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

[HuskerNation1]

Ricketts' reaction was poor and completely unbefitting a governor. There's really no excuse for that.

The kids on the team who did this were thoughtful, conscientious, and earnest. They expressed their views politely and respectfully. Their teammates and coaches around them, many of whom I promise you disagree with protesting the anthem, gave them nothing but love and respect in return. Under Riley's leadership, it was more or less a clinic in class and coming together during a fraught time.

I'm glad the governor is now meeting with MRI. But initially, this was utterly tone-deaf on Ricketts' part. And a country mile worse on the part of Hal Daub.

Those of you defending Ricketts, this isn't about his free speech having been infringed. This is about you agreeing with his decision to step in and call these actions disgraceful on the same day the team itself put up such a wonderful display of unity and understanding.

But here's the thing...those of us who disagree with CK and MRI protesting the flag believe that action is disgraceful and disrespectful despite recognizing they have the right to do it. Heck, they can spit on the flag, burn it as has been done often in this country, etc... This country offers them that right, but it also offers other citizens, including an elected official, the right to voice his disagreement with their actions. So as I said before, this is a 2-way street.

What are you arguing against? No one is disputing free speech.

But there are some arguing with how Ricketts is using his freedom of speech, while bashing anyone who disagrees with how MRI is using his freedom of speech. See the hypocrisy. This is a debate and topic where there is going to be strong division no matter what others say.

So it is hypocrisy to criticize an elected official that publicly passes judgement on the legal and protected actions of a private citizen?!? Fun facts like one person makes/enforces Government policy and the other does not would have no bearing in this situation, correct?

Yes...just because you are an elected official does not mean you lose your right to express your views. I don't agree with the regent suggesting they should be kicked off the team, but that is not what Ricketts (the elected official) stated. I know our current POTUS has weighed in on controversial topics rather quickly...so are you suggesting he should not be doing that?

 

[Landlord]

I was fine with silent protests that are not hurting anything.

...except for the silent protest that didn't hurt anything last Saturday, apparently?

GBRHouston, I'd be curious to hear exactly where/how racism does still exist in this country, from your perspective? I hear a lot of people say something along the lines of, "Hey I'm not saying racism doesn't still exist", but then they spend pretty much all of their time refuting evidence of it existing.

 

[jsneb83]

Nebraska football represents the state of Nebraska. I do not care what people do in their own time. This "platform" that players think they are entitled to doesn't belong to them. These players do not speak for every person in Nebraska.

When they stand for the national anthem before football games, do they speak for every person in Nebraska as they're supposed to?

Well national pride is generally considered a good thing.

So's reflection. So's prayer. So's refusing to abide injustice.

I'm not saying they are not. Like I said the national anthem represents the good and bad, its just not the place for protest. You don't have to live in this country if you don't like it.
Would this take place on Saturday if another Sept 11 happened tomorrow? Does anyone remember what national pride felt like after that? Is that what it really takes to get it back?

Lastly, I'm still confused as to what this is achieving. Raising awareness? Raising awareness in order to what?

Did MLK sit down during the national anthem before he made a MEANINGFUL difference?

^^^^ Took the words right out of my mouth about anthem protests, I tried to say it as well as Herbie87 did and failed. Protest all you want, although I disagree with it. However, the national anthem is not the right way to protest, it is disrespectful to the people who made the country the way it is today. In the good ways of course, not the bad ways.

You mean white people? Or are you talking about the veterans, even the ones that support the players and are proud that they are utilizing their first amendment rights?

 

[Blackshirt96]

So my answer is you have no idea & make false claims. Got it thanks.

What was false about my explanation?

Its been laid out several times feel free to reread the posts.

 

[DrunkOffPunch]

MRI didn't protest the anthem. He was with the rest of the team, but just on a knee praying. His situation and CK's are different. At the end of the day it's causing the discussion to happen. Whether people agree or not on the matter is inconsequential. The fact that the discussion happening is what matters. GBR.

