Demonstrating once again its mastery of advertising, Nike released an advertising campaign including Colin Kaepernick. While some have responded by burning their own Nike products, the campaign has been successful and has resulted in a surge in sales.
Since Trump has gone after Kaepernick for protesting, it is not surprising that some Trump supporters have attacked Nike’s campaign. It is also not surprising that Nike’s call center became a target for racists. While Nike certainly merits protest, this is because of its sweatshops and not because it is slickly turning social justice issues into profit. This, obviously enough, explains the rage against Nike by Trump supporters and others. As they see it, Kaepernick is a terrible person who disrespected the troops and is un-American. By using him in the campaign, Nike is colluding with Kaepernick and is thus showing it hates the troops. Or so their “reasoning” goes.
While Kaepernick is famous for not standing for the anthem, he has been clear that he did not do this to disrespect the troops. He was protesting the oppression of black people and police violence. It is worth noting that there is a long history of spectators simply ignoring the national anthem and even fans who persistently “desecrate” the anthem. As such, concern about the anthem is rather selective and the “charges” against Kaepernick seem utterly unfounded. It is also worth noting that NFL players were not required to be on the sidelines during the anthem prior to 2009 and that the link between the NFL and the troops seems to have been manufactured by “paid patriotism.”
It must, of course, be pointed out that the origin of the link between the NFL and patriotism does not invalidate the belief that not standing for the anthem at an NFL game disrespects the troops. To think that the origin of a belief disproves a belief would be to fall victim to the genetic fallacy. These fans are, however, in error since intent is a critical factor in assessing whether an action is disrespectful or not. Kaepernick has made it clear that his protest is not about the troops and there is no compelling reason to believe that his silent and respectful protest was disrespecting the troops.
It is, however, reasonable for the fans to be concerned about people showing disrespect for the troops, especially for those who have served with great honor or who have died in service to the country. If Kaepernick were engaged in insulting the troops or mocking veterans, then there would be grounds for condemning him. But, he did not do any of that. As such, the energy of people who are worried about respect for veterans should be focused elsewhere, on those who disrespect the troops. Naturally, if they are worried about Kaepernick because he is famous and getting national attention, their concern should be aimed at others who are famous and getting national attention. And there is no one more famous or getting more attention while also disrespecting the troops and being un-American than Donald Trump.
While Kaepernick quietly protested at NFL games, Trump has been actively hostile to veterans. The most famous incident is probably Trump’s 2015 claim that John McCain was not a war hero because he was captured. Trump also got into a battle with the Khans, whose son died heroically for the United States. Trump also has a rather unfortunate track record when it comes to charity and veterans. While Trump did get some criticism for these actions, his supporters generally did not waver nor did they raise their voices in defense of the troops. Given the rage that many Trump supporters show towards Kaepernick and the love they profess to have for the troops, this behavior is extremely inconsistent. Trump, after all, has done far more to disrespect the troops than Kaepernick. As such, Trump supporters should either shut up about Kaepernick or take Trump to task with even greater fervor than they direct against Kaepernick.
I am not in any way asserting that Trump’s supporters should be compelled to shut up or to speak against Trump’s virulent disrespect for the troops. His supporters have the same right to free expression (or silence) and protest as Kaepernick and everyone else. However, if they want to profess a love for the troops and America, then they need to be consistent and condemn Trump. If they praise Trump and attack Kaepernick, then it would seem absurd to claim that they are acting from a love of the troops and America. There would need to be some other reasons in play, otherwise they would be condemning Trump and at least tolerating Kaepernick.
The main problem is that Kaepernick’s premise is wrong. If you’re going to raise the fist of black power and refuse to stand during a sacred moment in which standing is correct, have your facts and thinking right. Otherwise, you’re just another anti-American leftist signalling to your commie friends. He also supports, financially, an organization named after an infamous cop killer, Assata Shakur.
In 2016, the police fatally shot 16 unarmed black men. Of course, being unarmed does not mean it’s an illegal shooting. But even if everyone of them were outright murders, according to the Bureau of Justice, in 2011, 62 million people had contact with the police. In 2012, there were over 12 million arrests. Yet 16 unarmed black people were shot….
Perhaps Kaepernick is just bad at math. I’ll help him out: Black people have almost no chance of being shot by the police. It’s one of the least likely ways for anyone to die. If you’re not involved in criminal activity, the chances become astronomically low.
As for your comparison to Trump’s actions, was Trump making a statement about America as a whole? Was he, as is Kaepernick, stating that America is an overwhelmingly racist, unjust and brutal nation? Or was he attacking individuals that attacked him? He took his beating for what he said. Should Trump refuse to acknowledge the flag at every given chance, should he decry America as a hateful place, where minorities are doomed to fail or be shot by racist cops, well then, I think he’d lose his following.
Until then, I think Kaepernick should shut up. He has his facts wrong and his morals wrong and he’s living rich much because he supports a cop killer and lives in this hateful country known as America.
There are two kinds of people in this world. “Trump Supporters” and others. Or some seem to think so.
So if you are against what Kaepernink did, or if you are a racist (are they the same thing?) then you are a Trump Supporter.
And people think Trump divides this country.
You mean racists and others.
