by no one, apart from a few marginal Maoist sects. It is also true, and easily documented, that Western propaganda seized upon these crimes with great relish, exploiting them to provide a retrospective justification for Western atrocities, and since standards are nonexistent in such a noble cause, they also produced a record of fabrication and deceit that is quite remarkable. Demonstration of this fact, and fact it is, elicited enormous outrage, along with a stream of new and quite spectacular lies, as Edward Herman and I, among others, have documented. The point is that the right to lie in the service of the state was being challenged, and that is an unspeakable crime. Similarly, anyone who points out that some charge against Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, or some other official enemy is dubious or false will immediately be labeled an apologist for real or alleged crimes, a useful technique to ensure that rational standards will not be imposed on the commissars and that there will be no impediment to their loyal service to power. The critic typically has little access to the media, and the personal consequences for the critic are sufficiently annoying to deter many from taking this course, particularly because some journals -- the New Republic, for example -- sink to the ultimate level of dishonesty and cowardice, regularly refusing to permit even the right of response to slanders they publish. Hence the sacred right to lie is likely to be preserved without too serious a threat. But matters might be different if unreliable sectors of the public were admitted into the arena of discussion and debate.

    The aura of alleged expertise also provides a way for the indoctrination system to provide its services to power while maintaining a useful image of indifference and objectivity. The media, for example, can turn to academic experts to provide the perspective that is required by the centers of power, and the university system is sufficiently obedient to external power so that appropriate experts will generally be available to lend the prestige of scholarship to the narrow range of opinion permitted broad expression. Or when this method fails -- as in the current case of Latin America, for example, or in the emerging discipline of terrorology -- a new category of "experts" can be established who can be trusted to provide the approved opinions that the media cannot express directly without abandoning the pretense of objectivity that serves to legitimate their propaganda function. I've documented many examples, as have others.

    The guild structure of the professions concerned with public affairs also helps to preserve doctrinal purity. In fact, it is guarded with much diligence. My own personal experience is perhaps relevant. As I mentioned earlier, I do not have the usual professional credentials in any field, and my own work has ranged fairly widely. Some years ago, for example, I did some work in mathematical linguistics and automata theory, and occasionally gave invited lectures at mathematics or engineering colloquia. No one would have dreamed of challenging my credentials to speak on these topics -- which were zero, as everyone knew; that would have been laughable. The participants were concerned with what I had to say, not my right to say it. But when I speak, say, about international affairs, I'm constantly challenged to present the credentials that authorize me to enter this august arena, in the United States, at least -- elsewhere not. It's a fair generalization, I think, that the more a discipline has intellectual substance, the less it has to protect itself from scrutiny, by means of a guild structure. The consequences with regard to your question are pretty obvious.


    QUESTION: You have said that most intellectuals end up obfuscating reality. Do they understand the reality they are obfuscating? Do they understand the social processes they mystify?

    CHOMSKY: Most people are not liars. They can't tolerate too much cognitive dissonance. I don't want to deny that there are outright liars, just brazen propagandists. You can find them in journalism and in the academic professions as well. But I don't think that's the norm. The norm is obedience, adoption of uncritical attitudes, taking the easy path of self-deception. I think there's also a selective process in the academic professions and journalism. That is, people who are independent minded and cannot be trusted to be obedient don't make it, by and large. They're often filtered out along the way.

    http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsk...ch-about-sports-so-little-about-world-affairs
     
  14. tshrimp thread starter macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #14
    I respect his right to not stand, just as I support my right and others to bash him for it :).
     
  15. impulse462 Suspended

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #15
    No idea what you're talking about dude. He did not sit because he disrespects the people who contribute to society. He sat because there are cops who unfairly target non-white people, yet they are still held up as "role models" or aren't fairly punished (and are actively shielded) for their crimes just because they wear a badge and they are supposed to be representative of this countries finest (lol).
    --- Post Merged, Sep 12, 2016 ---
    Your bashing is on false pretenses because you can't tell someone how to protest, but yes obviously you have the right to say anything you want.
     
  16. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #16
    Good old Chomsky, an intellectual I disagree with but I have always found extremely interesting to read.

    He's dead wrong here: "They don't care if they disagree with the coach or whoever the local expert is. They have their own opinion and they conduct intelligent discussions. I think it's an interesting phenomenon. Now I don't think that international or domestic affairs are much more complicated."

