Centrehalf
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 719
Some people can't turn the other cheek. Trump is right, the NFL players are wrong.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Kneeling during the National Anthem
- Thread starter The Scotsman
- Start date
Some people can't turn the other cheek. Trump is right, the NFL players are wrong.
Werbung:
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
Why would Trump be right when it is he that is violating the Constitution, not the players? You're not a vet are you?
Vincent Tricozzi
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2017
- Messages
- 1
It’s Time to Take a Stand: Analyzation of an Argument on Effective Protesting
The Black Live Matters movement is a political stand against the government sanctioned killing of African Americans (Khan-Cullors and Garza). Government authorized violence refers to the disproportionate amount of African Americans killed by U.S. police officers. In an effort to gain attraction for the movement, professional football players have been kneeling during the national anthem. They refuse to rise for the anthem until progress has been made to end targeting of African Americans. The act of kneeling during the anthem has become popularized though professional sports, however, this has caused a divide on the act and the issue. Some believe that the act is disrespecting the nation by not acknowledging an American symbol. Others believe that based on the issue, and the players right to peaceful protest, this act is essential for exposure of the Black Lives Matter movement. Regardless on your opinion of the act, the issue cannot be overlooked, as a group of Americans is being unjustly targeted, and whose safety is in jeopardy because the color of their skin. As Americans, it is our duty to take a stand and put an end to this prejudice and violence.
In The New York Times opinion article, The Choice Between Kneeling and Winning, David Leonhard argues that kneeling during the national anthem is an ineffective way to rally those who are neutral on the black lives matter movement. He suggests “getting smart” about the issue, by electing progressive representatives, and unifying as democrats to fight for the cause.Overall, this point is argued well, however, it is lacking evidence about the Black Lives Matter movement, and isolates a conservative audience.
Leonhard provides good evidence and reasons in this piece. The central evidence comes from the civil rights era. The first thing the viewer sees, before reading the piece, is a black and white photo of civil rights activists carrying the American flag during the march from Selma to Montgomery. This shows how the civil rights movement used American symbols to their advantage. They used words that were American, and explained how equality among all people is an American ideal and should be celebrated. To contrast this, Leonhard explains how the segregationists used the confederate flag to support their ideas. This was ineffective, as this is a symbol of division, and goes against national pride. He effectively uses this example to explain that American symbols should be used as an ally to support your cause, and that kneeling to a national symbol shows disrespect, and division. This evidence shows that kneeling is alienating persuadable people, as it shows division rather than unity. The civil rights comparison dually provides evidence that today, those who kneel in support of Black Lives Matter, are the descendants of the civil rights era protesters. Those who oppose this movement are descendants of the segregationists. This is an important association, as it puts into perspective the social injustices that were thought to be removed in the civil rights era are still lurking today through racism. Leonhard also quotes a civil rights era activist Vernon Jordan, “You have to get smart” to effectively suggest that there are better ways to rally support for the movement. “Getting smart” in this case, Leonhard proposes, means to elect progressive leaders in government, and make it known to your representatives that this issue is important to you. Leonhard successfully provides his alternative to rallying support for the Black Lives Matter Movement.
Though this piece was well argued with good reasons, there was no background evidence about the Black Lives Matter movement. Leonhard address that there is government sanctioned shooting through police brutality, but expects that the audience should believe him with no statistical evidence. If the audience were to research this, they may be misled by the false statistic that shows there are more white citizens shot and killed by police officers annually. This statistic is wrong because it fails to account for the 63% of population that are white and the 12.3% that are African American. Of course there are more white people shot and killed by police officers annually, because they make up the majority of the population. However, when proportionality of population is taken into account, African Americans are 2.5 times more likely to be shot and killed by a U.S. police officer than a white American citizen (Lowery 2). If the Black Lives Matter movement had been addressed, and evidence was considered on police brutality against African Americans, this piece would have been more persuasive.
