Is Kneeing the New way of Protest How come Donald Trump and others criticize football players for protesting, while others praise them? Some may say these athletes are being disrespectful, however this is not the case. Athletes use their platform of protest as a way to speak out for what they believe in. This is a peaceful protest. There has been no violence. Boldly, this protest has started for many reasons, however misconceptions has lead to many disagreements. Debating on whether this act is disrespectful or not has been a controversial discussion. Football fans everywhere are reacting in many different ways. So it all comes down to the real question. Is it disrespectful or not? “The national anthem is just the vehicle for the protest.” …show more content…
Along with this a couple outbreaks happened and more protest arose. The National Anthem portrays respect to the lives risked, injured lives, and to our fallen heroes. Players of the NFL and other sports have now decided to join in this peaceful protest by raising a fist (Cleveland). Along with NFL players, athletes from different sports decided to join this protest. Not to mention that this just doesn't happen on sport fields. Nonetheless this protest happened on the house floor by a representative named Mark Pocan ( Cleveland). People believe that this protest is an ineffective and a non productive way to get the stuff you want. Trump is very disturbed at the NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, for not punishing the players or changing the NFL’s rule about standing (SI). However Trump is not the only one mad, because regular NFL watchers do not support this. There have been less games attended, less games watched on the television, and fewer jerseys sold (Chicago). According to the Military Community a seventy nine year old veteran by the name of John Frizell stated this, "I find it very disrespectful. We've got G.I.'s dying to protect this country... I think it's so revolting. I don't even watch the NFL anymore. I quit
“Politics have no place in sports”. So, now that we have you all caught up, let's dig into the question at hand. Do NFL players have the right to protest the National Anthem while they are on the clock? Players are saying it is freedom of speech. While everyday Americans are saying it is a double standard, they could not do that without being fired from their jobs.
War holds the approximate greatness of a black hole, and is alike one in many ways. From times immemorial writers have used imagery, language appealing to one or more of the 5 senses, irony, things that go against what is expected, and structure, the way the story is written, to protest war. This form of protest has most likely existed since any point in which the existence of both war and written language intersected, and were a part of human life. Through the use of imagery, irony and structure, writers protest war.
Football games are no longer enjoyable because politics has made its way to the stadiums taking the joy away when a person sees their favorite player kneeling. They can’t know or understand why they are choosing to kneel so to them they see no reason to respect it. What if that player themselves had served, lost a loved one in the military, or have known someone to be a victim of a social injustice like police brutality? Where’s the
After calling all athletes who kneeled during the National Anthem cruel names, not only did more kneelers appear, but the standing teammates linked arms showing unity. Their reason may not’ve been only to protest on racial injustice, but to rebel against Donald Trump and show that this is their right. Various people, including President Trump, think that every athlete who has kneeled should be fired because they should not be able to protest in such a disrespectful way. It’s not only fans who find this protest wrong, but even some players do, including Drew Brees. Brees says he agrees with the context of the protest, but not the actions of it stating, "[I]t's an oxymoron that you're sitting down, disrespecting that flag that has given you the freedom to speak
“They arise from a culture of fandom that views players as valuable only so long as they can perform” [Almond]. The audacity to claim that we the fans do not support our players is outrageous. There have been many athletes throughout the times who have lost their abilities to play as they once did and are still respected for the things they did off the field. I as a fan do not only judge a player by their ability to play, but also what they does off the field. A modern example of this would be the 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick. The man was once a great quarterback and has somewhat fallen from his former station. But us fans still care what he has to say. His decisions off the field affect us just as much as they do on the field. If we truly did not care for the players once they outlived their usefulness as Almond so carelessly states, we would not care that Colin did not want to stand for the nation anthem. Movements would have no been organized in support of this player. He would have simply been casted aside while we looked for the next best thing to entertain us.
Henry David Thoreau, a philosopher and creative artist as well as an anti slavery activist, wrote his short story “From Resistance to Civil Disobedience”. In this story he’s arrested for not paying his state taxes. At the time the state was engaged in the Mexican-American War that was not only fought over boundaries expanding slavery but was also enacted by President Polk under his own decision. Thoreau thought the war was too aggressive and without just reason.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. received a Nobel Prize and was honored by the President of the United States for his contributions to society. On the other hand, he was prosecuted, convicted, incarcerated, and had his sentence reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. These explanations seem rather contradictory. If what he did was noble, why was he jailed for his actions? When we take into account these manifestations of the government's attitude towards Martin Luther King, we can safely make the assumption that the government is not always justified in the laws that it creates. Our government's original purpose was to keep order and ensure freedom to its people. As history has shown us, as in the case of African Americans, the government will expand its role and take away liberties of the few. The individual is justified in acting out in civil disobedience when the government restricts the liberties of the individual.
