Protest. Protest is one of those unique words that can instill within us a wide gamut of feelings. For some protest represents hope, or engagement in a world that is otherwise disengaged. It represents action and taking a stand for what you believe in, despite what the status quo might tell you about your beliefs. For others, protest represents instability, a rocking of a boat that is already in danger of tipping over. It represents disrespect to long-held and long-standing belief systems that may have been in place for as long as certain individuals can remember. Whatever your position may be on the subject of protest, most would agree that it falls within the American’s first and basic right to free speech and that of peaceful assembly. But the question arises nonetheless of what is the appropriate form of protest? When is it alright? When is it justified? In my paper, we will begin to explore what precisely it was that triggered such outrage over Colin Kaepernick’s silent protest, and venture into the complex web of narratives that arose surrounding the protest itself. We will question why a protest, even when executed under the most appropriate circumstances, can act as such strong catalyst for nationwide anger and upset.
To begin, we must first take a stand on what we view as an ‘appropriate’ form of protest. What makes a protest justified, what rules it should follow in order to fit the mold of ethical or necessary–all of this is subjective. Whereas some would view violent protest as the only true way to bring about change to a long-held status quo, others would state it as an ultimately divisional act. One that serves to only polarize and fuel the flames of conflict rather than bring about true and positive change. Now to say that either would always fit the bill of either description would be short-sighted. Different forms of protest and activism are required depending on the scenario at hand. Under a total and complete authoritarian rule or fascist regime a violent protest or revolution may be the only way to win back one’s freedom. Under extreme circumstances, violent upheaval may be necessary. I do not however, feel as though those extremes have been reached in this country, as of yet. And because of that I have major issues with the use of violent protest or even violent resistance in order to advance a platform. My own ethical and moral issues notwithstanding, I also hold the belief that violent protest is also ineffective/damaging just as much as it is amoral. And evidence supports this. In the recent Rotman School of Management research paper, “Extreme Protest Tactics Reduce Popular Support for Social Movements,” published this past February, researchers found that while extreme protest tactics(blocking traffic, advocating violence against police officers) were effective in gaining publicity, it also saw “that extreme protest tactics decreased popular support for a given cause because they reduced feelings of identification with the movement.” And as far as generalities go, most would agree that it was Martin Luther King’s peaceful protests that made America look inward and decide on real change during the Civil Rights Movement, as opposed to the violent resistance that Malcolm X advocated for before his trip to Mecca.
So with this marker in mind of what constitutes a protest that is not only appropriate but also effective, we can attempt to explore Kaepernick’s protest. The protest, which revolves around Kaepernick’s dissatisfaction with the way black people and people of color are treated in this country, had 49ers’ quarterback Colin Kaepernick deciding not to stand during the national anthem. His kneeling, which was broadcasted across the country brought ire, anger, and eventually the loss of his job. The question is, why? Kaepernick followed all the usual guidelines that what makes for a peaceful protest. He didn’t advocate for violence, nor did he participate in any sort of vandalism or incite roadblocks or any such thing. The man simply decided to kneel during the national anthem as a show of solidarity to people of color across the country. As he stated it, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color… To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
So what triggered the outrage? Currently, there still persists a deluge of hatred and vitriol cast towards Kaepernick, and others who have decided to follow his form of protest. One does not have to look too deeply into online comments before finding those who would comment on his entitled lifestyle and lambaste him for disrespecting those who have given their lives to fight for this country. Disrespect for the American flag or those who have participated and/or perished in military service comes to the forefront of the debate when discussing the validity of Kaepernick’s protest. There are narratives spun about Kaepernick being un-American or hating the country he “reaps the benefits” from. That because he has money and a platform, he is thereby removed from the discussion of oppression, and is unable to appropriately empathize with and convey the struggle that people of color in this country face. All of these assertions can be easily shrugged off when you look at Colin’s statements at face-value. In Kaepernick’s own words, “I’m going to continue to stand with the people that are being oppressed. To me this is something that has to change. When there’s significant change and I feel like that flag represents what it’s supposed to represent, this country is representing people the way that it’s supposed to, I’ll stand.” There is a clear distinction here made by Kaepernick that highlights he has a clear understanding of what American values are, and what they’re supposed to represent, but fails to see those values being executed on in certain communities within this country. Equal treatment of blacks, especially by law enforcement, does not in his eyes(as evidenced by far too many videos of unarmed black men being shot to death by the people meant to protect them) manifest itself appropriately in this country.
The above should be a sentiment most would agree with, but many seem to have trouble coming to grips with this idea that blacks could still be suffering from such a level of inequality. And when they are forced to face it in the form of a silent protest being broadcast during their Monday Night Football, the outcome is almost incendiary. This, I would posit, is of the fault of the many echo-chambers that litter the new-age landscape that we all subsist within. Those who do not wish to accept that such a wide inequality gap currently exists, now have information outlets that will ensure them that such a gap doesn’t. And those who are off-put by Kaepernick’s protest do not have to look far for a media outlet explaining to them that they’re not only right to be off-put by the protest, but should be actively offended by the protest altogether. And, thanks in part to the double-edged sword of open accessibility the internet offers, these outlets are able to find mass-appeal footholds in the current hyper-partisan age in which we all currently live.
Which is worrisome, especially as illegitimate media sources are becoming better and better at emulating the look and general atmosphere of a source that is traditionally seen to have journalistic integrity. It’s a needle movement towards subjective narratives running the way we think and interpret issues, as opposed to the issues themselves influencing the narratives we build up in our minds. It allows for a silent protest to be seen as evil, entitled, massively disrespectful, and anti-military. To strip it of its original content and make it a lightning rod for political division. Kaepernick’s message is weakened, and instead replaced by a platform he never stood for. By this point, the shifting narratives have warped the message of the silent protest from the oppression of blacks and people of color in this country, to an anti-Trump movement. All validity and meaning of the kneel has been lost, and instead has been watered down to divisional politics meant to keep the conversation’s wheels spinning in place.
