England v Italy EURO 2020 Cup Final

[Sheik djibouti]

.

 

[Essexyellows]

The national front and the BNP tainted the Union Jack for a while. When people stopped flying it they got moaned at.

Which is it?

BNP + Union Jack
BLM + Taking the Knee

Extremism never ever creates unity.

 

[SteMerritt]

.

As much as I like this ignoring the lazy stereotypical colouring of football supporters, it is probably worth mentioning that I've seen LOADS of bands booed, and worse bottled, at festivals. I've also seen people attempt to storm through venue gates on plenty of occasions, and as many on here will no doubt remember Music used to be easily as tribal as football, with rival groups clashing and causing mayhem.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

As much as I like this ignoring the lazy stereotypical colouring of football supporters, it is probably worth mentioning that I've seen LOADS of bands booed, and worse bottled, at festivals. I've also seen people attempt to storm through venue gates on plenty of occasions, and as many on here will no doubt remember Music used to be easily as tribal as football, with rival groups clashing and causing mayhem.

Indeed.

Lazy stereotypes are annoying I agree (just like all rugby fans are upper class rugged buggers[emoji6]).

I remember seeing World Party get showered in P**s and all kinds of items thrown at them when they were one of the support bands for U2 at Wembley on the Joshua Tree tour.
Someone even managed to knock Karl Wallingers mic off it's stand with a well aimed apple.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

BNP + Union Jack
BLM + Taking the Knee

Extremism never ever creates unity.

And yet I bet you never booed anyone attempting to use the Union Jack as a symbol of unity and togetherness/solidarity[emoji848]

(Tories have always been a bit partial to that haven't they?)

 

[unification]

We seem to have delved back into the realms of the BLM thread. Since the events that have occurred after the final (and comments made before it) remain topical, the debate can continue here, I guess.

I've gone over this before in the other thread but I'll try to be succinct. I'm not a fan of taking the knee as I see it as a performative act rather than an active one. As @Canterburyexile says, it's a rather American construct and personally I think better approaches could be sought to keeping the issue in the public eye. Marcus Rashford has proven a one-man band for his social enterprises for example by getting out there and helping. One pair of legs walking does more than a thousand bent at the knee. That said, I certainly won't boo players if they wish to do this. I'll keep a neutral stance on this.

In the evolving narrative on all of this, 'taking the knee' has become entangled with Black Lives Matter, which is in itself an abstract movement. I certainly recall a commentator at the start of an episode of MOTD last season where they showed players from all teams in a montage taking the knee explicitly saying 'the players take the knee to show that Black Lives Matter'. The 'taking the knee' now seems to be defined as for tackling social and racial injustice. It begs the question whether it ever was for BLM in the first place? It's hard to have the debate without first defining what 'taking the knee' is and what BLM is. Was that commentator wrong? Did all the players know it was for BLM or tackling racism? Are people booing or clapping the taking of the knee because they have interpreted what it means in different ways?

Black Lives Matter is not a centralised political movement. It's a message and the issue with that it that it is so easily hijacked. When people daub the cenotaph with 'BLM' graffiti, engage in acts of anti-social behaviour or dress in quasi-military uniform and say they represent BLM, it leaves a nasty impression of what they are. The message at heart is a good one but without one central body with a mission statement and/or charter and regional national chapters to promote the message, the movement is doomed to be being lost in the actions of the hijackers. I don't think the original BLM was 'Marxist' at all and yet the first criticism of it from it's detractors is that it is. Again, the hijackers have won out by sullying a good message with their own interpretation of it.

This issue will continue to go nowhere fast until there are some definitions and representative bodies of what all these terms and messages mean. In the meantime, threads like this will run and run with circular arguments because the interpretation of these messages remains so abstract, vague, confused and open to abuse.

 

[m]

We seem to have delved back into the realms of the BLM thread. Since the events that have occurred after the final (and comments made before it) remain topical, the debate can continue here, I guess.

