Civil Disobedience: Thoreau and Kaepernick Compared
This essay examines civil disobedience as a form of moral expression by drawing a sustained comparison between Henry David Thoreau's foundational philosophy and the real-world protest actions of NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick. Beginning with Thoreau's argument that conscience must take precedence over unjust laws, the essay traces how Kaepernick's decision to kneel during the national anthem mirrors Thoreau's own refusal to pay taxes in protest of slavery. The paper explores themes of institutional injustice, the individual's duty to resist, and the ripple effects of peaceful protest, ultimately concluding that Kaepernick's actions represent a contemporary and compelling instance of Thoreauvian civil disobedience.
- Introduction: Defines civil disobedience and states thesis
- Background: Thoreau and Kaepernick: Introduces both figures and their protest contexts
- Conscience Over the Law: Compares Thoreau's philosophy with Kaepernick's anthem protest
- The Right to Revolt and Withdrawal of Support: Explores tax refusal, imprisonment, and protest ripple effects
- The Spread of Protest: Documents other athletes inspired by Kaepernick's example
- Conclusion: Frames Kaepernick as modern Thoreauvian dissenter
✍️ How to write this paper — guide & tools ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The essay maintains a clear comparative framework throughout, consistently pairing Thoreau's philosophical arguments with specific, concrete actions taken by Kaepernick, which keeps the analysis grounded and readable.
- It moves logically from principle to practice — first establishing Thoreau's ideas (conscience over law, withdrawal of support, the right to revolt) and then illustrating each with matching real-world examples from Kaepernick's protest and its aftermath.
- The conclusion ties the comparison together thematically by framing Kaepernick's protest as a modern instance of Thoreauvian civil disobedience, giving the essay a satisfying sense of closure and relevance.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates sustained comparative analysis: rather than treating Thoreau and Kaepernick in separate sections, the essay weaves them together throughout, using each paragraph to show a direct parallel between philosophical claim and contemporary action. This technique strengthens the argument by showing structural similarity rather than merely asserting it.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with a definition of civil disobedience and a thesis statement, then provides background on both figures. The body alternates between Thoreau's arguments and Kaepernick's corresponding actions across several thematic clusters: conscience over law, personal sacrifice and delinking from oppressive institutions, the right to revolt, and the spread of protest to other athletes. The conclusion reframes the comparison in terms of democratic theory.
Introduction
Civil disobedience is defined as a situation in which people take to the streets or act in violation of the law in order to bring an issue before the public and the political class. Proponents of civil disobedience argue that minor infractions — such as blocking roads or occupying public spaces — are acceptable when the goal is to resolve an issue of greater magnitude. Serious concerns that may call for civil disobedience, if the political class does not heed public opinion, include war or extensive environmental damage. The act of civil disobedience involves some form of breach of either normal practice or the law. It involves infiltration of restricted spaces and disruption of the public order, and is consequently often treated as trespass (Brownlee).
According to Henry David Thoreau in his essay Civil Disobedience, acts of resistance — such as refusing to stand during the American national anthem at public sporting events — are not only permissible but desirable. This essay argues that civil disobedience is a way of expressing one's convictions, demonstrating this claim by comparing Thoreau's ideas with Colin Kaepernick's actions of resistance.
Background: Thoreau and Kaepernick
Colin Kaepernick, a quarterback with the San Francisco 49ers, chose to kneel during the national anthem before the commencement of NFL games. His action represented a peaceful form of protest against America's treatment of members of the Black community (Rosenberg). His protest influenced others in additional sports, triggered a national conversation, attracted the president's anger, and ultimately marked the end of his football career.
Thoreau, by contrast, advocates for active resistance — a stance much like those that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks would later assume. According to Thoreau, every person owes it to themselves and their fellow citizens not to simply follow their government like a flag in the wind. If people have reason to believe that the laws being applied are unjust, they must rise up by whatever means are available and protest to repeal those laws. Thoreau opposed slavery even though it was supported by the state, and it is therefore unsurprising that he held such convictions (Thoreau).
Works Cited
Biddle, David. Colin Kaepernick and Non-violent Civil Disobedience. The Coffeelicious, 2016. Web.
Brownlee, Kimberley. "Civil Disobedience." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition). Web.
Rosenberg, Michael. "Colin Kaepernick Is Recipient of 2017 Sports Illustrated Muhammad Ali Legacy Award." Sports Illustrated, 2017. Web.
Thoreau, Henry David. Civil Disobedience. Broadview Press, 2016. Print.
Victor, Daniel. "Obama Says Colin Kaepernick Is 'Exercising His Constitutional Right.'" The New York Times, 2016. Web.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.