Civil disobedience has been around for a long time. In Bible times Christians would disobey laws that would go against their beliefs, such as the law that they couldn’t preach. (Acts 4) Christians still disobey laws in many countries that do not let them practice their faith, some end up in jail or killed.
The political concepts of justice and how a society should be governed have dominated literature through out human history. The concept of peacefully resisting laws set by a governing force can be first be depicted in the world of the Ancient Greeks in the works of Sophocles and actions of Socrates. This popular idea has developed over the centuries and is commonly known today as civil disobedience. Due to the works of Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. civil disobedience is a well-known political action to Americans; first in the application against slavery and second in the application against segregation. Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience” and King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” are the leading arguments in defining and encouraging the use of civil disobedience to produce justice from the government despite differences in their separate applications.
However, a very peeved Donald Trump immediately attacked the players, calling them “Son-of-a b****es.” He made the news viral, and insisted that they should be sacked because they were deliberately disrespecting the flag and the people who died for it. (Emma Lake, “Football Protest. Take a knee—why are NFL players kneeling during the U.S. national anthem and what is the row with Donald Trump all about?”)
Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience is a piece that denounces the role of government and promotes the individuality of man. He argues that government rarely proves itself to be useful, and that anything achieved under the influence of that government could have been even greater had the system not been involved, evident in paragraph 2, “Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.” (Thoreau, lines 12-16) He states that the American government derives its power from the majority, not the strongest group, and not necessarily the most moral. Thoreau wants us to believe that we the people should follow what we think to be ethically just, not what the government and the majority force upon us. In my opinion, I agree with Thoreau in the aspect that we need a more improved form of government, however I disagree with the type of government that Thoreau wishes for. He believes we work better without restraint and that we must command our individual respect, but I heartily argue the opposite; a society must have order and an infrastructure, we need a system to oversee the problems that we cannot solve as humans with individual mindsets. I do not believe that the government should have the right to pry into our lives without solid evidence, but I do believe that we need a fair and balanced administration that is required to look after its’ peoples’ well being.
"It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right." This type of mentality and belief in a greater justice beyond the law persists throughout Antigone. Antigone’s wrongful actions relate to real life events. These inspiring events include The Salt March, the Boston Tea Party, and Rosa Park’s bus ride.
I believe that civil disobedience is justified as a method of trying to change the law. I think that civil disobedience is an expression of one's viewpoints. If someone is willing to break a law for what they believe in, more power to them! Civil disobedience is defined as, "the refusal to obey the demands or commands of a government or occupying power, without resorting to violence or active measures of opposition" (Webster's Dictionary). This refusal usually takes the form of passive resistance. Its usual purpose is to force concessions from the government or occupying power. Civil disobedience has been a major tactic and philosophy of nationalist movements in Africa and India, in the civil rights movement of U.S. blacks, and of labor and anti-war movements in many countries. People practicing civil disobedience break a law because they consider it unjust and hope to call attention to it. In his essay, "Civil Disobedience," American author Henry David Thoreau set forth the basic tenets of civil disobedience for the first time. The independence of India in the 1930's was largely a result of the nonviolent resistance by Mohandas Gandhi to the British colonial laws. In the United States, the nonmilitant efforts of Martin Luther King, Jr., helped bring about civil rights legislation. There are numerous examples that illustrate how civil disobedience is justified.
Identify an example in this country of civil disobedience that you feel was justified and explain why? Civil disobedience means, a group's disapproval to abide by the law because they place confidence that the law is corrupt. Civil disobedience is a refusal to obey unjust laws, or in other words, defying the law because you don’t agree with it. Civil disobedience is usually displayed in a peaceful way. Although, if a person commits civil disobedience they should be prepared to face the aftermath of their actions, such as jail (Audio English, 2013).
I chose this particular topic because I think it is vital for us all to stay connected to one another as we age, as we will all need the support at one time or another. . Living into old age means that a person’s support network narrows considerably. I have learned through researching this topic that older individuals who have a strong spiritual connection of some sort live longer, healthier and happier lives. Being in a spiritual practice with others can form a strong bond of support and create a community for those who find themselves on their own due to loss of spouse, parents, or other family and friends. In addition, as people age, stressful events of life can be more of a challenge to manage; immune systems in older individuals