Where I come from, adults are allowed to express controversial political opinions.
If we’re going to turn the Olympics into a performance display of rituals of nationalist fealty as prescribed by the state, then we may as well just award North Korea the gold in every event.
How many people actually do that? Athletic events are literally the most childish things adults participate in. It’s called “playing” sports for a reason.
I wouldn’t necessarily characterize her actions as “a protest”. It seems more like she was frustrated in the moment. She was likely caught off guard and reacted in the moment with her displeasure of the anthem. She was also likely expressing frustration since she seems to think that it was done as a deliberate action against her personally for her race or stance about the anthem.
Really though? I mean, right after this sentence, you admit that she is known for protesting the anthem. But this one wasn’t because…why?
To me, a protest seems like it would be something more planned, like if she knew it was going to be played while she was on the podium and had intent to protest. But this was the anthem being played at an unexpected time. Like in the example above of the Jewish person going to a dinner where ham was unexpectedly served. The Jewish person may be upset and is just be expressing their displeasure of having ham on their plate after being told there would be no ham. A protest would be going to Honeybaked Ham and actually protesting ham as a food product. There’s not a huge difference, but I don’t get the sense that she heard the anthem and took that as an opportunity to whip out her pre-planned protest of the anthem.
Obviously it wasn’t a pre-planned protest. They said it wouldn’t be played when she was on the podium, so there was no reason for her to plan something.
But then they played it. And despite her protesting when it was played other times, you reach the conclusion that it couldn’t be a spontaneous protest this time. To me, it sounds like you are attempting to ascribe motives to her with the intent of trivializing and infantilizing her behavior.
Once again, it’s the old “yes, go ahead and protest. But not in any way that draws attention.”
Here are several sources saying the opposite, or at least saying it’s not cut and dried:
National anthem’s third verse stirs passions, but the reading is erroneous - StarTribune.com
Racism,Rhetoric, and Research: Francis Scott Key and Our National Anthem | Stevenson University
Is ‘the Star-Spangled Banner’ Racist? | Cato Institute
In a broader sense, there seems to be a certain knee-jerk reaction to ascribe racist motivations to historical events that involve poor treatment of black people, whether or not it’s actually racially motivated. For example, some students at Texas A&M were all up in arms because a former Confederate General commanded cavalry troops who charged, then ran down and slaughtered poorly trained black Union troops, as if that’s some kind of evidence of racist intent.
News flash - that’s what cavalry DOES, regardless of color. They charge poorly prepared infantry of any skin color and run them down. Being black had nothing to do with it. But we’re subjected to some kind of weird and ignorant historical revisionism as a result, because those infantrymen were black, and Sul Ross was a Confederate, that he must have intentionally murdered them out of racism.
It’s interesting to me, that the people who are pearl grabbing over these types of displays, because it’s against the flag, against 'Murika, don’t understand AT ALL the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. You have the right to redress grievances. It’s actually written in the First Amendment. The founders thought it was so important, they ranked it with freedom of religion and before right to bear arms. “Patriots” in our country are anything but.
I would definitely be mad if she’d been arrested and locked up. But she wasn’t so the constitution and Bill of Rights are irrelevant.
Sul Ross’s troops were accused of murdering captured black Union soldiers. They were literally accused of this during the surrender negotiations. Ross also refused to guarantee that black infantrymen or their white officers would be treated as prisoners of war.
I actually confused two different incidents; the one you’re talking about was one where there was a conclusion after the fact, by the opposing side, that those 5 men had been murdered after being unhorsed.
What I was talking about, and thought it was referencing that battle above, was this, where Mond’s letter clearly references normal warfare, not anything racially motivated. In fact, the larger article that his excerpt is taken from says that another two regiments of white troops were sent to fight, and were turned back as well.
Texas A&M’s Kellen Mond on removing controversial statue – ‘I need to see action’ (espn.com)
My point wasn’t to defend Ross, it’s that a lot of the time, the “historical examples” used are inaccurate, or very inconclusive/unclear, and there’s an expectation that we choose a preferred interpretation based on our present-day politics, not on what actually happened.
It’s like if you don’t interpret some murky historical event in the way that is most acceptable to your present-day side, you’re accused of racism, or of being a Democrat or whatever.
I think this sucks; in a lot of cases, history is murky and unclear, and it’s hard to tell what actually happened, much less the actual motivations of anyone involved. And taking excerpts and snippets and using them to push a political point because they CAN be interpreted a certain way is also not right.
To keep using Ross, it would be easy for some to lionize him as a friend to black people because of some later actions just as easily as to castigate him as the “gallant negro killer” of the 19th century newspaper article. Neither is right- he’s a complex guy, and I don’t doubt that his motivations and views were some shade of gray as well. But these days, we’re expected to interpret things as starkly black or white, without any middle ground.
Historians come down on both sides of the meaning of the third verse. Francis Scott Key was a slaveholding racist who once said Africans in America were:
a distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community.
So we can agree or disagree with her issues with the third verse, but she does have many historians on her side. It’s also not the only thing she protests, as anyone who has actually read any of her interviews will tell you.
While there is a lot of bitching about her take on the third verse, if she was simply protesting George Floyd’s murder (which historians agree on) or that Black Lives Matter (which rational people agree on) and repeated her exact actions on the podium, the same people would be upset. It’s also very likely she would protest if they played the anthem after every event, which would eliminate the issue of her “paranoia” or lack thereof (it wouldn’t be that shocking if she were right about their motives), and the same people would still be upset. They’re not triggered because she’s wrong about the reason or timing of her protest. They’re triggered because she had the gall to protest on the podium of an athletic event awards ceremony. All of the other dancing around is just an attempt at justification. They’re free to claim otherwise.
Sure, but that doesn’t in any way prove that the third verse’s reference to “the hireling and the slave” specifically meant enslaved Americans. In that era, “slave” was a status-based pejorative; akin to saying that they’re “someone’s bitch” today. Shakespeare, several centuries before the United States came to be, often used the word “slave” as a pejorative in his works.
The historical evidence is inconclusive; she may be right, she may not. And I think that matters; if you’re going to make a public stand like she did about something like the National Anthem, you should probably have your ducks in a row, lest you look like a fool.
You’re absolutely right that there’s a large segment of the population who’s going to be against her for merely being black and speaking out. And another who are not so concerned with her race, but rather her stance on the National Anthem and perceived disrespect. Neither is right.
But my point is kind of the flip side; just because she’s black and feeling aggrieved, doesn’t mean that we (rational thinking, more or less liberal people) are bound to support her for that reason, especially if her facts aren’t right, or are up for debate. She may think the Anthem is racist, but that doesn’t make it so- it’s very hazy whether it’s the case or not. Key himself never said anything either way, and rhetorically it makes more sense as a patriotic poem/song if it’s a generalized reference to George III’s forces as hirelings and slaves (i.e. not free, ideologically motivated men like the Americans supposedly were), and not some obscure, oblique reference to free slaves and some military unit that wasn’t even well known at the time.
And I think there’s a certain undercurrent of perceiving her as ungrateful for doing this; in some sense, it’s a huge privilege to be able to compete on behalf of one’s country in the Olympics, and protesting like she did can be construed to be disrespectful of that honor. I think the people who hold this view would be equally annoyed if a white person got up there and said “Stop the Steal!” or whatever, as that’s inappropriate as well.
Sure, some people might feel that way. And others think she’s living up to our highest ideals. Hence the debate. Personally, this particular protest is barely on my radar, and I’m sure it will be forgotten in another week. But I do admire someone who who is willing to take a stand, especially against social conformity norms and faux patriotism. If the conversation that results helps advance the dialog about our racial history a little bit, then it achieved something.
So, if one of the medal winners pulls out a Confederate flags and waives it in front of our little activist like they’re a toreador, you’d approve?
I’d certainly complain about them supporting a racist cause like the Confederacy. But I wouldn’t complain about the manner or location of their protest.
These “gotcha” questions always seem to come from people who say “I don’t disagree with their cause, but they shouldn’t protest in that way.” But then the gotcha is about something the other person wouldn’t agree with. That’s not a parallel situation, unless the person asking isn’t being entirely honest about their opinion of the cause.
Not the message, but I wouldn’t base my disapproval on the fact he or she “disrespected the honor of representing their country.” Just like the Nazis had a right to march outside Chicago. I support the right to protest in this forum, but not their message. The criticism in this thread (by some) seems to be that this is not the time nor the place to be political.
Did you miss this part?
I didn’t, but in this specific case, she’s protesting the National Anthem.
She’s protesting racial injustice. There is a lot under that umbrella, but that’s what she’s been protesting and will continue to protest. Today’s soundbite might be about the third verse, but tomorrow’s will be systemic racism and the next will be police killing unarmed black men. Racial injustice.
She was also pissed because she felt that she was targeted. She may or may not have been, and let’s be fair, she was absolutely on the radar of team management, but that added to the equation. I won’t be surprised at all if she protests in Tokyo, even with the possible sanctions that will bring, and there will be no surprise anthem playing in that case.
Racial injustice. Period.