I've gone over this before in the other thread but I'll try to be succinct. I'm not a fan of taking the knee as I see it as a performative act rather than an active one. As @Canterburyexile says, it's a rather American construct and personally I think better approaches could be sought to keeping the issue in the public eye. Marcus Rashford has proven a one-man band for his social enterprises for example by getting out there and helping. One pair of legs walking does more than a thousand bent at the knee. That said, I certainly won't boo players if they wish to do this. I'll keep a neutral stance on this.

In the evolving narrative on all of this, 'taking the knee' has become entangled with Black Lives Matter, which is in itself an abstract movement. I certainly recall a commentator at the start of an episode of MOTD last season where they showed players from all teams in a montage taking the knee explicitly saying 'the players take the knee to show that Black Lives Matter'. The 'taking the knee' now seems to be defined as for tackling social and racial injustice. It begs the question whether it ever was for BLM in the first place? It's hard to have the debate without first defining what 'taking the knee' is and what BLM is. Was that commentator wrong? Did all the players know it was for BLM or tackling racism? Are people booing or clapping the taking of the knee because they have interpreted what it means in different ways?

Black Lives Matter is not a centralised political movement. It's a message and the issue with that it that it is so easily hijacked. When people daub the cenotaph with 'BLM' graffiti, engage in acts of anti-social behaviour or dress in quasi-military uniform and say they represent BLM, it leaves a nasty impression of what they are. The message at heart is a good one but without one central body with a mission statement and/or charter and regional national chapters to promote the message, the movement is doomed to be being lost in the actions of the hijackers. I don't think the original BLM was 'Marxist' at all and yet the first criticism of it from it's detractors is that it is. Again, the hijackers have won out by sullying a good message with their own interpretation of it.

This issue will continue to go nowhere fast until there are some definitions and representative bodies of what all these terms and messages mean. In the meantime, threads like this will run and run with circular arguments because the interpretation of these messages remains so abstract, vague, confused and open to abuse.

Great post, wouldn't disagree with a word.

 

[Pete Burrett]

We seem to have delved back into the realms of the BLM thread. Since the events that have occurred after the final (and comments made before it) remain topical, the debate can continue here, I guess.

I've gone over this before in the other thread but I'll try to be succinct. I'm not a fan of taking the knee as I see it as a performative act rather than an active one. As @Canterburyexile says, it's a rather American construct and personally I think better approaches could be sought to keeping the issue in the public eye. Marcus Rashford has proven a one-man band for his social enterprises for example by getting out there and helping. One pair of legs walking does more than a thousand bent at the knee. That said, I certainly won't boo players if they wish to do this. I'll keep a neutral stance on this.

In the evolving narrative on all of this, 'taking the knee' has become entangled with Black Lives Matter, which is in itself an abstract movement. I certainly recall a commentator at the start of an episode of MOTD last season where they showed players from all teams in a montage taking the knee explicitly saying 'the players take the knee to show that Black Lives Matter'. The 'taking the knee' now seems to be defined as for tackling social and racial injustice. It begs the question whether it ever was for BLM in the first place? It's hard to have the debate without first defining what 'taking the knee' is and what BLM is. Was that commentator wrong? Did all the players know it was for BLM or tackling racism? Are people booing or clapping the taking of the knee because they have interpreted what it means in different ways?

Black Lives Matter is not a centralised political movement. It's a message and the issue with that it that it is so easily hijacked. When people daub the cenotaph with 'BLM' graffiti, engage in acts of anti-social behaviour or dress in quasi-military uniform and say they represent BLM, it leaves a nasty impression of what they are. The message at heart is a good one but without one central body with a mission statement and/or charter and regional national chapters to promote the message, the movement is doomed to be being lost in the actions of the hijackers. I don't think the original BLM was 'Marxist' at all and yet the first criticism of it from it's detractors is that it is. Again, the hijackers have won out by sullying a good message with their own interpretation of it.

This issue will continue to go nowhere fast until there are some definitions and representative bodies of what all these terms and messages mean. In the meantime, threads like this will run and run with circular arguments because the interpretation of these messages remains so abstract, vague, confused and open to abuse.

