Shame they didn't use the photo with him rocking the 'fro

19 days later

Even the people considered "liberal" in America worship the flag.

she's an 80+ year old white woman, regardless of her stance on abortion and gay rights, she's still pretty much law and order. i've said it before in some other thread, sotomayor is who i'm down with on the court. sotomayor is real because she's from these places. RBG only knows privilege. she can be besties with a scumbag like scalia because his views are just a difference of opinion to her. sotomayor would never vacation with someone like him. you can tolerate him as a colleague, but that's the extent of it.

Meatwad wrote:

she's an 80+ year old white woman, regardless of her stance on abortion and gay rights, she's still pretty much law and order. i've said it before in some other thread, sotomayor is who i'm down with on the court. sotomayor is real because she's from these places. RBG only knows privilege.

Absolutely. This article I read this morning made the same point: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/10/ruth_bader_ginsburg_s_kaepernick_comments_end_the_notorious_rbg_myth.html

There was always a tension between “the Notorious RBG”—a myth, a meme, a marketing campaign—and Ginsburg herself, a wealthy high-society opera lover whose progressive intellectual ideals are increasingly disconnected from today’s new civil rights movement. On Monday, that tension boiled over into an outright paradox: A (white) liberal icon condescendingly maligned an emerging (black) protester for failing to pay respect to a song that celebrates slavery.

In retrospect, however, the Notorious RBG meme simply wasn’t built to last, for two reasons. First, Ginsburg is not the Supreme Court justice whose ideology most closely aligns with the activist internet community that adulates her. That would be Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has been the lone dissenter in cases that eased constitutional restrictions on police brutality, unreasonable roadside stops, and unreliable eyewitness testimony.

Qwiss! wrote:

Even the people considered "liberal" in America worship the flag.

This. I've noticed this talking to a number of Americans who are progressive on pretty much every issue you could name, as soon as you speak about the flag or their identifying as an American their liberalism came to a screeching halt.

I think that's true for certain generations and regions of the countries but that's not the case for most Western states.

Klaus wrote:
Meatwad wrote:

she's an 80+ year old white woman, regardless of her stance on abortion and gay rights, she's still pretty much law and order. i've said it before in some other thread, sotomayor is who i'm down with on the court. sotomayor is real because she's from these places. RBG only knows privilege.

Absolutely. This article I read this morning made the same point: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/10/ruth_bader_ginsburg_s_kaepernick_comments_end_the_notorious_rbg_myth.html

There was always a tension between “the Notorious RBG”—a myth, a meme, a marketing campaign—and Ginsburg herself, a wealthy high-society opera lover whose progressive intellectual ideals are increasingly disconnected from today’s new civil rights movement. On Monday, that tension boiled over into an outright paradox: A (white) liberal icon condescendingly maligned an emerging (black) protester for failing to pay respect to a song that celebrates slavery.

In retrospect, however, the Notorious RBG meme simply wasn’t built to last, for two reasons. First, Ginsburg is not the Supreme Court justice whose ideology most closely aligns with the activist internet community that adulates her. That would be Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has been the lone dissenter in cases that eased constitutional restrictions on police brutality, unreasonable roadside stops, and unreliable eyewitness testimony.

btw, i accept her warts and all because she's been on the correct side more times than not.

I would not be surprised to see/hear uneducated people and right-wing nuts come out with "dumb and disrespectful" when discussing protests to police killings of unarmed black men but a judge who has risen to the highest court in the land cannot be railroaded into thinking Kaepernick's kneeing is insulting the flag so this is her considered opinion.
e: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/10/ruth-bader-ginsburg-colin-kaepernick-national-anthem-protest

While I don't necessarily agree with Ginsburg, the analysis from Stern is (as to be expected from him) terrible. The RBG meme is supposed to be ironic, it's an in-joke poking fun at Ginsburg for her age primarily. That's also the reason why Sanders has all of his "dank memes". Bernie is your cool grandpa, RBG is your cool grandma etc.

