NFL and Respect for the Flag

The whole country is in an uproar about whether or not professional athletes should be forced to stand at attention when the national anthem is played before their games.  Certain players and teams are refusing to do so as a protest again what they see as racism in the police force and other institutions in the country.

I think the whole thing is a manufactured issue, that the media created, to successfully get more attention to the things they are showing.  Starting with Colin Kaepernick last year, the issue has simmered until last week when it exploded across the world, with Trump denouncing it, players in England taking part, entire teams not attending the anthem, and it spreading to other sports.

Mostly this has occurred as players taking a knee during the anthem, or remaining seated when the rest of the team stands.  Other players have remained standing but raised a fist instead of placing their hand over their heart.  The Steelers took it a step farther by not showing up on the field for the anthem.  It will be interesting to see what happens next, as people try to top that move in their quest for attention.  It is an increasing level of disrespect for the flag, and country depending on how you look at it.  Part of the spread seems to be fueled by rebellion against the idea that certain people have been expressing: "that the players shouldn't be allowed to protest."  Just because someone can do something doesn't necessarily mean that they should.

From a first amendment perspective, there is nothing that the government can or should do about it.  So in that way, Trump is totally out of line, and the last person that should try to influence the situation. The NFL or individual team owners have the right, but not the obligation, to put a stop to it.  The owners of certain teams like the Cowboy's have prohibited their players from taking part, while others like the Patriots have supported the protest.  The Jaguars owner took part in the protest himself, while the Steelers coach (unsuccessfully) tried to pressure his entire team into taking part.

The unexpected result of this was that it gave one Steelers player the opportunity to make a protest of his own.  Standing outside the locker rom at the edge of the field, the former Army Ranger stood at attention during the anthem, in a move that implicitly protested the ongoing disrespect of the flag and country.  Now the one standing apart and getting attention is the one doing the normal thing, which becomes counterproductive for those trying to point attention where they want it, so that might be the key to ending the issue.  It is not a protest that is sustainable or scalable.  Once entire teams are doing it, it becomes the new normal, and no one is getting special attention, and people stop talking about it.

I think the entire issue is a good highlight to the general public of what the first amendment does and doesn't apply to.  People care far more about sports than I think they should, but if that interest motivates them to examine this legal issue closer than they otherwise would, so be it.  It should help them understand that the first amendment only protects them from the government punishing them in disapproval of their free expressions.  Other people are free to express counter opinions in response, or even to terminate their relationships or employment with them (Within certain parameters).  This is similar to the dancers who didn't want to perform at Trumps inauguration, they have a right not to, but at the expense of their jobs.  It will be interesting to see if this grows into a conflict between people who do have authority to change things (the league and owners) and the players.  Because up until now, nothing of any consequence has actually taken place as a result of the entire thing.  And I am not sure how much of anything positive really could, given the broad nature of what they are protesting.

Confederate Monuments and Other Historical Memorials

The debate about Confederate monuments has expanded since my last post, and now has begun to include anyone who owned slaves, or is perceived to have held racists views.  Since pretty much everyone prior to the twentieth century held racist views, (Same as they believed smoking was good for you, and all sorts of other things) that pretty much provides a wild card to justify attacking any part of America's history or heritage.  Even Abraham Lincoln, famous for fighting to end slavery, still expressed extremely racist views by our modern standard.  Instead of that fact providing people with a little more perspective on the realities of the past, it led someone to deface (literally) a statue of Lincoln in Chicago.  There are people calling for changes to Mt. Rushmore, because it honors people who were "racist" (all of them) and slave owners (Washington and Jefferson).  ESPN even removed a sports commentator to avoid offending people who might be bothered that his (Asian) name is Robert Lee.  Seems kind of racist to me to remove someone from their position due to their last name.

Anyhow, I had already written up both sides of the debate about Confederate statues, because I wasn't sure exactly where I stood on the issue, and figured that it would need to be a case by case thing.  But in light of these new over reaching demands, I am opposed to removing any historical monument (or doing much of anything else in life) purely to avoid offending someone.  But let's examine both sides of the original issue:

There are a number of different reasons given by supporters of removal, including that Confederates were traitors that shouldn't be honored, that they were racists who oppressed blacks in the south, and that the statues were erected decades later by white supremacists.  Those opposed to removing them point out that they are works of art, those honored were Americans, and part of the South's heritage.  They also point out that past leaders, and pretty much everyone else, held views that are considered racist today.  So if that disqualifies historical figures from being honored, there would be none left.  And even if those honored did hold offensive views, deliberately erasing them from the public consciousness does nothing to change the past, and only makes it harder for society to recognize and learn from its past mistakes.  If we agree to start removing historical monuments, how do we determine which ones should be removed?  Confederate leaders is a tangible line, but if the issue is really racism, then where does it end?  As part of the reunification after the Civil War ended, Confederate soldiers were forgiven, and given status as US veterans.  Who are we to "unforgive" them now?  Compare the results we experienced to Iraq, where the ideological conflict between Sunnis and Shiites or other factions goes on for generations.  While we have our polarizing differences of opinion and vision for the country, we are far more united than we could be, due in part to the reconciliation process after the Civil War.  The reconstruction process was far from perfect, but it wisely made an effort to avoid demonizing the opposing side who had lost.  But we are beginning to do that now, and seeing the resulting conflict.

The one change that I have heard proposed, that at least loosely makes sense, is that the committee that manages the Jefferson Memorial is looking at adding more placards that examine the Virginian's views on racism and slavery.  While he did own slaves, he argued against the morality for slavery from an academic and moral perspective.  And to further complicate the issue, it is alleged that he had "relationships" with some of his slaves, which opens up a whole different set of race issues, but it was wisely determined that those more controversial questions were better left to be addressed by exhibits at Monticello, the museum of his home.  I am always in favor of exposing the truth ("better than living a lie") but I am a bit concerned the people will use these types of things to further discredit the founding fathers and their values in other areas: for example, limited government, and individual freedoms.

The fact that this all became a huge issue within the last month is pretty much comedy.  Why now and not five or ten years ago?  The overly offended crowd hasn't even succeeded in getting the Redskins to change their name, and now they want to take on everyone in history?  The world is not a perfect place, and pretending otherwise is never going to help anyone.