Jim Harbaugh Is Not A Food Critic Comment Count

Ace


[Eric Upchurch/MGoBlog]

Jim Harbaugh is the first person to admit he's obsessed with football. Everything else is secondary. This is a man who traveled to Paris with his wife, went to a Mexican restaurant that appears to be decent but by no means world-renowned, and declared it the best restaurant while also boiling down his personality into a damn near perfect tweet.

Harbaugh is a blunt instrument. He doesn't get sick. He doesn't take holidays. He's a jackhammer. We know this.

Harbaugh also has strong ties to the military. One of his oldest, closest friends is retired Marine colonel Jim Minick, who now serves at Michigan's director of football operations. He has a well-documented history of bringing in military officers to speak to his teams. He stops by Omaha Beach while on vacation. He welcomes servicemen into his office and genuinely looks more excited to take a photo with them than vice versa.

Which brings us to yesterday. Harbaugh emerged from the fall camp submarine—his term; he's also referred to it as a "bunker"—to address the media for the first game-week press conference of the season. Harbaugh is well-known for his unpredictable, off-the-cuff answers in pressers (not to mention on Twitter). We have a "jim harbaugh says things he probably shouldn't" tag, and the proprietor of this site has described him as "being himself at maximum volume at all times" on multiple occasions.

The odds that Harbaugh had the time or inclination to seriously ponder Colin Kaepernick's protest of the national anthem before the press conference are exceedingly low. This is a football coach known for being way more football-obsessed than even the average football-obsessed football coach. He's briefly emerging from three weeks of fall camp and its four-hour practices and endless film study to talk about the Hawaii game. He's probably aware of the basic details of Kaepernick's protest, but that's not anywhere close to his primary focus. He's thinking about his team, preparing for Hawaii, and not letting on anything about the ongoing quarterback competition.

[Hit THE JUMP.]

Fifteen minutes into a twenty-minute presser, Harbaugh is asked about Kaepernick. This is how our press conference correspondent, Adam Schnepp, transcribed the exchange:

As someone who knows Colin Kaepernick, what do you think about his stance to sit during the Anthem, and do you think it will cost him his job with the 49ers?

“I acknowledge his right to do that, but…I don’t respect the…the motivation or the…or the action.”

He pauses three times in that one sentence, which stands in stark contrast to the rest of the presser. The video shows a man who is searching for the right words and isn't quite sure he found them:

Harbaugh went off-the-cuff, which is his nature. He didn't choose his words carefully.

Colin Kaepernick, on the other hand, has spent a great deal of time thinking about his motivation and his action. After the media picked up on his protest, he spent 18 minutes discussing in detail why he won't stand for the national anthem. Before that, he addressed the 49ers in a players-only meeting, one that teammates described as both "productive and informative." At least one player whose initial reaction mirrored Harbaugh's emerged from the meeting with a different mindset:

“To be honest with you, I took offense to it,” 49ers center Daniel Kilgore said upon learning Kaepernick opted not to stand for the Star-Spangled Banner out of protest for what he sees as injustice for minorities in the United States.

“But after Kap stating his case today, and seeing where he was coming from, I do stand with Kap when he says, ‘Enough is enough against crime and the violence, discrimination and racism.’

“I believe enough is enough. I can see where people would think it’s bad with the national anthem and the military. For me, I’m going to stand there every time. I’m going to think about and honor those who are fighting and those who have fought, my family members, my friends. If Kap decides not to, that’s his decision.”

While Kilgore may not be joining Kaepernick in protest, he acknowledges and understands the impetus behind it, and that is a critical distinction.

Harbaugh, unlike Kilgore, didn't talk to Kaepernick this week. My assumption, based on Harbaugh's reaction and that of many others, as well as his background, is that he viewed Kaepernick's protest as a disrespectful act to the military, to which the flag and the anthem are inextricably linked; just look at Michigan's upcoming military appreciation festivities for the UCF game, which will feature "two large American field flags [that] will be held by over 150 veterans and service members" during the anthem among several other military tributes. I doubt he'd considered Kaepernick's pointed views on police violence, not to mention his direct experience with it:

-Q: Have you ever been pulled over unjustly or had a bad experience in that regard?

