In the past several days, there has been a not surprising up-tick in discussion about non-violent protests, about where and when the first amendment should be exercised, and whether or not the chief executive office of the United States pressuring private businesses to fire employees who engage in such protests violates the protester's constitutional rights. The antipathy towards the protest has been (in a way, refreshingly) multidimensional.
Many people think it's simply unprofessional to engage in a political protest while "on the clock," but that seems to ignore the reality that:
(1) It's up to their employer to decide what is and isn't professional.
(2) Why is "I don't want people to be murdered by cops" a "political" issue?
(3) Protesting while "off the clock" also seems to be unacceptable.
Given, teachers have suffered under that gag-order for a long time, relying on others to advocate for them, but the list of who is not allowed to express their opinion seems to be rapidly expanding, and now includes not only teachers (who are brainwashing our children), but journalists (who should never interpret the facts they report), actors (who don't know how things really are), athletes (who should be grateful for what they have), and poor people and college students (who haven't earned the right to complain). Police officers, oddly, seem to have been granted more political freedom in recent years, but that has spurred conflict within the profession.
An overwhelming number of detractors say that kneeling in front of the flag during the National Anthem disrespects those who fought for that flag. It's an odd sentiment considering:
(1) Kneeling has always been considered a symbolic act of deference, not disrespect.
 |
| Just look at that disrespectful son of a *****. |
(2) "Fighting for the flag" is a metaphorical phrase, people have not literally died for the flag.
 |
| Not in the real world, anyway. |
(3) Our national anthem is not dedicated to the military (each branch of the service has its own anthem to respect their struggles).
(4) Most of the actual military veterans I've seen post, comment, etc. call bull**** on the argument, which primarily seems to be bandied about by people who are related to people in the military, or who knew someone in the military at one point. Very few veterans actually seem to be offended by the protests.
I've also seen complaints that athletes protesting during the game are just doing it for attention, which seems to miss the point that drawing attention to a problem is the point of protesting it.
And I've seen arguments that highly paid athletes shouldn't protest a problem that does not personally impact them, which might be the most depressing expression of "screw you, I've got mine!" possible, transcending simple selfishness to the point of punishing the expression of compassion, sympathy, and altruism by others.
The most recent argument I saw, however, is that the athletes shouldn't protest unfairness, because in America, "Nobody is special!"
Anyone remember that time Douglas MacArthur attacked protesting veterans with cavalry and tanks?
 |
| They were small tanks, but still... |
No one?
Okay, then, does anyone at least remember what "FTA ALL THE WAY" means?
 |
| Vietnam M1 Helmet, images posted by U.S. Militaria Forum user B.A.R.Gunner. |
But, setting aside that naivete, the chief irony is that, "Nobody is special!" is essentially the premise which compels the groups whose protests the Facebook poster was objecting to.
Black men don't want to be treated BETTER than white men, they want to NOT be treated WORSE. In particular, they want police officers to NOT treat them as ESPECIALLY threatening because of the color of their skin and the shape of their faces, and they (and many more of us as well) want police officers to NOT be given SPECIAL consideration when investigated for murder.
 |
| This is the sort of "special" treatment black men receive in America. |
The selection of people who want to be treated as "special" - given special privileges, special honors, special treatment, special consideration, falls mostly on the opposite side of that conversation.
They are the people who are personally offended by any complaint, protest, or dissension toward the system, because they feel everyone else should be ingratiated to them - implicitly, they believe that they are the system that other people are protesting.
They are the people who think everything is about them.
They are the people who say, "Yes, you have freedom of speech, but exercising that right disrespects everything I have done for you."
They are the people who say, "How dare you politicize the sport I paid to watch?" or "Protest at home, where I don't have to see it!"
They are the people who feel that they shouldn't be subject to the same laws, oversight, or due process as the rest of their countrymen.
They are the people who, on hearing someone say, "hey, my life matters too," flip their **** because the idea that someone else values their own life feels like it somehow devalues their's.
They are the people who believe that the very concept of being courteous and considerate to others is beyond personally inconvenient, it is somehow an assault on their identity, and an attack on their country.
They are the people who, whenever someone says s/he is being treated unfairly, have to immediately interrupt him or her and talk about how they are being treated unfairly, more unfairly, and even brag about how they have endured it without complaint (except for right then, when they interrupted someone else's complaint because they needed to out-complain them), censuring anyone else for not suffering in obedient 'silence' as they have done.
So, please, before you jump in to complain about other people being 'disrespectful', 'ungrateful', 'shameful', 'whiners', remember this:
YOU AREN'T SPECIAL.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James N. McDonald is a "liberal academic" born and raised in Missouri and residing in Tennessee. He holds one degree in history, two degrees in psychology, but loves writing fiction. His first, completed novel, The Rise of Azraea, Book I, is a high fantasy story with elements of comic fantasy and satire targeting present day, real world issues such as economic inequity, and sexual and racial discrimination. It is currently available on Amazon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment