Alice:
I am of the opinion that I was more 'comfortable' under the older system
which had certain unwritten standards of performance. Mr. K. now has
his 'standard' to which I must adhere but with which I strongly
disagree. I imagine that this standard will prevent me from watching
his performance on the 'paid professional' activities.
I am not at this point in time completely convinced that he is correct
or I am correct.
Richard
On 8/31/2016 12:42 AM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
and that’s what they call freedom of speech...
On Aug 30, 2016, at 4:40 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Charlie,
Of course, these are all complicated issues. Your point about the team being
uncomfortable about the action of one of its members, gives me pause. It
caused me to consider how people who are in the public eye are in a very
conflicted position. On one hand, the fact that they are public figures,
gives them more of an audience for their protests against injustice than
private citizens have. In order for private citizens to make an impact with
a protest, they have to gather in numbers and demonstrate in public view.
They need to get permission from the authorities to do so. If they don't, if
they choose to exercise their constitutional right to express their opinions
publicly and to do so in a way which will attract notice, they may be
arrested. Our own list member, Joe, is an example of what happens if one
participates in a public demonstration to make a valid point, and the powers
that be, don't want the demonstration to take place. On the other hand, if
you're a public figure and you choose to express an opinion that makes
people uncomfortable, you may be punished for what you've done. That happned
to Michael Moore when he chose to make a statement about the Iraq war when
accepting an Oscar. The mike was cut off. The band played. And then his life
was threatened. That happened because he made a lot of celebrities and
others in the movie industry uncomfortable. He embarrassed them by saying
something that was impolitique. The same thing happened to Chris Hedges
who, in a commencement speech at a college, made statements in opposition to
the Iraq war. He was booed, and He was fired from an important position at
The New York Times. When people in public view, who are not politicians,
choose to say something which is unpopular, usually their motivation is to
take an ethical stance and in doing so, they know that they are taking
risks. The team mates, the people at the Oscar awards ceremony, the people
in the college audience, may have been discomforted by what was said, but
they were not hurt by what was said. They censured the speakers because they
didn't want their comfort zones being disturbed. No one at the ceremony
where Joe was arrested, would have been harmed in any way if his group had
distributed their leaflets. What would have been disturbed was the pretense
that all was well with the disabled community.
And yes, it is certainly true that many people have been dedicated to
dealing with equality and fair treatment of African Americans. And those
attempts are often recognized and applauded. However, there remains an
incredibly fierce determination on the part of many to deny the ways in
which anti-black racism is built into our institutions and customs. Positive
change for African American people has come in our country, only when they
have been able to organize and, with the help of allies of other races,
demanded the change. Those of us who are white, can be encouraging and
supportive. I think that should be our role. Given the white privilege that
comes to us in America by birth, whether or not we want it, we're in no
position to criticize.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles Crawford
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:17 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Colin Kaepernick Is Righter Than You Know:
The National Anthem Is a Celebration of Slavery
Hi Miriam and all,
I want to acknowledge that you have raised some good points and yet my two
concerns remain. First, Colin's protest is his right and the team could
well be embarrassed by his action. Therefore the team has its own right to
react and what he did and his membership on the team are not severable as I
see it. Secondly, while racism persists in our country, there are many many
people committed to affirmatively dealing with-it and their activities ought
to receive due attention.
Charlie.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 11:28 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Colin Kaepernick Is Righter Than You Know:
The National Anthem Is a Celebration of Slavery
Charlie,
I do think that when people protest publicly, they do so with the
understanding that the consequences may be unpleasant. That's part of what
public protest is about. However, given this country's stated adherence to
free speech, whether or not a professional athlete chooses to protest, seems
to have little to do with his job which is playing whatever sport he's
involved in. That's what he's paid for. He isn't paid to stand while the
national anthem is being played. And the point of public protest is to
cause the public to rethink what is taken for granted. I would disagree with
your assertion that full civil rights have been granted to African
Americans. Perhaps this is true on paper. But it isn't true in reality for a
majority of African Americans. I posted an article this morning with
statistics which show that they are worse off today than when MLK gave his
"I Have A Dream Speech". The fact that we have a Black President, hasn't
made black people safer.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles Crawford
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 10:23 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Colin Kaepernick Is Righter Than You Know:
The National Anthem Is a Celebration of Slavery
Hi Abby, Miriam, and all,
At the real risk of annoying everyone by opening an intellectual can of
worms; let me share the following view.
