I am a liberal, so it may surprise some that I'm not for the set of protests that many NFL and other sports figures are doing during the national anthems.
Have I turned Republican? Hardly.
I'm against them for three main reasons:
The purpose of any peaceful protest should be to bring light to an issue that may have otherwise been ignored, with a specific goal of getting something accomplished.
The narrative though has been that athletes have been 'protesting the national anthem', 'kneeling during the national anthem', or at best 'protesting social injustice'.
The fundamental problem is that the overall message is being co-opted by a different question: Is it right or wrong to 'protest' during the national anthem? This is what everybody is talking about. They are not talking about your cause, they are talking about your methodology. If your intended goal is to bring conversation and solutions to the issue of social justice and racism in America, the protests are not accomplishing the intended goal. Speaking of...
2) The protests do not have a clearly defined goal.
Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, kicking off a chain of events that led to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a nonviolent protest of the bus segregation laws. When that law was ruled unconstitutional, the boycott ended. The protest had a clear goal and purpose.
Ghandi undertook many hunger strikes throughout his life as a form of nonviolent protest. In probably his most effective and famous fast in 1932, he protested the British Government's support of an Indian constitution that would seperate the electorate by castes. When the British Government withdrew their support, his fast ended. The protest had a clear goal and purpose.
Martin Luther King Jr. was among the many organizers of the Selma to Montgomery marches which served to shed light on the poll taxes, literacy tests, and other measures used primarily to disenfranchise the African American population in the South. On March 15, 1965, President Johnson presented a bill to a joint session of Congress. The bill was passed that summer and signed by Johnson as the Voting Rights Act. The protest had a clear goal and purpose, ultimately fulfilled by the passage of that legislation.
Now let's contrast those successful campaigns with the current effort: As far as I can tell, the protests are to 'come out against Social Injustice'. For the record, I'm not arguing that social injustice exists. It most certainly does, and also for the record: I'm against it.
But I'm also a realist. I can't imagine a world where nobody is unfairly targeted solely due to the color of their skin. I can't imagine a world where corruption doesn't exist. I can't imagine a world where injustice doesn't occur. I can't imagine a world where good cops can't make terrible mistakes nor one where bad cops don't exist. I'd love to see the piece of legislation that is put out that 'solves' this problem.
If there is something to be done: what is it? What specifically can we do to move the ball forward?
Perhaps there is some legislation that can contribute toward the advance of social justice, and if so, then it deserves a platform; but there are none that I know of that will end 'social injustice' for all, nor are there specific proposals being put forth (that I'm aware of) to even advance the cause. So then, is this a protest in perpetuity? The battle is unwinnable when your victory conditions are undefined.
3) They are ultimately disrespectful
I know, this one is the one that will get me in the most trouble with my liberal friends, and so be it. Once upon a time, I had enough nationalistic pride that I joined the Army to go play with guns and get some money for my education. I came away from that experience with a great deal of respect for the institutions and sacrifices that the flag, the national anthem, and other such symbols represent.
I'm not saying that those that are doing these things do not have every right to do whatever they want during the national anthem (so long as they are not harming anyone else). They shouldn't be 'fired' unless their actions are detrimental to the team or the business behind it (if the fans all tune out, which is their right, then I guess the owners would really have no choice but to take action if they still want to gain those awesome TV viewership dollars)
Anyway -- I have the same feeling towards those individuals that would burn the American flag.
You have every right to do so: but your cause is never going to be advanced with me (personally) with that action, regardless of how much I agree or disagree with your message. For me, the methodology matters. These protest methods are disrespectful to those things that the flag and anthem represent. And those things are important to me.
Anyway, that's how I feel about it. I'm still watching football on Sunday. I still have the slimmest of hope that the Niners will turn things around and salvage the season. Hope springs eternal!
Post a Comment