Canada, along with Australia, have been self-flagellating for years over the past treatment of indigenous peoples. That, too, is absurd. Perhaps these indigenous peoples should, at the same time, apologise and pay tribute to the other indigenous people they went to war with over the millennia.
I disagree. Perhaps in the past, but with the courts upholding and enforcing rights of First Nations peoples, they themselves are now taking the steps to improve themselves. The government's historical treatment, probably only the last 150 years or so, has been a sorry affair. There are still plenty of vestiges of paternalism still left in the system. A large portion of the residential school system was awful. Not every single one of course, and most of the current First Nations leaders are products of those schools. But for a system set up by the church, there did not appear to be a lot of agape going on. If this is my whiteyness showing, so be it.
I disagree with the 'self-flagellating part' and I think the argument of 'apologizing and paying tribute' is somewhat trite, because it does not actually address the issues that the FN have.
Maybe I'm just old school but we've always been told that work isn't the place for political activism or religious proselytizing. It's the place to ... you know, work and do your job. And if you didn't do your job but chose instead to proselytize or channel your inner political activist while being on the clock at your place of employ, you were disciplined up to and including termination. That's all I gotta say about the matter, really.
Evidently it was actually a baseball anthem before it ever became the national anthem: http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/6957582/the-history-national-anthem-sports-espn-magazine
Pretty good poetry; discordant melody - cannot, should not, be sung. A war song. Like Amazing Grace: great lyrics, unsingable. "America The Beautiful" would work, but the atheists would bellyache.
There's a place for recognising one's past, making amends, and then moving on. But I don't see Canada, or Australia, or the US, doing that. For as long as I lived in Canada, every discussion of 'First' Nations (not Indigenous Peoples anymore?) I was exposed to focused on residential schools, colonial exploitation, abuse by the British, and French, etc., etc. etc. Terrible thing, but it's over now, move on. And if we aren't moving on, then while Canadians with evil European blood in their veins are apologising for things they never did, to people who were never wronged (obviously exceptions in the case of residential schools, but then those living are few and specific indeed), then those people can start apologising for all the raping, scalping, and tribal genocide they engaged in over the millennia before Europeans arrived (having emigrated themselves, and who knows what they did to any existing population). If they don't see a need - noble savages that they are -, then neither should anyone else. Over here it's a similar thing: always apologising for the British Empire (never mind the hugely successful colonial projects now known as Canada, Australia, and the USA, among others), but not a word about the evils of the Ottoman empire. If Turkey doesn't see a need, then neither should the UK. There's a reason the contriteness only goes one way.
Being a European mutt, I was a slave and I owned myself. So I am owed much and I must pay out that retribution to myself for the abuses I suffered at my own hands.
I have no problem with football players wanting to protest police brutality, racism, etc. What I do have a problem with is them protesting by disrespecting the military, the flag, the country by taking a knee during the anthem. I’m pretty much done with the NFL. Even if they all start standing from now on, it’s too little, too late...
What, you don't like the gladiators giving Caesar the middle finger...? Now where we get bread and circuses?
Interesting analogy. I just see it as disrespect for the people who have fought and died to secure the freedoms this country offers, which then allows these players to make millions and be idolized. I’m also against racism, police brutality, etc., which is supposedly why they take a knee. I just think there’s a better way to go about things than what they’ve been doing.
To me, taking a knee does nothing to support their cause. It only shines the light on them as these supposed hero/role models. Tell me what they've actually done to fight for their cause. Is it really a "protest" when they're still getting paid?
I was reading somewhere that orginal 'taking the knee' by Kaepernick was actually suggested by a veteran. Fake edit: Even Snopes has an article on it... http://www.snopes.com/veteran-kaepernick-take-a-knee-anthem/
That’s all well and good, but I still don’t like it. And just as the kneelers have a right to express themselves, I do, too.
I totally meant to get back to this. I see your point and it is one that is mentioned over and over again, but it is virtually irrelevant. It is not the foundational issue that the FN's are basing their argument of title and self-determination. It all stems from the proclamation of 1763 by the King of England (George ??) that, as read, and as interpreted by the courts does grant FN's particular rights toward title of the land base and their relationship with the colonial people. FN's entered into many agreements in good faith with the Europeans and American settlers, but these were routinely ignored by the latter. In BC, no official treaties were ever signed, hence there are all sorts of legal tussles over use of the land base. There has been one (maybe two?) modern treaties signed since then) The residential school stuff was pretty awful as a multi-generational systemic attempt to wipe out FN heritage. As it was done under the auspices of the church is not particularly pleasant matter either. As an interesting note, one of our teachers here who has done lots of work with local FN's notes that most of the people are very receptive to Christianity - it comports quite well with their traditional views - but they are quite leery of the organized church, with obvious reasons. (As an aside, out west, I think we generally refer to the various groups as First Nations. Iindigenous peoples appears to be a more generic term. If you check the government ministry site, both are mentioned.)
And for the triple post, back to the kneeling thing, I just came across this article that seemed a fairly reasonable discussion. https://athletesinaction.org/underreview/what-you-might-be-missing-in-the-kneeling-debate