-KAEPERNICK: Yes. Multiple times.

I mean, I’ve had times where one of my roommates was moving out of a house in college and because we were the only black people in that neighborhood, the cops got called and all of us had guns drawn on us. I mean, came in the house without knocking, guns drawn, on one of my teammates and roommates.

So I have experienced this. People close to me have experienced this. This isn’t something that’s a one-off case here, a one-off case there.

When Harbaugh initially said he didn't respect Kaepernick's "motivation," he unwittingly invalidated the very real issues that Kaepernick is addressing with his act of protest. It was one of the worst possible word choices.  Immediately after the press conference ended, he corrected that error:

If Harbaugh had said that initially, he wouldn't be in the midst of a media firestorm, or at least not one that's nearly this heated. While he still takes exception to Kaepernick's action, that's a position that doesn't invalidate years, decades, centuries of America's history, as well as the present state of relations between police and minorities in many parts of this country.

You may still disagree with Harbaugh. Kaepernick's protest is nonviolent, even nonintrusive—he sat for the anthem in the first preseason game, too, and nobody noticed—and when the media picked up on it, it sparked a nation-wide conversation that's led to some remarkable revelations. I majored in history; without Kaepernick's protest, I wouldn't be aware of the third verse of the Star Spangled Banner. That appears to be the case with one of Harbaugh's star players, Jourdan Lewis, as well. If the goal of protest—a deeply American act dating back to the very genesis of this country—is to raise awareness of issues and drive change, Kaepernick hit the mark; again, look at the reaction from his teammates after the players-only meeting.

You may still disagree with Kaepernick, too. The national anthem and the flag are symbols that, for many of us, stand for freedom, equality, and the sacrifices so many have made to uphold those values. Kaepernick's freedom of expression extends to his critics, and they have a valid point, too: many, many people have died fighting for the country and values that flag symbolizes, and Kaepernick's actions can be interpreted as disrespect of that country and those values in that context. I can't know for sure, but it's quite possible Harbaugh feels that way.

This is all well and good as long as there's an acknowledgment that this discussion has valid opinions on both sides. Harbaugh's initial statement didn't leave room for that. His clarification did.

In an ideal world, Harbaugh would've been prepared to address the issue—the question wasn't hard to see coming—and better express his true feelings on the matter, or acknowledge that he wasn't ready to address it and put forth a no comment. His brother, Baltimore Ravens coach John Harbaugh, had thought through his answer enough to quote Voltaire when asked about Kaepernick:

"Voltaire so eloquently stated, 'I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend it until death your right to say it,'" John Harbaugh said. "That's a principle that our country is founded on. I don't think you cannot deny someone the right to speak out or mock or make fun or belittle anybody else's opinion."

Jim Harbaugh, however, is a blunt instrument. He answered the question. By his own admission, he missed the mark.

I hate when people tell sports figures to stick to sports. These are people with experiences and opinions that are often quite valuable, and they have a larger platform than most. Context matters, though. Jim Harbaugh is not a food critic. He is not a politician. He is not a social commentator. He is a football coach. We shouldn't be surprised that he sounded like one when asked to address a complicated, nuanced, and controversial social issue in between questions about the depth chart and this season's schedule.

Comments

Blue and Joe

September 1st, 2016 at 12:29 PM ^

I think the fact that most people didn't know about that verse should count for something. After all, that would be the desired outcome of removing the verse completely. But I don't know if that's even possible. Can you change the lyrics of a song that was written 200 years ago?

I think we are getting caught up in ancient lyrics and not paying attention to the things Kaepernick was actually talking about.

grumbler

August 30th, 2016 at 4:21 PM ^

Grossly misunderstood verse. Note the wording:  it isn't about 'the hirling and the slave," it is about "the hireling and slave."  In other words, the hireling and the slave are the same person.  In this case it is referring to the British soldier and (in the American mind, still extant) mercenaries hired by the British (even though the British had pretty much given up that practice by 1812).

The Jon Schwartz piece Ace linked to is laughably awful, but that's neither here nor there.  Key wasn't writing about American slaves.  But that, also, is neither here nor there.  The issues  Kapernick raised are very real, no matter anything about the SSB.

Kapernick is as entitled to send a message by sitting during the national anthem every bit as much as anyone else is by standing.  So long as that is the start of communications and not the end of communications, that is all for the good.

SirJack II

August 30th, 2016 at 5:19 PM ^

Well, the Intercept article that was linked to claims that these mercenaries were often American slaves, who for obvious reasons fought for the British.  This usage, "the hireling and slave," certainly can refer to (1) a hireling and (2) a slave.

Do you have a good source for the meaning behind the words of the Anthem? I don't know much about this context.

grumbler

August 30th, 2016 at 5:57 PM ^

The words "the hireling and slave" refer to a "slave" who is also a "hireling."  One does not hire actual slaves.  

Who, then, is a "slave" in this setting, that Key would know about?  Not the 200-odd escaped slaves that formed the three-company "colonial marines."  They were utterly insignificant militarily and really only known about after the war. 

Before the napoleonic Wars, however, the German mercenaries hired by the British from time to time served for life, with horrific punishments and even execution facing the potential deserter.  Conditions for the German mercenaries were often worse than for British soldiers, because the Germans drafted soldiers, while the British did not (sailors could be impressed into the navy, but soldiers were all, at least technically, volunteers).  The German mercenaries were, effectively, military slaves.  When their regiments were hired by the British, they were both "slaves" and "hirelings," and their eficiency and foreigness made them especially feared by the Americans.  None fought in the War of 1812, because the military situation had changed and German regiments were unavailable for mercenary service, but the Americans didn't know this and perhaps still believed that such troops were fighting.  In any case, "the hireling and slave" is clearly a British soldier or mercenary.

The fuller Third verse reads:

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war & the battle’s confusion
A home & a Country should leave us no more ?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling & slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave...

Unless one believes that "the band" in the first line isn't the same group whose "blood has wash'd out" their footsteps and who couldn't be saved from 'the terror of flight or the grave," then all of this is about British soldiers and/or mercenaries, who were, by American lights (since the US eschewed standing armies and lifelong service) "hirelings and slaves."

Hail Harbo

August 30th, 2016 at 9:51 PM ^

Hireling and slave may also well be talking about the continuing practice of American sailors being impressed into British service.  One of the grievances the fledgling nation held against its former master.

The first time I read and studied the lyrics that was my initial take.  Before being told what I was supposed to believe.

grumbler

August 31st, 2016 at 10:01 AM ^

I've seen that suggested, but it's not plausible.  Impressment was a British practice involving briutish citizens - those Americans impressed into Royal navy service were, the British claimed, british citizens merely pretending to be Americans.  Key's sympathy would be entirely with the impressed sailors.

There were African-Americans impressed into RN service, but this was rare.  By far the greatest numbers of African-Americans fighting in the war fought for Andrew Jackson's army, which was recruited in the South and included around 10% free blacks.  that was after the SSB was written, though.

dragonchild

August 30th, 2016 at 3:45 PM ^

Violent, and non-violent.  He chose non-violent.

I'll take it.  I won't say whether or not I agree with it, but just keep the above choice in mind if you're inclined to take away the non-violent option thinking it'll result in submission.

I think Harbaugh wanted to say that there are other ways of saying the same thing.  I think he's probably correct as well.  But that difference aside, he respected his right to do what he did, and I do as well.

Jeff09

August 30th, 2016 at 3:47 PM ^

Eh? Firestorm? I haven't seen much of a public firestorm. Why draw more attention to the topic? I thought coach clarified himself quite well after the fact.

Bando Calrissian

August 30th, 2016 at 3:48 PM ^

Does anyone else remember when Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf did this exact same thing in the NBA about fifteen years ago, and (IIRC) got himself suspended? He didn't so eloquently connect it to a larger meaning in the way Kaepernick is doing right now, but it was a huge story that pretty much dominated the headlines for weeks.

The Fugitive

August 30th, 2016 at 3:48 PM ^

Didn't he take heat for having the team watch American Sniper?

I don't have a single problem with that BTW, but other people in the community did.

Either way, it's not the first politial issue he's broached.  

