And flying the flag and singing the national anthem at high school games is bound to make some people fear deportation, so there's a strong argument to be made for eliminating them as well. In fact perhaps any display of patriotism by high school teenagers a few days before the anniversary of 9/11 should be made a misdemeanor. Yeah, that'll fix that pesky racism problem.
- John Q. Public
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19978
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Just observing that it's kind of dumb to chant "USA, USA" for a touchdown at a high school football game. But, they're teenagers, I guess.
John Q. Public
And yeah, when you get a thousand hyped up teenagers in a stadium on a Friday night, some of them are going to act like morons.
I'm well aware what the banner was in between. I was born and raised in this country, and I've celebrated every patriotic holiday as long as I can remember. I served in the military and have attended or been a part of a countless number of patriotic events during and since my service. Not once have I ever seen those words written that way with respect to our nation's colors. I'm willing to concede, however, it was an innocent and creative way to display patriotism.SK80 wrote:Then at Joe you need to prove "intention", if you claim semantics it is we are all caught up in... example, "We Love White" is one banner in between "We Love Red" another "We Love Blue". Can you tell me if there was "intention" there in that one banner or simply a line among others?
I will also concede that the "We gonna Trump ya" sign was nothing more than a political pun with no political or racial motivation.
I will also concede that the "Trump 2020" sign was merely a display of fiscal conservatism from a young man who just learned about the Laffer curve in honors econ class, and there was no racist motivation behind it.
I will also concede that the "Build the wall" sign that was not allowed to be displayed was a reference to the Aliso Viejo defensive line and had nothing to do with Mexicans.
And I will most certainly concede that chanting "USA" is not racist.
None of those things, in a vacuum, is racist. But when you put them all together in context, I start to interpret their meanings a little differently. The problem is, you're looking at everything in a vacuum.
You conceded that intent must be proven, and I agree and made that point earlier. However, even though none of us knows for sure, so many people seem to be so certain that nothing that happened on Friday at the game was racist. I'm not saying I know for certain either way, but given everything in context is sure does seem to me like the Santa Ana principle is at least a little justified.
Semantics are incredibly important. It’s the difference in mentioning the “we gonna Trump ya” sign and failing to mention ‘Bring back Obama’ sign.joefutbol wrote:Well, when it's accompanied by signs that say "We gonna Trump ya" and "We love white" and racist remarks when the team was leaving the stadium (assuming that part is true), it kind of changes the ball game.
I think people are too caught up in the semantics here.
Or “we love white” without mentioning the “we love red” and “we love blue” signs next to it because when the national (and social) media get a hold of the story the signs become “Make America white again”.
That nugget of BS was actually reported.
dont be that guy
The "We gonna Trump ya" sign was put up long before the game and was clearly directed toward the opponent. You'd have a point if it was in response to the Obama sign.dont be that guy wrote:It’s the difference in mentioning the “we gonna Trump ya” sign and failing to mention ‘Bring back Obama’ sign.
I addressed that. No amount of debate or discussion of semantics changes the intent behind the signs, chants, and slurs (alleged). You have to make up your own mind about that.
The intent was pretty clear. It’s something that they, and dozens of other schools have done for years without incident. The only difference was SA principal took offense, the AN principal quickly addressed, and the SA still felt the need to go to the media (even though he told the AN principal everything was fine.)
I’m pretty sure those same signs and chants of USA would have gone on if they were playing CDM or San Clemente.
dont be that guy
The bottom line is that there was no single, united intent of those people. There were hundreds of them, and people who are always looking for racism or reasons to be offended will find them.
I'm being open minded. I saw what the SA principle said and he admitted that he didn't really see anything like a "build the Wall" sign or chant. If he had, then he'd have a point.
I'd be willing to bet that most AN student didn't even know that they were playing Santa Ana until they got to the field or knew that a majority of their team was hispanic. The kids are there to have a good time, the football game is almost secondary.
dont be that guy
I stated more than once that I don't.
Again, I stated that more than once.
Or, there was racism to be found this time. Since you didn't see it the first, second, or third time I wrote it I will say it again - I don't know if there was, but it sure is possible.
We all filter minimal information and come up with a biased conclusion. It just seems that most people, especially around here, reach the conclusion before they do the filtering.
Just sayin', just askin'....
Absolutely. This has become a national story because no one did any filtering. The press immediately jumped on SA's side with little or no information. Every article mentions "Build the Wall" because then the story becomes a bigger deal. Nevermind that it's never been confirmed by Jeff Bishop or anyone else.
dont be that guy
Exactly, and the press does so for two reasons. One is that racism, or the possibility of racism, is as sexy as it gets when it comes to people paying attention to a story. The other is that the press has to beat the rest of the press to the scoop. Coming in second doesn't fly, and if that means not vetting or confirming what's been rumored or reported because of the haste to air it, well, so be it.don't be that guy wrote:The press immediately jumped...
This became a national story because all it takes is an accusation of racism. Couple that with the words "white" and "trump", and all the boxes have been checked for a firestorm, regardless of the context or intent.dont be that guy wrote: Absolutely. This has become a national story because no one did any filtering. The press immediately jumped on SA's side with little or no information. Every article mentions "Build the Wall" because then the story becomes a bigger deal. Nevermind that it's never been confirmed by Jeff Bishop or anyone else.
If you dropped the media and the politician from the debate I bet you find you have a lot more in common, many more agreements and actually like much more your what you think of as your opposition. Think about it.