Football, Metaphors, the Flag and Free Speech

As a life-long sports fan, one of the most commonly-used words that that I've consistently heard sportscasters use is momentum. A team that shows a winning trend has momentum. A team that was playing well but has demonstrated a downturn, a regression in their play, has lost momentum. We've all heard this, I'm sure.

But what is momentum exactly?

Those who know physics understand exactly what momentum is. And if you Google momentum, you will get a definition like the following:
"...a quantity of motion, measured as a product of mass times velocity."

So momentum is literally the mass of an object (mass is a quality that, for simplicity, can be thought of as weight) multiplied by its velocity (that is, speed of motion).

Now, does a sports team literally have momentum? No. The term  momentum, which is too frequently over used and almost just as frequently is misunderstood, it has no literal meaning in sports. A team has no measurable mass and no measurable velocity; thus it has no literal momentum.

Momentum in this sports usage is a metaphor. Googling the word metaphor gives the following definition:

met·a·phor

ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/

noun: metaphor; plural noun: metaphors

1) a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

"“I had fallen through a trapdoor of depression,” said Mark, who was fond of theatrical metaphors"

synonyms:

figure of speech, image, trope, analogy, comparison, symbol, word painting/picture "the profusion of metaphors in her everyday speech has gotten pretty tiresome"

2) a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.

"the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a metaphor for an industry that was teetering"

So in the common sports usage, metaphor is defined using definition number one, above. It is a term that makes the intangible qualities of a winning team on a hot streak -- qualities such as confidence or consistently good execution -- more tangible. After all, most of us understand the feeling, power and difficulty of stopping a sledge hammer in motion. That's real momentum.

Now consider the second definition of metaphor, above. Then think of the flag of the USA: the stars and stripes. Do U.S. soldiers fight for the flag? Perhaps in the minds of some, they do. But do they really? No. They fight for the United States of America. Some, who are prone to deeper thought, may know that they fight (or should fight) for the ideals of the USA, which are stated in the U.S. Constitution.

Among these hallowed and cherished ideals include those spelled out in the Bill of Rights: the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The very first amendment in the Bill of Rights includes the explicit right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.

Why was this the first explicit addition to the constitution? Setting freedom of religion aside for this discussion (though very important, Mr. Trump), both freedom of speech and freedom of the press (which has been appropriately expanded to include all mass media) are necessary to have a public awareness and debate on pertinent issues of the day. If only the government has free speech and control of the facts on any given issue, then you end up being, in effect, the United States of North Korea in America. Nobody with a brain wants that!

This brings us back to football -- NFL football. There is currently much ado, anger, hubbub and general apoplexy surrounding players' activities during the playing of the national anthem.

Some of the assertions made about these players' activities during the anthem (sitting, kneeling, standing and holding hands, etc.) are as follows:

• They are disrespecting the flag
• They are disrespecting soldiers who have fought for the flag
• They are disrespecting the U.S.A.

First of all, all the hubbub surrounding the national anthem and the flag are misplaced concerns. Remember the Pledge of Allegiance that many of us repeated daily in grade school? Recalling that, it should be more clear to all that it is not really the flag that is the issue. To quote the Pledge of Allegiance, the issue is "the republic for which it stands." (Gasp!) The flag is a metaphor for the republic itself! So is the national anthem: it's a metaphor, a symbol for the nation.

Secondly, the U.S. Supreme Court has officially ruled that actions against the flag -- in their most extreme, flag burning -- are legal expressions of free speech. (Remember? That pesky and troublesome first amendment to the U.S. Constitution?) Implied in this court ruling is that when one burns or otherwise "disrespects" a symbol of the U.S.A., it is not a literal attack on the country. It is a form of political speech. Many are confused about this distinction, just as many sports fans don't understand that momentum in a game is also a metaphor, just a way of speaking to try to make a point.

So if one "disrespects" the flag or the anthem, they are making a general statement of dissatisfaction with the republic. There's nothing wrong that; we aren't perfect -- there's room for improvement. However, though legal, there is a small problem with expressions of protest involving the U.S. flag or the anthem: they are ambiguous: unspecific and easily misinterpreted -- misinterpreted either accidentally (through ignorance or stupidity) or intentionally (through slyness, ignorance, stupidity, or some combination).

Colin Kapernick's original stated beef was (I hope I'm getting this right) that people of color are still experiencing unequal and unjust treatment under the law and in everyday society. His point was, I suggest, that the ideals of the U.S.A. are not being reflected in actuality throughout the land. He has publicly stated as much! Yet far too many interpret his sitting or kneeling during the nation anthem as one of the three bullets listed above -- simple issues of disrespect.

By some taking such interpretive license with Kapernick's actions (and subsequently those of other NFL participants), they are successfully avoiding his issue -- and yet he does have a point. Instead, by ignoring his stated concerns and instead getting worked up about the general issue of disrespect (for flag, soldiers, or country) is a misplacement of one's umbrage. It's easier for many to dismiss the real issue and instead diminish the protester as a kind of ad hominem argument. After all, if a protester is categorized as a disrespectful jerk, then one feels free to disregard his main point on its actual merits.

If no one is free to criticize the country, government or individual politicians, then we have abridged the First Amendment. If we have done that, then we have diminished our ability to protect our freedom. 

The flag and the anthem are metaphors. If some soldiers literally fight for the flag, well, I respect their honor, their heroism and their (misplaced) intentions, but it is not and never has been about fighting for the flag. The flag (and the anthem) are merely symbols of the intangibles, the republic for which they really stand: the best implementation of the Constitution that we can do -- including, by the way, the First Amendment granting us the freedom of speech and a free and uncensored press. 

If we are not allowed to demonstrate displeasure with symbols, then we have lost the freedom of speech, and the flag and the anthem become hollow icons for ideals that we have misplaced.