While I believe myself to be sensitive to the concerns of folks relative to
racism and so forth, I do think we need to be sensitive to the feelings of
others with respect to the things to which we object. Our national anthem
is not in my view all that great, but not because of any association with
slavery, but rather because it is really not all that inspiring. America
the Beautiful is much more to my liking, but that is neither here nor there
in the context of this discussion.
On the matter of the player not standing for the anthem, that is his right
to demonstrate his contempt for slavery, but first his own right is not only
in play here, and second, the sensitivities of all the others watching the
event matter as well. Hiring a guy to do whatever before thousands of fans
and paying him big bucks for that opportunity does require certain
obligations and I can understand his employer not being pleased with his
stance. I would not in the least blame the employer if they took
progressive discipline against him and even if they substituted another
player to take his position. In short, they hired himn to do a job which
did not include protesting the national anthem. His right to do whatever is
not absolute, and he must be willing to accept the consequences of his
actions, like being disciplined by the team for unnecessary distractions
from what they are there to do.
Lastly, I do have real concerns for folks dredging up past wrongs when they
have already been acknowledged and little to do with the current situation.
While I don't care much for our national anthem, I do afford it the respect
it deserves as the anthem of a nation that has much to be proud of having
done. Including, I might add, the abolishment of slavery and the granting
of full civil rights to all our citizens. Perfect? Far from it, but
certainly a heck of a lot more than this protest is based upon.
Again, I know some of you will be really ticked off at what I have written
and that is OK. I am willing to listen to reasoning as to why I need to
adjust my view.
Charlie Crawford.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Abby Vincent
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 7:13 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Colin Kaepernick Is Righter Than You Know:
The National Anthem Is a Celebration of Slavery
We definitely need a new national anthem. How about "This Land is Your
Land"?
How about not singing or playing the national anthem at all at sporting
events!
Abby
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 1:33 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Colin Kaepernick Is Righter Than You Know: The
National Anthem Is a Celebration of Slavery
Schwarz writes: "Almost no one seems to be aware that even if the U.S. were
a perfect country today, it would be bizarre to expect African-American
players to stand for 'The Star-Spangled Banner.' Why? Because it literally
celebrates the murder of African-Americans."
Colin Kaepernick. (photo: Peter Joneleit/Cal Sport Media/AP Images)
Colin Kaepernick Is Righter Than You Know: The National Anthem Is a
Celebration of Slavery By Jon Schwarz, The Intercept
29 August 16
Before a preseason game on Friday, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin
Kaepernick refused to stand for the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner."
When he explained why, he only spoke about the present: "I am not going to
stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people
and people of color. . There are bodies in the street and people getting
paid leave and getting away with murder."
Twitter then went predictably nuts, with at least one 49ers fan burning
Kaepernick's jersey.
Almost no one seems to be aware that even if the U.S. were a perfect country
today, it would be bizarre to expect African-American players to stand for
"The Star-Spangled Banner." Why? Because it literally celebrates the murder
of African-Americans.
Few people know this because we only ever sing the first verse. But read the
end of the third verse and you'll see why "The Star-Spangled Banner" is not
just a musical atrocity, it's an intellectual and moral one, too:
No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight or the
gloom of the grave, And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave O'er
the land of the free and the home of the brave.
"The Star-Spangled Banner," Americans hazily remember, was written by
Francis Scott Key about the Battle of Fort McHenry in Baltimore during the
War of 1812. But we don't ever talk about how the War of 1812 was a war of
aggression that began with an attempt by the U.S. to grab Canada from the
British Empire.
However, we'd wildly overestimated the strength of the U.S. military. By the
time of the Battle of Fort McHenry in 1814, the British had counterattacked
and overrun Washington, D.C., setting fire to the White House.
And one of the key tactics behind the British military's success was its
active recruitment of American slaves. As a detailed 2014 article in
Harper's explains, the orders given to the Royal Navy's Admiral Sir George
Cockburn read:
Let the landings you make be more for the protection of the desertion of the
Black Population than with a view to any other advantage. . The great point
to be attained is the cordial Support of the Black population. With them
properly armed & backed with 20,000 British Troops, Mr. Madison will be
hurled from his throne.
Whole families found their way to the ships of the British, who accepted
everyone and pledged no one would be given back to their "owners." Adult men
were trained to create a regiment called the Colonial Marines, who
participated in many of the most important battles, including the August
1814 raid on Washington.
Then on the night of September 13, 1814, the British bombarded Fort McHenry.
Key, seeing the fort's flag the next morning, was inspired to write the
lyrics for "The Star-Spangled Banner."
So when Key penned "No refuge could save the hireling and slave / From the
terror of flight or the gloom of the grave," he was taking great
satisfaction in the death of slaves who'd freed themselves. His perspective
may have been affected by the fact he owned several slaves himself.
With that in mind, think again about the next two lines: "And the
star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave / O'er the land of the free and
the home of the brave."
The reality is that there were human beings fighting for freedom with
incredible bravery during the War of 1812. However, "The Star-Spangled
Banner" glorifies America's "triumph" over them - and then turns that
reality completely upside down, transforming their killers into the
courageous freedom fighters.
After the U.S. and the British signed a peace treaty at the end of 1814, the
U.S. government demanded the return of American "property," which by that
point numbered about 6,000 people. The British refused. Most of the 6,000
eventually settled in Canada, with some going to Trinidad, where their
descendants are still known as "Merikins."
Furthermore, if those leading the backlash against Kaepernick need more
inspiration, they can get it from Francis Scott Key's later life.
By 1833, Key was a district attorney for Washington, D.C. As described in a
book called Snowstorm in August by former Washington Post reporter Jefferson
Morley, the police were notorious thieves, frequently stealing free blacks'
possessions with impunity. One night, one of the constables tried to attack
a woman who escaped and ran away - until she fell off a bridge across the
Potomac and drowned.
"There is neither mercy nor justice for colored people in this district," an
abolitionist paper wrote. "No fuss or stir was made about it. She was got
out of the river, and was buried, and there the matter ended."
Key was furious and indicted the newspaper for intending "to injure,
oppress, aggrieve & vilify the good name, fame, credit & reputation of the
Magistrates & constables of Washington County."
You can decide for yourself whether there's some connection between what
happened 200 years ago and what Colin Kaepernick is angry about today. Maybe
it's all ancient, meaningless history. Or maybe it's not, and Kaepernick is
right, and we really need a new national anthem.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Colin Kaepernick. (photo: Peter Joneleit/Cal Sport Media/AP Images)
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/28/colin-kaepernick-is-righter-than-you-kno
w-the-national-anthem-is-a-celebration-of-slavery/https://theintercept.com/2
016/08/28/colin-kaepernick-is-righter-than-you-know-the-national-anthem-is-a
-celebration-of-slavery/
Colin Kaepernick Is Righter Than You Know: The National Anthem Is a
Celebration of Slavery By Jon Schwarz, The Intercept
29 August 16
efore a preseason game on Friday, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin
Kaepernick refused to stand for the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner."
When he explained why, he only spoke about the present: "I am not going to
stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people
and people of color. . There are bodies in the street and people getting
paid leave and getting away with murder."
