The Trump Presidency

Forever Fredi said:
We've culturally bestowed ethereal qualities on the Office of the Presidency. The guy currently occupying that office has done tons to disrespect said office and embarrass the country he represents.

Where is the selective outrage for that?

"Oh, well I don't like what he tweets even though I support him" so that I guess that's the get out of jail free card for people that have no way to condone his petulant child like behavior.
Click to expand...

We haven't really though, or at least not in the same way.

The President might be our leader, our commander-in-chief, but the American flag is our God. It's the fiber of our collective national soul.
 
Hawk said:
Yeah, I understand what you meant, but aside from my finding it to be an incidental observation, I don't agree that you can't slight an object simply because it has no emotion, or brains, or heart/soul.

1) But isn't what has changed here actually the signified, not the signifier?

2) Let's consider the flag in light of how it's represented in the national anthem.

3) Yes, I get that. All I'm trying to do is establish some pretty basic parameters en route to answering a previous question about why people might feel upset by this rejection of cultural process.
Click to expand...

A. We'll just have to dispense with that question; but I maintain the object isn't slighted, but rather those who invest it with value are.

1. That's what I said: "what they signify [ie the signified] changes".

2. So as an almost-purely-military symbol? While I'd argue that's much too narrow a scope (especially if the flag is "our God"), one could also argue that's a lot of what's being protested here: the hyper-/over-militarization of the US, especially its so-called civil servants (police); as well as the (interrelated) disjunction between "land of the free" and the daily realities in the lives of many black and brown citizens of the US.

3. That's fine; protests are usually meant to upset people—it's part of their agency. But those people who are upset should ask themselves: (a) while this upsets me, would I be more upset if protest were not allowed; as well as (b) why might these folks be themselves upset enough to risk this protest, and how might I be implicated in the cultural processes causing their upset?
 
If you want to kneel, do it inside the locker room and not make it a spectacle. Or treat it like we do when fans jump on the field and not show it on TV.

There is a time and place for that.

And Villaneueva is my new hero because what he said about blacks and what they did and those kneeling being disrespecting those blacks that put their lives on the line.
 
jpx7 said:
And you don't think rejecting that ethereality—the blameless superiority and overwrought conviction it confers—is also valuably implicated in a non-verbal protest of the flag?

Generally, that's why I've frequently not stood for the anthem in my life, and have often squirmed internally when I've felt the collective pressure to do so, against my instincts: more than the US failing to meet my (or its own) expectations for itself, I don't enjoy or condone the deification of its cloth standard. I'm more or less a statist, but damn: there's an important obverse to "render unto Caesar", and it starts with not encouraging the apotheosis of the state or it's symbols.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that "blameless superiority" and "overwrought conviction" are traits inherently present when a nation engages in flag worship/deification. I concede that capitalism may have perverted some fundamental virtues here, but the notion of putting the state above oneself is decidedly communal. Isn't it?
 
AerchAngel said:
If you want to kneel, do it inside the locker room and not make it a spectacle. Or treat it like we do when fans jump on the field and not show it on TV.

There is a time and place for that.

And Villaneueva is my new hero because what he said about blacks and what they did and those kneeling being disrespecting those blacks that put their lives on the line.
Click to expand...

The spectacle is what gives the act of protest its agency and power; to remove the spectacle is to deny the protest.

But if you feel that way, then maybe the solution is to remove the patriotic spectacle, as well. If you want stand for the anthem, do it inside the locker room.
 
Hawk said:
I don't agree that "blameless superiority" and "overwrought conviction" are traits inherently present when a nation engages in flag worship/deification. I concede that capitalism may have perverted some fundamental virtues here, but the notion of putting the state above oneself is decidedly communal. Isn't it?
Click to expand...

There is a lot of atmosphere between "putting the state [or any collective entity] above oneself", and worshipping/deifying it.
 
jpx7 said:
1. That's what I said: "what they signify [ie the signified] changes".
Click to expand...

Ok, so the people have changed, but the (hypothetical, controversial, impossible to ascertain at an truly individual level) universal symbolism has not. That was my only point.

2. So as an almost-purely-military symbol? While I'd argue that's much too narrow a scope (especially if the flag is "our God"), one could also argue that's a lot of what's being protested here: the hyper-/over-militarization of the US, especially its so-called civil servants (police); as well as the (interrelated) disjunction between "land of the free" and the daily realities in the lives of many black and brown citizens of the US.
Click to expand...

Or, as a symbol of hope amidst some pretty fierce combat/domestic upheaval?

3. That's fine; protests are usually meant to upset people—it's part of their agency. But those people who are upset should ask themselves: (a) while this upsets me, would I be more upset if protest were not allowed; as well as (b) why might these folks be themselves upset enough to risk this protest, and how might I be implicated in the cultural processes causing their upset?
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree that protests are usually meant to 'upset' people - and, if they are, I think that approach introduces a number of troubling fallacies. However, I do believe that a good protest makes people aware of an injustice or circumstance that otherwise might not have found its way into their orbit. In that sense, Kaepernick has truly succeeded - but, in the end, this challenge to a revered cultural process seems to have dangerously obfuscated his ultimate intentions (assuming, I hope, that they are to affect real and meaningful change).
 
I think Mark is onto something for his team. I don't think that would work for the NFL. If Goodell changes anything at this point he will lose credibility and look gutless. The NFL should probably ride it out for at least the rest of this season.

