Flag/pledge/anthem whiners

[Dewey_Finn]

What amuses me is that many of those who are upset about his actions are the ones who will hoot and holler and applaud when the National Anthem is performed. But that’s just as much a violation of etiquette as not standing.

[Robot_Arm]

@DerekMichaels00

exceptional doesn’t mean defying human nature. Also, we freed the world from fascism and communism; if that’s not exceptional enough for some, some have no moral compass.

America: We’re Exceptional Enough Already[sup]TM[/sup]

[octopus]

@BlankSlate

You’re probably too stupid to realize that even back then those hopeless primitives knew that slavery was evil. It’s a wonder you can type and breathe at the same time.

For the butthurt in general, this will help ease your pain.

Oh no, the national anthem says slave. It’s forever tainted. How can you stand the pain living in a world where nothing is pure?

[BlankSlate]

@octopus

Oh no, the national anthem says slave. It’s forever tainted. How can you stand the pain living in a world where nothing is pure?

The context is probably far beyond your comprehension. Shall I explain it to you?

It’s a shitty song written by a shitty human. The celebration of slaughtered slaves is only a part of the problem.

[Telemark]

@Robot_Arm

America: We’re Exceptional Enough Already[sup]TM[/sup]

How about
America: Exceptional in a Narrow Range of Metrics

[octopus]

@BlankSlate

The context is probably far beyond your comprehension. Shall I explain it to you?

It’s a shitty song written by a shitty human. The celebration of slaughtered slaves is only a part of the problem.

It’s a war song. Gore is to be expected. Does it need a trigger warning? Does Washington being on the dollar bill bother you?

That said, I don’t care if people fake or display patriotism. That’s an individual choice.

[wonky]

As with every exercise of speech, his can come with consequences. I hope there aren’t many, but there could be if the NFL or the team feels it can impact its bottom line. That’s a risk of any protest.

I don’t get the “how dare you protest my protest of your protest of my protest” circularity of some people on both sides. If you have the freedom to act, someone has the freedom to react. We can speak in reaction to speech, both in support and in opposition.

[tomndebb]

@Knowed_Out

It’s just not so appropriate to bring a political issue into a sports environment.

You mean like playing the national anthem at the begining of every sporting event?

[Trinopus]

@BlankSlate

The context is probably far beyond your comprehension. Shall I explain it to you?

It’s a shitty song written by a shitty human. The celebration of slaughtered slaves is only a part of the problem.

Aw, it’s an okay song, celebrating a so-so military victory (or non-loss. Didn’t save Washington from being burned, but probably spared it from a longer-term occupation.)

The song is fine, and I like it as our national anthem. It begins and ends with a question: how American is that!

(Now pardon me while I throw up a little, for having had to agree, even tangentially, with something that churl octopus said.)

[octopus]

@Trinopus

Aw, it’s an okay song, celebrating a so-so military victory (or non-loss. Didn’t save Washington from being burned, but probably spared it from a longer-term occupation.)

The song is fine, and I like it as our national anthem. It begins and ends with a question: how American is that!

(Now pardon me while I throw up a little, for having had to agree, even tangentially, with something that churl octopus said.)

Churl? I had to look that up.

Don’t feel bad. Team octopus will always be here when you’re ready.

[BlankSlate]

@Trinopus

Aw, it’s an okay song, celebrating a so-so military victory (or non-loss. Didn’t save Washington from being burned, but probably spared it from a longer-term occupation.)

The song is fine, and I like it as our national anthem. It begins and ends with a question: how American is that!

(Now pardon me while I throw up a little, for having had to agree, even tangentially, with something that churl octopus said.)

America the Beautiful would make a far superior anthem. IMHO, YMMV etc. etc…

[Trinopus]

@BlankSlate

America the Beautiful would make a far superior anthem. IMHO, YMMV etc. etc…

A very great many people feel that way. However, the inclusion of overt religion in it makes it unsuitable (and I’m far from alone in that opinion.) I want an anthem for all of us, not just one for people of faith.

[DerekMichaels00]

the uber-PC French have an anthem that talks about racial purity. Where is the SJW/far-left outrage about that?

[Bridget_Burke]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

As someone pointed out, apparently a Jehovah’s Witness would likewise refrain from saluting the flag or pledging allegiance to it – not to peacefully protest this or that action by the government, but simply because it’s against their religion.

