Taking a Knee: Race, Military Culture, and Patriotism

Introduction

The protests following the death of George Floyd stemmed not so much from the killing of an unarmed Black man by police as from the broader perception that the Black community has been marginalized and oppressed for years. High-profile figures such as LeBron James, Steph Curry, and Colin Kaepernick have supported the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, as have many Black communities across the nation. However, for Black service members and other racial and ethnic minorities in the military, the desire to speak out against oppression while simultaneously honoring the flag and the rule of law presents a genuine paradox. On one hand, taking a knee during the National Anthem became a symbol of protest for oppressed communities, an act spearheaded by Kaepernick and later endorsed by Nike, other celebrities, and politicians. On the other hand, standing for the anthem and saluting the flag — particularly in recognition of the sacrifices made by thousands of service members who gave their lives in foreign conflicts — remains a sign of deep respect and appreciation.

The push and pull of conflicted feelings over taking a knee, speaking out against oppression, and standing for the flag recalls the tension that erupted among Americans over how to protest the Vietnam War, with some veterans feeling conflicted about where to stand on that issue as well. When it comes to race and ethnicity in the U.S. military, the conflict between supporting a popular movement by taking a knee and honoring the troops by standing for the flag is one that many individuals face daily.

Othering and the Kaepernick Protest

One of the most problematic issues at the heart of race in America — and in the military — is the phenomenon of othering. Othering is the treatment of another person as alien, as fundamentally different, and as someone to be excluded from mainstream society. It is a method of marginalization and oppression that labeling theory explains as attaching a disparaging label to other groups in order to deny them validation and power. Othering puts people on the sidelines and negates the inherent significance of their existence. Nadine Naber argues that because of cultural racism intensified in the wake of 9/11, othering has exploded and generated tensions throughout American communities. To address the problem of othering, Colin Kaepernick began taking a knee during NFL games while the National Anthem was played. His actions outraged some while energizing others who wanted to see a national discourse on the issue promoted in the public spotlight.

However, sustaining that discourse proved difficult because of the role that the flag and the anthem played in shaping the associations people made with the act of kneeling. Graber et al. analyzed ten American newspapers and "found that patriotic ideals — the American flag, military, and National Anthem, in particular — were used as a way to avoid completely discussions on racism" (1). In other words, by emphasizing the patriotism angle, discussion of othering and the oppression of Black communities was sidestepped. Those who sought to have that discourse complained that kneeling had nothing to do with disrespecting the flag, and that the protest was simply about demanding greater sensitivity toward a topic that rarely received serious media attention.

By bringing his protest to the national stage, Kaepernick signaled that he would no longer remain silent and that he was willing to sacrifice his career to put the issue of Black oppression in the spotlight. There was, therefore, a deliberate attempt to separate patriotism from the protest's meaning. Yet Kaepernick made his position explicit: "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" (Graber et al. 1). In short, patriotic pride, respect for the flag, and awareness of racist structures all came into direct conflict with one another.

Race, Ethnicity, and the Military

What role has the military played in the discourse between race, othering, and patriotism, and what has been the experience of race and ethnicity within its ranks? The military maintains its own code of ethics and promotes equality throughout its structure. It has a culture that is fundamentally distinct from civilian American culture — one designed to reinforce values and principles that develop soldiers into effective members of a team. The entire edifice of the military is built on the idea that people from diverse backgrounds can be brought together to function as one unit. In many respects, the military already possesses the culture and discipline that the rest of the nation aspires to but lacks. After all, Kaepernick and others who draw attention to the oppression of racial and ethnic minorities argue that American civilian culture facilitates structural racism. The military could offer meaningful guidance on how to implement policies of genuine equality.

If society could model itself on the racial integration practiced within the military, the underlying grievances motivating the protests could be more meaningfully addressed. The alternative is a forced and oppressive integration into a racist structure, as Devon Carbado points out: being Black and becoming an American citizen is "part of a broader social practice wherein all of us are Americanized and made socially intelligible via racial categorization" (633). Carbado describes an America in which racial minorities are compelled to accept an inferior position in society and to subject themselves to police authority that views Black people as perpetually suspect. There is little sense of genuine integration in civilian America. In the military, by contrast, there is a spirit of shared mission. In civilian life, there is a spirit of tension and conflict — of "us vs. them," of animosity, anger, and mistrust. As Carbado recounts, after numerous encounters with police based solely on his race, "our privacy had been invaded, we experienced a loss of dignity, and our race had been established — once more — as a crime of identity" (636). In the military, no such crimes of identity exist. Everyone shares the same identity, the same sense of belonging to a unit. In American civilian life, those units are fractured and fragmented, each group turned tribal and defensive. The problem, at its core, is cultural. The issue of race is a cultural issue.

Structural racism exists in American civilian life because the culture of American society has fostered and sustained that structure. The military's structure is not elitist but hierarchical; its culture is egalitarian and grounded in an ethical framework that applies to all. The structure of American society is inherently unequal because of a cultural elitism traceable to the era of the Founding Fathers. As Sabo et al. point out, immigration policy is a clear example of structural racism operating as a cultural issue with consequences across all areas of life. For instance, "immigration laws that militarize communities may exacerbate ethno-racial health disparities," Sabo et al. argue (66). The reason is straightforward: marginalized groups are pushed into impoverished communities that have less access to healthcare. The result is a measurable loss of equality — not everyone receives the same treatment, and the culture actively promotes division.

Conclusion

The issue of structural racism in America is deeply entrenched in the nation's history, and the recent riots and protests have only demonstrated that the wound has not healed. For people in the military, taking a knee during the National Anthem feels like a disrespect to their service and sacrifice. For those who kneel, the act is an insistence that people engage in honest discourse about racial oppression and acknowledge a problem that demands to be faced. The issue is not how to reconcile these two positions as such but rather why the cultures that produce them are so different. Americans should be united in culture, not divided. Yet because of an elitist cultural framework adopted from the nation's founding, the country has always been divided. That culture is what must change — and it should aspire to reflect the culture of the military, where every individual is made to feel that he or she is part of something meaningful and greater than themselves.