Of course, and that's great and you should be proud, as you are. From another perspective, though not a Quaker, I was brought up in a Quaker environment and they don't pledge allegiance to the flag because their religion says they should pledge allegiance only to God. Some people find that very offensive, as they take it as a sign of disloyalty. And, for religious reasons, many of my friends were conscientious objectors because they took seriously "Resist not evil ... love your enemies ...." Some of my teachers spent part of WW II in jail because they took that as an absolute. Many people found that very offensive. Part of what makes the USA great is its tolerance for dissent and not treating it as unpatriotic, even when communicated in the most public of settings in a way that makes others uncomfortable and even when it means refusing to go to war in defense of our country (the Quakers, in a way, believe refusing to go to war is in defense of our country). One of the current critiques of some institutions of "higher" learning is that they are stiffling dissent because it makes some groups of students uncomfortable, which to me is the same thing as some of the reactions to the athletes' recent actions, from the other side of the spectrum. I do understand that many veterans of the military identify with the flag and take something like these protests, or the "black glove" ones at the Olympics, personally and as unpatriotic. At least to some extent, I understand why, though I'm sure not fully because I haven't "been there." But I think it's sad, as from another perspective those are very patriotic acts and, in most cases, have nothing to do with the military. Perhaps a soccer analogy would be a coach saying to a player, you have tremendous potential but you aren't living up to it in practice or in games. Until you do, I won't play you.
CP, as someone who served a long time ago, I know how sensitive the issue is with people who've also served more recently in the military. It is one of the last places where you gain a strong reverence for the flag and anthem. I certainly don't like or agree with our government's policies, at times, or with government officials' actions. I also realize that one of the great aspects of our country is the right to protest what's happening around you, even if it means sitting during the anthem. However, in my opinion, this action disrespects a whole nation, which I believe the flag and anthem represent. I think people should be vocal on the other end and that's why I posted my comments earlier. I don't care to change anyone's opinions about how to protest, but that certain forms of protest are reprehensible to others. Having said that, I'm not sure I agree with the playing of the national anthem at the club level. Both teams are American, no need to turn a local sporting event into a patriotic event.
I think the not standing during the anthem now when you have before by rapinoe (as well as kaepernick) is just attention seeking But I rather they kneel in submission than sit in obliviousness if they cannot stand with pride.
Protesting is as American as apple pie. The purpose of a protest is "to disturb comfortable people." (Woody Guthrie). We would still be in caves gnawing bones if we behaved like a herd of sheep. "Well behaved women rarely make history." Nor do well behaved men.
I am white, so I cannot be called a racist towards white people. I am a proud American and respect the sacrifices of our military but I think you are missing my point. Who controls this nation? Just look at the congress, mostly white and male and likely mostly straight. They control legislation that impacts all citizens. What about the disrespect towards some segments of our population? Past and present disrespect for them is real ; their disrespect for the flag and anthem is your opinion.
The mass media. Actually, Congress is more diverse in its demographic makeup than ever before in history. However, officials are elected based on a majority vote. It would be impossible to get demographics in Congress to equate perfectly with the demographics of the population unless it's done artificially. Look around to the rest of the world. No, it's not. Many people agree, even in this very thread. It's like Kaepernick is saying that all Americans oppress black people, which is simply not true. It's absurd to point to certain incidents of police brutality/shootings as an example of state-authorized oppression of minorities.
IMO, the kneeling has instigated tons of discourse about patriotism and protesting, like that in this forum; but NOT the same amount of discourse in those same venues about the institutional,economic and cultural anti- Black American bias and dicrimination that is pervasive in the good ol' U. S. of A, which is what it is intended to do.
The media does not control the nation. That is giving an excuse to bad behavior by lawmakers. Laws control our society (we are a nation of laws, it is said). Gerrymandering (House) and Wyoming or Vermont having as many senators as California or Texas (Senate) contributes to bad lawmaking. Filibustering is bad for lawmaking. Passing no laws is bad lawmaking. Ideally, let's draw maps that have every House seat represent approximately 50-50 along party lines. Let's get corrupting money out of the process. Lawmakers spend more time raising money than passing laws. Newly hatched attempts to suppress voter turnout is troubling. Police brutality is not just a few incidents. Of course, not all police officers nor lawmakers are bad. All of which has nothing to do with soccer.
This conversation is getting a little out of hand. It probably belongs in the political sub-forum. I don't want to "hijack" this thread.
So let's talk about the black and white striped kenesio tape that Kaylyn Kyle was rocking tonight, or the fact that as we watch the beating Alex Morgan gets game after game, how we might think differently about Abby Wambach's way of dealing with it year after year. Or that the teams have so little control over their own venues, that it is impossible to pin down dates for the semi-finals - partly because none of them wants to take the financial hit for reserving a place and then not getting to play the game. Or how is it that WNY was able to hook up a game with Thailand during the season. On a related note, that game is not in Rochester - it will be at Canisius College in Buffalo - 1200 seats only @$10 each.
While Portland has control over its venue, so your comment doesn't apply to it, one of the things Paulson has cited as important to NWSL team success is having control over your own venue.
Im surprised they couldnt find a bigger venue. I can understand not using Rhino even if available cause their is no way to gauge interest but 1200 seats? Also hope this match gets posted to Youtube.
The battle lines r being drawn in this league between the haves and the have nots. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next couple years.
The Rhinos are on the road Sept 17, but I think the relationship between the Sahlens and Dworkins are strained, and it wasn't easy to get Rhinos stadium. The lack of a suitable venue in Buffalo is why the Flash Play in Rochester. I conjecture that the Sahlens wanted the game to be in Buffalo, anyway. Getting folks to drive from Rochester for a friendly is unlikely. I think they are being realistic about how many Buffalonians can be attracted. 1200 actually may be about right (even if he game was in Rochester). IMO the best other venue in Buffalo is the 5,000 seat All High Stadium, where the NPSL Buffalo FC plays, but it is ancient.
Well Id like to see to see if they play them as well as the NT did. Beyond that I guess its a good chance to see the team without hopping on the thruway.
I'm not sure about battle lines, but I wouldn't be surprised if the MLS-affiliated teams are pushing both the MLS and the NWSL teams to get together, in those cities that have both but don't yet have relatively integrated operations and facility use.
The other story that won't go away quietly... Jeff K. throws more fuel on the Barcelona-to-NWSL fire: FC Barcelona wants a @profutsalleague team in NY and an @NWSL team...somewhere. Why? How realistic is that? See: https://t.co/lWT8LFiahl— Jeff Kassouf (@JeffKassouf) September 12, 2016 Some highlights from the fourfourtwo article: New York would be crowded, with NJ already nearby and NYCFC making noise. LA also has LAFC on the radar, so... Barca San Fran, anyone? (There are more NWSL expansion tidbits in there, but I'm putting those in the American Expansion Possibilities thread for deeper discussion there.)
The Barcelona news probably should be posted in the American Expansion Possibilities thread as well. It (Barcelona's considerable interest in the NWSL) is a good reason for Mia Hamm's FCLA group to take the plunge sooner rather than later, as in , like, now. If they don't , Barcelona may stake out LA as their territory in the US.
Well, until they solidly decide on a city, it's more a nebulous foreign expansion possibility, so I didn't think it fit in the American (or Canadain) expansion possibility threads. I also decided to continue it here for now because this is where two previous posters had dropped the possible Barca news. That said, it probably deserves its own separate thread in the expansion forum. Do any mods wanna root out the Barca posts from this thread (recently & back in July) for a new thread?
(crossposting) Semifinal dates and times announced http://nwslsoccer.com/national-women-s-soccer-league-announces-semifinal-dates?sf35824046=1 Spirit: Friday 8pm ET Thorns: Sunday 5pm ET
http://www.prostamerika.com/2016/09...d-to-first-ever-womens-soccer-yearbook/149876 Kim Little will be writing the forward to ProstAmerika's inaugural Woman's Soccer Yearbook
Sunday's game at Portland is up against 4 NFL games on TV. Eesh. But I guess dem's da breaks. I don't know what's happening with baseball on those days
Portland has no team in either I expect a sell-out! It might hurt FS1's TV numbers, but that's not Portland's problem.