 

[RedDenver]

There are 2 sets of reactions going on here. Those that are upset about the protesters are reacting and others defending them for how they are choosing to voice their freedom of expression, and those that are upset at Ricketts and others defending him for how he chose to voice his freedoms. The point is that if you were initially defending the protesters and pushing back on those who disagreed with how they chose to express their freedoms, then don't turn around and whine about how Ricketts is choosing to express his freedoms.

I think I see what you're saying now. Tell me if this is accurate: You're saying that someone saying that the players should be kicked off the team is equivalent to someone saying that Daub/Rickett should be fired (kicked off their job). Is that a good summary of your intent?

 

[GBRHouston]

Ricketts' reaction was poor and completely unbefitting a governor. There's really no excuse for that.

The kids on the team who did this were thoughtful, conscientious, and earnest. They expressed their views politely and respectfully. Their teammates and coaches around them, many of whom I promise you disagree with protesting the anthem, gave them nothing but love and respect in return. Under Riley's leadership, it was more or less a clinic in class and coming together during a fraught time.

I'm glad the governor is now meeting with MRI. But initially, this was utterly tone-deaf on Ricketts' part. And a country mile worse on the part of Hal Daub.

Those of you defending Ricketts, this isn't about his free speech having been infringed. This is about you agreeing with his decision to step in and call these actions disgraceful on the same day the team itself put up such a wonderful display of unity and understanding.

But here's the thing...those of us who disagree with CK and MRI protesting the flag believe that action is disgraceful and disrespectful despite recognizing they have the right to do it. Heck, they can spit on the flag, burn it as has been done often in this country, etc... This country offers them that right, but it also offers other citizens, including an elected official, the right to voice his disagreement with their actions. So as I said before, this is a 2-way street.

What are you arguing against? No one is disputing free speech.

But there are some arguing with how Ricketts is using his freedom of speech, while bashing anyone who disagrees with how MRI is using his freedom of speech. See the hypocrisy. This is a debate and topic where there is going to be strong division no matter what others say.

So it is hypocrisy to criticize an elected official that publicly passes judgement on the legal and protected actions of a private citizen?!? Fun facts like one person makes/enforces Government policy and the other does not would have no bearing in this situation, correct?

Yes...just because you are an elected official does not mean you lose your right to express your views. I don't agree with the regent suggesting they should be kicked off the team, but that is not what Ricketts (the elected official) stated. I know our current POTUS has weighed in on controversial topics rather quickly...so are you suggesting he should not be doing that?

I agree with you. I love how freedom of speech is "a great thing" until people say they don't support the anthem protests. Freedom of speech goes out the window for us who don't support according to a lot of people.

 

[knapplc]

I'm going to type a new response. MRI is both right and wrong. Pete Ricketts is both right and wrong. I am glad they are meeting up and discussing this, hopefully they both learn something from this. I agree that racism does exist in our country. I do hope that changes. However, the national anthem is not the time or place to protest it. I was fine with silent protests that are not hurting anything. However, our country is not the reason racism exists, and by kneeling for the anthem, that is what they seem like they are saying. Protest on the street all you want, I hope there is change. Don't take it out on the country as a whole.

In much the same way that a sporting event is not the time or place for the national anthem. A Nebraska football game has nothing at all to do with American pride, love of country, respect of the military, etc. Those things have been conflated by wrong-minded people over the years, and it should stop.

Why don't we sing the anthem before the movie starts at a theater?

Why don't we sing the anthem before wedding receptions begin?

Why don't we sing the anthem before work every day?

Why don't we sing the anthem before the mall opens?

None of these things have anything to do with national pride. Neither does sports. It's absurd, but people don't even think about it, or why we sing it.

 

[GBRHouston]

Nebraska football represents the state of Nebraska. I do not care what people do in their own time. This "platform" that players think they are entitled to doesn't belong to them. These players do not speak for every person in Nebraska.

When they stand for the national anthem before football games, do they speak for every person in Nebraska as they're supposed to?

Well national pride is generally considered a good thing.

So's reflection. So's prayer. So's refusing to abide injustice.