Jon06

August 30th, 2016 at 3:58 PM ^

He met privately with students over that one. He walked this one back faster, as indeed he should have, given that Kaep's motivation is to try to stop people from dying, which is a motivation that ought to be respected no matter what anyone thinks about the overall trends or the details of particular cases.

westwardwolverine

August 30th, 2016 at 3:56 PM ^

Can someone explain to me what the big deal is about the third verse? Obviously it has something to do with the word slave, but its not glorifying slavery or proclaiming it be right and just or anything like that. 

The explanation that I've found after a little research is this: That during the battle in which the SSB was written, the British army contained a large number of slaves. 

I wonder if anyone actually has any idea of the meaning behind the use of the word in the paragraph because when I first read it I had no clue what it was about. 

Edit: I suppose the irony would be the use of the "land of the free" line while talking about slaves, but in this case it just seems like a descriptor of the troops (as well as a rhyming tool: slave, grave, wave, brave). Hireling appears to be describing mercenaries. 

Seems telling that the first article that appears when you google Star Spangled Banner says that the third verse glorifies slavery, which it doesn't actually appear to do so. 

grumbler

August 30th, 2016 at 4:30 PM ^

Ignore that article.  It is copmpletely out to lunch: the war wasn't a "war of aggression" and the goal of the US wasn't to take Canada from the British so much as to  - as they saw it - liberate Canada from the British (plus, eliminating a base from which the British could attack the US as they had in 1778).  The politicians pushing for the war completely misunderstood Canadian sentiments and British capabilities.

The real scandal of the war wasn't the fact that it was a "war of agression," it was the fact that the New England states stayed at least neutral in the war, if not neutral in favor of the British.  There was probably less popular support for the war effort in the War of 1812 than in the War of Independence.

But, again, the "hireling and slave" of Key's verse is not African.  Africans were not hirelings at all.

grumbler

August 30th, 2016 at 6:10 PM ^

I haven't taught American history in about eight years, so i'll have to check my references at work and see what I can find, but the references to British and "Hessian" (all Germans were "Hessians" to the Americans) soldiers as "slaves" was a pretty common theme in Patriot and American writing and propaganda.

Seth

August 30th, 2016 at 7:26 PM ^

Yeah that article is ridiculous:

"The Star-Spangled Banner,” Americans hazily remember, was written by Francis Scott Key about the Battle of Fort McHenry in Baltimore during the War of 1812. But we don’t ever talk about how the War of 1812 was a war of aggression that began with an attempt by the U.S. to grab Canada from the British Empire.

There is so much wrong with this but let's start with Francis Scott Key. If you look at (some of) his work--not just the stuff he wrote while working for anti-abolishionists but the stuff he personally believed--he would seem like an awful person by modern standards. In his time though he was considered almost exactly mainstream, or a little bit left of it, since he was one of the most expensive lawyers in the country who nevertheless represented former slaves against their former owners for free. Judging historical figures by modern standards is so wrong it drives historians nuts like anti-vaxxers drive pediatrians nuts, but there's limitless fodder there if you're a sanctimonious writer from the future out to prove your moral righteousness.

That's a common mistake though. Casting the U.S. (if you know anything about Madison you'll know how ludicrous this is ) as expansionists is when this goes from dumb writer to blithering idiot who should be shouted off the internet for trying to poison the well of discourse.

That war was foremost about impressment, not Canada. Great Britain was in the midst of fighting Napoleon, and were therefore always short of manpower. So British ships were pulling American ships over on the high seas, claiming the Americans serving on them were British subjects, and forcing those men to serve in British ships. Many others they captured were taken to prison hulks (old navy ships), and then this hellish prison they built for them in Somerset in the middle of swampland.

At one point (the Leopard Affair), a British ship fired on the Americans after they'd pulled over, causing a major loss of life and limb. The British justified it because they said British sailors were joining American crews. Some were (my ancestor might have crossed over at Sault Ste. Marie this way), but that didn't exactly justify arresting another country's naval vessels and stealing soldiers (then forcing those solidiers to fight their own countrymen).

The U.S. invaded Canada but that was strategic, not expansionst. The U.S. Navy didn't hold a ball of tallow to the British fleet*, but Britain knew they were vulnerable in Canada. A successful invasion there wasn't meant to annex Canada but to force the British to sue for peace and sign a treaty to respect the national sovereignty of a neutral country on the high seas. American international expansionism wouldn't come until much later--the U.S. expanded into the frontier, obviously, but again, in their minds they had purchased that land from France fair and square.

