Saturday, September 03, 2016

Up in Arms

Perhaps you haven't heard about Colin Kaepernick. He is the multimillionaire San Francisco 49ers quarterback who refused to stand for the national anthem because he refuses to stand for a country that "allows racial inequality". Some have complained; others agree and applaud. Now, we can examine that for all it's worth. Like, how would a country -- any country -- eliminate all racial inequality? Or what does a richer-than-just-about-anyone fellow know about the downtrodden? Or how does someone whose father was black but was raised by white parents and has become rich in this country have grounds to complain? And what makes him think that it's a "nation" problem rather than a human problem? You might even wonder about the wisdom of a guy making his money off a nation that "allows racial inequality" protesting that self-same nation. But what you can't -- or rather, shouldn't -- do is stand up in outrage because he's sitting down. We are, after all, a nation that honors the people that fight for our freedom. How could we complain about someone who exercises it?

Here's what bothers me. Imagine a quarterback in the NFL who refuses to stand for the national anthem because he refuses to stand for a country that approves murdering babies and destroying marriage. What, do you suppose, would be the response to such a fellow? I suspect you'd see a direct inversion. Those who are now pounding their proverbial pulpits over how this guy needs to respect the flag and the national anthem and all that would be applauding this imaginary quarterback. On the other hand, all those currently praising Kaepernick now would be up in arms against this other fellow who had the audacity to take such a stand. The difference, of course, is that in the case of Kaepernick those who matter -- coaches, the team, the government, etc. -- are letting him be. In the case of this other protester, however, I think you'd see the end of his career and his livelihood. The public would vilify him, the press would haul him up the media hanging tree, and the NFL would quickly see to it that he was made an example of.

It isn't, you see, the fact of the protest in question. It's that lots of people like his protest ... without considering the wisdom or logic of it. On the other hand, a protest in favor of babies and marriage might be wiser and more logical, but it certainly wouldn't have much popular support. Welcome to the inverted world in which we live.

4 comments:

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The fact that he didn't stand didn't bother me so much, because that is his right. It just makes me have no respect for him. My problem with him was the BLM lies that he spewed as the reason. If you want to claim a reason, at least tell the truth.

Stan said...

Yes, patent nonsense. And when he says "I refuse to stand for a nation that allows racial inequality to exist" and "I have nothing against America", he is clearly demonstrating nonsense. He has the right to say it and to protest. I defend his right to be foolish.

I would point out, however, the inequality of the equality protest. Their protest is "popular" so he should be allowed to do it. Our protest (abortion, marriage, etc.) is not, so we ought not be allowed to do it. That's not equality.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

That's because liberal people are more equal than conservative people (Animal Farm). And they can never really live their ideology.

Stan said...

Yes, the classic Animal Farm standard.