Colin Kaepernick Sits Through National Anthem Last Night

Chrissy said:

It's a symbol of indoctrination, whether it's Nazi Germany or the good ol' US of A.

Click to expand...

Nailed it. Exactly.

caw

Shadow Dragon said:

This does bring up a bit of a point I'm curious about. Would there be the same reaction if a well like, successful player did the same thing. If someone like Russell Wilson did it, you may be seeing more people saying it's good for him to take a stand and far less America: love it or leave it comments.

Click to expand...

Interesting comparison. Last week Russell Wilson was questioned as to why he pulled his wedding to Ciara from his home state, North Carolina. Have you heard about it? Has he been vilified for deciding that NC's bathroom laws equate to a bigotry he and Ciara are opposed to? I suspect not, because RW has a completely different reputation. He's a "winner" and so...

Although, I'm certain if RW sat down during the anthem it would be huge news. Not sure how it would fall on the pos-neg spectrum, but I suspect it would be heavier toward the latter. Now, what if Tony Romo or Tom Brady did it?

As a Seahawks fan I'm naturally opposed to Kaepernick in a sports sense, but I 100% support his right to make a socio-political statement. Yes, he will suffer the blowback, but I don't believe he deserves the vitriol he's getting.

robeiae said:

Regardless of how one feels about the Pledge and standing/not standing, I think it only fair to note that it's not a logic fail at all, imo. The flag is a symbolic representation of the nation and its foundation (the Constitution). The Pledge essentially says this.

Click to expand...

Actually, flags are more about representations of sides in war, and which armies and ships belong to whom. (Yanno, so you don't chop at--or shoot canon fire at--the badge or flag of your side or your allies.) They've been around a lot longer than the Constitution. Sure, you can make a case for allegiances, but outside of the martial setting, I don't see what the logical point of declaring allegiance would be. It has neither the force of heart or law. It does, however have an indoctrination value. If that's what it's for, we can at least be honest about it.

robeiae said:

Regardless of how one feels about the Pledge and standing/not standing, I think it only fair to note that it's not a logic fail at all, imo. The flag is a symbolic representation of the nation and its foundation (the Constitution). The Pledge essentially says this.

Click to expand...

That may be, but it's arbitrary to say this ritual means X and only X to everyone. Can't a person take a stand against racism and still respect the fact soldiers died for this country?

Can't people point out there is an issue that Black Lives Matter symbolizes and still recognize cops have a dangerous job?

c.e.lawson said:

I'm on my phone, so I won't use the multi quote thingy.

Michael Wolfe - in the context of the NFL tradition of the team standing while the flag waves and the national anthem plays, I can't think of what else the flag and anthem are supposed to stand for if not the American ideal.

Roxxsmom - I see a huge difference in logic between, say, a woman in Iran refusing to display a similar show of respect to her country's flag in protest of discrimination against women, and Karpernick's towards the American flag and anthem.

Rugcat - good God, this could be the last time I ever agree 100% with one of your posts, so I want to call it out. Yeah, poor Alex Smith.

Click to expand...

I don't think it stands for the American ideal, or much of anything else, and I sure as hell don't think it stands for the Constitution. It's an identifier.

I see zero difference between this guy refusing to stand as a protest and a woman in Iran doing the same. How are they different?

ElaineA said:

Just had an interesting convo with my hubs and my son about the Pledge. I stopped saying it in junior high. I still stood because I wasn't quite brave enough, but I didn't do the hand-on-heart thing, and I didn't say the words. So when my son expressed his annoyance that he had to say it (in grade school) I told him it was his choice, that I'd back him with the school if he wanted to stay seated. My husband just now heard this story and he's very annoyed with us. "Why should we have to pledge allegiance?" I ask him. "WHY NOT?" he answers. *sigh*

And this is a guy who's relatively liberal. If he can't understand the failure of logic of pledging allegiance to THE FLAG (not the Constitution, mind) I don't know what to tell him.

Click to expand...

