Nebraska's Michael Rose-Ivey receives racial backlash for anthem protest

[ColoNoCoHusker]

There's something big happening and I think we need to look at the possibility that it's good.

I think guys like Ricketts and Daub took the kind of position they have taken their whole lives, and fully expected the bedrock majority in our conservative state to welcome their comments. It was the initial first reaction of a lot of people. Good people who don't think they're racist.

Maybe Ricketts and Daub and others immediately outraged didn't expect the blowback to go against them. Not the politically correct blowback some try to blame on media orchestration, but a genuine seismic shift of a younger generation who shrug these things off, and a boomer generation that has have lived long enough to realize their personal experience doesn't dictate everyone else's.

Knee jerk reactions are giving in to reappraisals. People are figuring out they can live with more differences than they thought. Combat veterans aren't speaking with one voice, and neither are BLM supporters. The coach is speaking more about unity than division. The football player in question is meeting with the Governor.

Honestly, for as much as people hate these kind of threads, I'm pretty impressed with the level of discourse on a Husker football fan site.

Michael Rose-Ivey certainly wasn't wrong doing what he did for the reasons he stated.

What exactly do you mean by the part in bold? That anyone who disagrees with CK or others protesting the anthem are racist? Please, explain your rationale.

Yeah, that whole paragraph comes off like a passive aggressive form of calling conservatives racist.

If you are referring to Social Conservatives, then typically by definition, these people defend institutions, systems, beliefs, and traditions that are discriminatory to other groups. While those people may not intend to be racist or discriminatory, it can often be a direct consequence. If you are talking Fiscal Conservatives, I think that is an invalid connection.

That said, the way I interpreted Guy's statement is Conscious vs Unconscious Discrimination. The latter happens all the time and it's important everyone is constantly evaluating our positions. This is also a big part of what is driving the protests...

That is a bunch of BS. You can be Socially Conservative and have views such as being pro-life that have nothing to do with racism. Again, this is the pattern pushed in our society that tries to portray Conservatives as being racist. In doing so, the progressive movement is seeking to create a stigma around those who may have fundamental disagreements on a topic that have nothing to do with racism.

Like math, English is only as precise as you make it.

A person can be Socially Conservative and be pro-life, or pro-choice for that matter. Mostly because pro-life and Social Conservatism are only tied together by explicit political parties (Repuplican, Christian Liberty, etc) or by individuals.

I can be Fiscally Conservative & Socially Liberal. The US Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights, is the world's foremost Progressive & Liberal document but yet it does not belong to the Democratic party...

Please read up on Social Conservatism and Social Progressivism. You seem to assume that your view of the Replican Party platform is the definition of Conservative. It most assuredly is not.

And defending an institution or system that is discriminatory is defending discrimination, even if unintentional.

 

[NM11046]

OK....I have a problem claiming the "National Anthem" is racist. The words that are sang at baseball parks and other sporting events do not have those words in it. Now....maybe the original "Star Spangle Banner" had racist parts in it. But, that is not what is commonly recognized as the "National Anthem".

The US is continuing to evolve and has come one HELL of a long ways from where it was. Yes, it has more improvement to do.

However, in a few weeks I am going to go to Germany for a week on business. Somewhere I was given something to read about the trip that warns me to be prepared for more actual segregation and other racial issues that we are no longer accustomed to here in the US.

Even though the National Anthem represents a country that does have racism in it and that racism is not acceptable, we are WAY better than many places around the world.

I don't think you'll find that in Germany. I've found on most of my trips outside the US that race problems are glaringly better elsewhere than here.

Have fun btw - that should be a great trip! Its' a beautiful country.

 

[Mierin]

Fair enough. Good response.

What it comes down to for me, is why pick the national anthem, a time where you are supposed to stand and honor your country, as a time to protest? There are many more respectful ways to protest. In the 60s, peaceful protests were in less controversial settings, and look at what happened then. They don't need the anthem to protest.

I think your answer is in how much attention this has gotten, and also the reaction to when people actually do have peaceful protests out on the street.

One thing I hadn't thought of until literally at this moment was how MLK protested in the streets. This could open a whole can of worms. I don't agree with people running onto the freeway and blocking the highway. But I have a feeling MLK didn't get the rights from the city council to hold a parade in those towns. I'm guessing they just went and did it. I think people would react similarly to this but it wouldn't get nationwide attention so it wouldn't be as effective as what these players are doing.

I wonder what would happen if a parade was requested on O Street in Lincoln for this.