Very good. Steve Baker, Tory MP for Wycombe, has summed up the situation very well on TV this morning. He suggested those who support 'taking the knee' are not Marxists looking to de-fund the police, they are people who don't consider racism in this country is being adequately addressed. Essentially he's suggesting many who boo the kneeling should grow up and not make silly connections with politics that don't exist.

A sensible man who's spoken on the subject before;

MP Steve Baker calls on fellow Tories to change attitude towards those who take the knee

"I fear we are in danger of misrepresenting our own heart for those who suffer injustice," Steve Baker says in a message to fellow Conservative MPs.

news.sky.com

 

[QR]

We seem to have delved back into the realms of the BLM thread. Since the events that have occurred after the final (and comments made before it) remain topical, the debate can continue here, I guess.

I've gone over this before in the other thread but I'll try to be succinct. I'm not a fan of taking the knee as I see it as a performative act rather than an active one. As @Canterburyexile says, it's a rather American construct and personally I think better approaches could be sought to keeping the issue in the public eye. Marcus Rashford has proven a one-man band for his social enterprises for example by getting out there and helping. One pair of legs walking does more than a thousand bent at the knee. That said, I certainly won't boo players if they wish to do this. I'll keep a neutral stance on this.

In the evolving narrative on all of this, 'taking the knee' has become entangled with Black Lives Matter, which is in itself an abstract movement. I certainly recall a commentator at the start of an episode of MOTD last season where they showed players from all teams in a montage taking the knee explicitly saying 'the players take the knee to show that Black Lives Matter'. The 'taking the knee' now seems to be defined as for tackling social and racial injustice. It begs the question whether it ever was for BLM in the first place? It's hard to have the debate without first defining what 'taking the knee' is and what BLM is. Was that commentator wrong? Did all the players know it was for BLM or tackling racism? Are people booing or clapping the taking of the knee because they have interpreted what it means in different ways?

Black Lives Matter is not a centralised political movement. It's a message and the issue with that it that it is so easily hijacked. When people daub the cenotaph with 'BLM' graffiti, engage in acts of anti-social behaviour or dress in quasi-military uniform and say they represent BLM, it leaves a nasty impression of what they are. The message at heart is a good one but without one central body with a mission statement and/or charter and regional national chapters to promote the message, the movement is doomed to be being lost in the actions of the hijackers. I don't think the original BLM was 'Marxist' at all and yet the first criticism of it from it's detractors is that it is. Again, the hijackers have won out by sullying a good message with their own interpretation of it.

This issue will continue to go nowhere fast until there are some definitions and representative bodies of what all these terms and messages mean. In the meantime, threads like this will run and run with circular arguments because the interpretation of these messages remains so abstract, vague, confused and open to abuse.

Agree with most other than the highlight bit. Southgate couldn't have been clearer pre tournament as to why the team would take the knee.

"Ahead of today's game, our players will once again take the knee as a show of solidarity with the Black community, including members of our squad who themselves continue to suffer abuse on a regular basis.

"Please support them, just as we know you will once the game begins."

BTW love the word 'sullying'. Note to self; must use it more often.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Agree with most other than the highlight bit. Southgate couldn't have been clearer pre tournament as to why the team would take the knee.

"Ahead of today's game, our players will once again take the knee as a show of solidarity with the Black community, including members of our squad who themselves continue to suffer abuse on a regular basis.

"Please support them, just as we know you will once the game begins."

BTW love the word 'sullying'. Note to self; must use it more often.

I was going to say I am sure I has seen a statement from Southgate himself explaining the actions.

I cannot for one minute think that even the FA (let alone UEFA and FIFA at a major international tournament) would allow this without a clear and unambiguous statement as to why they were doing it. Anything that would not accord with the core values of any of those organisations would not be allowed to happen in the first place.

So I am afraid it is very much down to the individual to misconstrue the meaning, or ignore (either purposefully or accidentally) the clear statements provided as to the purpose of taking the knee ahead of kick off in England games.