Leonhard considers the position of the protesters, and that they are just in what they are doing. He explains that protesters that kneel have every right to do what they are doing, and the Black Lives Matter cause is one that needs support and unity. He then refutes the counter point by explaining that the use of only kneeling, turns off people that would otherwise support them. Many of these people hold their values in respect of American symbols, and find this act disrespectful. He does not suggest the athletes should stop what they are doing, but urges them to implement a smarter strategy to rally more people behind the cause and gain progress on the issue. This is effective because it shows support for the cause, but contributes to his position by suggesting smarter ways to gain support, and invoke change successfully.
Leonhard appeals to a liberal audience, but fails to persuade conservatives. Throughout this piece Leonhard refers to American ideals, using the civil rights era and how they used American symbols to support their cause. He refers to Martin Luther King in his I Have a Dream Speech, as he uses lines from “My Country Tis’ of Thee” to evoke American themes into his speech, making his point easy to rally behind. This evidence invites a wide audience to get behind the Black Lives Matter Movement, however, his call to action statement isolates conservatives. He suggests, “…delaying internal fights (like single-payer health care) and unifying against Trump’s agenda (as Democrats in Congress have).” This action statement is in reference to the Democratic Party alone, which suggests that you have to be a democrat to get behind the Black Lives Matter Movement. In reality all should be rallying behind this movement, so that change can happen. This action statement is frustrating because leading up to it were good reasons that supported American ideals, and a unification of Americans, no matter their political affiliation, with the movement.
The Choice Between Kneeling and Winning by David Leonhard was a well-argued piece, with some flaws. Leonhard provided good reasons and evidence by associating the Black Live Matter Movement with the civil rights era. This association helps the audience to realize the racial injustice happening today, as it did in the civil rights era. This piece was lacking in background information on the Black Lives Matter Movement, and isolates a conservativeaudience by making a democrat only action statement. With a few adjustments made, this would be a very effective argument.
Works Cited
Bullock, Richard, and Goggin, Maureen. The Norton Field Guide, with readings, Moller, Marylin, Fourth Edition, W.W. Norton Company, 2016, pp. 169-170. Accessed Oct 22. 2017.
Khan-Cullors, Patrisse, and Garza, Alicia. “About.” Black Lives Matter, blacklivesmatter.com/about/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2017.
Leonhardt, David. “The Choice Between Kneeling and Winning.” The New York Times. 2 Oct. 2017. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/...llection/sectioncollection/opinion-columnists. Accessed 11 Oct. 2017.
Lowery, Wesley. “Aren’t more white people than black people killed by police? Yes, but no.” The Washington Post. 11 July. 2017. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-by-police-yes-but-no/?utm_term=.208fc9525a5d. Accessed 17 Oct. 2017.
The Black Live Matters movement is a political stand against the government sanctioned killing of African Americans (Khan-Cullors and Garza). Government authorized violence refers to the disproportionate amount of African Americans killed by U.S. police officers. In an effort to gain attraction for the movement, professional football players have been kneeling during the national anthem. They refuse to rise for the anthem until progress has been made to end targeting of African Americans. The act of kneeling during the anthem has become popularized though professional sports, however, this has caused a divide on the act and the issue. Some believe that the act is disrespecting the nation by not acknowledging an American symbol. Others believe that based on the issue, and the players right to peaceful protest, this act is essential for exposure of the Black Lives Matter movement. Regardless on your opinion of the act, the issue cannot be overlooked, as a group of Americans is being unjustly targeted, and whose safety is in jeopardy because the color of their skin. As Americans, it is our duty to take a stand and put an end to this prejudice and violence.
In The New York Times opinion article, The Choice Between Kneeling and Winning, David Leonhard argues that kneeling during the national anthem is an ineffective way to rally those who are neutral on the black lives matter movement. He suggests “getting smart” about the issue, by electing progressive representatives, and unifying as democrats to fight for the cause.Overall, this point is argued well, however, it is lacking evidence about the Black Lives Matter movement, and isolates a conservative audience.