    International or domestic affairs ARE much much more complicated than sports.
    They carry historical, economical, cultural, religious factors with them. A game is a game, and a championship is a championship. NFL 2016 will have almost nothing to do with NFL 2015, let alone NFL 2000. Relationships between UK and Argentina? Check the Falklands. You need a serious historical background just to understand how to talk with the counterpart. In sports? You just do the technical workload.
    In sports there are no indirect consequences. Team A wins over team B, team A gets the point, team B doesn't. Team C might not like the result, but there's nothing that Team C can do. In international relationships, Country C will defend Country B WHILE the "game" is played, and this might bring Country D to the plate, and maybe Country E in secret.
    As for domestic issues, it is at time even more complex than foreign affairs.
     
  17. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #17
    Well not sure how much you know about "Mr. Football" - but he donates time and money to charity. Not saying that's the be all - end all. For example: http://www.49ers.com/news/article-2...-Efforts/56a3f30c-5546-4530-af85-03ad127ae53f

    My stance is - it's a personal decision. And fortunately he lives in a country where he has the ability to make that decision. I find it odd that you feel personally disrespected.
     
  18. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #18
    So he's throwing away the baby with the water. Simple as that. IT would be like protesting some MLK celebration because some black gangs commit crimes. Does it bring anything? No, it would just be disrespectful to the people that really celebrate what MLK was trying to accomplish and work for it.
     
  19. impulse462 Suspended

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #19
    ok. what do you think would be an "acceptable" form of protest? to you. i'm guessing you aren't a minority. honestly if not standing when other people are standing is disrespectful, i can't see how you could tolerate any type of protest.
     
  20. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #20
    I am not a Sports Guy, but even I understand that predictions are often based on historical statistics, team culture, momentum, and an owner's ability to buy the right players.
     
  21. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #21
    Get together with a bunch of African-American kids, form a group (he has the money to do it), and start making political noise WHILE working to fix his own neighborhoods. Show the world that they don't suck, because... they don't. Show the world that is is complex, but no matter what you're trying to fix the problem. Remember what Les Brown said to the African American kids when he visited their school and he got pissed off? Show the world that you're trying to fix it, and that the ***** cop that does what he's not supposed to IS part of the problem.

    not sure... I am white, immigrant (only Italian immigrant I know at the moment lol), and I like soccer (which in TX puts me in the 0.05% bracket).


    I just find it disrespectful. I tolerate it. For me it's the equivalent of a middle finger: His right, I tolerate it (my life doesn't really change other than discussing on MR lol), still disrespectful for me. If he wants to go ahead, he's welcome.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 12, 2016 ---
    Very tactical stuff indeed. NFL 1960 will carry absolutely no consequence on NFL 2016.
     
  22. impulse462 Suspended

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #22
    -ok well that is a great idea. i hope he does something like that.
    -thats cool. where in italy are you from? i like soccer too :D. i try to follow Serie A, but I don't much (other than the italian teams in champions league). my dad's a manchester united fan so you know how that is. also i love italian food
    -we'll just have to disagree here since i don't find it disrespectful at all honestly.
     
  23. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #23
    It is our right not to stand if we don't want to. Yeah it's symbolic of loyalty to the country, a country which also insures you have the right to protest if something's not right. Allegiance is not blind, all is not roses in this country as if we don't all know that.

    And for anyone to tell a protestor to go live in another country because this is the way they chose to show they are not happy with the state of affairs, is BS. You may not like it, may not approve it, but if you believe in the U.S. and what it stands for, you'll acknowledge the person's rights even if you disagree with why they did it.

    The risk to endorsements and such will be the chance a popular sports figure takes when they take such a (non) stand, but if they feel that strong about it, you should be impressed with them more than someone who keeps their complaints to themselves for the money.
     
  24. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #24
    Me too. But I truly believe in citizen's power. I think that there is so much work to do for our communities, and it's all work that we CAN do.

    I am from Milan... and I am for AC Milan!!! Although we suck right now, we will certainly come back!

    Fair enough!
     
  25. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #25
    Probably not, but NFL 2015 absolutely would and NFL 2000 might.

    By asserting this as a one-to-one analogy, you are building a a straw man Chomsky did not intend to ever exist.
     

Share This Page