Machiavellian said:
This will always be a tough question as to what alienate someone. When two different people can look at the same image and see something totally different, trying to tip toe with what alienate someone will have you doing nothing. As with any message, things evolve. At first Kap was just sitting on the bench. The kneeling started to happen because of an Army veteran reached out to Kap and told him how kneeling was a sign of respect in the military for fallen comrades. People who protest really are not looking for sympathy. They are looking for recognition and discourse of the issues and awareness. Sympathy really doesn't move anyone to action. The kneeing was better than him sitting on the bench. The kneeling actually have a story and a compromise with an army vet which is mentioned many times when people try to portray the whole protest as something else. If anything I believe the kneeling was a much better answer and a strong silent point that continues the discourse. No matter what Kap did, if his protest was going to go viral, there would have been someone always looking to turn it into something else. That is what happens with any protest in America. You either find flaws with the protester, flaws with what they stand for or find a way to change the subject. It's interesting that when this all started, I saw a lot of people who made statements that Dr. King would not have done something like this. It was very clear during that time those people had no clue what Dr. King would do. Here is one of his letters when he was in prison in Birmingham on the subject. https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html Here is a quote just in case you do not want to read the whole thing. Tension is the word I would use and its exactly what the kneeling did. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue. One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals. We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied." |
It's inevitable that any protest be met with some resistance for whatever reason. My problem with kneeling is there is a better way to protest. Doing it during the anthem gives people license to treat the protest or intended discussion about something else other than police brutality or even just spite it because it happens during the anthem which is profound and sacred to many people.
Now that you bring up Dr. King, Dr. King had it right:
Clearly worded, neatly worded signs during peaceful marches were the right way and making speeches. Dr. King was known for his oratory and one of his major highlights, my favorite one, a speech before the Lincoln Memorial.
I'm sure Dr. King alienated some but his dedication to non-violence ensured that was kept to a minimum.
Kaepernick seems more known for his silence or one would think per the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/sports/colin-kaepernick-nfl-anthem-kneeling.html
Silence isn't really dialogue or at least, not a terribly engaging form of dialogue...
At the end of the day, I'm not saying one shouldn't protest during the anthem. I'm just saying if one wishes to do so, they should prepare for their words (or lack of words) and intentions to be twisted and warped by those who were alienated not by the substance of the protest but rather by its form.
