Posted on 07/05/2019 6:58:08 AM PDT by C19fan
Colin Kaepernick has been slammed for using chunks of Frederick Douglass' famous Fourth of July address on Twitter to criticize police brutality and claim racism in America without including the sections of his speech where he told of his love of country and hope for the future.
The controversial former San Francisco 49ers shared a video on Twitter on Thursday in which parts of Douglass' lengthy 1852 speech were orated over a montage of slavery depictions and videos of police shooting unarmed African Americans.
He tweeted beneath it: 'What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? This Fourth of July is yours, not mine...
'There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Of course the ignored irony here is that Nike is engaging in acts at its Chinese sweatshops that come close to falling within the meaning of the out-of-context quote.
The only thing surprising is that Kaepernick can read.
Why must we keep reading and hearing about what this pile of smegma thinks about anything?
Because he is the de facto CEO of Nike?
>>I give you the arrogant ignorance of the snowflake generation.
That would be the "snowflake generation"of 1852 ...
And it was as ignorant a statement in 1852 as it is today. Frederick Douglass should, perhaps, have familiarized himself with the conduct of African tribes, of Mohammedans, of Genghis Khan and Atilla the Hun, of the French Revolution, before so roundly condemning these United States. Today, to this list we can add the atrocities of international communists and National Socialist.
But forget all that.
America is Baaaaaaad ...
Bill didn’t have time to iron her Housecoat?
thanks for fixing. LOL>
The only reason anyone pays him any attention is because people "are still patronizing" Nike who pays him millions
Correct
Boycott the swoosh
He is a willing mouthpiece for extreme marxism. He knows the truth but chooses to spew the lies.
bkmk
My take is that that is an important distinction. The (in)famous 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision intimidates Republican politicians from enforcing their (non-enumerated, but nevertheless clearly real) right to vindicate their reputations against libelous journalists. In that decision the Warren Court went into full self-congratulatory mode, declaring unanimously that they were enforcing the First Amendment, neither more nor less.IMHO SCOTUS grossly overextended the reach of the facts before them. Those facts were that Mr. Sullivan objected in court to an advertisement published in the NYT. Mr. Sullivan was a Democrat - of the southern, racist variety then ubiquitous. The ad Mr. Sullivan objected to did not even explicitly name him. Nothing about the case brought into focus the then-even-more pervasive (basically unchallenged) "bias in the media.”
So SCOTUS blithely announced that judges can’t sue for libel, and politicians have a high hurdle to get any satisfaction from a libel suit. Since then it has become apparent that any racist politician would be named a (dis)honorary Republican (see Duke, David). And that Democrat politicians go along and get along - get along quite well, thank you - with journalists. And that that is easy for socialists to do, since journalism is homogeneously socialist-oriented. There is absolutely no reason to believe propaganda to the effect that journalism is, or ever was, objective. And every reason to believe that the wires services - constituting as they do continual virtual meetings of the major journalism outlets - behave precisely as Adam Smith " People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices” projected in 1776.
A generation ago Clarence Thomas referred to his treatment at the hands of Senator Joe Biden et. al. as “a high-tech lynching.” And that was nothing compared with what Justice Kavanaugh went through, starting with a “witness” testifying to a “recovered” memory—and going downhill from there. And I thought “recovered” memory was as low as it got.
With that history behind us, anyone who thinks that Sullivan is a valid precedent to adhere to slavishly is beyond hope. Journalism is naturally negative about society, thus naturally disposed to support having government “do something” - and thus an engine of support for big government and even for outright socialism. To give a “right” to journalism to which it was never entitled is to subvert the Republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.