Which means it goes even a step further than what you’re saying: what Kaepernick is doing is so blandly unobjectionable that, until he answered someone who asked why he wasn’t putting his hand over his heart, it honestly could’ve been mistaken for just being devout.

They aren’t the only ones. From the Society of Friends:

You may remember the painting depicting the signing of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia. Only one person refused to remove his hat in honor of that solemn gathering. He stands in the background of the painting, wearing all gray. He is the Quaker, removing his hat only to God.

Quakers maintain that same spirit to this day. Friends de-emphasize symbols, preferring direct experience and participation in the experiences the symbols represent. Some Quakers will not remove hats in public buildings, fly flags, or say the pledge of allegiance as matters of principle. They are not disloyal Americans. Indeed, as pacifists, Quakers work for the government and in our public schools; they are active in local and national politics, they provide relief services, and some even serve in the military as non-combatants. Quakers will pledge allegiance to God but not to a cloth symbol representing a human-made, political institution only occasionally dedicated to peaceful resolution of conflicts. As a Quaker, I know this belief is counter-cultural and unconventional, but it stems from spiritual and historical roots. Three hundred years ago, Quakers emerged through a radical expression of their spirituality. Their direct and sometimes mystical relationship with the Light Within seems no less radical today.

They came to the New World in search of religious freedom. And founded Pennsylvania, offering that freedom even to those who were* not* Quakers…

[BobLibDem]

@DerekMichaels00

the uber-PC French have an anthem that talks about racial purity. Where is the SJW/far-left outrage about that?

WTF? Are you referring to this lyric: “Qu’un sang impur Abreuve nos sillons”?

I don’t think the bit about impure blood had anything to do with racial purity, perhaps a French person could enlighten us further but you seem to be stretching things to interpret it that way.

[wonky]

@tomndebb

You mean like playing the national anthem at the begining of every sporting event?

I would pay real money, like three or four dollars, to get rid of this stupid tradition.

[QuickSilver]

@DerekMichaels00

the uber-PC French have an anthem that talks about racial purity. Where is the SJW/far-left outrage about that?

Since you’re deliberately too ignorant to look it up, let me google that for your dumb bigoted ass:

What does “let an impure blood water our furrows!” in the French national anthem refer to?

Actually, it is not what you think. There are two explanations but the second one is the most probable.

The “impure blood” can be seen as a reference to the blood of the Third Estate. France, before 1789, had a very specific social organization and there were three Estates, three social orders. The Third Estate was composed of all of those who were not members of the two other Estates, the nobility and the clergy. Therefore, their blood was “impure”, not noble as opposed to the “blue blood” (le sang bleu) of the French Nobility and of the High Clergy. In 1789, the Third Estate “had done” the Revolution and they were, then, the ones giving their blood for the country to defend it.

Second possible explanation. It can be seen as a reference to the “foreign blood” and the blood of the enemies of the Revolution. When Rouget de Lisle wrote the anthem, he called it “Chant de guerre pour l’armée du Rhin”, “Battle Hymn of the Army of the Rhine” in English. At the time, France was attacked by the Austrian king who was threatening the Revolution and the new political order. There is no racial reference here, it was a different time and with very different notions of identities and races. And here, it simply refers to the blood of the counter-revolutionaries.

But anyway, it was written in 1792. It was, as I said, a different time and no one should feel offended by its lyrics. They reflect a different way of thinking, a urge of defending the Revolution and the “Marseillaise” should only be seen as a piece of History and always considered with its historical background.

That said, I know how much you object to nuanced argument - you view it as a dangerous tool of progressive ideology. So I don’t expect you to be able or willing to comprehend the above explanations.

[BlankSlate]

@Trinopus

A very great many people feel that way. However, the inclusion of overt religion in it makes it unsuitable (and I’m far from alone in that opinion.) I want an anthem for all of us, not just one for people of faith.

Then kiss the Star Spangled Banner goodbye too:

O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

[Knowed_Out]

@mhendo

I assume you also oppose all of the flag-waving displays of support for the military at football games, then?

It’s just another ceremony that the crowd can pretend to approve. It’s not making an uncomfortable political statement. Those who oppose such displays aren’t likely to watch the games anyway.

[Knowed_Out]

@tomndebb

You mean like playing the national anthem at the begining of every sporting event?

Sigh… OK, Dopers just can’t accept a general term and just *have *to find exceptions unless the term is defined and refined to account for all possible conflicts and issues that may be construed. Do I really have to nuance the definition of “political” in this case?