The Bar-On Brief: I disagree with Colin Kaepernick, but I will defend his right to protest
What it means to disrespect the root of all rights
Our national anthem ends with a question: Oh say does that star-spangled banner yet wave, o’er the land of the free and home of the brave?
San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick must not think so. Kaepernick’s’ recent refusal to stand during the playing of the Star-Spangled Banner during last weekend’s 49ers pre-season game sparked an ongoing debate regarding the players’ respect for the country.
While I disagree with him ideologically, I respect his right to protest. Even though he is using what might nowadays be the single uniting aspect of our country: the national anthem.
“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” he said to NFL.com.
Military veterans, government officials and many other Americans are unhappy with the player, especially after he said he will continue sitting as the Star-Spangled Banner plays. These unhappy folks are understandably insulted, but neither the law nor the constitution defines the insult as a crime. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that the burning of the United States flag, what I would argue is significantly more disrespectful than Kaepernick’s action, does not violate the law.
There is very little room for debate regarding how effective Kaepernick’s decision was in terms of popularity. The purpose of protest is to raise awareness and initiate change. It’s hard to disagree the first has been achieved — the national media conversation is still revolving around the player. It’s still unknown how much of an impact a football quarterback will have on an ongoing national issue, but it doesn’t seem to be dying down.
The major debate is whether Kaepernick’s action was ethical and respectful. Maybe Kaepernick didn’t think it through, but contending that the whole country “oppresses black people” is a bit much I’d say. It’s clear the justice system is broken and tensions with police are extremely high, but I have no doubt the majority of the country is full of good people.
I’m not sure where Kaepernick’s intentions lie. If he chooses to stand for the next anthem, I will praise him. His move received national attention, which is important for the cause he is fighting for. But to silence the critics, he needs to explicitly show his aim is not to be disrespectful but rather spread awareness of the cause.
If #7 chooses to remain sitting in the weeks to come, “taking a stand” by sitting will have evolved into a counterproductive stunt.
If Kaepernick finds it necessary to protest by purposefully disrespecting the national anthem and in turn the country, let him — a true American would fight for his right to do so. But a true patriot would not join him.
I just hope Kaepernick remembers that he is protected by the rights that only exist thanks to the very anthem he is insulting.
And with that, I rest my case.
The Bar-On Brief is a weekly column that runs Thursdays.
Follow Shauli Bar-On on Twitter @shauli_baron
Tej Gokhale • Sep 1, 2016 at 8:20 pm
Hey Shauli – I disagree with your assessment of the situation. The question isn’t about starting a conversation. Kaepernick has been sitting down to the national anthem for the at least two earlier preseason games, it’s just that people took notice at this last game because it was the first time this season that they were in uniform. If you really want to analyze his intentions, that’s really important to take into account. It wasn’t just some crass publicity stunt – my guess is that sitting down to the national anthem the times he did was a question of morality for him. He didn’t feel as though it was morally right for him to respect a flag that symbolizes a country that oppresses people of color. That fact is undeniable – that people of color receive worse treatment than the treatment that white people receive. To deny that is to deny the reality of the racist society that we live in. Kaepernick stated in that same interview you cited that he wasn’t looking for approval – this was him silently and symbolically protesting based on his moral convictions. So he wasn’t looking for national attention as you claim; he was following his own moral compass, which spurred controversy.
Also, I don’t want to speak or assume anything on your behalf, but frankly put, as a white male in America you probably have never experienced the oppression that people of color face. If you’ve never felt that kind or frequency of oppression, how can you make the assertion that calling the United States oppressive is “a bit much?”
Finally, I think a true patriot isn’t one who blindly loves and respects country, but it’s the person who has the audacity to criticize its failings. Standing for the national anthem is a definite way to showcase patriotism, but it isn’t necessarily the only way that patriotism is shown.
Anonymous • Sep 8, 2016 at 1:52 pm
You have asserted that it is undeniable that “people of color receive worse treatment than the treatment that white people receive.” Obviously there are many claims of how people of color are mistreated but for this I will be focusing on the issue Kaepernick poses which is racism in America’s police force.
1. Police departments across the nation unfairly target, arrest, and shoot at Blacks.
It is true that, considering Blacks make up 13% of the US population, they are overrepresented in the US prison population as well as the confrontations with police officers. The big question is, why is this? Are the police going out of their way to stop and arrest Blacks? One possible and very likely explanation for this statistic is the fact that Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crimes. Uniform Crime Reporting has the homicide rates in 2013 which shows Black’s committed about 47.14% of violent homicides. For a population that makes up only 13% of the total population in the United States, a 47% homicide rate certainly stands out. Furthermore, a New York City report from the NYPD (NYPD Annual Firearms Discharge Report) shows that Blacks were 79% of subjects who fired on police (Figure 2.16). Now what does this all mean? Well, the fact that Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crimes is a possible explanation for why you see Blacks overrepresented in arrest statistics as well as being shot at. The NYPD statistic shows a disproportionate amount of Blacks firing on police as well (Blacks to do make up considerably more than 13% of the population in NYC) but this may explain why Blacks make up 69% of subjects killed by police gunfire (Figure 2.15). Essentially the statistics for crime rates, and especially for crimes that the safety of police officers are at risk, correlates with the number of Blacks arrest and shot. It is important to note that I am not saying all or even most Blacks are criminals but rather that statistically Blacks commit more crimes in proportion to their makeup of the US population.
Sources:
1. Uniform Crime Reporting: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls
2. NYPD Annual Firearms Discharge Report (figure 2.15 & 2.16): http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/nypd_annual_firearms_discharge_report_2012.pdf (Check out Figure 2.13 & 2.14 as well)
Anonymous • Sep 8, 2016 at 2:01 pm
Another statistics table: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-43
Remember Blacks make up 13% of the national population.