I don;t see any incoming fines/proceedings from either body to the FA for the team taking the knee. I do however see plenty of proceedings against the FA for the way (yet again) that certain elements who associate themselves with English football choose to behave. And yes they most certainly sully the name of English football.

 

[unification]

Agree with most other than the highlight bit. Southgate couldn't have been clearer pre tournament as to why the team would take the knee.

"Ahead of today's game, our players will once again take the knee as a show of solidarity with the Black community, including members of our squad who themselves continue to suffer abuse on a regular basis.

"Please support them, just as we know you will once the game begins."

BTW love the word 'sullying'. Note to self; must use it more often.

You've exhibited my point again, albeit with an example of a person the majority of us rather like and support. Southgate's interpretation of 'taking the knee' avoids any mention of 'black lives matter' or the initial caps 'Black Lives Matter'. I like his interpretation and support it for the reasons he gives, however my point was that it always hasn't been viewed the way Southgate defines it to be nor has shaken off the links to the BLM movement. If anything, taking the knee and BLM are completely entwined. It's only since the anti-social element of some BLM protestors came to light that the meaning behind taking the knee has been altered. A good case in point is that in the 2019-20 season, PL clubs worse 'Black Lives Matter' emblems on their kits. This was changed to 'No Room for Racism' - the PL's own message - later in the season. A subtle shift away from BLM but an anti-racism message still promoted nonetheless.

A quick Google search of 'Is taking the knee part of black lives matter?' throws up the following searches.

'BLACK Lives Matter's iconic symbol of power - taking the knee - has been a coronerstone of the global movement against racial oppression.' The Sun, 20 June 2020 (link)

'Since June last year, players and staff across the footballing world have been making the symbolic gesture of kneeling before each game to show support for the Black Lives Matter movement, and a wider commitment to tackling the issue of racism.' YouGov, 10 June 2021 (link)

'Rather than demonstrating opposition to racism and support for the Black Lives Matter movement, it has been argued that kneeling actually shows support for a campaigning organisation also called Black Lives Matter.' BBC, 13 July 2021 (link)

So, what it is? Is taking the knee support for BLM or a solidarity message to the black community? If it is for BLM, is it the message or the campaigning organisation?

Once again, how can you play a game when the rules are so interchangeable and ill-defined? Pure definitions are needed for what all of these terms mean first of all and what actions such as taking the knee represent.

 

[Jolteon]

It baffles me that this is still an argument. The FA and the players made it as clear as it can possibly be that they are taking the knee as a symbol against racism and not in support of any political movement. And beyond that the taking of the knee in history has always been associated with fighting racism, and only recently have a few extremists attempted to hijack the symbol. The act of booing the knee actually reaffirms the extremists use of the knee, whereas if we continued to support our players, who have made it CLEAR that it's not associated with BLM, then the meaning would return to its initial form - a symbol to fight racism.

A little history lesson about taking the knee. Whilst many think that the initial taking of the knee happened in the NFL in 2016, the taking of the knee has been a symbol of racial equality for much longer. The most prominent appearance of the taking of the knee was in 1965, when Dr Martin Luther King took a knee while leading a prayer on Feb. 1, 1965 outside the Dallas County Alabama Courthouse, along with several other civil rights marchers:

There are other instances going back to slaves taking the knee. A drawing from the 1780s of an enslaved black man became a symbol of the British abolitionist movement in the 1800s. The image went on to be circulated for years. Rinaldo Walcott, the director of the Women and Gender Studies Institute at the University of Toronto, says that “The kneel has been a kneel about articulating the promise and desire of freedom from oppression”.

The modern use of the taking of the knee of course came about in 2016, when NFL player Colin Kaepernick took the knee during the national anthem of the USA to make a stand against systemic racism in America. “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of colour”. As we all know this created a media shitstorm in the US with Donald Trump heavily critical and saying Kaepernick should be fired. But the message was there, and many more NFL players and sportsmen followed suit - we take the knee to stand against racism.