One year in elementary school they - or it may have just been my class's teacher, I don't know actually - decided to do the morning Pledge thing. I didn't stand, because I thought it was weird. My parents were called. The class stopped doing it, heh.

I don't know why we insist on doing all the pledging and national anthem-ing before sports events and I don't see how this is a big deal at all.

We had to do the pledge every morning in elementary school, then we stopped doing it around third grade all the way through junior high. Then 9/11 happened and we had to the pledge everyday again. I'll stand for it, but I'm not putting my hand over my heart and I'm not actually saying it. As an atheist, the "under God" part always creeped me out.

rugcat said:

Of course he has the right to refuse to stand.

But Kaepernick has a long history of difficult public relations with the team and the fans in San Francisco. Alex Smith, their quarterback, had led the 49ers to nine straight wins before he was injured. Kaepernick took over, played well, ( although he lost the big ones) and Alex Smith never played again. Smith was a class act, never complained, kept his mouth shut, and was traded the next year.

Kaepernick, unlike Smith, proved to be surly, dismissive, contemptuous of fans and media, and was not particularly popular even at the height of his success. When the team began to struggle and he played poorly, the fans gleefully piled onto him – something he well deserved, Imo.

Had he been a respected sports figure, his refusal to stand would have been an interesting demonstration of conscience, and I think would have received much support along with some condemnation.

But he is so disliked that it's seen by many as nothing more than a stunt and another example of his unpleasant and contentious personality. Maybe that's not fair, but it's the way it is. Personally, I never forgave the 49ers for how they treated Alex Smith, and I would happy to never see Colin Kaepernick in a 49ers uniform again.

Click to expand...

I really can't get behind the Alex Smith revisionism here. Kaepernick beating him out for the starting job and sending him off packing to Kansas City isn't like Steve Young doing likewise to Joe Montana, okay? In seven seasons with the Niners Smith's win-loss record was 38-36. In his rookie season he threw one touchdown and 11 interceptions. In San Fran he threw 83 tds to 61 ints. In 12 seasons with the Niners and Chiefs he's 2-3 in the playoffs. These are not numbers to be wistful about.

Oh, and Kapernick is 4-2 in the playoffs with a Super Bowl appearance and loss. That still stings, but it has to sting Smith more knowing he hasn't even sniffed the Super Bowl.

Every time I pull up a K.C. Chiefs game on Direct TV and watch Smith hunker down under the center, I know as soon as Mr. Excitement drops back three steps and lets fly another wounded duck nothing good or remotely interesting will come from it. Every time I watch Aaron Rodgers throwing lasers to his receivers, I can't help remember in 2005, the 49ers chose Smith instead of Rodgers and sealed their fate for the next decade. Rodgers is a elite qb, Super Bowl champion and as soon as he's eligible he walks into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Nearly 12 years later Smith is a game manager still trying to get to a Super Bowl. The only way he gets into the Hall of Fame is it he buys a ticket.

Let's not get too rosy-eyed with nostalgia over the Good Old Days at Candlestick with Smith on Sundays. Personal preferences aside, Smith is still a busted 1st round pick instead of a Super Bowl ring wearer.

c.e.lawson said:

Roxxsmom - I see a huge difference in logic between, say, a woman in Iran refusing to display a similar show of respect to her country's flag in protest of discrimination against women, and Karpernick's towards the American flag and anthem.

Click to expand...

Why? Because Kapernick refuses to show respect for the flag and anthem out of solidarity with Black Lives Matter and a woman in Iran isn't?

c.e.lawson said:

Rugcat - good God, this could be the last time I ever agree 100% with one of your posts, so I want to call it out. Yeah, poor Alex Smith.

Click to expand...

Alex Smith is slated to make $14 million to play mediocre football in Kansas City. The only thing poor about Alex Smith is his fantasy football appeal.

William Haskins said:

but really we're all just here expressing our opinions here, NT. so here are some, in no particular order:

compulsory participation in nationalistic ritual is bullshit.

kapernick has the right to do whatever he wants as long as he is prepared to suffer the consequences that come with it. you know, like regular people.