And of course, Trump needs to shut his mouth about it.
 
Hawk said:
Ok, so the people have changed, but the (hypothetical, controversial, impossible to ascertain at an truly individual level) universal symbolism has not. That was my only point.
Click to expand...

The symbol (or any sign) is the relationship of signifier to signified; if either changes, the symbol changes—so yes, there is no "universal symbolism", even nebulous, because that relationship has not remained static. Hell, even the pure signifier has morphed in the interim: there's an appreciably additional number of stars with those bars.

Or, as a symbol of hope amidst some pretty fierce combat/domestic upheaval?
Click to expand...

Of martial hope in a martial context, written at time of chattel slavery and narrow suffrage. The fact of our divergent interpretations evinces my point re universality.

I don't necessarily agree that protests are usually meant to 'upset' people - and, if they are, I think that approach introduces a number of troubling fallacies. However, I do believe that a good protest makes people aware of an injustice or circumstance that otherwise might not have found its way into their orbit. In that sense, Kaepernick has truly succeeded - but, in the end, this challenge to a revered cultural process seems to have dangerously obfuscated his ultimate intentions (assuming, I hope, that they are to affect real and meaningful change).
Click to expand...

This just boils down to our glosses of "upset"; I take a wide approach here that includes "raising awareness through agitation of the mind", in the way you describe.

However, I think "challenging revered cultural processes" not only fails to obfuscate his intentions: I think those precisely are his intentions. He's challenged the revered cultural process of affording more justice to institutional (and thus predominantly male and white) actors versus marginalized (predominantly non-male non-white) actors—a process in which the symbol of the flag, at least historically, is intricately and inescapably bound.

The danger is not the protest, it's the uncritical reverence to this cultural process, and an ignorance (willful or otherwise) of its material and psychic violence.
 
Hawk said:
It's a figure of speech.
Click to expand...

Good thing the good warriors on the right kept saying how Obama was embarrassing the prestigious Office of the Presidency for 8 years. And we got to hear how "they can respect the office but not the man in the office" and how the Office is "Bigger than Politics".

I only wish they held Trump to that same standard of office bearing.
 
jpx7 said:
The danger is not the protest, it's the uncritical reverence to this cultural process, and an ignorance (willful or otherwise) of its material and psychic violence.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this again and again.

If your pov, Hawk, is that Kaepernick should have protested without prickling a revered cultural process, how much success do you think he'd have had? If he had held a press conference and said his bit he'd have gotten pats on the back from some, brickbats from others, and we would collectively forget about it sooner rather than later. This kind of thinking is often the province of liberal elites--that protest has to be the "right" person, at the right time, and in the right venue. Most historically meaningful protests and social movements rarely meet this test, including the ones that are most celebrated ex post facto.
 
jpx7 said:
The symbol (or any sign) is the relationship of signifier to signified; if either changes, the symbol changes—so yes, there is no "universal symbolism", even nebulous, because that relationship has not remained static. Hell, even the pure signifier has morphed in the interim: there's an appreciably additional number of stars with those bars.
Click to expand...

They enjoy a close relationship, sure, but I would stop short of labeling it an obligatorily symbiotic one. There’s a conduit between the two but it doesn’t necessarily have to be bi-directional. Of course, in case it wasn’t abundantly clear from my initial post on the topic, I’m viewing this through a kind of metaphysical lens.

Of martial hope in a martial context, written at time of chattel slavery and narrow suffrage. The fact of our divergent interpretations evinces my point re universality.
Click to expand...

I guess it does if you have designs to aggressively extrapolate beyond authorial intent.

This just boils down to our glosses of "upset"; I take a wide approach here that includes "raising awareness through agitation of the mind", in the way you describe.

However, I think "challenging revered cultural processes" not only fails to obfuscate his intentions: I think those precisely are his intentions. He's challenged the revered cultural process of affording more justice to institutional (and thus predominantly male and white) actors versus marginalized (predominantly non-male non-white) actors—a process in which the symbol of the flag, at least historically, is intricately and inescapably bound.

The danger is not the protest, it's the uncritical reverence to this cultural process, and an ignorance (willful or otherwise) of its material and psychic violence.
Click to expand...

Agitation of the mind seems markedly different than persuasively enlightening it. That’s the distinction I’m trying to make here. The instances of social injustice you highlighted are real and critically threaten our national ethos, but the cultural process I’m referring to is the simple, entirely innocuous act of acknowledging some pretty basic principles of community and country. These aren’t values designed to hurt anyone.
 
Julio3000 said:
Yeah, this again and again.

If your pov, Hawk, is that Kaepernick should have protested without prickling a revered cultural process, how much success do you think he'd have had? If he had held a press conference and said his bit he'd have gotten pats on the back from some, brickbats from others, and we would collectively forget about it sooner rather than later. This kind of thinking is often the province of liberal elites--that protest has to be the "right" person, at the right time, and in the right venue. Most historically meaningful protests and social movements rarely meet this test, including the ones that are most celebrated ex post facto.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I hear you.
 
Forever Fredi said:
Good thing the good warriors on the right kept saying how Obama was embarrassing the prestigious Office of the Presidency for 8 years. And we got to hear how "they can respect the office but not the man in the office" and how the Office is "Bigger than Politics".

I only wish they held Trump to that same standard of office bearing.
Click to expand...

I’ll judge Trump the same way I judged Obama; on leadership style and policy action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top