Civil Disobedience: Thoreau and Kaepernick Compared

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).

Conscience Over the Law

In analyzing Thoreau's thinking, it is apparent that one must prioritize conscience over state laws. Thoreau's work offers a sharp criticism of American institutions and their policies, particularly regarding slavery and the war with Mexico. He argues that it is rare for government to demonstrate its usefulness, and that the authority held by the government is drawn from the majority — not because the majority's viewpoint is necessarily correct (Thoreau, 1). He contends that everyone is obligated first to do what is right and then to follow the law — not the reverse. If the government begins to inflict injustice upon its people, those people must decline to obey the law and create a rift between themselves and the government. There is no obligation to eliminate all evil from the world, but there is an obligation not to participate in such evil. Therefore, one must choose not to be part of an unjust institution. Thoreau points to the U.S. government as a prime example of such an institution, given its support for slavery.

Kaepernick's actions align directly with the idea of prioritizing conscience over the law. He followed his conscience and refused to stand when the national anthem was played, treating it as a symbol of an oppressive institution. His action brought the issue of racial relations to the fore with considerable force. Many people — including some speaking from ignorance — commented on the athlete's actions, some arguing that he was wrong. However, a closer analysis reveals that most criticism amounted to saying they would not agree with him unless he avoided challenging anyone (Biddle). Such a stance effectively supported claims from some quarters that there is no real problem with the American criminal justice system as far as race relations are concerned.

According to Thoreau, government is unlikely to change as a result of petitioning alone. He offers his own personal experience as a model of how government can be compelled toward justice. Thoreau refused to pay taxes in protest of slavery and spent a night in jail as a consequence. Ideologically, he succeeded in delinking himself from a government that was promoting injustice (Thoreau, 5). He argues that such protest has a greater impact than reform advocacy pursued from within the oppressive institution itself, and that it is not easy to see the true character of government when one is still part of it.

Kaepernick similarly refused to participate in the rituals of an institution he viewed as oppressive. He still had a full career ahead of him — the prospect of more earnings and greater achievements — yet he chose to delink himself from an unjust system. In August 2016, a number of people who had passed unnoticed in life became symbols of injustice in death: Eric Garner, Philando Castile, Freddie Gray, and Alton Sterling all lost their lives under deeply troubling circumstances involving agents of the state (Rosenberg). Kaepernick chose to take a seat during the national anthem before a preseason game against the Texans. The media did not ask him why for nearly two weeks. When he was finally approached, he explained that he was protesting social injustice and inequality — that he was deeply uncomfortable with how his country treated Black people and people of color, and that the issue was far bigger than his football career.

Conclusion

Civil disobedience may invariably be seen as recourse for people when the systems set for engagement between citizens are dysfunctional or have broken down. Such breakdown qualifies as a deficit in democracy. Dialogue is unavoidable in a democratic setting, and when disobedience is employed to correct those deficits, it is often understood as an expression of sensitivity to democratic ideals rather than a rejection of them. Thoreau's advocacy for civil disobedience in the face of democratic deficits is as relevant today as it has ever been. Kaepernick's case is a compelling, contemporary example of precisely this stance — a refusal to comply with the dictates of an unjust government and its unjust laws.

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.