Well, what I mean is that there are a lot of ways to look at a lot of different issues, and we are all individuals with brains. I can agree with some of the things that Trump does, and disagree with other things he does – but I’m really sick and tired of this whole category of “Trump Supporters”. It’s bigoted and downright insulting.
The left seems to have a “wink, wink” opinion of Trump – racist, xenophobe, sexist, homophobe, alt-right “screw-the-poor” whatever – and if anyone of any stripe expresses an opinion that might remotely relate to some policy or attitude of Trump, everything gets painted with that broad, offensive, misguided brush and we are divided.
So Trump comes out and speaks against Kaepernick, for whatever reasons he might have I might oppose Kaepernick’s actions as well – for similar or for completely different reasons. The point is that it’s an issue, about which I have independent thoughts and opinions.
But not to the left. To them, I am a “Trump Supporter”, and therefore deserving of every tag they want to hang on me. All communication stops here.
Us vs. Them. Embarrassing, really. Disgraceful. Tribal. And downright stupid.
I wonder if Mike believes that there should be *any* social norms or rituals that serve to unify the nation rather than divide it.
Certainly; I’d argue in favor of accepting the foundational moral and political values laid out by thinkers like John Locke: life, liberty, property, consent of the governed, rule of law, no taxation without representation, and so on.
BTW this is Magus, if you can’t tell from my polemics and “right wing extremism”. I’m too lazy too log into my other account and, and since I don’t blog anymore, when I came to wordpress this is what I was left with.
TJ– Actually Mike makes no real mention as to if what the NFL players and Kaepernick are promoting. He just says that Trump supporters are inconsistent while equating his attacks on people like the Khans, with the message from Kaepernick.
“Actually Mike makes no real mention as to if what the NFL players and Kaepernick are promoting”
* is right or wrong.
Welcome back, Magus! Can you give us an update? Are you still in the service?
TJ, I left the Army last year after 9 years. I’m currently embracing my inner hippie (with beard included) and using the GI Bill for a graduate degree. I live in Florida. How are you?
Dude! Welcome back! Where you at in Florida? I swear I would have guessed it in a few more posts. 😉
I’m in Tallahassee.
Ah. Well once you’re done being a hippie college boy and if you ever want to leverage that military and cop experience into anything in the DoD or civil contracting domain either here in Orlando area or WV or MD, let me know. I have quite a few contacts.
Will do. I have several apps out now, but networking is a definite weak area, having been away from civilized world for a while.
Magus, glad to hear you are back stateside. Good luck with your studies!
“…he has been clear that he did not do this to disrespect the troops. He was protesting the oppression of black people and police violence. “
So how does he get the privilege of being able to explain what he means, and the rest of us just say, “Oh – I see!”
The world I live in is a little different – words and actions are defined by the offended, regardless of what anyone actually means by them – or says they mean by them.
If, for example, Colin Kaepernick were to have gone on TV to explain his position, and I were to have commented on his apperance and said, “Well, I thought he was very articulate in his explanation” (meaning that “I thought he was very articulate in his explanation”), it wouldn’t matter what I meant or even what I said I meant – it could mean public shaming, cries of “Racism!”, loss of a job or worse.
” If Kaepernick were engaged in insulting the troops or mocking veterans, then there would be grounds for condemning him. But, he did not do any of that.”
But, but, but – I think that kneeling for the National Anthem is a “dog-whistle”. A signal to all his troop-hating friends! We know what he really meant by that!
And in the picture of him in USA today, he has his hand over his mouth! We know what that means! Another “dog-whistle”. “STFU, Whitey!”
Why does Kaepernick get to explain what he means? How do I sign up for that?
“Trump Supporters should shut up …”
This is an incredibly bigoted statement. When you say “if they want to profess a love for the troops and America, then they need to be consistent and condemn Trump.”
My question is, “Why would you assume they are all the same people? And why would you assume that they all speak with the same voice, in lock step?”
Would you say the same thing about, say, black people? “Black people should shut up about blah blah”. Do you assume that all black people think alike – or do you demand that of them so they can fit into your little world?
Nearly 63 million people voted for Donald Trump – so I guess in some way you could say that these are “Trump Supporters”. But what if someone voted for him, favors the tax cuts and the tariffs, but opposes the wall? Is that a “Trump Supporter?”
Maybe we should apply the old “Plessy vs Ferguson” litmus test – or maybe it’s already being applied.
Plessy, of course, was an “octaroon”, born a free man of 7/8 European and 1/8 African descent – and the law defined him as “black” and did not let him occupy a “white’s only” railroad car. Makes things easy, doesn’t it? If you support one single thing that Trump does or says, then that’s it – you’re a Trump Supporter.
Barack Obama certainly abided by that law – at least publicly. As a mixed-race individual himself, I guess the attitude is “in for a penny, in for a pound”.
We should all have the right to explain what we mean when we communicate. But that does not entail that other people must accept the explanation given. If a person cannot make a reasonable case that they meant X when it seems they meant Y to a reasonable observer, then it is reasonable to accept they meant Y. But, if they say they meant X and that seems reasonable given the evidence, then the presumption of intent should be that they meant X.
You are, of course, right to cast a wary eye on those who purport to explain away what they said as meaning something else-this is sometimes used to back pedal when someone clearly meant something that got them in trouble.