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

[knapplc]

What are the causes of the issues on reservations and in the Native American community? What are the solutions to these issues? How am I causing anyone in the Native American community to be an alcoholic? (Though, I can see how my constant prattling might drive some here to the bottle.)

I was born into absolute poverty, but I'm doing okay now with my wife and kids. Any poor decisions I've made are my fault and mine alone. Is this really a crazy or ignorant philosophy to have?

Regarding the bold, I think this is where a lot of White people are getting hung up on this and similar issues. It's associated to the "White Guilt" thing, and it really needs to stop.

White people, in general, are not the problem.

White people, in general, are not being blamed for racism in America. Clearly, this is excluding racists - those guys are bad. We all should look askance at those guys.

White people, in general, should not feel guilty, or listen to or take to heart the accusations by A FEW misguided minorities that "White People" are to blame.

If you, a White person, feels that you are being blamed for any of the institutional racism going on in American and this angers you, calm down. Stop feeling that way.

Where White people bear blame (again, aside from racist asshats), is in not being conscientious voters who make it a priority to keep racist politicians and their policies out of office. We're all guilty of that, but as things go, this is a small personal guilt. It adds up, but YOU, ME - we are not personally responsible for racism.

Jeremy, specifically to answer the question in bold - YOU are not responsible for that, you should not feel responsible or feel guilty or BE MADE TO FEEL any of those things. You're some dude living your life not harming anyone intentionally (I presume. Maybe you're raising your kids to be Iowa fans and if so, you're very bad and you should feel bad).

Yes, there are websites and videos and statements you can quote where someone is "blaming Whitey" for all the problems. You can choose to take that to heart or you can recognize it's yet more racist blather.

Where White Guy should clean up their act is vote against racism, both in the ballot box and with your dollar. Don't support racist companies.

Don't support racist politicians. Also, White Guy should strive to harbor no ill will toward minorities in their heart. That's an individual thing. It's not always easy, especially when you think you're being wrongly accused. But if you work at it, you can get there.

 

[Blackshirt96]

To answer your first four questions/statements. 1)Yes. 2) Don't need a reason to be cut. 3) Yes you can. 4) No it doesn't.

Once again, these answers are in regards to first amendment protection. If someone is has an employment contract, or is part of a collective bargaining agreement, they have more protections. But if you are not part of a protected class as set forth in the civil rights act of 1964, or subsequent revisions, you don't really have as much employment protection as you think.

In response to your second paragraph; I agree with everything you said. I only posted my first comment because it seems like some people posting think that the first amendment protects a person from all consequences from one's speech/actions...it doesn't.

In general, no, the First Amendment doesn't provide blanket protection for free speech to all people, everywhere, in all situations.

In the current discussion, Michael Rose-Ivey's First Amendment rights are in play, as defined by:

Tinker v. Des Moines

Cohen v. California

West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette

Texas v. Johnson

United States v. Eichman

All of which have combined to define "free speech" to include the right not to salute the Flag, of students to protest, to use words that may be offensive to convey a political message, and to engage in symbolic speech (this includes burning the Flag).

These cases are the cornerstone of Hank Bounds' statement, "The University of Nebraska will not restrict the First Amendment rights of any student or employee."

The University by policy and by law cannot prevent students from kneeling in protest.

Can I ask your stance on the 2nd Amendment? The University, as most universities, state offices & many other public facilities have no problem walking all over the 2nd amendment. I know this has nothing to do with the current topic, but it does show just how fast many people can change gears when it goes from protecting one right to trying to limit or completely ignore another right.

 

[knapplc]

Yes, freedom of speech comes into play here. MRI, Kaep, or anyone else cannot be arrested for protesting the way they are. That does not mean that they can't be condemned for how they are doing it. Hank Bounds was basically required to say what he said there in order to not be sued or condemned. I don't blame him, Green, Eichorst, or Riley for what they said, as it's what they had to do to keep the public image of the school up. No, they cannot prevent it.

More importantly, they don't WANT to prevent it, because it's the right thing to do.

 

[knapplc]

Can I ask your stance on the 2nd Amendment? The University, as most universities, state offices & many other public facilities have no problem walking all over the 2nd amendment. I know this has nothing to do with the current topic, but it does show just how fast many people can change gears when it goes from protecting one right to trying to limit or completely ignore another right.

You could start a topic in the Politics forum and cite examples of what you're talking about so we could discuss it.

 

[GBRHouston]

I am going to get back to the topic of protesting during the national anthem, as arguing about whether or not there is racism is irrelevant and causes this thread to get unnecessarily heated.

The country itself is not why racism exists. It is the society of many people in this country. Kneeling for the national anthem because the country "oppresses" black people is wrong. It is not the country that caused it. By kneeling for the anthem, you make it sound like they are being oppressed federally, when it is 100% society.

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

You're some dude living your life not harming anyone intentionally (I presume. Maybe you're raising your kids to be Iowa fans and if so, you're very bad and you should feel bad)

Thanks for the levity.

I think we need it in this thread.

 

[STL Husker]

I am going to get back to the topic of protesting during the national anthem, as arguing about whether or not there is racism is irrelevant and causes this thread to get unnecessarily heated.

The country itself is not why racism exists. It is the society of many people in this country. Kneeling for the national anthem because the country "oppresses" black people is wrong. It is not the country that caused it. By kneeling for the anthem, you make it sound like they are being oppressed federally, when it is 100% society.