Also have to love the old privilege line being trotted out, Ginsburg as the bastion of white privilege as a Jewish woman born to a middle class family in the 1930's. Classic

jones wrote:
Qwiss! wrote:

Even the people considered "liberal" in America worship the flag.

This. I've noticed this talking to a number of Americans who are progressive on pretty much every issue you could name, as soon as you speak about the flag or their identifying as an American their liberalism came to a screeching halt.

This may or may not be true for people of a certain age, who are educated under a certain ideological milieu, but it's not really the case for younger progressives, who are pretty skeptical/disdainful of American exceptionalism and nationalism writ large. You would expect this trend to accelerate given the fact that the right wing has and will continue to claim "patriotism" and American symbolism more heavily than the Democrats.

If we can say that the left in America has retained nationalist sentiment better than her European contemporaries, that's also a good thing by the way. Especially in the United States, where national identity is not tied to a specific cultural/ethnic/linguistic heritage as tightly as it is on the European continent. Ceding nationalist and patriotic sentiment to the right wing would be foolishness; people want to believe in something larger than themselves. Why give up the American ideals to bad ideas like a regressive tax code, more deregulation, and proto white nationalism?

I support Kaepernick's decision to protest, particularly because as an athlete he doesn't really have any other means to address the issue. I am worried however, that the left is adopting a losing position by failing to view the flag, but reallly more the American story and history, correctly. The flag is an aspirational symbol, just as the spirit of the Constituion is aspirational. It's fair to critique these symbols, just like it's fair to critique the history of the US, but often times in my view the desire to critique also leaves out consideration of what is admirable and good about the country as well.

El Genio de Oviedo wrote:

While I don't necessarily agree with Ginsburg, the analysis from Stern is (as to be expected from him) terrible. The RBG meme is supposed to be ironic, it's an in-joke poking fun at Ginsburg for her age primarily. That's also the reason why Sanders has all of his "dank memes". Bernie is your cool grandpa, RBG is your cool grandma etc.

Also have to love the old privilege line being trotted out, Ginsburg as the bastion of white privilege as a Jewish woman born to a middle class family in the 1930's. Classic

well it's 2016 and she's white privilege in america.

Privilege is historical, as Meatwad says.

Either way Ginsburg's respect for the flag and distaste for anti-nationalist (or alter-nationalist) protest reflects her déformations professionelles as a Supreme Court Justice (a role constituted by American nationhood), as well as her age and the history through which she has lived.

El Genio de Oviedo wrote:

If we can say that the left in America has retained nationalist sentiment better than her European contemporaries, that's also a good thing by the way. Especially in the United States, where national identity is not tied to a specific cultural/ethnic/linguistic heritage as tightly as it is on the European continent. Ceding nationalist and patriotic sentiment to the right wing would be foolishness; people want to believe in something larger than themselves. Why give up the American ideals to bad ideas like a regressive tax code, more deregulation, and proto white nationalism?

Not to be rude but many would say financial deregulation and proto-white nationalism are very much ideals of the country that was built on the back of slaves and shaped the current version of capitalism like no other.

Regardless, why the dichotomy? Why cling to American or any other country's "ideals" which by nature marginalise those who are born the wrong side of a border?

jones wrote:
El Genio de Oviedo wrote:

If we can say that the left in America has retained nationalist sentiment better than her European contemporaries, that's also a good thing by the way. Especially in the United States, where national identity is not tied to a specific cultural/ethnic/linguistic heritage as tightly as it is on the European continent. Ceding nationalist and patriotic sentiment to the right wing would be foolishness; people want to believe in something larger than themselves. Why give up the American ideals to bad ideas like a regressive tax code, more deregulation, and proto white nationalism?

Not to be rude but many would say financial deregulation and proto-white nationalism are very much ideals of the country that was built on the back of slaves and shaped the current version of capitalism like no other.

Regardless, why the dichotomy? Why cling to American or any other country's "ideals" which by nature marginalise those who are born the wrong side of a border?

I don't take you to be rude at all, but your first paragraph is far from convincing. Perhaps I'm fatalistic but I don't think the progression of global capitalism would fare much different if we were to somehow remove the United States and examine the counterfactual. The tired "backs of slaves" line is open to empirical verification if you would like to do a little legwork, it may even interest you as an economist.