Click to expand...

Most regular people aren't being comped $11 million bucks to do their job, but okay, I'll grant you that.

Now pray tell, what besides meaningless bullshit public opinion are the "consequences" Kaepernick should be prepared to suffer? Endorsements? I haven't seen him in any commercials lately. Playing time? He's coming off an injury-riddled season and a summer of surgeries. Why bust his butt for a doormat team decimated by poor play, poorer front office management, drafting and personnel moves, and now playing for his third head coach in as many seasons after the last two got run including a scrub who got broken off after only one?

I'd love to know what are these "consequences" you speak of, Mr. Haskins. Yeah, we are all expressing our opinions here, but some of us are supporting ours with facts too. Ya got any?

William Haskins said:

kapernick is a shitty quarterback who folds like a cheap card table under pressure.

Click to expand...

Sure he is, unless you missed his 181 yards rushing game against the Packers in the playoffs and the 412 yards passing he strafted them for in follow-up rematch during kickoff weekend. He looked real shitty and folded like a cheap card table under that pressure only he didn't.

Kap's is a Super Bowl quarterback who came up short against the Baltimore Ravens. He is one of only two quarterbacks from the 2011 NFL Draft class to even make it to the Really Big Show.

Here are the quarterbacks who were drafted before Kapernick went in the 2nd round: Andy Dalton, Blaine Gabbert, Jake Locker, Cam Newton, Christian Ponder, T. J. Yates.

Here are the quarterbacks who were drafted after Kapernick went in the 2nd round: Ryan Mallet, Ricky Stanzi, Nathan Enderle, Tyrod Taylor, Greg McElroy.

Perhaps you need to recalibrate your standard for shitty quarterbacking because that there is some real shitty quarterbacking. BONUS FUN FACT: Gabbert and Ponder, having washed out with the teams they were drafted by currently are both 49ers.

blacbird said:

Maybe Kaepernick is saving his energy so he can stand in the quarterback pocket better, something he didn't do very well last year.

Click to expand...

Maybe. And maybe when you're playing behind an offensive line that was so offensive it ranked dead last in the NFL last season giving up 54 sacks, standing in the pocket really isn't an option for you. You're saving your energy because you're busy running for your life.

Is Colin Kaepernick sitting down during the national anthem a big deal? Not to me at least, for many of the reasons already discussed.

From what I know of Colin Kaepernick though, it seems likely to me that this is just a publicity stunt by a glory-hound who's tumbling down from grace. He went from starter to third-string in just a year. Prior to that little fall, he demonstrated a hell of an ego, and I would not be surprised to see him glomp onto some social issue and try to make it his banner just to try and extend his 15 minutes.

If people want to be outraged, they can be outraged about that. That a major issue is being waved about by such a tool in an effort to keep himself relevant.

Alex Smith suffered under a series of new offensive coordinators and systems every year. When he finally got some stability under Harbaugh, he blossomed. He would've made it to the Super Bowl had not a teammate muffed a punt and given the game away to the New York Giants – a game that was already won.

But here's the simple truth – it's an unspoken rule that you do not lose your starting position due to injury. Smith had nine straight wins for the 49ers when he was temporarily sidelined by concussion. He was replaced by Kaepernick and never given another chance. That's not being beat out for the position – that's being screwed. He not only refused to complain, he did everything in his power to help Kaepernick become a better quarterback.

Kaepernick has some real talent. He is also a nasty piece of work – he was on top of the world, riding high. But instead of being gracious, or even halfway decent, he basically shit on everybody he came in contact with.

In San Francisco, the blowback on Kaepernick has nothing to do with his race, with black lives matter, or anything else except the people here thoroughly dislike the man, and with good reason.

nighttimer said:

Every time I watch Aaron Rodgers throwing lasers to his receivers, I can't help remember in 2005, the 49ers chose Smith instead of Rodgers and sealed their fate for the next decade. Rodgers is a elite qb, Super Bowl champion and as soon as he's eligible he walks into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Nearly 12 years later Smith is a game manager still trying to get to a Super Bowl. The only way he gets into the Hall of Fame is it he buys a ticket.