Kaepernick was given the idea to take the knee by an army veteran, retired Green Beret Nate Boyer. Kaepernick had already spent time sitting on the bench for the national anthem, saying he refused to stand for a flag of a country that oppresses black people. But this hadn't drawn nearly enough attention thus far. Boyer was upset by this, being a veteran, but he wrote to Kaepernick to offer his side and the two met up. That's where Boyer came up with the taking of the knee - to allow Kaepernick to continue to show his opposition to racial oppression, but also to allow him to continue to be alongside his teammates and show respect, rather than sitting. More information can be found here if anyone is interested: https://www.npr.org/2018/09/09/6461...sed-kaepernick-to-take-a-knee?t=1626253941138

Which brings us to today - the taking of the knee in sport over the last 12 months stemmed from mass protests after the murder of George Floyd. Yes, he was a criminal, but he was treated like those that first took the knee - like he was lesser because of the colour of his skin. George Floyd was the tipping point - decades of oppression, years of high profile cases of police brutality and racially motivated attacks, and the acts, or sometimes lack thereof, of governments across the world created this wave of support based on a tagline - that black lives matter. Not a political statement, not a political movement, just a statement that the lives of black people are equal to those of us fortunate not to be oppressed on a daily basis because of the colour of our skin. People followed the lead of the NFL players and MLK, and took the knee to show that they supported every black person in their fight for equality.

Unfortunately, a political movement with very questionable motives to say the least, took on the name BLM and the symbol, and used it for their own gain. People around the world continued to take the knee, support the message, but this has been construed as supporting the organisation and not the message. But, in my opinion, the symbol, the movement, the message, has been around far too long for it to be ONLY seen as supporting BLM, and to boo it because some assholes have tried to hijack it isn't sticking it to the BLM people, it's just fighting the message that taking the knee has been sending for over 50 years.

If you can't separate the true meaning of the taking of the knee from the hijacked meaning, then by all means stay on your feet. But to actively boo a symbol used for 50+ years as a fight for equality and against oppression against black people, when it has been made perfectly clear that that is the message football is continuing to use, is just beyond comprehension for me. It's not about BLM - it's about anti f*****g racism. And by actively fighting against it, you're enabling those who ARE racist to continue to be.

Apologies for the long post, I feel extremely strongly about this. I f*****g hate how prevalent racism continues to be - and it feels like it's getting worse and not better.

 

[Pete Burrett]

It baffles me that this is still an argument. The FA and the players made it as clear as it can possibly be that they are taking the knee as a symbol against racism and not in support of any political movement. And beyond that the taking of the knee in history has always been associated with fighting racism, and only recently have a few extremists attempted to hijack the symbol. The act of booing the knee actually reaffirms the extremists use of the knee, whereas if we continued to support our players, who have made it CLEAR that it's not associated with BLM, then the meaning would return to its initial form - a symbol to fight racism.

A little history lesson about taking the knee. Whilst many think that the initial taking of the knee happened in the NFL in 2016, the taking of the knee has been a symbol of racial equality for much longer. The most prominent appearance of the taking of the knee was in 1965, when Dr Martin Luther King took a knee while leading a prayer on Feb. 1, 1965 outside the Dallas County Alabama Courthouse, along with several other civil rights marchers:

There are other instances going back to slaves taking the knee. A drawing from the 1780s of an enslaved black man became a symbol of the British abolitionist movement in the 1800s. The image went on to be circulated for years. Rinaldo Walcott, the director of the Women and Gender Studies Institute at the University of Toronto, says that “The kneel has been a kneel about articulating the promise and desire of freedom from oppression”.

The modern use of the taking of the knee of course came about in 2016, when NFL player Colin Kaepernick took the knee during the national anthem of the USA to make a stand against systemic racism in America. “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of colour”. As we all know this created a media shitstorm in the US with Donald Trump heavily critical and saying Kaepernick should be fired. But the message was there, and many more NFL players and sportsmen followed suit - we take the knee to stand against racism.

