General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAt least the NFL isn't pretending it's not blackballing Colin Kaepernick
As if there were any doubt that the NFL was going to continue its blacklist against Colin Kaepernick, the former Super Bowl starting quarterback was once again denied an opportunity this week. This time, it was in Seattle, and there was none of the hemming and hawing about Kaepernicks numbers not being good enough or his playstyle not being the right fit for the offense. No, instead, an NFL source told ESPNs Adam Schefter that Seahawks officials cancelled Kaepernicks workout after he refused to commit to ending his kneeling protests during the national anthem during the 2018 season. (Sure enough, on Friday, the Seahawks went ahead and found someone else for the job.)
This comes just days after Kaepernicks former teammate, Pro Bowl safety Eric Reid the first 49ers player to join Kaepernick in his protest in 2016 was approaching a contract with the Cincinnati Bengals only to be confronted by team owner Mike Brown, who asked him to commit not to kneel during the anthem in 2018. After going through a series of workouts with coaches and sensing interest, Reid was again confronted, this time by Bengals coach Marvin Lewis. Lewis asked Reid if he wished to clarify his stance on anthem kneeling for ownership. Reid declined, and the meeting was over shortly thereafter. Reid, like Kaepernick, remains unsigned.
As Reid tweeted in March, [General Managers] arent the hold up, owners are. Football people like Bengals defensive coordinator Teryl Austin recognize players like Reid still have something to offer NFL squads. Its owners like Brown who feel threatened by a powerful voice like Reids or a Kaepernicks in their locker rooms, on their fields, and perhaps most crucially, on their television sets.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/apr/13/kaepernick-reid-blackballed-nfl-kneeling-anthem
And exactly why and how do the public pay(s) for these tax breaks that these owners get to fucking discriminate and have venues built by taxpayers....................this is just fucked up
Mopar151
(10,006 posts)Players are supposed to be greatful pawns, and bow before Massa! They better know their damm role!
poboy2
(2,078 posts)as well. Crabs in a hamper...okay, racist crabs in a hamper.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)My heart aches for Kaeppernick, even while it beats with pride.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)genxlib
(5,547 posts)I would love to think that the owners would do the right thing but the fans are at the root of this. As long as the drooling masses that object to the kneeling are making a stink, the owners are in a no-win situation.
I would love to believe that the objecting fans are an insignificant minority that should not affect decision making. However, I think the riled up fan base is certainly big enough to make an impact. It is one thing for an owner to stand by the existing players they have. Bear in mind that those existing players had a built in level of support among the fans since they were already one of "our guys". But it is another level of trouble to bring someone into the team knowing they are going to be controversial from the beginning. They would have no pre-existing fan support and would be widely jeered from day one.
This is largely akin to driving advertisers away from FOX or Limbaugh. They are business owners and do not want controversy. They don't necessarily object to the specifics of the policy or else they would not have advertised on Limbaugh in the first place. They only flee when a significant enough of their customers say it is unacceptable.
This is so wrong. These guys deserve a job if they still have the talent regardless of exercising their first amendment rights. But it is a larger cultural question that really comes from the fan base.
Permanut
(5,687 posts)the NFL is a sacred institution to the fan base, like NASCAR.
Disclaimer: I've been an NFL fan since 1960, but not so much NASCAR. It just isn't very interesting watching 30 cars make left turns all day. That said, the first amendment rights of the players should always have precedence.
Lamonte
(85 posts)I would not hire a player who has his focus on a protest rather than helping the team he is supposed to be helping. A valid protest, but I do not expect the Seahawks or any team to provide the platform.
pazzyanne
(6,560 posts)"I would not hire a player who has his focus on a protest rather than helping the team he is supposed to be helping." Enquiring mind wants to know. As a person who has done protests most of her life, those protests have never kept me from doing the job I was hired to do. It is not like the player drops to take a knee in the middle of a play. Taking a knee is a very respectful way to protest IMHO.
cstanleytech
(26,347 posts)but they were not doing that.
RVN VET71
(2,699 posts)I'm not asking facetiously. Seems to me, if a player on a team cannot concentrate and give his full effort because he doesn't like or agree with a political and moral stand taken by his team-mate, then he's the one who should be given his walking papers.
On the other hand, if an existing team -- maybe the Seahawks -- has reacted with anger about a prospective player's political and moral stance, then maybe that prospective player shouldn't be hired. (Even then, though, I have to think that management might want to show some cojones and tell the players to live with it or take a walk -- as Leo Durocher did with the racist buttheads on the Brooklyn Dodgers who threatened a boycott if Jackie Robinson were signed. Are you listening, Kirby Higby?)
Of course, it's not about team cohesion. It's about filthy rich and corporate fascist owners who do not like the idea of protests on the field because it might affect adversely the racists among their fans. But, I gotta say, Brooklyn kinda sorta got behind Jackie, and Joe Black, and Jim Gilliam, and Roy Campanella, and Don Newcombe, if memory serves.
So, to edit what I just said, it's about narrow minded, fascist racist owners who think their fandom can follow a team only if its players are narcissistic block heads who are totally unaware and unaffected by the world outside of their brain-crunching game. And I have words for those narrow minded, un-American borderline fascist 1%ers who own the teams, but I won't sully the pages of Democratic Underground with them.
spanone
(135,921 posts)wait and see.
former9thward
(32,122 posts)He last played in the 2016 season.
Mr.Bill
(24,354 posts)I'm through going to sporting events and being forced into so-called patriotic ceremonies and being forced to worship the police and the military. Just play the game. That's what I came to see.
The Star Spangled Banner is a hymn that should be reserved for special State occasions. I'd much prefer Woody Guthrie's "This Land is Your Land" to rouse the crowds at mass-entertainment events. It's a joyous song about America and includes no exploding or bursting bombs. It references peace and the natural wonder that (still) is this nation.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)not a SJW. Seattle wanted to give him a chance to play the game.
rogue emissary
(3,148 posts)Than why does just about every famous current football player have a charity organization?
A few of the elite players have multiple charities. The league encourages them to be active in their community.
PufPuf23
(8,847 posts)Goes all the way to win the Super Bowl.
I. was a 49er fan nearly 50 years, a Christopher Milk Club kid while in Cub Scouts sitting in Kezar end zone dodging sea gull shit. Fandom wa Ned with Bartello gone and contributed to suspenDing Satelite dish and no tv since 2011 but do watch stuff on internet.
Persevere and succeed Kap!
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Could YOU make a political protest at YOUR job, during your work hours.