It’s no secret that I cannot stand “DJT” (and not Hillary either), so I was kinda surprised by my reaction to his ‘Tweets’ in this one article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-cant-stop-attacking-black-sports-figures_us_59c69b5be4b01cc57ff28eac
I’m getting fed-up with the approach that whether something is right or wrong depends on one’s race (or other group).
Step back in time to an example. I had a much-older relative who, from youth, loved boxing. A huge fan. Owned and cherished a collection of photos- some autographed- of the era’s most popular “prize fighters.” Continued to follow boxing on tv, including a fellow who became well known outside the boxing field. For a long time, the boxer was respected for his talents in the boxing ring; respect turned to disdain when the boxer ‘refused induction’ into the military, emphasizing where he was ‘at’ on the subject with the statement: “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong.” The boxer’s talents aside, he was no longer a sports hero- he was a draft dodger. The former fan was even more outraged because a family member was serving in Vietnam at the time.
Making matters worse, the boxer began to present it as a ‘racial’ issue. First, his statement does not reflect a ‘conscientious objector.’ However, it was furthered by the inaccurate approach that the Vietnam war itself was a matter of ‘sending young, poor African-Americans’ into war. None of the many Vietnam veterans I knew were African-American, and none were poor.
As a long-ago reflection of today’s news story, my belief was the fighter should have been allowed to retain the medals he’d earned as a fighter- but he should not have been allowed to continue his career. As I saw it, if Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali was not willing to serve his country, he should not have been allowed to represent it, either. And, although I hate football almost as much as I hate boxing, I have the same opinion on the NFL players who disrespect the National Anthem. Wrong is wrong, and a person’s race is irrelevant.
From what I’ve seen, the www is causing race relations to worsen. However, when it comes to propaganda and misinformation, it is not new at all. A few years ago, I noticed a book on Amazon; although I’d never heard of the book or its author, the title led me to buy it. The copyright stated it was published in 1951, yet its influence- propaganda and misinformation- has colored the way many today look at an incident and the area where the incident occurred. In the days when McCarthyism was in full swing, the author took the same approaches: blaming the entirety for the wrongs of a few, encouraging paranoia, name-calling, and, most important, presenting a situation and the people involved in a false light- trying to make it ‘about’ something that it was not.
The only actual difference was McCarthy encouraged citizens to see ‘Communists’ around every corner; the author, in contrast, encouraged citizens to look at everyone as ‘Racists.’ Facts: the so-called ‘race riots’ had nothing to do with race- locals, especially those who had recently returned from military service, did not like a celebrity coming to their area and promoting Communist ideas. But the author- a self-proclaimed Communist- furthered his agenda by referring to patriotic locals as ‘Fascists.’ While I do not approve of violence, and believe the locals should have handled it in a different, non-violent manner, the reason the author’s propaganda bothered me was one of the individuals he presented in this false light was one of my uncles- a veteran who had served at Pearl Harbor. My regret was the author passed away long before I heard of his book.
The bottom line: celebrity status does not give anyone the right to do wrong. In addition, it does not give individuals the right to claim that objections are about ‘racism.’ Whether it’s a prize fighter who dodged the draft, a singer who promoted Communism, or football players who kneel during the National Anthem, wrong is wrong and race is irrelevant.
I’m getting fed-up with the approach that whether something is right or wrong depends on one’s race (or other group).
Step back in time to an example. I had a much-older relative who, from youth, loved boxing. A huge fan. Owned and cherished a collection of photos- some autographed- of the era’s most popular “prize fighters.” Continued to follow boxing on tv, including a fellow who became well known outside the boxing field. For a long time, the boxer was respected for his talents in the boxing ring; respect turned to disdain when the boxer ‘refused induction’ into the military, emphasizing where he was ‘at’ on the subject with the statement: “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong.” The boxer’s talents aside, he was no longer a sports hero- he was a draft dodger. The former fan was even more outraged because a family member was serving in Vietnam at the time.
Making matters worse, the boxer began to present it as a ‘racial’ issue. First, his statement does not reflect a ‘conscientious objector.’ However, it was furthered by the inaccurate approach that the Vietnam war itself was a matter of ‘sending young, poor African-Americans’ into war. None of the many Vietnam veterans I knew were African-American, and none were poor.
As a long-ago reflection of today’s news story, my belief was the fighter should have been allowed to retain the medals he’d earned as a fighter- but he should not have been allowed to continue his career. As I saw it, if Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali was not willing to serve his country, he should not have been allowed to represent it, either. And, although I hate football almost as much as I hate boxing, I have the same opinion on the NFL players who disrespect the National Anthem. Wrong is wrong, and a person’s race is irrelevant.
From what I’ve seen, the www is causing race relations to worsen. However, when it comes to propaganda and misinformation, it is not new at all. A few years ago, I noticed a book on Amazon; although I’d never heard of the book or its author, the title led me to buy it. The copyright stated it was published in 1951, yet its influence- propaganda and misinformation- has colored the way many today look at an incident and the area where the incident occurred. In the days when McCarthyism was in full swing, the author took the same approaches: blaming the entirety for the wrongs of a few, encouraging paranoia, name-calling, and, most important, presenting a situation and the people involved in a false light- trying to make it ‘about’ something that it was not.
The only actual difference was McCarthy encouraged citizens to see ‘Communists’ around every corner; the author, in contrast, encouraged citizens to look at everyone as ‘Racists.’ Facts: the so-called ‘race riots’ had nothing to do with race- locals, especially those who had recently returned from military service, did not like a celebrity coming to their area and promoting Communist ideas. But the author- a self-proclaimed Communist- furthered his agenda by referring to patriotic locals as ‘Fascists.’ While I do not approve of violence, and believe the locals should have handled it in a different, non-violent manner, the reason the author’s propaganda bothered me was one of the individuals he presented in this false light was one of my uncles- a veteran who had served at Pearl Harbor. My regret was the author passed away long before I heard of his book.
The bottom line: celebrity status does not give anyone the right to do wrong. In addition, it does not give individuals the right to claim that objections are about ‘racism.’ Whether it’s a prize fighter who dodged the draft, a singer who promoted Communism, or football players who kneel during the National Anthem, wrong is wrong and race is irrelevant.