Summary of “Colin Kaepernick’s settlement with the NFL was a big win for the leader of the league’s protest movement.”

On Friday, the NFL and representatives for Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid announced that they had settled a grievance suit with the two players over alleged collusion to keep them out of the league because of their protests during the anthem.
“For the past several months, counsel for Mr. Kaepernick and Mr. Reid have engaged in an ongoing dialogue with representatives of the NFL. As a result of those discussions, the parties have decided to resolve the pending grievances,” the NFL and Kaepernick and Reid’s attorneys said in a joint announcement.
Bleacher Report’s Mike Freeman reported that NFL teams were speculating the settlement with Kaepernick alone could have been in the $60 million to $80 million range.
Kaepernick filed his grievance against the league in October 2017, alleging that one or more teams had colluded with each other and/or the league to keep him out of the NFL because of his decision to kneel during the national anthem in the 2016-17 season as a protest against police brutality and systemic racism.
Reid, who was the first player to join Kaepernick’s protest movement when they played together on the San Francisco 49ers, alleged in his grievance that he’d been blackballed for continuing to protest following Kaepernick’s exclusion from the NFL. Reid, who did not drop his grievance after signing a deal with the Carolina Panthers this season, recently re-signed with the team, getting a three-year contract worth more than $21 million.
The 31-year-old Kaepernick still does not have a job in the NFL after two seasons without a contract.
It’s unclear what will happen in the future on that front, but it seems as though that question will now be answered in negotiations between the league and the NFL Players Association and not unilaterally by Roger Goodell and the NFL’s owners.
It’s also unclear whether Kaepernick will ever get another chance to play in the NFL. If this settlement proves anything it’s that there was no good reason for him to be kept off NFL rosters in the first place-and there’s still no good reason for him to be kept from playing in the NFL going forward.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Nike’s Big Gamble on Colin Kaepernick”

For the past two years, Nike has kept Colin Kaepernick on the bench despite an endorsement partnership that dates back to 2011.
Kaepernick’s protest made him hugely controversial, and during the past two years, Nike hasn’t used the former 49ers quarterback as a spokesman even though he was under contract.
On Monday, Nike introduced Kaepernick as the face of its 30th anniversary “Just Do It” campaign, kicking off a new deal worth millions of dollars, comparable to the most lucrative deals Nike gives out to NFL players.
Kaepernick is suing the NFL, a Nike partner, alleging he’s been blacklisted for inspiring a wave of protests.
He’s misreading the situation if he thinks that Nike re-signed Kaepernick for political reasons.
Kaepernick and Reid aren’t the only people in this story who are suing former employers-in August, four women who used to work at Nike headquarters filed a class-action lawsuit that said Nike systematically paid women less than men and turned a blind eye to sexual harassment.
Maybe Nike figures that the far right is going to throw a tantrum no matter what the NFL and its corporate partners do, and if that’s going to happen they might as well sell some athleisure to people who don’t find Kaepernick’s message of racial equality offensive.
Nike betting on Kaepernick is encouraging for those of us who find his message not only inoffensive but worthy.

The orginal article.

Summary of “The Swedish 15-year-old who’s cutting class to fight the climate crisis”

She is on strike, refusing to go to school until Sweden’s general election on 9 September to draw attention to the climate crisis.
Thunberg herself is a diminutive girl with pigtails and a fleeting smile – not the stereotypical leader of a climate revolution.
“I want the politicians to prioritise the climate question, focus on the climate and treat it like a crisis.”
Thunberg’s protest might come as a surprise to anyone seduced by Sweden’s reputation as a climate pioneer and champion of the environment.
This year the country enacted “The most ambitious climate law in the world”, aiming to become carbon neutral by 2045 and comfortably beating the 2015 Paris climate targets along the way.
“Our inability to stop climate change is like the efforts to stop world war one – we knew for years it was coming, they arranged all sorts of conferences, but still they didn’t prevent it,” Wagner says.
Thunberg’s own awakening to the climate crisis a few years ago caused upheaval in her family.
She sees her condition not as a disability but as a gift which has helped open her eyes to the climate crisis.

The orginal article.

Summary of “NFL protests: 2 years of NFL protests, explained”

