When San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick protested the national anthem before an NFL preseason game Aug. 26, I felt the ensuing outrage was overblown. I agreed with President Obama’s response — it is Kaepernick’s constitutional right to protest what he sees as a problem of racism and police brutality in America. By the same token, it is also the right of those who disagree with him to criticize him for his method of protest. As far as I was concerned, the discussion ended there.
What really brought my attention to the Kaepernick firestorm was when he showed up to a press conference wearing a T-shirt displaying a meeting between Malcolm X and Fidel Castro. This is when Kaepernick’s credibility was all but crushed in my eyes. In one moment, he went from a celebrity ostensibly using his fame to further a social cause to basically a naive college “radical” sporting a Che Guevara pin on his backpack.
For someone who claims to stand up for the oppressed, it seems Kaepernick is not very well-versed in Fidel’s human-rights record, which includes an estimated 15,000 political executions, 1.5 million refugees, forced labor camps and, of course, systemic racism.
Kaepernick is part of a more acute problem that goes beyond him: the increasing radicalization of the Black Lives Matter movement, with which Kaepernick identifies. The BLM movement originated in response to serious and legitimate problems like racial inequality, police brutality and racial profiling. Since then, the movement has adopted a broad and radical platform that includes criticisms of the U.S., capitalism, corporations and even Israel. Whereas these criticisms are undoubtedly protected by the Constitution, it is the antagonistic and extreme tone of the movement’s platform that raises concern.
Not only is BLM overwhelming its agenda with too many issues, but it is also adopting unpopular stances that erode its credibility and delegitimize otherwise legitimate causes (such as police reform). BLM is shooting itself in the foot. In order for a movement to be successful, it must seek progress courageously but realistically. When too much anger is generated, social polarization is the result, not actual change.
What began as a legitimate protest of systemic racism in the police has distorted itself into a sort of misguided radicalism that can alienate potential allies and further aggravate tensions. It is therefore no surprise that black church leaders have already come out in condemnation of many aspects of the movement’s platform.
Kaepernick is simply one microcosm of this greater problem: the perversion and radicalization of BLM. Protesting racism in the police is one thing; identifying with a brutal dictator is another. In order to achieve actual social change, one must seek to establish the mechanisms for change in a pragmatic and sober manner, like Martin Luther King Jr. did 50 years ago. As we have learned from our past, a generalized anti-establishment ideology will not achieve progress; it will only produce mass hysteria, polarization and, ultimately, something closer to fascism than sensible political reform.
Julian Fleischman is a UF political science and telecommunication senior. His column appears on Fridays.
