A.G. Gancarski
Just weeks ago, members of the Jacksonville Jaguars made international news by protesting the U.S. national anthem on foreign soil.
Ahead of a game in London, Jaguars kneeled — and owner Shad Khan supported their protest by standing with the team during the anthem.
Khan offered support before the protest, said defender Telvin Smith: “It was [a] sigh of relief when the owner comes in and says: ‘We’re with you. Whatever you want to do, let’s do it.’”
After the protest, Khan told Smith that he was “going to remember this for the rest of my life.”
Ownership and management, apparently, is as inconsistent as the team is on the field — as a mea culpa letter from Jaguars President Mark Lamping to a city of Jacksonville official made clear on Oct. 6.
The team, wrote Lamping, “was remiss in not fully comprehending the effect of the national anthem demonstration on foreign soil has had on the men and women who have or continue to serve our country.”
“Similarly, we today can better appreciate how standing for God Save The Queen may have been viewed negatively by our armed forces here in Jacksonville and beyond … this was an oversight and certainly not intended to send a message that would disparage you, our flag or our nation,” Lamping wrote.
Given the chain of events before the protest, which included Jaguars ownership and management being aware that a demonstration was planned, it’s hard to imagine this as an “oversight.”
Yet that’s the narrative.
“The notion never entered the minds of our players or anyone affiliated with the Jacksonville Jaguars, but today we can understand how the events in London on September 24 could have been viewed or misinterpreted. We owe you an apology and hope you will accept it,” Lamping added.
The letter was dated Oct. 6 — nine days before the Jaguars’ most recent home game, a classic home team collapse against the Los Angeles Rams.
In the interim, Khan offered some very direct comments about President Donald Trump — to whom Khan donated $1 million — and Trump’s advisor, Steve Bannon.
“What (Trump) has done is shown leadership as the great divider, not [a] uniter. We are used to being warm and fuzzy and cuddled. Well, it’s a different time,” Khan said.
That division is part of the Steve Bannon strategy, Khan offered.
“Steve Bannon or whoever is analyzing the data realizes, ‘How do I get elected?’ I get elected by dividing this person or this group against this group. What are the worst fears, phobias somebody has, how do I tap that button and get them with my people? There’s a lot of predictive behavior here,” Khan asserted.
One suspects that Khan’s actual take on this matter is closer to his widely-reported comments than to Lamping’s attempt to walk back the London protest and placate the ever-fickle fanbase in the Jacksonville market.
7 comments
seber newsome III
October 17, 2017 at 6:04 pm
Shad Khan needs to get on TV and ask for forgiveness from the citizens of Jacksonville, Florida. Jacksonville is a military town. Until he does that, the fans will continue to not show up to the games, and it is only going to get worse.
Shad Con
October 17, 2017 at 6:14 pm
Please don’t make me downsize my yacht! It’s already less than 5 football fields in length.
Frankie M.
October 17, 2017 at 6:26 pm
Jaguars biggest mistake was branding themselves with the military in Jax during the lost Gus Bradley “re-imagining” years. There would be no need for a mea culpa if the Jags didn’t tie themselves to the military in this community through videos & merch showing Jaguar shields that look similar to combat patches you might see in the army. The more interesting question would be what does Mayor Curry think of the Great Divider comments from Shad Khan. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a response as Curry doesn’t delve too deeply into questions more difficult than when the next yard trash pick-up will be. Of course he might surprise everyone and offer more than a one sentence answer…who knows? He didn’t want to touch HRO or Confederate monuments with a 10 foot pole but what else would you expect from a politician only concerned with his next office. At least the snowflakes can stop complaining about this non-issue. They can go back to boycotting the team they never supported in the first place.
seber newsome III
October 17, 2017 at 6:34 pm
If Mayor Curry ever has to make a decision about the Confederate Monuments, it better be to keep them in place. He is already in trouble for not vetoing the HRO issue. His career and that of city council members whose constituents want the monuments to stay in place will be over, and whenever they are mingling with their constituents for the rest of their lives, they will have to answer, why did you destroy our history.
Frankie M.
October 17, 2017 at 7:09 pm
Curry essentially ignored the HRO issue because it wasn’t part of his agenda. Sure he went through the motions with the talks & he would’ve rather it failed than passed but in the end he just shrugged his shoulders. He followed the same game plan for the Confederate monuments. I give credit to Brosche for trying. She knew it would be unpopular here. She was born & raised on the Westside. She was under no illusion that this would be an easy sell. Whenever anyone criticizes Curry’s lack of intestinal fortitude on social issues like HRO, removal of Confederate monuments, or kneeling during the NA AG points to the fact that Brosche failed. Yes she failed but at least she took a stand instead of sitting on the fence to see which way the wind blows. She probably won’t be re-elected & I don’t really think she cares.
I’m not aware of any public statues of Hitler in Berlin but I know they haven’t erased him from their history books & museums. The big debate over there is whether to preserve concentration camps like Dachau and Auschwitz or let them die. We will never have that conversation here because if it were put up for a referendum it would fail. Imagine if they had put the Civil Rights Act up for a referendum in the 60’s here in Jax? It might’ve been another 20 years before black people could vote. The people of Jax aren’t ready for that kind of conversation.
seber newsome III
October 17, 2017 at 7:21 pm
So, Frankie, it seems like you want the minority to decide for the majority, is that correct? That is what Mrs. Brosche said. So, what the majority wants does not matter anymore, only what the minority wants, is that fair or justice, I dont think so. If they move the monuments there will such an uproar it will be heard all over the United States. Curry will be a one term mayor, and all of those who support Mrs. Brosche, except the black city council members of course, will be gone, and im sure they know that. Put up more monuments to famous Blacks from Jacksonville in Hemming Park. Make it an historical park, telling all of Jacskonvilles, history. How do you feel about that Frankie, or are you against compromise. Are you. just about destruction?
Frankie M.
October 17, 2017 at 7:45 pm
Sometimes being right and being popular are mutually exclusive. You might not win re-elections. You might not get a statue named in your honor. You have to think about the bigger picture. Short term vs. long term. We just kicked the can down the road on our pension debt to the next generation. We’re clearly not there yet.
As far as letting the minority decide for the majority I believe it depends on the issue. Like I stated before if the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were left up to a referendum I believe it might’ve been another 20 years before it passed. Would that have been a good idea? I think removal of the Confederate monuments is a conversation we need to have. Those statues that some hail as a vital part of our history can be seen as symbols of oppression by others. Unsurprisingly the debate is divided along racial lines. The monuments represent history as well as white privilege & I don’t see that being eroded anytime soon. The HRO debate took 5 years & there’s still a backlash as groups try to recall it but time heals all wounds so we’ll have to wait and see.
Comments are closed.