Earlier this summer, Colin Kaepernick, a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, refused to stand up for the U.S. pledge of allegiance. Since then, Kaepernick has continued to defy the custom. In fact, he has even received support from fellow athletes. Kaepernick’s action sparked a mix of reactions. A lot of these reactions, however, were awfully negative. Some critics claim Kaepernick hates America and should, therefore, leave the country. This criticism negates the possibility that Kaepernick loves the United States by presuming love and criticism are mutually exclusive. A look at history and everyday life demonstrates that critique does not necessitate hate for the object of criticism.
Before anything else, it is critical that we share a common understanding of how Kaepernick arrived at his decision to refrain from participating in the pledge of allegiance. As he explained, Kaepernick refused to participate in the pledge of allegiance because he wanted to bring attention to the mistreatment of black Americans by police officers. Now, whether you believe that black Americans are indeed commonly mistreated by police officers is unimportant. Rather, it is significant to understand Kaepernick sincerely believes this notion to be true. Kaepernick is not pretending to believe police brutality is often motivated by anti-black racism. He is genuinely convinced that it is a reality. Why can we be sure of this? Well, one does not choose one’s beliefs. Instead, at some point in one’s life, one is convinced to believe one’s present set of opinions. Rather than being some ploy to tarnish the nation’s image, Kaepernick’s actions are indicative of a sincere concern for justice and morality in America.
While we may consider Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s contribution to be much more significant, we can point to some similarities between Kaepernick’s actions and motivations with that of the Baptist minister. King’s hope was that people would be treated equally upon the color of their skin. This belief is similar to Kaepernick’s hope of ending unequal treatment by the police. King’s activism and that of other organizers challenged America’s status quo, which justified the conditions of Jim Crow laws. His efforts were motivated by what he considered to be morally correct, and he sought to see his vision fulfilled, regardless of what the majority of Americans believed. Once again, this motivation for his actions is similar to Kaepernick’s motivation, which was grounded in a perception of racial injustice. By the logic motivating much criticism behind Kaepernick, King would be considered anti-American because he challenged the American status quo on the grounds of his moral convictions. Interestingly, this notion of fighting against the status quo on the basis of one’s moral convictions has served as a driver for much American progress, ranging from the Revolution to efforts of abolitionism to pro-LGBTQ movements and so on.
Though I am not suggesting Kaepernick is a parental figure to the United States or that our nation is childish, there is a similarity between Kaepernick’s actions and motivations with that of a parent disciplining his child. If your child commits something you consider morally wrong (e.g., shoplifting, lying), you may critique your child for his behavior. In fact, depending on your perceived severity of the wrong and its emotional impact on you, your criticism may range from a metaphorical slap on the wrist to a scathing diatribe. Of course, the severity of your reaction may not necessarily be considered just. Nonetheless, it would be misleading to claim that a parent does not love their child because they attempted to discipline or sanction them. In the same way, while you may not approve of Kaepernick’s manner of censuring, it would also be misguided to suggest that Kaepernick does not love America because he disapproves of something it has committed.
It is important that we understand the rationale behind Kaepernick’s protest. While you may not agree with Kaepernick’s actions or the basis of his actions, we should not condemn others for offering criticism. While it is true people who hate criticize what they hate, these individuals are not the only people who offer criticism. We often criticize the things and persons we love because we want some aspect of them to improve. Instead of censuring someone’s act of critique, we should aim to understand their actions as indicative of genuine interest with hopes of resolving their concern.
Alexander Adames is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.adames@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | YesterdayThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