Exactly two years later, the controversy over NFL players’ decision to protest against racial inequality by kneeling during the national anthem before NFL games has enmeshed the country’s most popular sports league – one whose 32 teams are worth roughly $75 billion, more than the MLB and the NBA combined – in a political and cultural firestorm it most definitely did not want.
As the anthem protests expanded, so did the backlash The anthem protests began with Colin Kaepernick, who first sat during the anthem and then, after speaking with a former NFL player who had served as a Green Beret, knelt.
Though some conservatives viewed Kaepernick’s protest as an expression of free speech, many on the right didn’t see it that way, seeing the protests as an example of the “Politicization of sports” or “Symbolic of how liberalism has been allowed to spread unchecked through our culture,” and, most importantly, indicative of anti-Americanism run amok, as NFL players “Disrespected” the American flag and veterans of the wars fought to protect it.
There are 32 NFL teams, with 53 active players on each team, for a total of 1,696 NFL players active at a time.
Donald J. Trump October 10, 2017 Complicated, with no ending in sight Now, with preseason games taking place and about a month left until the NFL regular season, the NFL owners and players are still battling over the protests.
In May, the NFL and the owners agreed to a policy in which players would be expected to stand for the anthem if they were on the sidelines but were given the option of remaining in the locker room instead, with fines levied by the NFL for any protests.
NFL players who just wanted to go back to the pre-2009 system – where players stayed in the locker room for the national anthem – filed a grievance with the league via the NFL players union.
Many NFL players want to find a way to settle the issue – as do NFL owners and the league itself.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Why Iranian Women Are Taking Off Their Head Scarves”

Now that bareheaded women are joined in these acts by women who proudly wear the full-body chador, it is clear that the movement on the ground is also about a woman’s right to choose how to dress – something that, over the past century, various Iranian leaders have tried to deny.
The leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, made the hijab compulsory in 1979.Mass protests by women were unsuccessful in overturning the edict.
Pro-hijab campaigners invented the slogan “Ya rusari ya tusari,” which means “Either a cover on the head or a beating,” and supervisory “Committees” – often composed of women in full chadors – roamed the streets and punished women they deemed poorly covered.
While the requirements have remained firmly in place, Iranian women have been pushing the boundaries of acceptable hijab for years.
In 2006, the One Million Signatures for the Repeal of Discriminatory Laws campaign, one of the most concerted efforts undertaken by Iranian feminists to gain greater rights for women, barely mentions the hijab.
So now Ms. Alinejad and a younger generation of Iranian women are turning back the focus on the most visible symbol of discrimination, which, they argue, is also the most fundamental.
“We are fighting for our dignity. If you can’t choose what to put on your head, they won’t let you be in charge of what is in your head, either.” In contrast, Islamic Republic officials argue that the hijab bestows dignity on women.
On the day that Vida Movahed climbed on the utility box to protest the hijab, Tehran’s police chief announced that going forward, women would no longer be detained for bad hijab, but would be “Educated.” In early January, in response to recent weeks of unrest throughout the country, President Hassan Rouhani went so far as to say, “One cannot force one’s lifestyle on the future generations.” In the past week, faced with a growing wave of civil disobedience, Iran’s general prosecutor called the actions of the women “Childish” and the Tehran police said that those who were arrested were “Deceived by the ‘no-hijab’ campaign.”

The orginal article.

Summary of “A Battle for the Future of Iran”

Whereas most Middle Eastern countries are ruled by secular autocrats focused on repressing primarily Islamist opposition, Iran is an Islamist autocracy focused on repressing secular opposition.
In Iran, add to that bitter cocktail both political and social repression, all conducted from the moral pedestal of Islamist theocracy.
In 2009-when an estimated 2 million to 3 million Iranians protested silently in Tehran-fewer than 1 million Iranians owned such a device, and few outside Tehran.
The few journalists remaining in Iran rightfully worry about their personal safety.
Many of the best Iranian writers, scholars, and artists of their generation have been similarly banished from Iran.
While there is a natural inclination among decent people everywhere to want a peaceful civil rights movement to succeed in Iran, there are ample reasons to believe it will not.
Iran has at its disposal tens of thousands of Shia militiamen-including Lebanese Hezbollah-it has been cultivating for years and in some cases decades.
In August 1978, the CIA confidently assessed that the Pahlavi monarchy in Iran “Is not in a revolutionary or even a pre-revolutionary situation.” Five months later the Shah-stricken with advanced cancer unbeknownst even to his family-left never to come back.

The orginal article.

Summary of “74 Things That Blew Our Minds in 2017”

Protest movements in the Middle East face enormous repressive hurdles and rarely have happy endings.
Even when protesters “Succeed” in toppling an autocrat, they’ve rarely succeeded in ending autocracy.
Whereas most Middle Eastern countries are ruled by secular autocrats focused on repressing primarily Islamist opposition, Iran is an Islamist autocracy focused on repressing secular opposition.
This dynamic-unarmed, unorganized, leaderless citizens seeking economic dignity and pluralism, versus a heavily armed, organized, rapacious ruling theocracy that espouses martyrdom-is not a recipe for success.
Against this inauspicious backdrop, Iran’s mushrooming anti-government protests-although so far much smaller in scale than the country’s 2009 uprising-have been unprecedented in their geographic scope and intensity.
They began December 28 in Mashhad, a Shiite pilgrimage city often considered a regime stronghold, with protesters chanting slogans like “Leave Syria alone, think about us.” They soon spread to Qom, Iran’s holiest city, where protesters expressed nostalgia for Reza Shah, the 20th-century modernizing autocrat who ruthlessly repressed the clergy.
They continued in provincial towns, with thousands chanting, “We don’t want an Islamic Republic” in Najafabad, “Death to the revolutionary guards” in Rasht, and “Death to the dictator” in Khoramabad. They’ve since spread to Tehran, and hundreds have been arrested, the BBC reported, citing Iranian officials.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Students Protest Intro Humanities Course at Reed”