* But our oversized, specially designed frigates made of American Live Oak could beat up anything that could catch them, and run away from anything they couldn't beat up.

Tex_Ind_Blue

August 30th, 2016 at 7:38 PM ^

Thank you for the background. Also pointing out the danger of looking at everything from the past with the values of present. It is wrong to do so and often puts an otherwise acceptable behavior by the norms of that time in a very bad light. It happens a lot though, whether we like it or not.

pescadero

August 31st, 2016 at 3:50 PM ^

"So British ships were pulling American ships over on the high seas, claiming the Americans serving on them were British subjects, and forcing those men to serve in British ships."

 

Not in the eyes of the British.

 

In their opinion British ships were pulling British ships over on the high seas, claiming the British subjects serving on them were British subjects, and forcing those men to serve in British ships.

 

Britain did not recognize naturalized United States citizenship. They considered anyone British born to be a British subject... and the absolutely refused to recognize British deserters as having the right to naturalized US citizenship.

 

As far as the British were concerned - we're talking about British subjects who are "draft dodgers".

I'd also argue that neutral trade restrictions with France and the general refusal of Britian to follow the terms of the Treaty of Paris with respect to removing troops and forts had more impetus for 1812 than impressment.

 

mgobleu

August 30th, 2016 at 4:53 PM ^

This is one of the most grossly misunderstood acts in history. Southern slave owners wanted their slaves to count fully in the census, which would have given them more representation in congress, and more leverage. The 3/5 clause was fought for by the anti-slavery movement, and certainly not representative of their view of a slave's "worth" as a man. It was a compromise, knowing full well that slaves wouldn't be allowed to vote their conscience if it meant voting against their owners.

socrking

August 30th, 2016 at 5:13 PM ^

You are missing the forest for the trees. I cited the 3/5 compromise as an example of our country's history being intertwined with slavery and racism. Does that fact mean we nuke everything related to slavery in any way (I.e. Change our national anthem, shred the constitution, tear down the White House?)



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Jon06

August 30th, 2016 at 4:08 PM ^

It's hard to tell if you're being serious. The third verse doesn't just "talk about" slaves and "grave" doesn't just appear because it rhymes with slave. It says they'll be hunted and killed, and then cheers.

stephenrjking

August 30th, 2016 at 4:18 PM ^

The "slaves" he is referring to in the British military were not enslaved African people or their descendents, but white people impressed into service. Impressment was a big issue in the war of 1812. In the context of the stanza and the song it seems to fit better that way. Consider alternative explanations before mocking him for his.

westwardwolverine

August 30th, 2016 at 4:29 PM ^

Yes, I am being serious. There is nothing in the lyrics that glorifies slavery. Slaves are mentioned because they made up some of the opposition forces (as did mercenaries/hirelings). The placement at the point seems to be mainly to be used as a rhyming tool (slave, brave, wave, grave). Given that Key was writing from the perspective of the force being attacked by said army, its not really that far-fetched that he wouldn't be charitable to the opposition (which again, contains mercenaries as well as slaves). 

Jon06

August 30th, 2016 at 5:11 PM ^

The lyric glorifies hunting and killing slaves (as well as mercenaries). That seems like a thing to which reasonable people might object, whether or not you think it also thereby glorifies slavery (which is something that I'm happy to grant Francis Scott Key did only in his personal and professional life if not in this particular verse).

gbdub

August 30th, 2016 at 6:10 PM ^

It's not talking about hunting escaped slaves. It's talking about forcing the attackers into retreat or death.

Calling them "hirelings and slaves" is just a diss to the British - "your cause sucks so bad that no one will fight for you voluntarily, so you need to hire mercenaries or enslave people to do it"

Yeah, it's a bit unfortunate to celebrate too much about killing people who weren't given a choice about fighting against you, but again, we're talking about celebrating a military victory against an assaulting force, not about getting the boys together to hunt down escaped black slaves.