 

[Landlord]

This is how I feel. It is not racist to be against what the players did, but the conversation that has followed here and all over the U.S. has shown that quite a few people are against it for racist reasons. Namely the people who say they have nothing to protest against.

Oy vey.
Am I being called racist even after saying multiple times that I am not racist, and that I agree racism is a problem? That is what Landlord seems to be saying. I am from Texas, and the vast majority of people there are not racist, I am not going to feed any stereotypes. However, I have also seen some racism there. some of it pretty bad, to the point where it even offended me, and I am white. So do not open your mouth to call someone racist if they have not said a single racist thing.

Read what I wrote again. My comment wasn't aimed at you.

I referred to Landlord in my entire post, not you. I quoted you by accident when I meant to quote him, my apologies for the misunderstanding.

I didn't say anything to you. I asked you a question, which I'm still hoping you'll respond to.

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

The lyrics were written in 1814. Either way, the racist implications are long gone.

The problem with this statement is that people all over (in the U.S. and in this thread) are talking about what the song means to justify how upset they are at what these players are doing. If the song doesn't mean what its lyrics mean, then am I allowed to just make it up as I go and then read into the players' minds and say they hate soldiers?

There is a reason why said racist lyrics are not sung before sporting events. If they were, people would have taken a knee a very long time ago, and I would have supported it. Either way, nobody has said that the anthem itself is the reason why they are on their knee.

And I'm not saying anyone has said that the anthem itself is the reason why they are on their knee.

But the premise for people's anger, that the players are disrespecting soldiers, is based on what people think the flag and the national anthem mean and stand for. Therefore people discuss what the flag and the national anthem mean and stand for. So it is definitely relevant that there are racists parts of the anthem.

Fair enough. Good response.

What it comes down to for me, is why pick the national anthem, a time where you are supposed to stand and honor your country, as a time to protest? There are many more respectful ways to protest. In the 60s, peaceful protests were in less controversial settings, and look at what happened then. They don't need the anthem to protest.

I do not see how that was less controversial...

 

[RedDenver]

What it comes down to for me, is why pick the national anthem, a time where you are supposed to stand and honor your country, as a time to protest? There are many more respectful ways to protest. In the 60s, peaceful protests were in less controversial settings, and look at what happened then. They don't need the anthem to protest.

The reason for choosing the anthem as a time for protest is going to vary by individual. First, it's about drawing attention to the issue. Second, it's about drawing attention to the fact that the issue is a national one. If you're an athlete who wants to draw attention to an issue of national importance, protesting during the anthem is going to accomplish that. Finally, if many athletes perform the same or similar protest, it will get more attention. So now that kneeling in protest has brought attention, more athletes doing it will continue to bring more attention and keep that attention for longer. Of course, these are just my opinions.

 

[GBRHouston]

Fair enough. Good response.

What it comes down to for me, is why pick the national anthem, a time where you are supposed to stand and honor your country, as a time to protest? There are many more respectful ways to protest. In the 60s, peaceful protests were in less controversial settings, and look at what happened then. They don't need the anthem to protest.

I think your answer is in how much attention this has gotten, and also the reaction to when people actually do have peaceful protests out on the street.

One thing I hadn't thought of until literally at this moment was how MLK protested in the streets. This could open a whole can of worms. I don't agree with people running onto the freeway and blocking the highway. But I have a feeling MLK didn't get the rights from the city council to hold a parade in those towns. I'm guessing they just went and did it. I think people would react similarly to this but it wouldn't get nationwide attention so it wouldn't be as effective as what these players are doing.

I wonder what would happen if a parade was requested on O Street in Lincoln for this.

I will not argue the fact that this has gotten a crap ton of attention, because it obviously has. Why else would we be talking about it. However, it is in such a controversial way that it can almost be thought of as selfish. Had CK done it once, issued a statement similar to what MRI did, and then let that be that and get back to standing, that would have garnered enough national attention.

As for the parade down O Street, assuming it would be without permission, that would be a disturbance arrest regardless of race. If it was with permission, then that would be that.

 

[GBRHouston]

What it comes down to for me, is why pick the national anthem, a time where you are supposed to stand and honor your country, as a time to protest? There are many more respectful ways to protest. In the 60s, peaceful protests were in less controversial settings, and look at what happened then. They don't need the anthem to protest.

