History Regrets Itself

News article from The Advocate (Australia) Tuesday, January 9, 1934. Shortly after Hitler became chancellor of Germany.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to History Regrets Itself

  1. RL CRABB says:

    Snopes rates this as partly true. It still resonates with the current trend towards forced patriotism in my opinion… https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/german-football-club-banned-failing-give-nazi-salute/

  2. George Rebane says:

    If “partly true”, this was still a government act against its citizens. I suppose the objective of this post is to somehow equate the widespread opposition to our athletes giving the knee during our national anthem as being our government’s “forced patriotism”. I sincerely hope that your readers can see, understand, and celebrate the difference between what is happening today on America’s athletic fields and those of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

    • rl crabb says:

      Absolutely. The difference is that we supposedly still have the right under our constitution to protest injustice.

    • Steve Frisch says:

      Please tell us the difference between the forced patriotism of Hitler and Trump.

      • Michael R. Kesti says:

        The difference is that Trump, or, more to the point, the Trump administration has forced no patriotism. Trump expressed an opinion regarding the NFL protestors but none of them has been in any way punished by the government. If the day comes that the government forces patriotism I’ll join your outrage. Until then, I find it much ado about nothing.

        • Steve Frisch says:

          Michael, let’s remember what the 1st amendment is about–government interference in free speech—and the role the POTUS has played in advocating for a change in the policy of a set of private businesses that restricts free speech. None of these entities would be changing policy if it was not being pushed by POTUS (who is a representative of the government). Take a look at the ranks of NFL QB’s and tell me that Colin Kaepernick and tell me that if POTUS had not made this issue radioactive that he would not be starting in the NFL this fall….how different is that than banning a team for not saluting?

          • Michael R. Kesti says:

            Such nonsense. The First Amendment prohibits the government from passing laws abridging free speech but does not prohibit “representatives of the government” from having and expressing an opinion. You cannot know whether “these entities” would be changing policies if not “pushed by POTUS” and it’s far more likely that policies have been changed because of the damage to the brand caused by the protesting players. Keapernick no longer being a starting QB differs from banning a team for not saluting in that it was the decision of the team rather than of government.

    • Chris Peterson says:

      “somehow equate”? Sorry George, it be equated.

      “widespread opposition”? Guess again, and be watchful of who you ask; the majority of whites is within the margin of error and the blacks think you can shove it up your pink tailpipe.

      And finally, “celebrate the difference”? So, since the leader of the free world has only called for retribution against those protesting and not actually issued one of his notorious executive demands, we should all rejoice at the health of our democratic freedoms?

      I realize that this is nothing more than a team sport on your behalf, George, but sooner or later you’re going to come to the realization that the narcissistic sociopath in our White House is counter-productive to the 240 years of our democratic republic’s moral progression. That anyone could ever make any comparison between Trump today and the Nazis then is a topic of concern; not to be laughed off as implausible.

    • Michael R. Kesti says:

      The NFL making and enforcing rules for their players is in no way a First Amendment issue.

      • Steve Frisch says:

        The President publicly pressuring NFL team owners to fire employees who exercise free speech is certainly a constitutional issue. Much like his tweets damaging his travel ban proposals when his public statements prompt discipline of private individuals it is coercion by the state. That makes it a 1st amendment issue.

  3. George Rebane says:

    SteveF 1126am – Taking your question to be sincere, I’m a bit surprised that you don’t know. But it does explain a lot of our past disagreements.

    • Ken Jones says:

      With the issues within our nation and all around the world, the simple act of taking a knee should not garner this much attention. But Trump, in his skewed reality, believes this act equates to the need to leave, maybe exiled for free speech? Priorities.

    • Steve Frisch says:

      Your mistake is taking my question to be sincere. I know how you think George, and I was just hoping to see you go through mental gymnastics to differentiate Trump from Hitler.

  4. RL CRABB says:

    Who is it that suggests that players should leave their country? Who is it that tells his followers they should beat the crap out of protesters? (And he’ll pay for the lawyers if they get arrested?) Who is it that eggs on hatred for a nonviolent act that is only intended to keep the focus on the continuing racist behavior that passes for normal in our nation?
    And who is it that keeps excusing every dumbfuck thing that comes out of Trump’s mouth?
    You guys disgust me.

    • Steve Frisch says:

      If this president could have a Sturmabteilung he would be recruiting tomorrow and several local boneheads would be lining up for their brown shirts and sam brown belts.

  5. Steve Frisch says:

    Michael, I won’t change your mind or ever convince you of the threat President Trump represents to American democracy and its traditions.

    My contention is that this incident is part of a pattern of behavior by the President that includes demeaning the press, inciting the public against the press, threatening the press with new libel laws, restricting the press from coverage by not holding press conferences (which he has not held since February 2017), restricting the press by threatening to remove their credentials, directly restricting the press from normally covered events, directly restricting the press from public events which has recently been done by both the EPA and DOE, and attacking the livelihood of critics in the case of Jeff Bezos owner of the Washington Post.

    The POTUS has openly stated that many Americans or legal residents and visitors should not speak publicly or have the right to speak publicly which he did in the case of the Kahn family before he was elected, visitors in the case of the victims of his travel bans, the American citizens and attorneys defending travel ban victims, authors who are critical of him, and protesters who burn the flag.

    POTUS is on record saying he believes people who believe in free speech are “foolish people”, he is on record saying his attacks on the press as “fake news” is an attempt to diminish their credibility even when their sources are clear, identifiable and on the record. He has regularly used litigation as a tool to harm journalists but has never won a case against one. He has referred to reports as “slime”, “scum”, “parasites” and “very dishonest people.” He has openly implied that it would be “better for America” if many reporters were dead.

    “I would never kill them but I do hate them,” he said of reporters. “And some of them are such lying, disgusting people.”

    He is on record calling or sending letters to at least 4 news outlets demanding that they fire reporters.

    He has threatened to use the FCC to rescind the broadcast licenses of outlets that have been critical of him.

    He has called on several employers, not just NFL team owners, to fire employees who exercise free speech rights.

    When the POTUS does these things he is not acting as a private citizen; he cannot separate his private speech from public speech when he is the President. He particularly cannot separate his actions as the head f state and using the organs of the state to persecute critics.

    These are the actions of an authoritarian, who is absolutely comparable to the worst examples of totalitarian government, and if you stand for it you are standing against American values.

  6. Don Bessee says:

    So where were you guys when the NBA instituted its rule?

    The NBA’s longstanding rule for team conduct states that players, coaches and trainers are to stand and line up in a dignified posture along the sidelines or on the foul line during the playing of the national anthem.
    Citing its rule, former NBA commissioner David Stern suspended former LSU and star Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf (Chris Jackson) in 1996 for sitting down during the national anthem when he played for the Denver Nuggets. Abdul-Rauf suspension was lifted after one day when he agreed to stand during the anthem but pray silently in his hands.



    • Chris Peterson says:

      So incredibly sick of people using monetary gain to determine social behavior. That, and although we know the 1% are making all the money, polls show that 18% believe they’re one of the 1%. Brilliant.
      Frickin’ imbeciles, all.

      And, obviously, you weren’t there in ’96 when we discussed the NBA’s rule down at my barber’s shop.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *