Tag Archives: Colin Kaepernick

BEWARE OF NOISY BULLIES

Most of the time we Americans are not even aware of our freedom.  It surrounds us in seemingly endless supply, like the air that we breathe.   But if there’s no air to breathe we quickly become uncomfortable and do something about it.  If we see another person choking, we try to help him breathe.  Just as we defend our right to breathe, we should defend each other’s freedom.

Non-conformity is sometimes admirable, but it has consequences.  Others are free to disapprove, dislike, and not associate with you.  That’s their right.  Unless you are protected by a union or employment contract, most states allow private employers to fire you or refuse to hire you for expressing views that they don’t like.  There are circumstances where that makes sense.  An employer might have a policy that prohibits wearing lapel pins supporting political parties, candidates, or causes at work. Its purpose might be to keep everyone’s attention focused on producing good work rather than the distraction or offense to customers that might accompany the pins.

With those thoughts in mind, let’s look at the case of Colin Kaepernick, the NFL, and President Donald Trump.  The controversy began more than a year ago when Kaepernick, a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, didn’t stand for the national anthem.  He had done the same thing before two previous games, but the press didn’t take notice.  On the third occasion, he was asked about it and he gave an extensive post-game interview.

Kaepernick made it clear that he believes America is not living up to our ideals.  He contended that racial inequality is still institutionalized and that abuse of African-Americans by police is often tolerated by our government.  He said he would resume standing for the anthem when those concerns were addressed.  He emphasized that he meant no insult to our flag, anthem or service members; pointing out instead that he wants our government practices to live up to the values that our military defends.

Colin Kaepernick acknowledged that he could be fired for his actions:  Q: “Do you think you might get cut for this?”  Kaepernick: “I don’t know. But if I do, I know I did what’s right and I can live with that at the end of the day.”  He was cut from the team, accepted that fact, and continued working on issues that he thought were important.  To at least some small degree, he was achieving his goal of encouraging conversations across racial lines about inequality.

The conversation exploded when President Trump, behaving as if he was elected Bully-in-Chief rather than President, insulted Kaepernick and other NFL players who had adopted his form of quiet protest, calling them “sons of bitches” and telling NFL owners to fire them or watch their businesses “go to hell”.   Trump lied when he claimed that the protests were against our military and our flag.  Kaepernick and other protesters had made it clear from the beginning that the protests were about perceived racial injustice. Trump ignored concerns about racial equality and changed the subject to patriotism.  When a President of the United States lies some of his loyal base will believe whatever he says.  Others in Trump’s party may simply stay quiet – exactly the kind of inaction that Kaepernick is protesting.

Our President has behaved as a shameless bully and liar, dividing us into factions and urging his supporters to impose their will on others through the power of government and employers.  It’s dangerous to our constitutional democracy when our President uses his power to try to silence others.  At the core of American freedoms is the right to be a nonconformist – to believe, speak, and live according to your own conscience.  Whether I agree with Colin Kaepernick or not, it is my duty as an American to defend his right to speak and to demand an apology from President Trump for his lies and his language.

The President’s actions bring this adage to mind. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”  We Americans need to move ahead with serious conversations about race relations.  It appears that we’ll have to do that in the face of presidential opposition rather than with constructive presidential leadership.  That, perhaps, is why so many NFL players and owners have linked arms – showing the way to honest conversation and teamwork – and standing up to the biggest bully on the block.

 

Read or view Colin Kaepernick interview HERE

Should we stand for our national anthem?

After months of complaints from the political right about PC limitations on speech and discussion, it is ironic that those same right wingers see a national scandal  in Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for our national anthem.  Like Muhammad Ali and Olympic Athletes of 1968, he is using his celebrity status to bring attention to what many see as American racism.

Kaepernick’s voice is but one in a crescendo criticizing the “land of the free”.  Leaders from African American and Latino communities have politely spoken their minds on voting rights, law enforcement, criminal justice, public education and income inequality.  Not much happened.  If quiet and polite voices are ineffective, louder ones are to be expected. Whether it is an NAACP Chapter, a Latino Coalition, Black Lives Matter, the American Civil Liberties Union or  some other organization, their list of unaddressed concerns is long.

Since passage of civil rights laws in the 1960s, many Americans, believe that we live in a post-racial society.   We don’t.  Our problems extend to the heart of democracy, consent of the governed.

It is with those thoughts in mind that I looked into the controversies surrounding North Carolina’s new voting law as one example among many concerns.  For a more complete account, read Appeal-16-1468 published by the Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals.  It overturned portions of the law because of its discriminatory intent.

The court found that the law was specifically designed to target African Americans and said, “…by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”

The court also found that, “Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation  … the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it. … Faced with this record, we can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent.”

Here are a few examples of discrimination that the court found in the law.  In deciding which forms of identification would be acceptable for voting, the legislature used racial data to select IDs that whites are more likely to have than minorities.  They used racial data to eliminate voting opportunities that were used more heavily by African Americans than whites.  Similar processes were used to determine early voting days,  eliminate same day registration, and eliminate out-of precinct voting.

North Carolina’s law was crafted by Republican leadership in secret sessions with advice from consultants employed by attorneys so that documentation of their work would not be available to the public.  The court found that “… after the General Assembly finally revealed the expanded (law) to the public, the legislature rushed it through the legislative process…in three days: one day for a public hearing, two days in the Senate, and two hours in the House.”

The law passed by party line vote.  Every Republican legislator supported it.  I don’t think they are all racists.  Instead, I think they are much like the Democrats who passed racist laws in the Jim Crow era.  They bowed to pressure to win elections and one way to win elections is to keep the opposition from voting.  That’s what they did, and it is an example of 21st century racism in operation.

Because of laws like this one and other grievances, some people don’t honor our national flag and anthem.  Would you honor the flag of a nation that did such things to you? I’ll continue to pledge allegiance because our courts generally overturn unjust laws and because we’re free to replace those who passed a racist law at our next election.  It’s time to have a record voter turnout.