Twitter then went predictably nuts, with at least one 49ers fan burning
Kaepernick's jersey.
Almost no one seems to be aware that even if the U.S. were a perfect country
today, it would be bizarre to expect African-American players to stand for
"The Star-Spangled Banner." Why? Because it literally celebrates the murder
of African-Americans.
Few people know this because we only ever sing the first verse. But read the
end of the third verse and you'll see why "The Star-Spangled Banner" is not
just a musical atrocity, it's an intellectual and moral one, too:
No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight or the
gloom of the grave, And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave O'er
the land of the free and the home of the brave.
"The Star-Spangled Banner," Americans hazily remember, was written by
Francis Scott Key about the Battle of Fort McHenry in Baltimore during the
War of 1812. But we don't ever talk about how the War of 1812 was a war of
aggression that began with an attempt by the U.S. to grab Canada from the
British Empire.
However, we'd wildly overestimated the strength of the U.S. military. By the
time of the Battle of Fort McHenry in 1814, the British had counterattacked
and overrun Washington, D.C., setting fire to the White House.
And one of the key tactics behind the British military's success was its
active recruitment of American slaves. As a detailed 2014 article in
Harper's explains, the orders given to the Royal Navy's Admiral Sir George
Cockburn read:
Let the landings you make be more for the protection of the desertion of the
Black Population than with a view to any other advantage. . The great point
to be attained is the cordial Support of the Black population. With them
properly armed & backed with 20,000 British Troops, Mr. Madison will be
hurled from his throne.
Whole families found their way to the ships of the British, who accepted
everyone and pledged no one would be given back to their "owners." Adult men
were trained to create a regiment called the Colonial Marines, who
participated in many of the most important battles, including the August
1814 raid on Washington.
Then on the night of September 13, 1814, the British bombarded Fort McHenry.
Key, seeing the fort's flag the next morning, was inspired to write the
lyrics for "The Star-Spangled Banner."
So when Key penned "No refuge could save the hireling and slave / From the
terror of flight or the gloom of the grave," he was taking great
satisfaction in the death of slaves who'd freed themselves. His perspective
may have been affected by the fact he owned several slaves himself.
With that in mind, think again about the next two lines: "And the
star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave / O'er the land of the free and
the home of the brave."
The reality is that there were human beings fighting for freedom with
incredible bravery during the War of 1812. However, "The Star-Spangled
Banner" glorifies America's "triumph" over them - and then turns that
reality completely upside down, transforming their killers into the
courageous freedom fighters.
After the U.S. and the British signed a peace treaty at the end of 1814, the
U.S. government demanded the return of American "property," which by that
point numbered about 6,000 people. The British refused. Most of the 6,000
eventually settled in Canada, with some going to Trinidad, where their
descendants are still known as "Merikins."
Furthermore, if those leading the backlash against Kaepernick need more
inspiration, they can get it from Francis Scott Key's later life.
By 1833, Key was a district attorney for Washington, D.C. As described in a
book called Snowstorm in August by former Washington Post reporter Jefferson
Morley, the police were notorious thieves, frequently stealing free blacks'
possessions with impunity. One night, one of the constables tried to attack
a woman who escaped and ran away - until she fell off a bridge across the
Potomac and drowned.
"There is neither mercy nor justice for colored people in this district," an
abolitionist paper wrote. "No fuss or stir was made about it. She was got
out of the river, and was buried, and there the matter ended."
Key was furious and indicted the newspaper for intending "to injure,
oppress, aggrieve & vilify the good name, fame, credit & reputation of the
Magistrates & constables of Washington County."
You can decide for yourself whether there's some connection between what
happened 200 years ago and what Colin Kaepernick is angry about today. Maybe
it's all ancient, meaningless history. Or maybe it's not, and Kaepernick is
right, and we really need a new national anthem.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socializehttp://e-max.it/posizioname
nto-siti-web/socialize
