Yes they do. BUT that is only part of the flag and anthem symbolism. Both represent the American ideals and when those ideals are besmirched by racism, then calling it out is an act of true patriotism. Dissing those who point this out is, shall I coin a phrase?, unpatriotic. It is allowing our precious symbols to represent the antithesis of what they are supposed to stand for.
Colin made the symbol of kneeling during the national anthem. He defined what he meant by his symbol. Nobody else can define what he meant, by what he meant.
Only true in your alternate reality… :-"
You can’t help yourself, can you? You have to take what represents war fought and died for and make it about a misinformed liberal agenda?
WW_III_ANGRY, I think that I did misunderstand you. It seems you have a certain special care for people from your country because they are from your country, i.e. that the country actually does something in the moral calculus independent of the values or the practical consideration. I think that’s a sufficient condition for something to be ‘patriotism’.
But I don’t get the appeal. In many places, we live and work with people who are not our fellow countrymen. In many places, ones neighbors and coworkers, the people who one passed on the road, and the people whose combined welfare defines the welfare of ones society, are not citizens, are not from or permanently residing in ones country. Easy cases for this are countries in the EU that allow more-or-less free movement, so that people actually live their lives on both sides of a border. Some places in the US have historically had this, e.g. the US-Canada border was long under patrolled as a policy. But even in major cities, places like DC and New York, a significant portion of the community at any given moment are composed of immigrants, visitors, tourists, travelers from all over the world. Surely their well being is important to community welfare, and yet by an accident of birth they don’t get the same moral consideration? I find that odd.
Another intuition pump on this is at the margins of citizenship. Look at how Trump is responding to Puerto Rico. The humanitarian disaster there is affecting millions of US citizens, but it doesn’t seem Trump or his base see it that way. Surely many don’t realize that people born in Puerto Rico are US citizens, but even the ones that do just don’t consider them full and equal citizens. Then think of how your own intuitions about their moral worth would change if Puerto Rico were made a full state, or spun off as an independent nation. It just seems weird to give any moral weight to such changes, when the people don’t change, the society doesn’t change. The change could be entirely on paper, and patriotism would seem to demand giving it some metaphysical status that is undeserved.
I know, I’m being naive, and that there’s a real meaning in intersubjective realities like ‘citizenship’ and ‘country’, but I find them poorly supported, and would prefer to de-emphasize them relative to more objective criteria like mutually beneficial cooperation, shared humanity, and the common predicament of sentient life.
I would never discount what our military has done for all of us. But a misinformed liberal agenda? What are you talking about? I spoke to all the other things that make us Americans and that the symbols reflect those values. That is misinformed?
Consider your words. Start making sense… please?
I share a physical reality, made of the blood and sweat of actual people and objects such as a national flag that represent their efforts to accomplish specific goals, like military action used to claim our lands as sovereign from Britain and all threats, with real patriotism where people put their money where their mouths are, not some idealistic fantasy world of how one ought to live that steals from other humans, symbols, and events, namely the military, the flag and anthem, and deaths in battle, to gain it’s validity. Liberals are always misappropriating people, symbols, and objects for ulterior causes trying to give their bullshit causes legitimacy.
Well, there’s prioritization.
1)My Family - wife/kids (deepest of love, self sacrifice if needed)
2)Me
3)my other family (sisters brothers)
3)Friends/coworkers/acquaintances - people I interact with on a personal level
4)Neighbors around my home
5)Town/County/State/general vicinity/Country
6)World - Unconditional love
I don’t have a problem with people who come here who want to live with us, and their extent of their struggles. Globally, I am a humanist. That doesn’t mean I am not a patriot either, but there is a direct relationship to who I care about to what extent and their impact on my priorities. That’s not to say patriotism means that I want others to fail so that we can exceed.
But if I were president, of course, my priorities would be all citizens.
Wendy, you have decided that only military connections can represent the flag and anthem. Such a narrow viewpoint. But it makes it easy to define all those “others” doesn’t it? Sail on. I’ve nothing further to discuss with you. Whatever you say, have it your way.
Right is right.
So other people don’t know that or don’t believe that’s the scope of the gesture or that it can be so limited.
And now the scope has grown since it’s no longer just one specific incident. Now, it’s also about Trump. 
I did interpret the recent wave of kneeling as intending something different from the initial act by Kaepernick, though I don’t think it was so much anti-Trump as a demonstration of solidarity for the right to speak and protest (which was incidentally opposed to Trump’s position that football players should have no right to express political opinions, and should be fired for attempting to do so).
Yes that’s true, and I think that’s been communicated as well and understood fairly well, except for those that are polarized on the right
That “right to speak and protest” was there at the original incident. In fact, I noticed that lots of the discussions ignored the police treatment of blacks and instead focused on things like “what can a contract athlete do”, “is it legitimate for a wealthy athlete to criticize the system that pays him”, etc.
In the discussion surrounding it, I agree, but I meant just in the intent of the players. Kaepernick’s intent in doing what he did probably wasn’t to start a discussion about his right to do what he did. He acted in protest of the government, and in the ensuing discussion people questioned his right to do so and the legitimacy of his protest. The second wave of protests, by contrast, was intended to be about that discussion.
Yes, let’s discuss the government’s stance on violence and it only condones violence in cases of public safety, war, and self-defense. The most recent incident with a football player and the police who tackled him outside of a bar had to do with the player fleeing the scene of a crime once the police entered the bar? Can people up and flee from a police investigation?
I’d very much like to discuss the facts that led to the initial bent knee. Let’s discuss the specifics of what set this whole fiasco off for I’d very much enjoy proving that this entire enterprise of protest is not founded on any factual cases of white on black police brutality, it’s based on emotional reactions to deceptions propagated by a divisive media.
That’s not saying much since all totalitarian states make the same claim - concentration camps, death squads, secret police, torture, etc are all there purely for noble reasons.
The USA which is what we are talking about has enacted those travesties just to pass the time?
Your statement suggested that all violence used by the state is always fair and correct. But blacks claim that the police do not treat them fairly. So how do you respond to their claim? It’s certainly possible that some state violence is unfair and morally wrong. When is it unfair and wrong?
Wendy, I think your methodology for approaching the question of race-biased police violence is flawed. You point to anecdotes, but those tell you basically nothing about what’s going on – and note this cuts both ways: anecdotes are emotional and rhetorical, and both sides use them as such.
But if you look at the rate at which blacks vs. whites are killed in police custody, targeted by police, get justice for police misconduct, are sentenced to death at trial, etc. etc., there are pretty clear statistical trends that support the narrative that racial bias plays a role. That’s different from saying every police killing is solely attributable to racism. It’s a more modest claim: across all society, black people face a disproportionate burden from unjust and unwarranted police violence.
I found this rundown of studies on the issue to be surprisingly good, providing a good set of summaries with references from reputable sources, pointing out some weaknesses, and including some studies that found no bias. And I’m sure we can come up with additional flaws and with hypotheses that fit these findings without using racial bias as an explanation. But they should move your priors, and this is a much better place to start than a handful of anecdotes.