The reason for choosing the anthem as a time for protest is going to vary by individual. First, it's about drawing attention to the issue. Second, it's about drawing attention to the fact that the issue is a national one. If you're an athlete who wants to draw attention to an issue of national importance, protesting during the anthem is going to accomplish that. Finally, if many athletes perform the same or similar protest, it will get more attention. So now that kneeling in protest has brought attention, more athletes doing it will continue to bring more attention and keep that attention for longer. Of course, these are just my opinions.

Kind of like I said in my response to Moraine, is it worth pissing off half of the population? The other half of the population that they don't piss off were probably on their side in the first place. The people that they did piss off are not going to change their minds, it is only going to make matters worse because they disagree with kneeling during the anthem. Sure it brings attention to the issue, but is it positive or negative?

 

[Mierin]

Fair enough. Good response.

What it comes down to for me, is why pick the national anthem, a time where you are supposed to stand and honor your country, as a time to protest? There are many more respectful ways to protest. In the 60s, peaceful protests were in less controversial settings, and look at what happened then. They don't need the anthem to protest.

I think your answer is in how much attention this has gotten, and also the reaction to when people actually do have peaceful protests out on the street.

One thing I hadn't thought of until literally at this moment was how MLK protested in the streets. This could open a whole can of worms. I don't agree with people running onto the freeway and blocking the highway. But I have a feeling MLK didn't get the rights from the city council to hold a parade in those towns. I'm guessing they just went and did it. I think people would react similarly to this but it wouldn't get nationwide attention so it wouldn't be as effective as what these players are doing.

I wonder what would happen if a parade was requested on O Street in Lincoln for this.

I will not argue the fact that this has gotten a crap ton of attention, because it obviously has. Why else would we be talking about it. However, it is in such a controversial way that it can almost be thought of as selfish. Had CK done it once, issued a statement similar to what MRI did, and then let that be that and get back to standing, that would have garnered enough national attention.

As for the parade down O Street, assuming it would be without permission, that would be a disturbance arrest regardless of race. If it was with permission, then that would be that.

But you were just referring to peaceful protests in the 1960s. When I think peaceful protests in the 1960s, I think of MLK in leading large groups of people through city streets, in the deep south where the city council would not have approved it.

 

[Landlord]

Protestors riot: White people get angry, condemn it, say it needs to be a different time/place. Violence isn't the answer.

Protestors kneel during the anthem: White people get angry, condemn it, say it needs to be a different time/place. It's disrespecting our fallen soldiers.

Protesters sit in at whites only restaurant: White people get angry, condemn it, say it needs to be a different time/place. It's fine if you want to protest, but not while we're trying to eat.

Protesters raise a black fisted glove on medal podium at Olympics: White people get angry, condemn it, say it needs to be a different time/place. The Olympics should be about unity!

Protesters march during rush hour stopping traffic: White people get angry, condemn it, say it needs to be a different time/place. It does more harm than good and just makes people angry if you inconvenience them.

Protesters put hands up in solidarity before St. Louis Rams game: White people get angry, condemn it, say it needs to be a different time/place. Why can't we just play sports and leave the political stuff to somewhere else?

Protesters wear t-shirts that read "I can't breathe," before a sporting event: White people get angry, condemn it, say it needs to be a different time/place. A basketball game isn't the platform for social justice.

Protesters make passionate speech on BET: White people get angry, condemn it, say it needs to be a different time/place. Why isn't that reverse racism? Can you imagine if there was a White Entertainment Awards?!

Protesters disrupt political rally: White people get angry, condemn it, say it needs to be a different time/place. That's not your platform, don't steal someone else's









Pray tell. What is an acceptable venue and time and method for protests to happen? Anyone? Keep in mind the entire point of a protest is to draw the public's attention to something that the public wants to ignore, so "In your basement by yourself" isn't really a valid answer.

 

[GBRHouston]

Fair enough. Good response.

What it comes down to for me, is why pick the national anthem, a time where you are supposed to stand and honor your country, as a time to protest? There are many more respectful ways to protest. In the 60s, peaceful protests were in less controversial settings, and look at what happened then. They don't need the anthem to protest.

I think your answer is in how much attention this has gotten, and also the reaction to when people actually do have peaceful protests out on the street.

One thing I hadn't thought of until literally at this moment was how MLK protested in the streets. This could open a whole can of worms. I don't agree with people running onto the freeway and blocking the highway. But I have a feeling MLK didn't get the rights from the city council to hold a parade in those towns. I'm guessing they just went and did it. I think people would react similarly to this but it wouldn't get nationwide attention so it wouldn't be as effective as what these players are doing.