Kaepernick was given the idea to take the knee by an army veteran, retired Green Beret Nate Boyer. Kaepernick had already spent time sitting on the bench for the national anthem, saying he refused to stand for a flag of a country that oppresses black people. But this hadn't drawn nearly enough attention thus far. Boyer was upset by this, being a veteran, but he wrote to Kaepernick to offer his side and the two met up. That's where Boyer came up with the taking of the knee - to allow Kaepernick to continue to show his opposition to racial oppression, but also to allow him to continue to be alongside his teammates and show respect, rather than sitting. More information can be found here if anyone is interested: https://www.npr.org/2018/09/09/6461...sed-kaepernick-to-take-a-knee?t=1626253941138

Which brings us to today - the taking of the knee in sport over the last 12 months stemmed from mass protests after the murder of George Floyd. Yes, he was a criminal, but he was treated like those that first took the knee - like he was lesser because of the colour of his skin. George Floyd was the tipping point - decades of oppression, years of high profile cases of police brutality and racially motivated attacks, and the acts, or sometimes lack thereof, of governments across the world created this wave of support based on a tagline - that black lives matter. Not a political statement, not a political movement, just a statement that the lives of black people are equal to those of us fortunate not to be oppressed on a daily basis because of the colour of our skin. People followed the lead of the NFL players and MLK, and took the knee to show that they supported every black person in their fight for equality.

Unfortunately, a political movement with very questionable motives to say the least, took on the name BLM and the symbol, and used it for their own gain. People around the world continued to take the knee, support the message, but this has been construed as supporting the organisation and not the message. But, in my opinion, the symbol, the movement, the message, has been around far too long for it to be ONLY seen as supporting BLM, and to boo it because some assholes have tried to hijack it isn't sticking it to the BLM people, it's just fighting the message that taking the knee has been sending for over 50 years.

If you can't separate the true meaning of the taking of the knee from the hijacked meaning, then by all means stay on your feet. But to actively boo a symbol used for 50+ years as a fight for equality and against oppression against black people, when it has been made perfectly clear that that is the message football is continuing to use, is just beyond comprehension for me. It's not about BLM - it's about anti f*****g racism. And by actively fighting against it, you're enabling those who ARE racist to continue to be.

Apologies for the long post, I feel extremely strongly about this. I f*****g hate how prevalent racism continues to be - and it feels like it's getting worse and not better.

Another very powerful post, much like the one above from @unification. Regrettably, the minority who should be trying to understand these messages never will. Whether that's down to education or upbringing or a simple lack of conscience I'm not sure, but racists are amongst us and should be countered by the majority at every opportunity.

 

[Jolteon]

Another very powerful post, much like the one above from @unification. Regrettably, the minority who should be trying to understand these messages never will. Whether that's down to education or upbringing or a simple lack of conscience I'm not sure, but racists are amongst us and should be countered by the majority at every opportunity.

I like to think the majority aren't inherently racist people - just that the understanding isn't there and media storm of "taking the knee supports BLM!" has tainted opinions. When you look at the history the knee couldn't be a more powerful and apt symbol, but I suppose to some it's in a way gone the same way as the Swastika - a Buddhist symbol that was twisted by the Nazis to the point where it's only associated with the negative connotations.

 

[QR]

You've exhibited my point again, albeit with an example of a person the majority of us rather like and support. Southgate's interpretation of 'taking the knee' avoids any mention of 'black lives matter' or the initial caps 'Black Lives Matter'. I like his interpretation and support it for the reasons he gives, however my point was that it always hasn't been viewed the way Southgate defines it to be nor has shaken off the links to the BLM movement. If anything, taking the knee and BLM are completely entwined. It's only since the anti-social element of some BLM protestors came to light that the meaning behind taking the knee has been altered. A good case in point is that in the 2019-20 season, PL clubs worse 'Black Lives Matter' emblems on their kits. This was changed to 'No Room for Racism' - the PL's own message - later in the season. A subtle shift away from BLM but an anti-racism message still promoted nonetheless.

A quick Google search of 'Is taking the knee part of black lives matter?' throws up the following searches.

