Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Football and Racial Fault Lines
According to an account my son came across a while ago: “Football is one of the most powerful institutions in American society. It is so powerful that it claimed an entire day of the week. It said, ‘This day is ours. We own it.’ Not only did football take a day of the week, but the previous owner was God.”
Though a failed fan myself (no less a figure than Jack Kemp advised me to give up trying to master the rules), I am an American, and accordingly can hardly miss the fact that football is one of most unifying aspects of American culture. The games have become the one thing that most Americans, especially men, can comfortably discuss. No matter what region of the country you’re visiting, you are bound to hear men who find themselves thrown together asking “Did you see the game?” Animated analysis, crowing, and/or cringing follows. Black and white, immigrant and native born, men and (mysteriously) women, adults and children, liberals and conservatives – huge swaths of the country speak the same idiom and share the experience of football. Super Bowl Sunday is close to a national sacrament.
You think it’s easy to maintain national cohesion? It isn’t. That’s why demagogues since time began conjure external enemies and scapegoat minorities — which is not to say that enemies are always imaginary. In our time, the things that divide us are all too obvious. We are increasingly self-segregating by income and education. Due in part to choice and in part to history’s overhang, we continue to live in racially distinct enclaves. Democrats and Republicans despise one another to the point where they avoid living in the same neighborhoods or dating each other. Many parents now frown on their children marrying “outside the faith” — by which they mean not Catholic or Protestant, but Republican or Democrat. And speaking of faith, in actual houses of worship, things haven’t changed much since Martin Luther King, Jr. called 11 a.m. Sunday morning “the most segregated hour” in American life.
So it would seem downright reckless to tamper with football – the one cultural touchstone that unites us, however tenuously.
Reckless is our president’s calling card. Or perhaps that’s too generous. He didn’t just suggest that the black players who knelt during the national anthem be fired, he called them “sons of bitches.” Football had some troubles before, but now we have a national concussion.
Who could blame people for noticing that when it came to tiki-torch neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Trump strained to stress that some were very fine people, but black athletes who protest police brutality get this treatment?
Colin Kaepernick forfeited the benefit of the doubt when he donned a Che Guevara t-shirt. But it doesn’t require much imagination to see that other black athletes felt backed into a corner. As David French wisely noted:
At one stroke, thanks to an attempted vulgar display of strength, Trump changed the playing of the anthem and the display of the flag from a moment where all but the most radical Americans could unite to one where millions of well-meaning Americans could and did legitimately believe that the decision to kneel represented a defense of the ideals of the flag, not defiance of the nation they love.
One reason some conservatives have seen a silver lining to Trump is immigration. They worry that our national identity is being frayed by the burden of assimilating large numbers of newcomers and trusted that Trump would crack down on illegal immigration and even reduce legal immigration. But if you’re worried about national unity, surely maintaining mutual respect and decency between American citizens who are already here is the bare minimum one expects of a political leader. People say Trump’s crudeness doesn’t matter. It’s stylistic. But that’s only part of the issue. It’s far more damaging that he’s dangerously divisive.
Police treatment of young black males, so-called “mass incarceration,” crime, whether the criminal justice system is biased – these are matters the left has attempted to exploit, and in fact, has successfully exploited for decades. That’s not a reason for the right to do likewise. We owe a duty to black Americans to take their concerns seriously. Even if it were the case that no black man had ever received unfair treatment at the hands of the police – and that is far from the case – it would be the job of patriotic Americans to make that argument in respectful tones to blacks who feel aggrieved – not to taunt them and invite contempt for their views.
American life is still strewn with racial sensitivities. Decency demands that we attempt to soothe, not inflame them.
Published in Politics, Sports
What possible impression did Mona convey that she defends this movement? I can find none. I think it is your unhinged hated of this fine and gracious lady that is the problem here.
This is exactly what is wrong with so many “discussions” on Ricochet. Too many people have come to believe that calling names is a valid means of communication.
