I can concede the controversy. I think you are correct in a literal sense. Then I ask you. By definition, what form of protest would not be controversial. Controversy is implicit in protest isn't it? Protest must take a form of antagonism to some structural norm; its the essence of protest. Ghandi's peaceful protest was among the most controversial protests in colonial history (and successful) as was Tutu's and MLK. How was Kaep's silent protest demonstrably or substantively different?
On the scale of American protests where does it rank. Is there any controversy that it was peaceful? Did he attempt to demonstrate respect by modifying the protest after taking counsel of a vet?
I can concede that it was controversial in fact; but the connotation of controversy was expanded beyond its literal meaning and its those implied meanings I differ with.
You asked an honest question and I'll answer it honestly. I don't think Kaep was particulary informed about Castro. I do not think we hold ignorance to the same standard as malice. The author in your article implied that their was an intent and malice that I don't believe was ever present.
What you may or may or may not be aware of was that image had made a sort of resurgence in the black community.
Couple of dates that may inform:
“Fidel and Malcom X: Memories of a Meeting” published in paperback may of 2013
9-18-2015
http://www.history.com/news/fidel-castros-wild-new-york-visit-55-years-ago
the book was published in spanish on 2016.03.16
http://www.radioenciclopedia.cu/cul...ng-was-recently-presented-in-havana-20160316/
3.21.2016
https://newrepublic.com/article/131793/castro-came-harlem
3.24.2016
https://polyhedrus.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/fidel-castro-and-malcolm-x-to-legends-together/
5.19.2016
http://www.vibe.com/2016/05/historic-meeting-malcolm-x-fidel-castro-harlem-1960/
A few months later Kaep is seen wearing the shirt, says he wore it for X and the rest is documented in both links we posted.
"ellu, are you saying that Kaepernick's words and tone do not show that he was trying to escape the accusation of hypocricy from the Herald reporter by pointing out what he thought were good things by Castro?"
No more so than our current President was by equating American Patriots with Russian murderers. It was an ill fitted false equivalency born of ignorance but not malice. However, the fact of mass incarceration remains.
(post script - The following is rhetorical and in no way is directed to you, but is a demonstration of the rhetorical device used by Armando.)
"I will close by saying that if someone in America is upset by the way they are being treated because of race...they have the option to leave. "
Unpack your statement. Unpack it the way that Armando unpacked the shirt. Ignore your stated intent in the statement (juxtaposition of inequality of Cuba and America) and focus on a singular side of the statement's union. Are you saying that if black's don't like racism they can leave? Are we to revisit the Liberian experiment (if unfamiliar google Liberia and it's history). Are you a Marcus Garvey enthusiast? Are you saying that we should follow the path of Abraham Lincoln and start a colony in Central America to deport blacks, the basic implication being that white and black can never coexist.
Are you implying that this unique set of completely homogenized folks should abrogate that forced history in lieu of fighting the wrongness from which it was born?
See what rhetoric can come from ignoring both sides of an argument to advance one?
During F Castro's reign I am sure you knew the consequences of leaving.....suffice to say....it didnt mirror America's policy
There are 1.5 million Cubans in exile. 1.5 million that were able to leave; thats an aggregate figure. There are currently 750,000 black men in prison. They can't leave. That choice you offer does not exist. The 13th amendment does not apply to them. The aggregate number of blacks in the carceral state is exponential of 750k.
Its not close.
My ultimate point is the reaction to the protest is not a reaction on substance but is a reaction to either the form or awareness.
The t-shirt was rhetoric, rhetoric born of privilege by some, ignorance by the wearer and ignorance of those who were angered by the wearer's ignorance.
I do thank you for civil discourse, its absent often. We can disagree without being disagreeable (though that can be fun too).