Article Summary

In his article, Abdul-Jabbar Brought in the question of racial discrimination much naturally and
in a matter-of-factly way. He begins the article by taking two instances of Kaepernick and
Kendricks’s controversial acts of patriotism at the Olympics, to build up an argument of what is
patriotic and what isn’t, and bring attention to the underlying racial problem in America. He
highlights the historical instances of political dissent that athletes with a stage have used to
express their concerns and views about the government like LeBron James, Mohammed Ali, Jim
Brown, Kevin Garnett, Alan Anderson, and even Vietnam veterans. He ends the article by
bringing the attention back towards Kaepernick’s act and justifies it as a commendable act that
the readers must consider as it highlights the existence of racism in the USA.

Rhetorical analysis
This is a rhetorical analysis of Abdul-Jabbar's article “Abdul-Jabbar: Insulting Colin Kaepernick
says more about our patriotism than his” in the Washington Post. This essay will analyze Abdul-
Jabbar's use of ethos, pathos, and logos to make his argument. Critically analyzing how he makes
use of the three appeals; this essay will argue that the author was successfully in painting a
powerful and effective narrative.
Beginning with Kaepernick and Kendrick, the author analyzes both sides of the story fairly to
carefully make the readers understand the both athletes’ intention and the validity of those
intentions. Instead of taking sides, author makes it a point to acknowledge both athletes’ emotion
and right to express themselves. The author also draws attention to the bravery exhibited by both
Keapernick and Kendrick as they risked their performance, and reputation, respectively, for their
choices with the statement, “We should admire those who risk personal gain in the service of
promoting the values of their country.” Doing so and using his platform to talk racism –
something that was the actual inspiration behind Kaepernick’s act – makes him appear aware,
ethical and favorable in the eyes of the reader. His objective use of similar events over the years
involving athletes expressing themselves with their constitutional freedoms, and the veterans'
response to government's flag desecration amendment highlight’s his objectivity as a spectator.
Raising the question of why the readers deem the two athletes’ expression differently, the author
not only makes the reader face with an ethical question – why criticize some endorsing anti-
racism sentiment? – but also make a pathos appeal at the same time. As a downside, the lack of
sources used other than those explaining Kaeapernick’s statement, the original intent of the flag
desecration amendment, decreases his argument’s impact. However, his reputation as a
prominent sports personality and as a former cultural ambassador, combined with the publishing
newpaper's reputation adds to his narrative’s credibility. Therefore, the author’s overall use of
the ethos appeal can be rated as fairly effective.
Starting with “Both Kendricks and Kaepernick chose to express their patriotism publicly because
they felt that inspiring others was more important than the personal cost.”, Abdul-Jabbar first
incites the pathos appeal. Similarly, the statements, “What should horrify Americans is not
Kaepernick’s choice to remain seated during the national anthem, but that nearly 50 years after
Ali was banned from boxing for his stance and Tommie Smith and John Carlos’s raised fists
caused public ostracization and numerous death threats, we still need to call attention to the same
racial inequities.” and “Failure to fix this problem is what’s really un-American here”, referring
to racism in America demonstrates the intention behind the article perfectly by using the value of
emotions to incite emotions within the audience, leaving them with something to think about by
the end of it. This shows that the intention of this article is mostly driven by emotions with the
involvement of themes of racism and patriotism at its center, making the overall pathos appeal
the biggest strength of this article.
Moving on to logos, Abdul-Jabbar did not even make an argument to state the obvious racial
discrimination prevalent in America, but rather used his words to persuade his audience to think
about the core objectivity of political dissent and expression used by athletes to bring attention to
the subject. He posed the question – If praising Kendrick for respecting his country’s national
anthem is patriotic, why not take a step back to think why Kaepernick chose not to stand for the
national anthem? What makes his argument logical is explaining the context of his act –
something that he shouldn’t have to, but at the same time something that made it possible for the
audience to reflect on their own hypocrisy. This is where his use of logos and pathos seamlessly
overlap. Abdul-Jabbar's use of logos can be seen by stating the facts of historically significant
events like – “in 1967 with Muhammad Ali refusing to be drafted to fight other people of color”
and, “at the 1968 Olympics, African Americans Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists
during the medal ceremony as a protest to the treatment of people of color in the United States.
In 2014, NBA players LeBron James, Kyrie Irving, Jarrett Jack, Alan Anderson, Deron Williams
and Kevin Garnett and NFL players from the Rams and Browns wore “I Can’t Breathe” shirts
during warm-ups for a game to protest police killings of unarmed blacks” show that political
expression by athletes have been carried out for decades now, and it is something that is
necessary to make change. After his pathos appeal, this use of logos can be considered as the
second-best aspect of Abdul-Jabbar's article, showing his successful use of the logos appeal as
well.

The main theme of this article is political expression in athletics and the duality of its nature that
is often misinterpreted by the public. Overall, Abdul-Jabbar's argument is largely reliant on the
pathos appeal of the rhetorical triangle. He uses emotion as his weapon, all the while maintaining
an objective stance. He draws on the hypocrisy of people dissing Kaepernick for his freedom of
expression, just for it being used to express a view different from theirs, in the least non-
patronizing way. He especially makes a point of a personal cost involved in such acts he deems
patriotic in every sense. Throughout, Abdul-Jabbar successfully makes his case by logically
appealing to people’s emotions by making them come face-to-face with their own stance on
racism as they criticize Keapernick. As for logos, he makes a point to point out that people are
entitled to their own use of freedom of expression by stating political expression in athletics is
not a new concept – helping them be reasonable all the while giving them a reality check.