The "third verse glorifies slavery" thing only makes sense if you isolate a couple lines and ignore the rest of the poem and the context it was created in. And it's a poem, after all, so it's going to be a bit open to interpretation, but that doesn't mean all interpretations are equally sensible.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Jon06

August 30th, 2016 at 10:33 PM ^

1. I do not grant that the "slave" reference is to white Americans impressed into British service. I think that claim is not only wrong, but a positively harmful erasure of the salience and existence of enslaved blacks for no purpose other than to bend over backwards in the posthumous defense of a literal slaver. (Seriously, think about this: you are arguing that the most natural and plausible contextual interpretation of the word "slave" in a song written in antebellum America by a literal slave-owning slaver who owned slaves is that it refers to white people fighting for the British. Good luck with that.)

2. But even granting it for the sake of argument, the verse is awful. It's not "a bit unfortunate" to "celebrate too much about killing people who weren't given a choice about fighting against you" as you put it. Rather, if you ask me, it's moral bankruptcy in the face of tragedy. (But again, this is not my reading of the song. It's yours, and I think it's wrong, and besides that I think it's nearly as bad as the racist thing I think he actually meant.)

3. The context of the lines, which celebrate the death of people he is calling slaves, comes with a refrain about "the land of the free" that emphasizes that those "slaves," in addition to having lost their lives, have no place in America, which Key insists is a land for non-slaves. That is the context. The most charitable possible interpretation of this--yours--makes it into an extreme version of "I like people who weren't captured" and for obvious reasons we should not say anything more about that in this forum.

beardog07

August 30th, 2016 at 3:56 PM ^

Good post.

As a response to people protesting injustice in America by abstaining from particiption in the national anthem, some people respond "WHY DO YOU HATE THE TROOPS."  Thats a form of fascism.

If you don't believe in American values, then why did you sign up for the military?

WolverineinIN812

August 30th, 2016 at 3:48 PM ^

I was completely unaware of the third verse to the Star Spangled Banner.  Interesting read.

I hope it can be said that we can disagree fervently while being able to defend another person's right and ability to state their convictions.  John with the Voltaire quote spoke directly to how we should view this national discussion.  I used to tell my classes that very quote every year.

Brodie

August 30th, 2016 at 3:51 PM ^

I don't think it's likely that Harbaugh and I would agree on much politically. That is fine. I get it. I don't care that much. I liked that Lloyd Carr was a Democrat, but it certainly never bothered me that Bo wasn't. 

But this was a major unforced error on Harbaugh's part. Either way you answer this, someone will take umbridge. The only logical thing to do in this scenario is say nothing whatsoever. I like Jim's aversion to a lot of coach speak cliches, but they do have a time and a place. 

Big Boutros

August 30th, 2016 at 3:50 PM ^

Musically, I would like to see The Battle Hymn of the Republic promoted. But it's probably too religious for some and too pro-Union for others. America the Beautiful is also a better song and easier to sing than the Star-Spangled Banner.

The SSB has only been the national anthem for 85 years, designated as such by Woodrow Wilson of all people (who screened The Birth of a Nation in the White House).

I don't think the anthem will change because of the SSB's association with the War of 1812. America the Beautiful was written basically for fun, so it might not possess the gravity that many would want out of an anthem. There was an effort during the Kennedy administration to give it equal status to the SSB as a national hymn or co-national anthem and I would not be surprised to see that effort revitalized.

Hail, Columbia was the original national anthem, composed for George Washington's inauguration. It lasted for 150 years. But it's boring.

My Country 'Tis of Thee is obviously out because it's God Save the Queen.

The Stars and Stripes Forever is a Sousa classic, but it's too playful and the vocal version is fucking impossible to sing, way harder than even the SSB.

Wado

August 30th, 2016 at 3:50 PM ^

I take this as piece of evidence number 947,536 that coaches should have no motivation to give non boilerplate answers. His corrected response seems fine, though I wonder if this will make him more likely to give a "no comment about other teams, other leagues" sort of response in the future.

SCarolinaMaize

August 30th, 2016 at 3:51 PM ^

Any way to present which reporters are asking which questions in the pressers?  I can't speak for others, but I'd like to know so I can see if certain ones are constantly asking the click-baity questions.