A required year-long course for freshmen, Hum 110 consists of lectures that everyone attends and small break-out classes “Where students learn how to discuss, debate, and defend their readings.” It’s the heart of the academic experience at Reed, which ranks second for future Ph.D.s in the humanities and fourth in all subjects.
RAR has a sympathetic audience: Reed is home to the most liberal student body of any college, according to The Princeton Review.
A major crisis for Reed College started when RAR put those core qualities-social justice and academic study-on a collision course.
A Hum protest is visually striking: Up to several dozen RAR supporters position themselves alongside the professor and quietly hold signs reading “We demand space for students of color,” “We cannot be erased,” “Fuck Hum 110,” “Stop silencing black and brown voices; the rest of society is already standing on their necks,” and so on.
National coverage of the Hum 110 crisis has focused primarily on the clashes between RAR and faculty, but what about the majority of students not in RAR? I spoke with a few dozen of them to get an understanding of what campus was like last year, and a clear pattern emerged: intimidation, stigma, and silence when it came to discussing Hum 110, or racial politics in general.
In mid-April, when students were studying for finals, a RAR leader grew frustrated that more supporters weren’t showing up to protest Hum 110.
The RAR leader proceeded to call out at least 15 students by name.
In the intervening year, the Reed administration had met many of RAR’s demands, including new hires in the Office of Inclusive Community, fast-tracking the reevaluation of the Hum 110 syllabus that traditionally happens every 10 years, and arranging a long series of “6 by 6 meetings”-six RAR students and six Hum professors-to solicit ideas for that syllabus.

The orginal article.

Summary of “The Culture War at the Heart of American Football”

The episode has served as a founding myth for the phenomenon of modern football, a game that now extends beyond sports.
Ever since, football has grown as a central institution in American life; on its face a truly multi-ethnic undertaking, one where common ground can be found between the lines and politics can be forsaken at least for a few hours.
While football and football media rose in stature as American institutions, other pillars were collapsing.
New York Times journalist Roy Reed wrote of a 1969 football Saturday in Birmingham that: “Football has probably replaced church-going as the number one social function in the South. And it’s more than just the favorite sport. It is now a religio-social past-time, a psychic device for the release of tensions and a vehicle for doing business.” Reed’s observation was correct, and football has supplanted religion even well beyond the South now, but the replacement has been seamless because football’s a lot like church.
As a civic religion, football has married Max Weber’s protestantische Ethik, American capitalism, the worship of great men, and the individual narratives of sacrifice and superhuman feats.
Even after Trump won the presidency, he returned to football often as red meat during rallies, bragging that his disparagement had been the cause of Kaepernick’s joblessness.
While many people expressed alarm earlier this year at the brazen militarism of Trump musing out loud about holding military parades on American streets for holidays, few fathomed that weekly football games already emulate the function of military parades, showcasing the kind of firepower that the country’s military uses to vaporize homes and flatten cities.
While comparisons of football and war are perhaps over-determined, in responding to that challenge, the NFL revealed itself to be a shade of America’s most enduring war, the one that cleaves brother from brother and threatens the foundations of power.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Waiting for a Perfect Protest?”

Thanks to the sanitized images of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement that dominate our nation’s classrooms and our national discourse, many Americans imagine that protests organized by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and countless local organizations fighting for justice did not fall victim to violent outbreaks.
In spite of extensive training in nonviolent protest and civil disobedience, individuals and factions within the larger movement engaged in violent skirmishes, and many insisted on their right to physically defend themselves even while they proclaimed nonviolence as an ideal.
The reality – which is underdiscussed but essential to an understanding of our current situation – is that the civil rights work of Dr. King and other leaders was loudly opposed by overt racists and quietly sabotaged by cautious moderates.
A 1963 poll showed that 60 percent had an unfavorable feeling toward the planned March on Washington, where Dr. King gave his “I Have a Dream” speech.
A year later, 74 percent said that since black people had made some progress, they should stop their demonstrations; and by 1969, 74 percent said that marching, picketing and demonstrations were hurting the civil rights cause.
As for Dr. King personally, the figure who current moderates most readily point to as a model, 50 percent of people polled in 1966 thought that he was hurting the civil rights movement; only 36 percent believed he was helping.
The civil rights movement was messy, disorderly, confrontational and yes, sometimes violent.
Those standing on the sidelines of the current racial-justice movement, waiting for a pristine or flawless exercise of righteous protest, will have a long wait.

The orginal article.