I'm not saying they are not. Like I said the national anthem represents the good and bad, its just not the place for protest. You don't have to live in this country if you don't like it.
Would this take place on Saturday if another Sept 11 happened tomorrow? Does anyone remember what national pride felt like after that? Is that what it really takes to get it back?

Lastly, I'm still confused as to what this is achieving. Raising awareness? Raising awareness in order to what?

Did MLK sit down during the national anthem before he made a MEANINGFUL difference?

^^^^ Took the words right out of my mouth about anthem protests, I tried to say it as well as Herbie87 did and failed. Protest all you want, although I disagree with it. However, the national anthem is not the right way to protest, it is disrespectful to the people who made the country the way it is today. In the good ways of course, not the bad ways.

You mean white people? Or are you talking about the veterans, even the ones that support the players and are proud that they are utilizing their first amendment rights?

Read what the sentence after that said and you interpret it how you want it interpreted.

 

[Savage Husker]

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.

Exactly...it's the pathetic left response that if you don't agree with their views on political correctness, you are deemed a racist...even if you don't know it. Lol. This is like the "baskets of deplorables."

Here's a good link with a good interview on this topic. I fully agree with the speaker's sentiment (Jason Whitlock):

http://louderwithcrowder.com/nfl-ratings-drop/

This fists in the air, the disrespect for the flag, the bringing up — the unnuanced, unfair demonization of police. Because again, name me as a black person. Do I want to be judged as a group by the worst behavior of a few black people, the way we’re judging the police based on the worst behavior of a few people?

We are demonizing the entire police force, and Kaepernick has done that with the socks and some of his statements. It’s an unnuanced attack which makes people uncomfortable, and I do believe people will push away from football after this.

I don't want to speak for Guy, but I think you two are being a little too defensive and over-reactionary over the term racist. Sure, it's a hot-button term, but I see plenty of racism all around me in the white midwest. Including in myself.

If you have a racial bias, or pre-judge people based on their race, then you are, by definition racist. I'm racist. I don't use the N-word, but there are times that I treat people differently based on race. There are times that I have a preconceived idea about someone I don't know based on their race. I don't mean to, and its usually an unconscious thing, but I do it.

I think that when people start to come to terms with their own biases, (rather than ignoring them, or claiming moral superiority), then its possible to change our views a little.

The real injustice is ignoring the problem.

I agree with your point that everyone is racist, to extent. I was piggy backing on BNILHOME's post because I'm interested in hearing from Guy what that paragraph means coming from him.. To me, it comes off like a smug attack saying racism is ingrained in conservatives. Maybe Guy isn't making that point, which is why I said what I did. I am "defensive" over it because where I grew up in the PNW, these were the type of snarky remarks made by friends and strangers about conservatives.

 

[knapplc]

So my answer is you have no idea & make false claims. Got it thanks.

What was false about my explanation?

Its been laid out several times feel free to reread the posts.

Listen, you want to engage in some internet pissing match, do it with someone else. I'm trying to have constructive conversations here, you're trying to "win" something... I don't even know what. Put me on ignore if you don't respect my opinions.

 

[HuskerNation1]

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.

I wholeheartedly agreed with everything in this post.

Very nicely put, Guy.

So you agree with the part in bold?

Yes

So you believe that those who disagree with protesting the national anthem are racist? Is that correct? If so, please explain.

Of course not.

I believe that good people can be racist....which is exactly what Guy said.

Racism has multiple layers. I think it's more complex than labels suggest.

I agree racism exists and it always will, so there is no disputing that. But in the context of what Guy stated, he was implying that Nebraska is a Conservative state with a bunch of "good people" who are racist and would likely agree with Ricketts comments. Calling those who disagree with the protesters as racists is equal to calling the protesters anti-American. Good people can disagree without being called racist.

 

[GBRHouston]

I'm going to type a new response. MRI is both right and wrong. Pete Ricketts is both right and wrong. I am glad they are meeting up and discussing this, hopefully they both learn something from this. I agree that racism does exist in our country. I do hope that changes. However, the national anthem is not the time or place to protest it. I was fine with silent protests that are not hurting anything. However, our country is not the reason racism exists, and by kneeling for the anthem, that is what they seem like they are saying. Protest on the street all you want, I hope there is change. Don't take it out on the country as a whole.

In much the same way that a sporting event is not the time or place for the national anthem. A Nebraska football game has nothing at all to do with American pride, love of country, respect of the military, etc. Those things have been conflated by wrong-minded people over the years, and it should stop.

Why don't we sing the anthem before the movie starts at a theater?

Why don't we sing the anthem before wedding receptions begin?

Why don't we sing the anthem before work every day?

Why don't we sing the anthem before the mall opens?

None of these things have anything to do with national pride. Neither does sports. It's absurd, but people don't even think about it, or why we sing it.

You're right. It doesn't have to happen, but it does. And we should embrace that the way it is supposed to be embraced.

 

[Mierin]

Ricketts' reaction was poor and completely unbefitting a governor. There's really no excuse for that.

The kids on the team who did this were thoughtful, conscientious, and earnest. They expressed their views politely and respectfully. Their teammates and coaches around them, many of whom I promise you disagree with protesting the anthem, gave them nothing but love and respect in return. Under Riley's leadership, it was more or less a clinic in class and coming together during a fraught time.

I'm glad the governor is now meeting with MRI. But initially, this was utterly tone-deaf on Ricketts' part. And a country mile worse on the part of Hal Daub.

Those of you defending Ricketts, this isn't about his free speech having been infringed. This is about you agreeing with his decision to step in and call these actions disgraceful on the same day the team itself put up such a wonderful display of unity and understanding.

But here's the thing...those of us who disagree with CK and MRI protesting the flag believe that action is disgraceful and disrespectful despite recognizing they have the right to do it. Heck, they can spit on the flag, burn it as has been done often in this country, etc... This country offers them that right, but it also offers other citizens, including an elected official, the right to voice his disagreement with their actions. So as I said before, this is a 2-way street.

What are you arguing against? No one is disputing free speech.

But there are some arguing with how Ricketts is using his freedom of speech, while bashing anyone who disagrees with how MRI is using his freedom of speech. See the hypocrisy. This is a debate and topic where there is going to be strong division no matter what others say.

So it is hypocrisy to criticize an elected official that publicly passes judgement on the legal and protected actions of a private citizen?!? Fun facts like one person makes/enforces Government policy and the other does not would have no bearing in this situation, correct?

Yes...just because you are an elected official does not mean you lose your right to express your views. I don't agree with the regent suggesting they should be kicked off the team, but that is not what Ricketts (the elected official) stated. I know our current POTUS has weighed in on controversial topics rather quickly...so are you suggesting he should not be doing that?

I agree with you. I love how freedom of speech is "a great thing" until people say they don't support the anthem protests. Freedom of speech goes out the window for us who don't support according to a lot of people.

Have you been arrested? Has anyone tried to stop you from talking about it other than to say they disagree with what you're saying?

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

The national anthem is not a song paying respects to fallen soldiers. Can we dispense with that myth?

As I recall, our national anthem has a pretty racist past. Not too much worse really than the confederate flag.

In verse 3 &/or 4, our national anthem explicitly supports the killing of slaves/celebrates slavery. Albeit these were slaves fighting to be free. Slaves who could not be free in the "Land of the Free" but were (more) free in Britain or its military fighting against the USA in the War of 1812.

Our national anthem was first officially recognized by executive order in 1916 by President Woodrow Wilson. The same POTUS that Segregated the Federal Service. The same POTUS that screened "Birth of a Nation" (pro KKK movie) in the White House. It is disputed whether the quotes of support are truly his nor not. This is the same POTUS that admittedly did NOT view racism as sin the way his Protestant friends did. Definitely one of the most racist POTUS, period.

If someone is looking to take a stand against systemic & institutional racism in this country, our national anthem is ripe for it. The irony is delicious. How does nobody not know any of this??