Giving credit where due, the Notorious RBG certainly got this one right on all counts. Our “oppressive” government stands behind the constitutional right of such obvious victims of oppression as Kaepernick to engage in phony protests: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ruth-bader-ginsburg-colin-kaepernick_us_57fbb68de4b068ecb5e0613f.
As you know, RBG is my hero(ine) on the court. Frankly I was surprised to hear this from her, on two counts: First, because she said recently that airing some of her “political” opinions was ill-considered, and second, because I thought she might be more sympathetic to Kaepernick. I differ from her and your thinking in this: Whether the protester is a “spoiled, rich” athlete or a resident of blighted West Baltimore, their goal is the same: to instigate a conversation about the important issue of racial inequality in this country. The fact that it’s getting so much attention, pro and con, indicates that the objective has been achieved. Now for the real work of addressing racial inequality, which, while much improved, still has a long way to go. It’s particularly interesting to see the divide on this issue by age. Millenials and Gen Xers see this in a much more positive light, perhaps because they are so much more color blind than their parents and grandparents?
As long as no one is harmed, taking a non-violent stand against injustice is protected, regardless of profession or paycheck. And as she and her good friend Scalia said, they wouldn’t prevent it or arrest anyone for doing so, because it IS their Constitutional right.
I’d have more sympathy for Kaepernick if I shared your view that he is trying to instigate a conversation about race and inequality. Such conversation is sorely needed. However, I gather from what he says that he falls into the camp of those who consider racism and oppression of minorities to be the defining characteristics of our Nation. It seems to me that this stance is a conversation-stopper rather than an invitation to dialogue.
If exploitation (of cheap sources of labor, be they domestic minorities or poor foreigners, as well as countries with valuable natural resources) is not a defining characteristic of our nation, then what is in your opinion?
If exploitation (of cheap sources of labor, be they domestic minorities or poor foreigners, as well as countries with valuable natural resources) is not a defining characteristic of our nation, then what is in your opinion?