Boycotts and a Conundrum

Is it much ado about nothing, the NFL quarterback (who I don't think I've ever heard of; is he even a starter?) who now refuses to stand for the Star-Spangled Banner/National Anthem?  I understand in years past, with Jackie Robinson and the '68 Olympic athletes (Tommie Smith and John Carlos), such sentiments more than I do this NFL guy stance.

Without doubt, I agree with the man's right to sit or stand or do cartwheels during the National Anthem.  After all, this is America and, at least I hope, we still have freedom of speech.  Yes, the QB has a right to do what he did and to say what he said about his action(s).  He may be wrong and very much off base, but he still has that right.  But just because somebody has a right to do something, can do something, doesn't mean he should.

No, I don't think the man should be punished or shunned or even name-called.  I would suggest, though, that he be enlightened and, perhaps, rethink his actions and words.

Of course there is still bigotry in this country.  I can't imagine bigotry ever disappearing, ever.  But to use the word "oppresses," as in "a country that oppresses black people and people of color" seems to me to be misguided, at best.  Oppression and bigotry are not the same things.  I question the man's knowledge, his education.  For instance, he has been photographed wearing a Malcolm X baseball hat, the one with the big "X" on it.  I wonder if he knows much about Malcolm's life, his whole life and his beliefs.  I wonder if he realizes how farcical it is to make such statements when he, himself, is making millions of dollars (I don't know how much, but it must be millions) as an athlete, not because he's a white athlete or a black athlete, but as an athlete.  I wonder if he realizes how many people sacrificed, as represented by the flag and the anthem, so he can have that right to these actions and words.

I wonder why he doesn't take his message to the inner cities to try to stop all the senseless murders that occur daily in Detroit, Chicago, DC, and more.  More significant, I wonder why he doesn't take his millions and start an enterprise in the cities to help the financially downtrodden.  After all, former Detroit Piston Dave Bing did exactly that, starting a successful steel company that employed many people in Detroit.

No, I can't take this guy seriously.  Not yet, not until he shows something more than this.

I read about this case and did some research to see if the article was accurate and--it seems to be.  A Texas girl in a Spanish class refused to sing the Mexican national anthem and recite the Mexican pledge of allegiance.  It was an assignment.  Now why in the world a teacher in the US would make such an assignment is beyond me, other than he/she wasn't thinking.  There are a ton of other things that could be used to help teach Spanish or evaluate a student's mastery of the language.  Why in the world would a teacher in the US require that?  (Well, I do have an idea, but.....)

When given a failing grade on an alternative assignment (No, don't tell me teachers and school administrators are not vindictive!), the student sued.  And a federal judge threw out her suit.  The girl was to stand before a Mexican, not an American, flag and, with her hand on her heart, do the recitation(s).  If she objected as a matter of conscience, how could her rights not have been violated, as the judge ruled?  So, then, should the NFL QB then be penalized, punished, too?  After all, he acted on his own country, its flag and anthem.  The student was forced to act on a foreign country, its flag and anthem/pledge.  And I understand there is a similar situation in Florida.

Am I the only one who seems to think this country is all mixed up and not at all in good ways??????

Thinking and taking stands on thinking is not always as simple as it sounds.  For instance, I am not at all opposed to gay marriages.  (I do have a problem with an adult male, who claims to feel more like a female, being allowed to go into a restroom where my 10-year old granddaughter is!)  I would never boycott a business because it is owned my gays or hires gays, etc., never.  By the same token, I think others, who have religious opposition to gay marriages, also have rights.  They or rather their businesses should not be forced by government to do business, say, at gay marriages.  I'm thinking of the federal suits or threats of suits over refusal on religious beliefs to cater or take the photographs at gay weddings.  People who have sincere beliefs shouldn't be forced by government to act in ways contrary to those beliefs.  There, that was simple enough.

Oops!  Hold on a minute there, Adrian.  Let's go back about 50 or 60 years.  What about civil rights, the civil right movement?  Should the Southern bigots (and many in the North) have been permitted to discriminate against blacks, on the basis of race?  Now, after what I wrote above, hmmm......  And, it's not just the government acting to force the civil rights movement on people.  Go back a hundred years before that, the Civil War!  Should Abraham Lincoln have used the might of the federal government, its army, financial resources, population, etc., for the purpose of forcing people in the South to do what he and many in the North thought was right?  Well, regarding the Civil War and Civil Rights, I agree the feds did the right things.  But then how do I reconcile that with the heavy hand of the federal gov't in the struggle for gay rights?

I don't know and I don't like my lack of consistency.  It is a conundrum I have not yet fully worked out, if I can every fully work it out.