'BLACK Lives Matter's iconic symbol of power - taking the knee - has been a coronerstone of the global movement against racial oppression.' The Sun, 20 June 2020 (link)

'Since June last year, players and staff across the footballing world have been making the symbolic gesture of kneeling before each game to show support for the Black Lives Matter movement, and a wider commitment to tackling the issue of racism.' YouGov, 10 June 2021 (link)

'Rather than demonstrating opposition to racism and support for the Black Lives Matter movement, it has been argued that kneeling actually shows support for a campaigning organisation also called Black Lives Matter.' BBC, 13 July 2021 (link)

So, what it is? Is taking the knee support for BLM or a solidarity message to the black community? If it is for BLM, is it the message or the campaigning organisation?

Once again, how can you play a game when the rules are so interchangeable and ill-defined? Pure definitions are needed for what all of these terms mean first of all and what actions such as taking the knee represent.

However this is the real truth...

 

[Big Ron]

I like to think the majority aren't inherently racist people - just that the understanding isn't there and media storm of "taking the knee supports BLM!" has tainted opinions. When you look at the history the knee couldn't be a more powerful and apt symbol, but I suppose to some it's in a way gone the same way as the Swastika - a Buddhist symbol that was twisted by the Nazis to the point where it's only associated with the negative connotations.

I completely agree with the first part of that statement and as Billy Bragg wrote yesterday:

"An England that is tolerant, inclusive and diverse is not only possible, it already exists. Sadly, the bellicose forces of division and intolerance have louder voices on their side. But this last month has been a lesson in how we can overcome the boo boys if we stand together. As England squad member Reece James tweeted yesterday: we learn more about our society when we lose, far more than we learn when we win".

 

[Osei Yaw]

I'll be honest, I don't really know what Marxism is. I don't think many footballers do either, so I certainly don't think they're kneeling to support it. Nor do I think they are kneeling to defund the police. I think they're kneeling as an anti-racist gesture because that's why they said they're doing it.

The history of the knee as provided by @Jolteon is very useful and I appreciate it. As others have touched on, I think part of the problem is that some people are associating taking the knee with the extremes seen during the BLM protests. Footballers aren't excusing vandalism, or agreeing with batshit tweets about the white man becoming enslaved. Players that kneel against racism are simply kneeling against racism, they're not kneeling in support of a minority of people that overstepped the mark protesting BLM. It would seem there are extremes and misinformation being taken as fact.

Another issue I see is how the issue of booing the knee is discussed. Because of misinformation, some people may have arrived at the idea that taking the knee is a show of support for some really extreme views and some of the discussions around this are unhelpful. I recall Gary Lineker tweeting something along the lines of that those booing are part of the problem. I believe racists will boo but I don't think all those booing are racist. People boo for a number of reasons, including thinking the knee is supporting shoddy behaviour like setting fire to a flag on the Cenotaph. The issue is that if you then start saying 'you're part of the problem' and preaching, those people are going to dig in, because who wants to be preached at and told they're wrong? There needs to be open conversations about the issue where people are allowed to express their opinion on both sides, not confrontation where people are told they're wrong/thick, as in most cases I don't think that works at all.

 

[m]

I'll be honest, I don't really know what Marxism is. I

You should read up. It's really cool.

 

[RyanioBirdio]

Extremism never ever creates unity.

Speechless.

 

[ttg17]

It baffles me that this is still an argument. The FA and the players made it as clear as it can possibly be that they are taking the knee as a symbol against racism and not in support of any political movement. And beyond that the taking of the knee in history has always been associated with fighting racism, and only recently have a few extremists attempted to hijack the symbol. The act of booing the knee actually reaffirms the extremists use of the knee, whereas if we continued to support our players, who have made it CLEAR that it's not associated with BLM, then the meaning would return to its initial form - a symbol to fight racism.