Click to expand...

If the 49ers had picked Rodgers instead of Smith, Mike Nolan and Mike Singletary would have screwed him up, too.

clintl said:

It lost all meaning for me. For most of my time during the years we did have to recite every day, I didn't think about the meaning of it at all - it was just something we did to start the school day.

Click to expand...

Good point. But kids aren't monolithic. How about we not act as if they are?

Chrissy said:

I never claimed any "contradiction." I see a sentiment that, in and of itself, should not be rote for school-aged children. I think repetition of these sorts of sentiments for young people in our country are more likely to make them meaningless than meanigful.

Click to expand...

You didn't say there was a contradiction, you implied that there was a contradiction in the way in which the pledge is worded. I can't speak for everyone, but as a child I certainly understood that the flag was a symbol and not what was really being pledged to. Nor did I then or now find anything creepy in pledging allegiance to my nation, or find that it made the pledge itself less meaningful for me.

In other words, you're basing your opinion on assumptions that rely on all children being the same in this regard and they're not anymore the same than when I was a child. For some, it will lose meaning. There's no denying that and it would be foolish to even try. But for others, it feels just as meaningful as the first time they said it.

But this topic has very little to do with whether it should be said at sporting events, which is interesting enough on its own.

Having little kids pledge allegiance to a nation is kind of odd, though. What does it mean? For starters, it does assume that Nation is a monolith, which it can't be. Pauline Hanson's (white) Australia is not my multicultural Australia - so which of us should define it, and which of us should pledge allegiance to whose version of it, and how old do the children need to be to understand the nuances of the debate?

rugcat said:

Alex Smith suffered under a series of new offensive coordinators and systems every year. When he finally got some stability under Harbaugh, he blossomed. He would've made it to the Super Bowl had not a teammate muffed a punt and given the game away to the New York Giants – a game that was already won.

Click to expand...

You don't need to sing that song to me, rugcat. I know every verse. That teammate was Kyle Williams, a backup WR who fumbled away the 49ers hopes of getting to the Super Bowl after Smith had led the team to a victory over the Saints the prior week. That game wasn't won until the last minute ticked off and when it was the Giants moved on and the 49ers cleaned out their lockers.

It still goes down as a playoff loss for Smith, who was solid 19-26 for 196 yards and two TD's to Vernon Davis. However, the Niners were only 1-13 on third down and while some of that is certainly on the play calls by the coaches, it's also on Smith who only completed only eight passes to his wide receivers in two playoff games. He'd go on to the Chiefs where he went an entire season without a TD pass to a wide receiver.

That's Alex Smith. You need five yards, he'll get you five yards. You need 10 yards, he'll get you five yards. Like I said: game manager, not a game changer.

rugcat said:

But here's the simple truth – it's an unspoken rule that you do not lose your starting position due to injury. Smith had nine straight wins for the 49ers when he was temporarily sidelined by concussion. He was replaced by Kaepernick and never given another chance. That's not being beat out for the position – that's being screwed. He not only refused to complain, he did everything in his power to help Kaepernick become a better quarterback.

Click to expand...

If a rule is unspoken and unwritten, it's a tradition, not a rule. Ask Drew Bledsoe about losing your starting gig due to an injury since he lost his to a guy some folks say is the best QB in history. Nobody's guaranteed a starting job in the NFL because there's always someone bigger, faster, stronger and just plain better waiting for their shot and once they get it, they're never letting go of it until they are replaced.

Good for him for being nice to Kapernick. As a reward, the 49ers traded him to a team where he got to walk right in as a starter instead of a dead zone like Cleveland. He got paid when it was time for contract negotiations, so pardon moi, if I don't see this as "being screwed." He's still one of 32 starting QB's in the NFL. Kapernick probably isn't among that group, but he was much closer to becoming a West Coast version of Cam Newton than Smith was to becoming the Great Plains Aaron Rodgers.

Is it cold what happened to Smith? Maybe, but football is a cold business. If you know anything about the 49ers, you know stars like Joe Montana, Roger Craig, Ronnie Lott and Jerry Rice, didn't finish their careers in crimson and gold. The NFL's philosophy is its better to get rid of a player a year too soon than a year too late and how Kaepernick and Smith's career arcs have gone bear this out. Smith didn't lose his job to injury. He lost it to a better player at the time. Besides, Jim Harbaugh and GM Trent Balike didn't draft Smith. What did they owe him? They had a large enough sample size to know he'd never take the team to the next level and he hasn't done it in K.C. either.

Another BONUS FUN FACT: In 2015 Smith returned to the Bay Area to square off against his former team and the upstart who replaced him as the starter. The Niners won 22-17.

Smith went 16-30 for 158 yards with 1 TD and 1 interception. Kaepernick went 14-26 for 201 yards for 1 TD and no interceptions.

Advantage: Mr. Kapernick.

rugcat said:

Kaepernick has some real talent. He is also a nasty piece of work – he was on top of the world, riding high. But instead of being gracious, or even halfway decent, he basically shit on everybody he came in contact with.

Click to expand...

Basically, is there any remotely resembling a source for all this shitting on everybody he came in contact with?

Smiling Little Kid after game: Colin, I love you! Can I get your autograph?
Nasty Piece of Work Kapernick: Fuck off, ya little asshole. I got no autograph for you! But I do have some SHIT for ya!

rugcat said:

In San Francisco, the blowback on Kaepernick has nothing to do with his race, with black lives matter, or anything else except the people here thoroughly dislike the man, and with good reason.

Click to expand...

Any chance we're going to find out what some of those good reasons are?

clintl said:

If the 49ers had picked Rodgers instead of Smith, Mike Nolan and Mike Singletary would have screwed him up, too.

Click to expand...

I'm certain given what they know now, maybe 99.9 percent of 49ers Nation would love to turn back time to find out for themselves.

Rodgers is still elite. Smith, like Nolan and Singletary, is still a scrub.

mccardey said:

Having little kids pledge allegiance to a nation is kind of odd, though. What does it mean? For starters, it does assume that Nation is a monolith, which it can't be. Pauline Hanson's (white) Australia is not my multicultural Australia - so which of us should define it, and which of us should pledge allegiance to whose version of it, and how old do the children need to be to understand the nuances of the debate?

Click to expand...

It definitely is odd for little kids to be pledging allegiance to a nation. But I think the idea of doing so is that a nation, children included, should be of one mind and one heart when it comes to certain topics like keeping the nation together. That the individual is part of a whole, part of something greater than themselves and is needed in order to for unity to be maintained. Heavy stuff to be putting on kids for sure and something that is hard to truly understand the scope of at that age.

If people were going with that instead of just saying it is antiquated or indoctrinating kids as if allegiance to your nation is some sort of cult or makes the pledge lose meaning in a wholesale fashion, I wouldn't disagree. But that's not how this conversation normally goes down in other places or has gone down in this thread.

nighttimer said:

I'm certain given what they know now, maybe 99.9 percent of 49ers Nation would love to turn back time to find out for themselves.

Rodgers is still elite. Smith, like Nolan and Singletary, is still a scrub.

Click to expand...

There's no doubt that Aaron Rogers is a better quarterback. Coming out of college, it's always a risk – some number one picks never make it, some sixth round picks become superstars. The 49ers made their best guess, and they guessed wrong.

Alex Smith was never a superstar – he was a fine quarterback, however. The Chiefs were 2–14 in 2012. The next year with basically the same team but with Alex Smith at the helm they went 11–5. Hardly a scrub.

As for Kaepernick, I watched him interact with media and fans every week for two years – I live here, remember? As I said, he was riding high and the 49ers were a force. And yet, to me he weekly showed himself to be one of the most unpleasant people in professional football. If you lived here and listened to local sports radio after the games, you wouldn't have any doubt about how fans feel about him.