Bravo, She. It won’t help, but it a good attempt.
The original point behind the kneeling was alleged police mistreatment of African Americans. Kaepernick wore police/pig socks. This is the message of BLM. The above post says that we must respect and not inflame BLM and their allies and defends the actions of the players who are promoting the message that the police are the problem.
I could get behind simple objections to tone or use of the words SOB. That does not mean that Trump started the fight or is wrong in making comments opposed to the protests. But yes I do think the general tone of this piece is Trump is wrong and leave the BLM message alone
And you would be wrong. Mona said that the number of murders could have gone lower, but then this movement came to town. She is actually doing the opposite of defending this hateful group.
And, yes, Trump is wrong. Not because he objects to the kneeling and the stupids protests. But because of the curse words and the firing comment. A president should not interfere with the free market like that. Real conservatives know that. He has actually undermined his case. If he had stayed out of it, it would be over by now.
People seem to be triggered pretty consistently.
Perhaps you should take a vote about making Ricochet/football a safe space?
You shouldn’t be so hard on Mona. She doesn’t need a safe space.
She isn’t asking for one.
Edit: but less fliply, I would be interested [in] her view of why Conservatives have been defeated by Populists in the Republican Party – and what steps and approaches that seemed wise for Conservatives to support at the time have turned out to be poison pills?
“it would be the job of patriotic Americans to make that argument in respectful tones to blacks who feel aggrieved “
I was with you until that line. “Respectful tone” rather than “hard truth” is doing blacks no favors. Just sets false hopes….and even worse….can often incite irrational violence.
Trump is a world class political troll. Yes, it was wrong of him to go after the NFL. But, trolling often leads your opponent to respond to you in ways that shoot themselves in the foot. Thats what the NFL has done in their ridiculous response to Trump’s trolling.
Regarding the first point: I would argue in two ways why it is always right to say things in respectful tones, to anybody but a raving lunatic, who will not allow one to speak: 1) It is the right thing to do. The grown-up way to behave. 2) You are more likely to have a decent people listen to you if you treat your opponent with respect.
Regarding the second point: a pox on both their houses. Trump had no business weighing in on something that was destined to end. And the NFL should have handled this better, with discipline instead of indulgence.
Do you see a disconnect here?
Somebody needed to do what the President did because the protests themselves are wrongly based, the players protesting don’t know that, and the NFL does not understand what is displeasing their customers, who are unhappy with the very allowance of political protests which are not supposed to happen on the field. He drew attention to that. We’ll see if the NFL can figure out the right thing to do.
The only thing that will sway the NFL is their bottom line. If they fully retreat, that will be why. Not the President.
Unless it was the President that caused the threat to their bottom line.
You missed my point, I guess. If the fan dissatisfaction is enough to affect the bottom line, the President’s role is a big factor, but for his effect on those fans and indirectly on the NFL, not a direct effect on the NFL. And if that’s the only thing that causes the NFL to retreat, that makes it clear they have no clue about doing the right thing for the right reason.
It’s not possible to prove influence. My Facebook had been overwhelmed with anti-NFL fervor prior to the President’s remarks. They were just part of the general outcry. I didn’t miss your point. I just don’t buy it.
No!
This is right. Somebody should have called attention to what these spoiled brats were doing. But not the President. Like it or not, their are guidelines for what certain people should do. A President has better things to do. Be doing what he did, yes, he called attention to it. And he made it worse. Now, instead of winding down, the protests have heated up again. And the owners have joined in. That is just the way it. Plus Trump should not have cursed. Plus he should not have said they should have been fired. Perhaps they should have. But this is not a President’s job, to tell private industry what to do. If you think it is, you are just wrong.
#irony
From the CoC:
Edit: When I posted this comment, the “NO!” in the quoted comment was in all caps. This has clearly been revised since by staff here and in the previous without so noting. This is a level of sneakiness and dishonesty that I’ve not seen here before.
