ellu, nobody in this thread is disputing police misconduct or oppression in current day America. Nor was anybody questioning what happened in the past in America. At least from my end, the point that was brought up or at least implied was my questioning of whether we should respect Kaepernick when he protested in a controversial manner against oppression in America, yet he sided with Castro's treatment of Cubans when questioned by the media. Nothing more nothing less.
But did he protest in a controversial manner? Initially he sat, zero publicity. He did this unnoticed for several pre-season games. Someone noticed. A military man who took offense met with him. Said sitting was disrespectful, suggested kneeling in silent meditation. He did so, took a knee.
Thats controversial?
What form of protest would be acceptable?
so that's the first question, silent meditation, not a flag burning, not spitting on the flag, not sitting or kneeling on the flag, not dancing while the anthem played, nothing directly insulting, one man, taking a quiet knee and reflecting. not scowling, not snarling, not laughing, not talking.
Are you familiar with what he said exactly on Castro? I ask b/c your summation of it does not reflect what actually occurred. You wrote it as if Kaep somehow elevated Cuba over America in terms of oppression. I distinctly recall him saying that he was celebrating the Castro/X meeting (which is what I referenced above) and then the writer challenging him that Castro was somehow worse. From there Kaep equated the breaking up of families in Cuba with the carceral state here (again in my prior pargraph).
Considering that the US has implemented a system and structure that has resulted in the greatest carceral state in world history, isn't there some truth to the comparison? Even if not, could the equivalency be reasonably inferred? That breaking up of a family and jailing systemically is tantamount to autocratic incarcerations? Different motives same result and more importantly, same impact, family destruction.
So whether you find the equivalency false, is the derivative of the comparison false?
I found the article.
The quarterback first pointed out that Malcolm X was also pictured on his t-shirt, saying he was a believer in Malcolm X's ideology and fighting oppression.
The fact that Malcolm X met Castro in 1960 at Harlem's Hotel Theresa, Kaepernick said, shows that he was open-minded and 'willing to hear different aspects of people's views'.
When the reporter, who hasn't been named, pressed Kaepernick specifically on Castro's history of oppression, he replied: 'One thing that Fidel Castro did do is they have the highest literacy rate because they invest more in their education system than they do in their prison system, which we do not do here, even though we're fully capable of doing that.'
The reporter replied: 'He also did something that we do not do here: he broke up families, he took over a country without any justice and without any election'.
Kaepernick fought back: 'We do break up families here. That's what mass incarceration is. That was the foundation of slavery so our country has been based on that as well as the genocide of native Americans.'
When the reporter asked whether Kaepernick was equating the breaking up of Cuban families with people going to jail in the United States,
Kaepernick said: 'I'm equating the breaking up of families with the breaking up of families.'
Is this dialog so different from:
O’Reilly: “Do you respect Putin?”
Trump: “I do respect him.
O’Reilly: “Do you? Why?”
Trump: “I respect a lot of people, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to get along with them. He’s a leader of his country. I say it’s better to get along with Russian than not. And if Russia helps us in the fight against ISIS…and Islamic terrorism all over the world…major fight. That’s a good thing. Will I get along with him? I have no idea.
O’Reilly: “He’s a killer, though…Putin’s a killer.”
Trump: “We got a lot of killers. What, you think our country’s so innocent?”
Again, I think we get lost in positions and the weeds. I can't think of many protests that were less violent, vocal or offensive. He only answered when asked and attention was only brought to it when he was found; he never sought it, he just accepted the light when it was shone on him. How much less could he have done and actually still "protested"?
This question notwithstanding, his statements, tho controversial, are truth in the ultimate fact.