He toned it down his act a bit when the team started losing – people will support a total asshole if he leads a winning team – when the team is losing, not so much. He finally got a chance again last week to show what he can do on the field. Massively unimpressive. There's a reason the 49ers couldn't trade him -- no other team in the NFL, including those who need a quarterback, has the slightest interest in having him run their team.

I wouldn't presume to tell you how the fans in Cleveland felt about Johnny Manziel. You may think you understand how fans here feel about Colin Kaepernick, and why, but you don't.

Lillith1991 said:

It definitely is odd for little kids to be pledging allegiance to a nation. But I think the idea of doing so is that a nation, children included, should be of one mind and one heart when it comes to certain topics like keeping the nation together. That the individual is part of a whole, part of something greater than themselves and is needed in order to for unity to be maintained. Heavy stuff to be putting on kids for sure and something that is hard to truly understand the scope of at that age.

If people were going with that instead of just saying it is antiquated or indoctrinating kids as if allegiance to your nation is some sort of cult or makes the pledge lose meaning in a wholesale fashion, I wouldn't disagree. But that's not how this conversation normally goes down in other places or has gone down in this thread.

Click to expand...

True story: What I learned from the daily pledge of allegiance was how to tell my right hand from my left.

Can any of us seriously say that reciting the pledge in school had more significance than that? Later maybe, take your pick of the age patriotism meant something to you. In my case, I came of age disrespecting a country that was waging a war I didn't support.

Not that I don't respect all the soldiers who fought for this country. But I see them differently than the mostly men and some women making the decisions to send other people's kids into war.

Lillith1991 said:

Good point. But kids aren't monolithic. How about we not act as if they are?

You didn't say there was a contradiction, you implied that there was a contradiction in the way in which the pledge is worded. I can't speak for everyone, but as a child I certainly understood that the flag was a symbol and not what was really being pledged to. Nor did I then or now find anything creepy in pledging allegiance to my nation, or find that it made the pledge itself less meaningful for me.

In other words, you're basing your opinion on assumptions that rely on all children being the same in this regard and they're not anymore the same than when I was a child. For some, it will lose meaning. There's no denying that and it would be foolish to even try. But for others, it feels just as meaningful as the first time they said it.

But this topic has very little to do with whether it should be said at sporting events, which is interesting enough on its own.

Click to expand...

I found it creepy and offensive that I was supposed to just pledge allegiance to the flag, to the country, when I was a kid, and find it the same now. I get other people don't, as you note kids aren't a monolithic group, but I did.

Lillith1991 said:

It definitely is odd for little kids to be pledging allegiance to a nation. But I think the idea of doing so is that a nation, children included, should be of one mind and one heart when it comes to certain topics like keeping the nation together. That the individual is part of a whole, part of something greater than themselves and is needed in order to for unity to be maintained. Heavy stuff to be putting on kids for sure and something that is hard to truly understand the scope of at that age.

If people were going with that instead of just saying it is antiquated or indoctrinating kids as if allegiance to your nation is some sort of cult or makes the pledge lose meaning in a wholesale fashion, I wouldn't disagree. But that's not how this conversation normally goes down in other places or has gone down in this thread.

Click to expand...

It's an accident of birth, for the most part, that the kids are in the nation.

This is why patriotism has always eluded me, at least the way most people experience or believe in it. If someone with an understanding of history, global current events, etc., wants to believe in the unity of the U.S., and etc., yay. Thinking a child should, because the child happens to be within its borders, is so odd to me.

Lillith1991 said:

But I think the idea of doing so is that a nation, children included, should be of one mind and one heart when it comes to certain topics like keeping the nation together.

Click to expand...

But that's not necessarily a good thing - at all. Keeping the nation together how, exactly? What does that mean? Who gets to decide?

Much better for kids to pledge allegiance (if they have to pledge allegiance to anything) to concepts like critical thought, or compassionate service or something, I would suspect.