This comment is silly enough to provoke gales of laughter. People on Ricochet who always claim I engage in disrespectful language do not read what I say in entirety. I am always respectful except if people are disrespectful of me or of others. A little bit of the pot calling the kettle black would be charitable on my part. People hate me because I am not a Trump fan, and not shy about saying so.
I, on the other hand, have seen it many, many times. I have even had it applied to myself on occasion (not since I became a moderator, I don’t think, but certainly before). It’s been common practice, for quite some time, for moderators to “knock down” capital letters to bolding as a matter of course. Absent some sort of ongoing issue, and in minor cases, it’s not noted, it’s just done when it’s seen. I expect that many Ricochet members know that it goes on, and I am surprised that you have not noticed it before.
If you object to the practice, there are many other ways to make your feelings known than accusing the moderators here of “sneakiness and dishonesty.” Trust me, I have better things to do than instigate, or exacerbate, petty grievances on this site, and I expect the other mods do, too. Good grief.
Nice moderating!
First of all, it was not knocked down to bolding; it was simply replaced by lowercase.* Second, it’s worth noting when the meaning of my comment is changed by the revision. After all, the whole point I was making was undermined by this stealthy change.
Thus, on both counts, the quoted sentences are misleading. Unsurprising, I suppose.
*You can undermine this point by retroactively changing the “No” to boldface but this would probably wreck that plan. Are we reduced to making screenshots now?
Please, stop the use of this is kind of language. I think your comment reads as an unwarranted accusation without merit and one which fails at even the lowest level to presume good will on the part of writer you defame.
I have no interesting undermining (or even overmining) any point that you choose to make. Nor in surprising you.
I pointed out what’s been common practice here for some time. And that there was no need for you, if you’re unhappy with the change, to immediately attribute it to “stealth” and “dishonesty” on the part of the staff here. There are other ways to raise the issue, or to state your dissatisfaction in an effective manner than that starting out in such an accusatory and incendiary fashion.
It’s certainly true that redactions and edits can sometimes make a nonsense of subsequent comments. For that reason, it’s a really good thing that they’re so rare. I feel pretty confident in stating that there have been considerably fewer than two dozen (perhaps, therefore, an average of fewer than three a day) redactions or edits (including the one at issue here) over the past week. They tend to be concentrated on particular posts, so perhaps if one is participating in one of those posts, one is under the mistaken impression that the hand of the moderator here is heavier than it actually is.
I am not sure what “plan” you are referring to in your last paragraph. Mine, or yours? Either way, it doesn’t matter. Nor do I mind if you save screenshots.
I’ve said my piece. Please carry on.
I agree. Editing a member’s comment without acknowledgement in a way that renders it nonsensical is not a good idea. If an edit is worth making then it’s also worth acknowledging, if only to avoid confusing the reader.
George, TempTime is giving you good advice here. I recognize that you are not the person who initiated the “unhinged hatred” business (it was used, I believe in reference to the author of the OP, and her supposed “unhinged hatred of Trump” in another comment, and that is what you were responding to, and the context in which you used the phrase, in your comment #61.)
However, returning that kind of language with more of the same doesn’t improve the situation. Better to argue against it with facts and logic, and not with more personal attack and innuendo.
So I suggest that both sides stop this sort of language, return to discussing the issues raised in the OP.
Thanks.
I was the one who put the “No” in Caps, and was perhaps wrong to do so. It was clearly edited later on, without notice. I tend to view that as something done in good faith. The accusation of sneakiness is unfair, and the type of thing I have been taking objection to. I put it to the people who always question my motives: It is not my motives that should be in question. The impulse of what seems to be a new Right is to always think ill of those with whom they disagree is not what conservatism should be about.
Well said, She. I am fairly new to Ricochet, and did know this was done before. But, as I said, in another comment, the fault was mine to begin with. I have no objections to the edit, and believed it was done in good faith, even before you confirmed it. It seems that accusations are quick to my made by some. More’s the pity.