Leonhard provides good evidence and reasons in this piece. The central evidence comes from the civil rights era. The first thing the viewer sees, before reading the piece, is a black and white photo of civil rights activists carrying the American flag during the march from Selma to Montgomery. This shows how the civil rights movement used American symbols to their advantage. They used words that were American, and explained how equality among all people is an American ideal and should be celebrated. To contrast this, Leonhard explains how the segregationists used the confederate flag to support their ideas. This was ineffective, as this is a symbol of division, and goes against national pride. He effectively uses this example to explain that American symbols should be used as an ally to support your cause, and that kneeling to a national symbol shows disrespect, and division. This evidence shows that kneeling is alienating persuadable people, as it shows division rather than unity. The civil rights comparison dually provides evidence that today, those who kneel in support of Black Lives Matter, are the descendants of the civil rights era protesters. Those who oppose this movement are descendants of the segregationists. This is an important association, as it puts into perspective the social injustices that were thought to be removed in the civil rights era are still lurking today through racism. Leonhard also quotes a civil rights era activist Vernon Jordan, “You have to get smart” to effectively suggest that there are better ways to rally support for the movement. “Getting smart” in this case, Leonhard proposes, means to elect progressive leaders in government, and make it known to your representatives that this issue is important to you. Leonhard successfully provides his alternative to rallying support for the Black Lives Matter Movement.
Though this piece was well argued with good reasons, there was no background evidence about the Black Lives Matter movement. Leonhard address that there is government sanctioned shooting through police brutality, but expects that the audience should believe him with no statistical evidence. If the audience were to research this, they may be misled by the false statistic that shows there are more white citizens shot and killed by police officers annually. This statistic is wrong because it fails to account for the 63% of population that are white and the 12.3% that are African American. Of course there are more white people shot and killed by police officers annually, because they make up the majority of the population. However, when proportionality of population is taken into account, African Americans are 2.5 times more likely to be shot and killed by a U.S. police officer than a white American citizen (Lowery 2). If the Black Lives Matter movement had been addressed, and evidence was considered on police brutality against African Americans, this piece would have been more persuasive.
Leonhard considers the position of the protesters, and that they are just in what they are doing. He explains that protesters that kneel have every right to do what they are doing, and the Black Lives Matter cause is one that needs support and unity. He then refutes the counter point by explaining that the use of only kneeling, turns off people that would otherwise support them. Many of these people hold their values in respect of American symbols, and find this act disrespectful. He does not suggest the athletes should stop what they are doing, but urges them to implement a smarter strategy to rally more people behind the cause and gain progress on the issue. This is effective because it shows support for the cause, but contributes to his position by suggesting smarter ways to gain support, and invoke change successfully.
Leonhard appeals to a liberal audience, but fails to persuade conservatives. Throughout this piece Leonhard refers to American ideals, using the civil rights era and how they used American symbols to support their cause. He refers to Martin Luther King in his I Have a Dream Speech, as he uses lines from “My Country Tis’ of Thee” to evoke American themes into his speech, making his point easy to rally behind. This evidence invites a wide audience to get behind the Black Lives Matter Movement, however, his call to action statement isolates conservatives. He suggests, “…delaying internal fights (like single-payer health care) and unifying against Trump’s agenda (as Democrats in Congress have).” This action statement is in reference to the Democratic Party alone, which suggests that you have to be a democrat to get behind the Black Lives Matter Movement. In reality all should be rallying behind this movement, so that change can happen. This action statement is frustrating because leading up to it were good reasons that supported American ideals, and a unification of Americans, no matter their political affiliation, with the movement.
The Choice Between Kneeling and Winning by David Leonhard was a well-argued piece, with some flaws. Leonhard provided good reasons and evidence by associating the Black Live Matter Movement with the civil rights era. This association helps the audience to realize the racial injustice happening today, as it did in the civil rights era. This piece was lacking in background information on the Black Lives Matter Movement, and isolates a conservativeaudience by making a democrat only action statement. With a few adjustments made, this would be a very effective argument.
Works Cited
Bullock, Richard, and Goggin, Maureen. The Norton Field Guide, with readings, Moller, Marylin, Fourth Edition, W.W. Norton Company, 2016, pp. 169-170. Accessed Oct 22. 2017.
Khan-Cullors, Patrisse, and Garza, Alicia. “About.” Black Lives Matter, blacklivesmatter.com/about/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2017.
Leonhardt, David. “The Choice Between Kneeling and Winning.” The New York Times. 2 Oct. 2017. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/...llection/sectioncollection/opinion-columnists. Accessed 11 Oct. 2017.