Also - times change. I'll bet even in your own singular instance, the nation that you pledged allegiance to (as you understood it) when you were a tot, is not the same nation that you're pledging allegiance to now. Not in your hopes for it, or your understanding of where it is heading, or your understanding of the history that created it.

If I'd had to pledge allegiance in my tot-hood, I'd have been pledging allegiance to a nation that believed strongly in the need for racism and homophobia and sexism and religious intolerance. And a six-day-week and pubs closing in mid afternoon. These are not things I'd pledge allegiance to today, and the people who would pledge allegiance to those ideals (yes, we have them!) are not people I want to be all that much in unity with.

ETA: I forgot the obvious example. What if the figurehead of the nation is someone as polarising as Trump? Then the pledge, for half of the people who took it, becomes meaningless, surely?

mccardey said:

But that's not necessarily a good thing - at all. Keeping the nation together how, exactly? What does that mean? Who gets to decide?

Click to expand...

I don't think the unity being referred to in that sentiment is quite as nuanced as that. The idea, as I understand it, is to be one nation and not break apart into little splinter nations no matter what. Whether the pressure is coming from outside or within.

Much better for kids to pledge allegiance (if they have to pledge allegiance to anything) to concepts like critical thought, or compassionate service or something, I would suspect.

Click to expand...

And that would be preferable, if people were prepared on both sides to seriously consider it as a compromise. Unfortunately, neither side appears to be.

Also - times change. I'll bet even in your own singular instance, the nation that you pledged allegiance to (as you understood it) when you were a tot, is not the same nation that you're pledging allegiance to now. Not in your hopes for it, or your understanding of where it is heading, or your understanding of the history that created it.

If I'd had to pledge allegiance in my tot-hood, I'd have been pledging allegiance to a nation that believed strongly in the need for racism and homophobia and sexism and religious intolerance. And a six-day-week and pubs closing in mid afternoon. These are not things I'd pledge allegiance to today, and the people who would pledge allegiance to those ideals (yes, we have them!) are not people I want to be all that much in unity with.

Click to expand...

The nation has change just during my lifetime. And in many ways, I'm deeply proud of some of them. I never believed as a kid that I would see a black president, though I wanted to be president myself as a kid. I never believed I would be able to get married, because I understood that I liked other girls from a young age. But, you're right, I didn't expect to come of age in a nation that was at war. Or for the racial tensions to get this bad. Or for people to act like religion is a viable reason to be an asshat to another person.

Cross-posted, so I'll put it here, and crib from your response as well

The idea, as I understand it, is to be one nation and not break apart into little splinter nations no matter what. Whether the pressure is coming from outside or within.

Click to expand...

What if the figurehead of the nation is someone as polarising as Trump? Then the pledge, for half of the people who took it, becomes meaningless, surely?

When a flag rises you stand up off your ass because people died underneath for you freedom.

Wye Pen said:

When a flag rises you stand up off your ass because people died underneath for you freedom.

Click to expand...

So forcing people to stand for the flag is freedom?

mccardey said:

Cross-posted, so I'll put it here, and crib from your response as well



What if the figurehead of the nation is someone as polarising as Trump? Then the pledge, for half of the people who took it, becomes meaningless, surely?

Click to expand...

Why should it? Much as Trump could screw a lot of shit up, what good is allegiance if it is so easily changed?

Wye Pen said:

On one occasion I went with a Wog friend to his national Christian club. A hymn was sung and a flag was risen. An ignorant Arab didn’t pay respect. Needless to say he was carried out of the club on a stretcher.

Click to expand...

Still doesn't answer the question. Nor would I be so proud to have witnessed such an event, or make the bold assumption others who love the flag would deem that type of thing OK. That bullshit gives those who choose to pledge the flag and see it as a sign of respect to the fallen and ideals of the nation a bad name.

"You failed to react solemnly enough when I rubbed blue mud in my belly button, so I'm going to put you on a stretcher" hardly strikes me as a sign of a tolerant society, any vestige of freedom, or something we should strive to emulate.