Can someone rewrite this to make it sound more like a summary? And maybe shorten it to 250 words? In his Atlantic article “Civil Rights Protest have never been popular” essayist Coates starts his argument by stating things other people have said including a quoted paragraph of Kaepernick‘s article. After quoting part of Kaepernick‘s article he goes on about Kaepernick some more and about how he disagrees with Kaepernick about athletes making a tactical mistake. He says that Kaepernick covered lots of ground in his article but not all of it “thoroughly”. he said the Leonhardt implies a seamless chain of events and doesn’t talk about the actual effects of the events. Paragraph nine of Coates' article is where he starts his argument by saying that people who think the civil rights movement was popular are wrong and that history proves it. He goes on to say that Leonhardt is a smart and knowledgeable columnist and that he is surprised to see Leonhardt fall for the myth that the CRM was popular. But then he says that Leonhardt's column seems less interested in offering an accurate apprehension of the civil rights movement than in employing the civil rights movement as a club against radicalism in general. In his next paragraph he says Whatever symbols they adopted, civil rights activists - like black activists today - were never able to connect with the majority of adults of their time. It wasn't a clean or uniting procedure. In truth, it was responsible for the demise of Roosevelt and Truman's Democratic Party. Then he says that our goal is not to change the minds of the people who boo at us but to change the minds of their children. Kaepernick did not inaugurate his protest in hopes of helping elect more centrist Democrats or any kind of Democrat. When his initial efforts were met with disdain and deemed disrespectful, he consulted a group of veterans to see how he might better pursue a protest. That is the origin of Kaepernick kneeling. If young people attempting to board a bus are considered unacceptable, if gathering on the National Mall is prohibited, and if preaching nonviolence results in you being persecuted, what kind of protest is white America willing to put up with?It's almost as though the protest manner isn't the underlying issue.