I’ve been mulling over a piece of mail I received a few days ago regarding Brandon Marshall:
Colin Kaepernick may have started the kneeling in protest of America’s national anthem, but Stephen Martin, owner of Prime Time Sports in Colorado Springs, Colorado, has started a patriotic rising unlike anything that’s ever been done before.
Martin first took a stand when NFL player Brandon Marshall refused to stand for the anthem. Immediately, Martin cancelled Marshall’s scheduled autograph signing event in his store. But he wasn’t done. He replaced the star’s event with something entirely different in his store, and in one week, it has grown to epic proportions that he can hardly even keep up with now.
He put out a post on Facebook, respectfully disagreeing with the disrespect of the nation’s flag and anthem, then proceeded to explain just what the flag means to him, and the sacrifice of all the men and women who have fought for it. Martin invited people to send photos of their loved ones who are veterans, in active service, or who have been injured or given their lives in the line of duty.
The photos started pouring in from all across the country, and as fast as they were emailed, Martin printed them off and taped them to his store front window. Americans are sharing their photos and stories on his Facebook page, as well as sending to him through email, and each day he has posted photos of the progress.
Getting past the obvious (and annoying) hyperbole, I cannot help but think that no one is really communicating here. Clearly, Mr. Marshall was attempting to communicate his disgust with the behaviors of too many members of one of the official organs of the American state: police.
Mr. Martin wrote a Facebook post (now inaccessible, according to one site I checked) explaining his position on the flag, which he’s apparently associating with the anthem, but since I can’t read it, it’s hard to evaluate. From the mail, I have chosen to conclude that the anthem & flag are inviolable in Mr. Martin’s mind, a position which hinders communication, as every action taken to disrespect the flag & anthem are now lumped into a single category, best labeled State blasphemy!, since men & women have died defending it. By being offended at any show of disrespect for an important symbol, there is little chance to communicate important observations and ideas; the attempts are ignored because, well, one’s feelings for the flag are far more important than anything else.
Today, I ran across this CNN report on recent activities at Hampshire College:
Hampshire College, a liberal arts institution of about 1,400 students, has taken some heat after deciding not to fly the US flag. A day after the presidential election, the Massachusetts college sided with students who lowered the flag to half-staff. The administration wanted to build student rapport and facilitate discussion on what the flag represents. That angered some people in the Amherst community, where the college is located. And when someone lit the campus’ US flag on fire November 10, many more pushed back after the college decided to do away with flying the American flag, at least temporarily.
But here’s what really caught my attention:
“Our goal is to give voice to the range of viewpoints on campus across cultures, and hopefully find common ground,” [school spokesman John] Courtmanche said in a statement. “We’ve heard from members of our community that, for them and for many in our country, the flag is a powerful symbol of fear they’ve felt all their lives because they grew up as people of color, never feeling safe. For others, it’s a symbol of their highest aspirations for the country.”
Emphasis mine. A simple school statement comes out so direct and elegant, doesn’t it? I don’t think Mr. Marshall disrespected the anthem & flag for the sake of being disrespectful, but because, for him and others of color, the symbol is a negative. I think Mr. Martin missed a wonderful opportunity to engage in a public discussion of why the flag can enrapture some, while fill others with fear. Instead, and discarding this opportunity to engage in hyperbole, Mr. Martin retreated to defending a quasi-absolute which, honestly, has no need for defense. I fear, in fact, that by retreating to a position of defending the flag, he and those who support him have disregarded the message, important as it is, while they hasten to print and tape up photographs of honorable servicemen. Indeed, it occurs to me that this might be best described as cheap victimization, a focus on anything other than the message.
I rather dislike the phrase “call for change” and its ilk, because change has no direction to it, so I’m going to impute to Mr. Marshall this: I think he was calling for improvement. The flag should stand for an America that is eternally improving, aspiring to be that shining city on a hill, and by disrespecting it, he is suggesting that America has obvious areas urgently requiring improvement. Mr. Martin missed his opportunity in order to engage in some meaningless patriotism.
Hampshire College did not miss that opportunity. When it comes to the highest ideals of college life, they did not fail. And, by their action, America will improve.
