Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

UND hockey team anthem kneeling


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 353
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

People not happy about players kneeling during the anthem yet so many fans have zero issue shouting “home of the Sioux” instead of home of the brave which many people(non-UND fans) find disrespectful.

Berry needs to suspend both of those assholes, and enlighten them with facts about “racial inequality” in this nation.  Then take em on a tour of Arlington Nation Cemetery.  Never thought I’d be this

Many (not all) standout athletes, particularly DI athletes, are pampered. They live in a world quite different from us "average Joes" and always have. Good for them. They are talented in a way that mo

Posted Images

58 minutes ago, TheFlop said:

Surprised Schlossman hasn't chimed in yet with an article pointing out that those that didn't lock arms or put a hand on the kneelers shoulders must not support racial justice.   

Schloss article just hit Forum Communication online outlets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, snooty89 said:

Maybe we are looking at this the wrong way.  Maybe the entire team is taking a stand against the actions of 2.  This could be a fractured locker room.  Cue the dramatic da da daa....  Haha

Considering both of the guys kneeling are wearing an "A" on their jersey, which is voted on by the players, I don't think that is an issue. 

 

3 hours ago, scpa0305 said:

I definitely understand that they aren't trying to disrespect the flag, or the country, by kneeling and more using this specific time to draw attention to another cause. However, I simply wish these folks would choose another time/place or platform to call attention to these social issues.  By selecting this one specific time (i.e. the time our society has chosen to respect the freedoms we do have) I think it creates more divisiveness.  It's not very well thought out at all....it's almost as if they're looking to "poke the bear". My 2 cents.

And exactly what time/place do they have that draws the attention that this did? Whether you agree with it or not, that's the whole point. It is a very passive, peaceful, non-confrontational way to make a point in front of a significant audience. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

And exactly what time/place do they have that draws the attention that this did? Whether you agree with it or not, that's the whole point. It is a very passive, peaceful, non-confrontational way to make a point in front of a significant audience. 

Has it generated the conversation they were hoping for?

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, UNDBIZ said:

Has it generated the conversation they were hoping for?

I'm not sure what they were hoping for, but it has definitely generated conversation.
Personally, the response is almost exactly in line with what I would have guessed it to be. If it is a one-time thing, I'm glad they did it when/where they did it.

This has been something that has been discussed at length within the athletic department and teams. Those in charge were aware of what the potential blowback could/would be. On the other side, the blowback to prohibit them from doing it would caused much, much more significant issues. Reading between the lines, my guess is a compromise was made for them to do it the first game to make the point they wanted to make.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

I'm not sure what they were hoping for, but it has definitely generated conversation.
Personally, the response is almost exactly in line with what I would have guessed it to be. If it is a one-time thing, I'm glad they did it when/where they did it.

This has been something that has been discussed at length within the athletic department and teams. Those in charge were aware of what the potential blowback could/would be. On the other side, the blowback to prohibit them from doing it would caused much, much more significant issues. Reading between the lines, my guess is a compromise was made for them to do it the first game to make the point they wanted to make.  

Let's hope so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

I'm not sure what they were hoping for, but it has definitely generated conversation.
Personally, the response is almost exactly in line with what I would have guessed it to be. If it is a one-time thing, I'm glad they did it when/where they did it.

This has been something that has been discussed at length within the athletic department and teams. Those in charge were aware of what the potential blowback could/would be. On the other side, the blowback to prohibit them from doing it would caused much, much more significant issues. Reading between the lines, my guess is a compromise was made for them to do it the first game to make the point they wanted to make.  

You're probably right.  Between this and the attack on the soccer coach's job, Weatherby needs to produce more on the ice soon.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

You're probably right.  Between this and the attack on the soccer coach's job, Weatherby needs to produce more on the ice soon.

Ummm, changing the world by ridding it of racism is more important than a goal in hockey, sir.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

You're probably right.  Between this and the attack on the soccer coach's job, Weatherby needs to produce more on the ice soon.

Maybe he can bring up the generational ill effect of the Sioux nickname and logo next.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

I'm not sure what they were hoping for, but it has definitely generated conversation.
Personally, the response is almost exactly in line with what I would have guessed it to be. If it is a one-time thing, I'm glad they did it when/where they did it.

This has been something that has been discussed at length within the athletic department and teams. Those in charge were aware of what the potential blowback could/would be. On the other side, the blowback to prohibit them from doing it would caused much, much more significant issues. Reading between the lines, my guess is a compromise was made for them to do it the first game to make the point they wanted to make.  

Right or wrong, you are 100% correct. This sounding like a one-time issue (at least for the hockey team), this was the best case scenario. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

Drew Brees situation showed if your opinion isn't the right one, just shut up.

Exactly........now that he is injured he's probably going into the Saints training facility with a Crapernick jersey on for more street cred.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 90siouxfan said:

Personally I see it as virtue signalling by naive young men, wonder if the act happened at opening face off...   avoid the trampling on peoples pride in country and sacrifices made to preserve it.

A) Both of these two do plenty off the ice to show this was more than some sort of virtue signaling
B) As generality, ".....home of the brave Sioux!" is viewed in a very similar light by many and can also be viewed as "trampling on peoples pride in country and sacrifices made to preserve it" yet there seems to be minimal handwringing over that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

A) Both of these two do plenty off the ice to show this was more than some sort of virtue signaling
B) As generality, ".....home of the brave Sioux!" is viewed in a very similar light by many and can also be viewed as "trampling on peoples pride in country and sacrifices made to preserve it" yet there seems to be minimal handwringing over that. 

As to B)....you obviously haven't  been to a Vegas Knights game and that's one example of many. I can see how you think those two scenarios are "viewed in a very similar light". Kind of like the sentiment "from" and "with" are similar. I know you're familiar  with that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

As to B)....you obviously haven't  been to a Vegas Knights game and that's one example of many. I can see how you think those two scenarios are "viewed in a very similar light". Kind of like the sentiment "from" and "with" are similar. I know you're familiar  with that.

Because other teams/fans do it, that makes it acceptable? Others do it too!! :silly:

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SiouxFanatic said:

Because other wannabe SJW athletes do it, that makes it acceptable? Others do it too!! :silly:

That wasn't the point I was making but......FYP

Could go both ways.....right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

A) Both of these two do plenty off the ice to show this was more than some sort of virtue signaling
B) As generality, ".....home of the brave Sioux!" is viewed in a very similar light by many and can also be viewed as "trampling on peoples pride in country and sacrifices made to preserve it" yet there seems to be minimal handwringing over that. 

A.  I prefer people do things that achieve results, and real heroes IMHO are mostly not seen.

B.  Yeah, the irony is not lost on me..  younger drunker me yelled it loudly... not so much anymore.  Interestingly I ponder if there is a subtle difference when people "mod" a cherished item but not trample on it..

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

As to B)....you obviously haven't  been to a Vegas Knights game and that's one example of many. I can see how you think those two scenarios are "viewed in a very similar light". Kind of like the sentiment "from" and "with" are similar. I know you're familiar  with that.

Like I previously stated, plenty of selective outrage due to people's own particular view on what they personally deem to be acceptable or not.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • UNDBIZ locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...