A little history lesson about taking the knee. Whilst many think that the initial taking of the knee happened in the NFL in 2016, the taking of the knee has been a symbol of racial equality for much longer. The most prominent appearance of the taking of the knee was in 1965, when Dr Martin Luther King took a knee while leading a prayer on Feb. 1, 1965 outside the Dallas County Alabama Courthouse, along with several other civil rights marchers:

There are other instances going back to slaves taking the knee. A drawing from the 1780s of an enslaved black man became a symbol of the British abolitionist movement in the 1800s. The image went on to be circulated for years. Rinaldo Walcott, the director of the Women and Gender Studies Institute at the University of Toronto, says that “The kneel has been a kneel about articulating the promise and desire of freedom from oppression”.

The modern use of the taking of the knee of course came about in 2016, when NFL player Colin Kaepernick took the knee during the national anthem of the USA to make a stand against systemic racism in America. “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of colour”. As we all know this created a media shitstorm in the US with Donald Trump heavily critical and saying Kaepernick should be fired. But the message was there, and many more NFL players and sportsmen followed suit - we take the knee to stand against racism.

Kaepernick was given the idea to take the knee by an army veteran, retired Green Beret Nate Boyer. Kaepernick had already spent time sitting on the bench for the national anthem, saying he refused to stand for a flag of a country that oppresses black people. But this hadn't drawn nearly enough attention thus far. Boyer was upset by this, being a veteran, but he wrote to Kaepernick to offer his side and the two met up. That's where Boyer came up with the taking of the knee - to allow Kaepernick to continue to show his opposition to racial oppression, but also to allow him to continue to be alongside his teammates and show respect, rather than sitting. More information can be found here if anyone is interested: https://www.npr.org/2018/09/09/6461...sed-kaepernick-to-take-a-knee?t=1626253941138

Which brings us to today - the taking of the knee in sport over the last 12 months stemmed from mass protests after the murder of George Floyd. Yes, he was a criminal, but he was treated like those that first took the knee - like he was lesser because of the colour of his skin. George Floyd was the tipping point - decades of oppression, years of high profile cases of police brutality and racially motivated attacks, and the acts, or sometimes lack thereof, of governments across the world created this wave of support based on a tagline - that black lives matter. Not a political statement, not a political movement, just a statement that the lives of black people are equal to those of us fortunate not to be oppressed on a daily basis because of the colour of our skin. People followed the lead of the NFL players and MLK, and took the knee to show that they supported every black person in their fight for equality.

Unfortunately, a political movement with very questionable motives to say the least, took on the name BLM and the symbol, and used it for their own gain. People around the world continued to take the knee, support the message, but this has been construed as supporting the organisation and not the message. But, in my opinion, the symbol, the movement, the message, has been around far too long for it to be ONLY seen as supporting BLM, and to boo it because some assholes have tried to hijack it isn't sticking it to the BLM people, it's just fighting the message that taking the knee has been sending for over 50 years.

If you can't separate the true meaning of the taking of the knee from the hijacked meaning, then by all means stay on your feet. But to actively boo a symbol used for 50+ years as a fight for equality and against oppression against black people, when it has been made perfectly clear that that is the message football is continuing to use, is just beyond comprehension for me. It's not about BLM - it's about anti f*****g racism. And by actively fighting against it, you're enabling those who ARE racist to continue to be.

Apologies for the long post, I feel extremely strongly about this. I f*****g hate how prevalent racism continues to be - and it feels like it's getting worse and not better.

F*CKING THANK YOU

This s**t isn't difficult. The issue has been in the public domain for over a year now, and the ability to look into it and research why it's being done can be done in literally minutes. Ignorance is no excuse. I did a post like this in the original BLM thread a few months back and it took literally 10 minutes of 'research' (googling the origins of taking the knee in an anti-racism context) to come up with the evidence that J has presented here.

If you read this and still pretend that taking the knee = supporting a Marxist organisation, you're simply not engaging with the argument in good faith and your opinion is, frankly, worthless. Choosing to ignore evidence that shows your position to be entirely baseless indicates that you have simply decided you are completely entrenched in your position and, to be brutally honest, there's only one reason I can think of why someone would be ideologically entrenched against an anti-racism message.