Lowery, Wesley. “Aren’t more white people than black people killed by police? Yes, but no.” The Washington Post. 11 July. 2017. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-by-police-yes-but-no/?utm_term=.208fc9525a5d. Accessed 17 Oct. 2017.
The Scotsman
Well-Known Member
bollox.... which makes the rest of it bollox too
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
Don't act like the mindless right, and explain just how it is "bollox"
Maybe you could chew on this for a while:
http://time.com/4958261/eddie-glaude-special-snowflakes/
The Scotsman
Well-Known Member
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
Why would you say it is not government sanctioned when the Sessions Justice Department refuses to investigate it, and the White controlled courts refuse to prosecute the ones doing the killing?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-jess-sessions-helps-build-the-wall-the-blue-one-of-silence
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-its-impossible-indict-cop/
The Scotsman
Well-Known Member
Is there a recruitment issue that needs looking at....yeah probably
Is there a rules of engagement issue that needs looking at.....who knows
Is there a wider socital issue with so many fuckheads carrying guns... of course there is
Is there inter-gang violence....yup
Is there a problem with community relations.... I guess so
Is there a stark polarisation of viewpoint...well maybe
Is there an edict stating that whites can shoot blacks...I doubt it.
And you would be right.
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
Do you understand condoning an action by omission?
If the government refuses to investigate the crimes, or prosecute the crimes, are they not condoning the action by omission?
http://prospect.org/article/how-government-policies-cemented-racism-reigns-baltimore
http://www.epi.org/publication/racial-segregation-continues-intensifies/
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/suppression-of-the-black-vote-is-no-relic
The Scotsman
Well-Known Member
do you understand hysteria and sound bites?
I can't be bothered with any links but here's a great Swedish metal band called Sabaton...
Last edited:
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
And I had such high hopes for you not being one of the whiny right wingers who could face the truth. Well, when I am wrong I am wrong.
BTW, I can't be bothered with listening to any groups that can't carry a tune without a sound mixer, and at a volume that could make one deaf.
The Scotsman
Well-Known Member
don't worry....you'll get over it
The issue at hand is not whether the protesters are right, but whether they have a right to protest.
If they signed a contract saying that they would stand for the national anthem, then they should honor that contract.
If not, they they have a right to protest. If they did sign such a contract, then they're in breech of it and should have to face the consequences.
And, of course the fans have a right to vote with their feet and not buy tickets to the games. That's a form of perfectly legal protest as well.
and they have that right whether they'r on the right side of the issue or not.
If it were up to me, we'd disband the NFL and learn to play football the way they do in the rest of the world, but then, that's not my call either.
Now, here's another question: If the fans are there to see football, and not to see a political statement made, why do we play the national anthem at all? And if they're playing in Scotland, why on Earth would they play the US national anthem? If they want to be nationalistic, why not honor the nation they're in?
If they signed a contract saying that they would stand for the national anthem, then they should honor that contract.
If not, they they have a right to protest. If they did sign such a contract, then they're in breech of it and should have to face the consequences.
And, of course the fans have a right to vote with their feet and not buy tickets to the games. That's a form of perfectly legal protest as well.
and they have that right whether they'r on the right side of the issue or not.
If it were up to me, we'd disband the NFL and learn to play football the way they do in the rest of the world, but then, that's not my call either.
Now, here's another question: If the fans are there to see football, and not to see a political statement made, why do we play the national anthem at all? And if they're playing in Scotland, why on Earth would they play the US national anthem? If they want to be nationalistic, why not honor the nation they're in?
Werbung:
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
Until 2008 they didn't come on the field until after the national anthem was sung. Nothing in their contract says they must stand.
Let me say this. It was a Green Beret Veteran that suggested to Colin that he kneel out of reverence to the Anthem. As he said the Veterans kneel before the graves of their fallen, so how much more reverent can you be.
Second, the ones making a big issue of this, like Trump, turned their back on the flag, the anthem, and the country, with their own cowardice. Of the ones that supported the Iraq invasion only about 1% actually enlisted to go fight. So, you have a bunch of mindless cowards calling real men "traitors", etc.
And that is the bottom line. Cowards trying to act like patriots, and men.