Colin Kaepernick: Both Sides of the Argument

SANTA CLARA, Calif., Aug. 29 (UPI) — San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick took a stand this preseason, when he decided to kneel for the national anthem in protest. Kaepernick said, "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”. There have been varied reactions to this display.

Some have expressed disagreement with Kaepernick’s actions. People outraged by Kaepernick’s protest are often offended by what they see as disrespect for the flag and members of the armed forces. In addition, many feel not standing for the national anthem is ineffective and a counterproductive method to promote a cause. Lastly, they feel such a public showing of protest creates an unnecessary divide in the public. Are they necessarily wrong?

Those who support Kaepernick often have this common set of beliefs. They believe when the United States is not living up to its ideals, refusing to stand for the national anthem is an appropriate and justified measure of protest. In addition they see that when an NFL player refuses to stand for the National Anthem, it shocks people into paying attention and generates what could be a constructive conversation around race relations which in contrast to what people against Kaepernick perceive as what could become an unnecessary divide. Finally they believe and assert that not standing for the national anthem is a legal form of peaceful protest, which is a First Amendment right.

Predicaments such as these are not easily solved and squared away. Both sides possess valid arguments and neither should be ignored. Which side do you identify with?