I wonder what would happen if a parade was requested on O Street in Lincoln for this.

I will not argue the fact that this has gotten a crap ton of attention, because it obviously has. Why else would we be talking about it. However, it is in such a controversial way that it can almost be thought of as selfish. Had CK done it once, issued a statement similar to what MRI did, and then let that be that and get back to standing, that would have garnered enough national attention.

As for the parade down O Street, assuming it would be without permission, that would be a disturbance arrest regardless of race. If it was with permission, then that would be that.

But you were just referring to peaceful protests in the 1960s. When I think peaceful protests in the 1960s, I think of MLK in leading large groups of people through city streets, in the deep south where the city council would not have approved it.

Fair enough. Good response.

What it comes down to for me, is why pick the national anthem, a time where you are supposed to stand and honor your country, as a time to protest? There are many more respectful ways to protest. In the 60s, peaceful protests were in less controversial settings, and look at what happened then. They don't need the anthem to protest.

I think your answer is in how much attention this has gotten, and also the reaction to when people actually do have peaceful protests out on the street.

One thing I hadn't thought of until literally at this moment was how MLK protested in the streets. This could open a whole can of worms. I don't agree with people running onto the freeway and blocking the highway. But I have a feeling MLK didn't get the rights from the city council to hold a parade in those towns. I'm guessing they just went and did it. I think people would react similarly to this but it wouldn't get nationwide attention so it wouldn't be as effective as what these players are doing.

I wonder what would happen if a parade was requested on O Street in Lincoln for this.

I will not argue the fact that this has gotten a crap ton of attention, because it obviously has. Why else would we be talking about it. However, it is in such a controversial way that it can almost be thought of as selfish. Had CK done it once, issued a statement similar to what MRI did, and then let that be that and get back to standing, that would have garnered enough national attention.

As for the parade down O Street, assuming it would be without permission, that would be a disturbance arrest regardless of race. If it was with permission, then that would be that.

But you were just referring to peaceful protests in the 1960s. When I think peaceful protests in the 1960s, I think of MLK in leading large groups of people through city streets, in the deep south where the city council would not have approved it.

And I bet they were arrested. Either that, or forced to disperse.

 

[Mierin]

What it comes down to for me, is why pick the national anthem, a time where you are supposed to stand and honor your country, as a time to protest? There are many more respectful ways to protest. In the 60s, peaceful protests were in less controversial settings, and look at what happened then. They don't need the anthem to protest.

The reason for choosing the anthem as a time for protest is going to vary by individual. First, it's about drawing attention to the issue. Second, it's about drawing attention to the fact that the issue is a national one. If you're an athlete who wants to draw attention to an issue of national importance, protesting during the anthem is going to accomplish that. Finally, if many athletes perform the same or similar protest, it will get more attention. So now that kneeling in protest has brought attention, more athletes doing it will continue to bring more attention and keep that attention for longer. Of course, these are just my opinions.

Kind of like I said in my response to Moraine, is it worth pissing off half of the population? The other half of the population that they don't piss off were probably on their side in the first place. The people that they did piss off are not going to change their minds, it is only going to make matters worse because they disagree with kneeling during the anthem. Sure it brings attention to the issue, but is it positive or negative?

I've yet to see a protest that wouldn't piss off those people. Everyone says do it some other way. Well, the other ways are ways that everyone ignores. It's not like this is a new problem we're facing. It's been a problem for a long, long time and hasn't improved a lot.

 

[zoogs]

The people that they did piss off are not going to change their minds, it is only going to make maters worse

Don't confuse "I will not change my mind" with "nobody has changed their mind."

 

[Mierin]

And I bet they were arrested. Either that, or forced to disperse.

I think you're missing the point here. The options for protesting either piss people off (wrongly) or everyone ignores them.

 

[Landlord]

But you were just referring to peaceful protests in the 1960s. When I think peaceful protests in the 1960s, I think of MLK in leading large groups of people through city streets, in the deep south where the city council would not have approved it.

Yet another way that GBRHouston is trying to sanitize and de-radicalize MLK Jr.'s message and approach.

King didn't get permission for his marches and demonstrations. And he was thrown in prison dozens of times for it. Him and his ilk were beaten, assaulted, threatened, etc. People HATED him. Peaceful protests? What kind of fantasy revisionist 1960's are you referring to? Must not include the riots, the lynchings, the cop abuse, the murders, etc.