There are a few different camps on the criticism here -
1. Those that are uncomfortable with the kneeling because of the BLM connection and would be fine with something else
2. Those that believe that gesture politics is largely meaningless and ineffective to solve the problem of racism and would like actual action instead (would be interesting to see if kneeling has had any effect on the abuse players have recieved - if not, then it suggests this argument has merit)
3. Those that legitimately don't want sport and politics intermingled (as if this has never been the case)
4. Actual racists
There are of course some overlap between those camps, but I think broadly most people fall into one of them, with some more niche outliers.
As I mentioned in my second point, it would be interesting to see some actual data on the amount of abuse players have faced on social media - I would hazard a guess that it is about the same and if anything has gone up (though the high profile event makes something like that hard to study). Regardless, I would be very surprised if the kneeling made any discernable difference. If the FA, even PRL and other sporting bodies now started replacing the kneeling with actual coordinated action to weed out both those supporters and coaches, players etc who were racist or racially abusing players and made that a full on, public campaign instead of the kneeling, that then brings in group 1 and 2 I have listed above and you are left with a very slim group of peope opposing it, and more clear reasons why they are. Until then, Tyrone Mings, Aaron Morris and others will continue to burn bridges and wrongly conflate being against kneeling and being anti anti racist.
Both sides of this debate over how best to deal with racism and the abuse players recieve specifically seem to be getting more and more stubborn as they are relentelessly attacked by the other side - Mings and Patel have both exacerbated that in their own way. It's not exactly conducive to actual progresss, which clearly hasnt been achieved
1. You, like many others, are mixing up a political symbol and a symbol that has been adopted by a political organisation. Taking the knee was not started by BLM, it was started by black people protesting racism. It has since been adopted by BLM. That does not make the gesture wrong or less significant. The Swastika is an ancient religious symbol, still used by many cultures. It was also adopted by the Nazi party. Does that make the Swastika bad or the people who still use it supporters of the Nazis? No. Saying it is linked to BLM is not about a political stance, but is about trying to undermine a symbol of anti-racism by making irrelevant links that in no way change what the the symbol means.
2. Not everyone is in a position of power to make change and when those in power do not take action then gestures and protests are all you have left. Here is David Lammy on the government's inaction despite multiple reviews and recommendations.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...isses-back-of-fag-packet-racism-inquiry-audio
The point you and many white people, who refuse to admit that there is a power imbalance when it comes to race, is that the power in this country still belongs to white people. Taking the knee is not about legislating specific change, it is about raising awareness of the structural and racial inequalities in our society that many people refuse to admit even exist. How can you change something when those in power and members of the public won't even acknowledge there is a problem?
3. This is just stupid because sport has consistently been mingled with politics, but I'll keep it simple. I'm sure those people condemning taking the knee were silent when Nigel Farage equated winning the final to Brexit Britain succeeding. If you're going to argue sport and politics shouldn't mix then you need to do it for everything or you end up being a racist hypocrite who only protests the parts they dislike.
4. This is the point that actually far more of these people are racist and just use excuses to hide their racism.
The problem is, you seem to see taking the knee as some kind of defiant gesture and that the people who do it are refusing to help change the system when the reality is they are not in a position to change the system. As Ncurd said, MLK and Ghandi made speeches and gestures. They were not the ones in power. Are you telling me that India being free is a specific legislative goal, but eliminating racism and structural inequalities isn't. Or is it because you feel one legislative act cannot solve it therefore it's pointless even though it took hundreds of years of legislature to create the system we currently have today. Of course it will take time. Just because they aren't campaigning for a specific bit of legislature does not undermine their campaign. There is no way anti-racism protests could be that specific when the problem is a structurally racist society itself. I already pointed out that the government has done almost nothing on racism apart from commission a white-washed report to justify their review that Britain isn't structurally racist. Mings criticising Patel isn't criticising an ally against racism, but criticising one of the people in power who refuse to take action and actively undermine efforts to raise awareness that would lead to change.
The difference is MLK, Ghandi and even Rashford all campaigned for a substantive change in the law - ending racism is not a substantive thing you can do - thus, gesture politics.
Regardless, thoughts on the broader point I was making would be appreciated
What substantive change in the law did MLK, Ghandi and Rashford want because I'm sure once it was achieved they hung up their boots and retired from campaigning? MLK certainly didn't get involved in any ridiculous campaigns such as ending racism or try to aim for such a ridiculous objective. I'm sure his speech went "I have a dream that the my four children will have an equal vote."
If you don't know what it is, then it clearly was overshadowed no?
Surely the focus should be firmly on the action rather than the protest?
And if it isn't, regardless of why, all effort should be put into making the action the forefront
I'll repeat myself here simply. When you are not in power you can't enact the action to make change and you are left with protests and gestures. Action has to come from those in power and the government, social media, footballing authorities have not done anywhere near enough to combat racism. The government especially would rather it be blamed on a small minority so that people don't discuss and learn about the wider issues of systemic racial inequalities which are still prevalent in our society. The reality is that taking the knee has started to achieve it's objective by creating a conversation which is the beginning of change. However, that conversation has to continue until the change happens and so the taking the knee reminds people and keeps up the momentum of the conversation until the change occurs. This isn't an issue that requires one action and it's solved, but an ongoing process trying to correct years of racial inequality and dismantle a structurally racist society that was built over hundreds of years.
Before I encouraged you to learn more about white privilege and structural racism. I would have hoped you might have taken some time to learn more.
www.hamiltoncommission.org