It's also pretty bizarre that the condensed point of my post was that one needn't adopt a view an overly negative of American history and what it "means to be an American", and you take my argument as a dichotomizing one. One can have patriotic and sentimental attachment to one's country and still recognize the shortcomings of it; I was arguing against a polemic, anti-nationalist versus "patriot" dichotomy.

Yes, passes-faire capitalism and horrific racism, including its zenith in the form of slavery, are part of the American story. But just as it was a mistake to whitewash the nation's past, distorting the facts because of the country's failure to live up to its (Enlightenment) ideals is also a mistake.

Furthermore, and I don't expect you to necessarily agree with this, but in my opinion nationalism or at least vestiges of it are here to stay for the foreseeable future, so those on the left will have to make some use of it lest they lose power in certain situations. Especially since following the fall of the USSR and global communism generally, internationalist minded leftism doesn't seem to offer much aspirationally

El Genio de Oviedo wrote:
jones wrote:

Not to be rude but many would say financial deregulation and proto-white nationalism are very much ideals of the country that was built on the back of slaves and shaped the current version of capitalism like no other.

Regardless, why the dichotomy? Why cling to American or any other country's "ideals" which by nature marginalise those who are born the wrong side of a border?

I don't take you to be rude at all, but your first paragraph is far from convincing. Perhaps I'm fatalistic but I don't think the progression of global capitalism would fare much different if we were to somehow remove the United States and examine the counterfactual. The tired "backs of slaves" line is open to empirical verification if you would like to do a little legwork, it may even interest you as an economist.

I don't like to deal in what-ifs as to hypothesise about how capitalism would've turned out if there was a big hole where the US are located would be an idle exercise. Knowing the history of the economies of Western Europe and Japan however I don't think it possible anyone could've played that role to any extent. And to show that I'm not just mindleslly bashing the US' economic role - the world would be in different and most likely even direr straits than it is now if it weren't for you

With regards to the "tired" line - believe it or not I did actually read a lot about the economic role slaves played in the history of your country. It's possibly a lazy or clichéd term (honestly, when I typed it out I actually didn't mean it literally), it was just meant to stress the profits early settlers reaped via the Middle Passage. If you have any interesting reads I'd still appreciate them.

It's also pretty bizarre that the condensed point of my post was that one needn't adopt a view an overly negative of American history and what it "means to be an American", and you take my argument as a dichotomizing one. One can have patriotic and sentimental attachment to one's country and still recognize the shortcomings of it; I was arguing against a polemic, anti-nationalist versus "patriot" dichotomy.

You've misunderstood me. My point wasn't about America itself but the idea of patriotism in general. If people need to believe in something bigger than themselves why do they need to pick or glorify "American" ideals when they include the horrible history that they represent as well; it's just as possible to pick e.g. humanist values. Any patriotic attachment by definition includes a form of social exclusion of "the others"; and while the degree of separation or segregation can vary it's virtually impossible to completely remove it out of the equation. The whole debate is pretty moot anyway, it's like trying to explain one's faith to a staunch atheist

Furthermore, and I don't expect you to necessarily agree with this, but in my opinion nationalism or at least vestiges of it are here to stay for the foreseeable future, so those on the left will have to make some use of it lest they lose power in certain situations. Especially since following the fall of the USSR and global communism generally, internationalist minded leftism doesn't seem to offer much aspirationally

I do in fact partially agree with you, nationalism is most definitely here to stay for good. Despite my arguing otherwise I'm not as naive to believe that structures that have been set for ages would be overthrown this easily, not without massive violent paradigm changes which I'd rather not see happen myself. I also agree that internationalism in the form that you've mentioned is quite dead or at least irrelevant on the big stage, but falling back to use nationalist or patriotic sentiment to fight soaring inequality, plummeting wages or social deprivation is not going to help anyone when capital is getting more liquid every day. That's probably a discussion for a different thread though

a month later
10 months later