But the point of the protest is to get into the racism discussion. The kneeling really doesn't matter. And for what it's worth I think our arguing was as respectful as it could have been. This discussion is supposed to get heated, but too many times has this turned into a name calling match. I appreciate you at least voicing your views even if I disagree. Who woulda thought you could get that from a college football message board?

 

[Blackshirt96]

Can I ask your stance on the 2nd Amendment? The University, as most universities, state offices & many other public facilities have no problem walking all over the 2nd amendment. I know this has nothing to do with the current topic, but it does show just how fast many people can change gears when it goes from protecting one right to trying to limit or completely ignore another right.

You could start a topic in the Politics forum and cite examples of what you're talking about so we could discuss it.

I'm good. I think I got my answer.

 

[RedDenver]

Can I ask your stance on the 2nd Amendment? The University, as most universities, state offices & many other public facilities have no problem walking all over the 2nd amendment. I know this has nothing to do with the current topic, but it does show just how fast many people can change gears when it goes from protecting one right to trying to limit or completely ignore another right.

You could start a topic in the Politics forum and cite examples of what you're talking about so we could discuss it.

I'm good. I assumed what you'd say for an answer.

FIFY

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

I am going to get back to the topic of protesting during the national anthem, as arguing about whether or not there is racism is irrelevant and causes this thread to get unnecessarily heated.

The country itself is not why racism exists. It is the society of many people in this country. Kneeling for the national anthem because the country "oppresses" black people is wrong. It is not the country that caused it. By kneeling for the anthem, you make it sound like they are being oppressed federally, when it is 100% society.

I think Landlord quoted this earlier, but rather than go back and look for it, I just googled it:

There I was, the black grandson of a slave, the son of a black sharecropper, part of a historic occasion, a symbolic hero to my people. The air was sparkling. The sunlight was warm. The band struck up the national anthem. The flag billowed in the wind. It should have been a glorious moment for me as the stirring words of the national anthem poured from the stands. Perhaps, it was, but then again, perhaps, the anthem could be called the theme song for a drama called The Noble Experiment. Today, as I look back on that opening game of my first world series, I must tell you that it was Mr. Rickey’s drama and that I was only a principal actor. As I write this twenty years later, I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag; I know that I am a black man in a white world. In 1972, in 1947, at my birth in 1919, I know that I never had it made.

That was Jackie Robinson in his 1972 Autobiography.

I think this is a better response than anything I could come up with.

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

Yes, freedom of speech comes into play here. MRI, Kaep, or anyone else cannot be arrested for protesting the way they are. That does not mean that they can't be condemned for how they are doing it. Hank Bounds was basically required to say what he said there in order to not be sued or condemned. I don't blame him, Green, Eichorst, or Riley for what they said, as it's what they had to do to keep the public image of the school up. No, they cannot prevent it.

More importantly, they don't WANT to prevent it, because it's the right thing to do.

I don't think this is being celebrated as much as it should be. The way the policy is worded, NU leadership could have taken several different approaches. The fact Bounds/Green chose such a pure & simple interpretation in their approach is HUGE. I really think they are going facilitate the University moving up a notch or two...

 

[Cdog923]

I am going to get back to the topic of protesting during the national anthem, as arguing about whether or not there is racism is irrelevant and causes this thread to get unnecessarily heated.

The country itself is not why racism exists. It is the society of many people in this country. Kneeling for the national anthem because the country "oppresses" black people is wrong. It is not the country that caused it. By kneeling for the anthem, you make it sound like they are being oppressed federally, when it is 100% society.

That's the way you are interpreting it, which goes directly against MRI's statement on Monday.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

...I don't know about you, but I love the country I live in, and I find the anthem very sacred as well. Disrespecting it is wrong, protesting or not, much like the Grace metaphor I made up.

But you can love something and still disagree with it. Vehemently, even.
Parents love their children, but arguing with your parents is almost a rite of passage amongst teens. It's so common as to be a trope on nearly every sitcom & teen movie ever made.

Spouses love each other, but fights in marriage are as common as grains of sand on the seashore. Spouses argue vehemently about important and trivial things, make up & move on with life.

Love is a wonderful thing, but love doesn't mean never disagreeing, or always seeing eye to eye. You can love something and be mad at it. You can love something and be wounded by it.

Let's not pretend that love of country supersedes every other situation. There are times when country doesn't meet the legitimate expectations of our love. In those times, we're justified to demand better. We can even be angry.

So does a good parent occasionally say "I disagree with you, I'm not going to do this parenting thing today"

"I don't agree, I'm not going to do this American thing today"

You know America was founded on a protest, right? I don't think you're saying what you think you're saying here.

Funny. If you are a Tea Party patriot, you are harkening back to that cherished American moment when angry protestors vandalized and destroyed property, while dressed as Indians to hedge their bet.

If you want to celebrate the Boston Massacre as a founding moment, it was orchestrated by those same patriots to goad the police into shooting protestors and fueling more outrage.

 

[BIG ERN]

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=17668499

Stephen A Smith talking about it today....

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I think a big objective of their protest is to just get people to start talking about it and bring awareness too it. This very discussion is already a big step. Not everyone is going to agree, but it is in our minds now. MRI gets a face to face meeting with the governor and a chance to share his story with one of the most important people in the state. Nebraska is not a very diverse state and not many people get to hear the black perspective. You don't have to agree, but at least you are hearing their side. I think this protest has already achieved quite a bit.

Start talking about and bring awareness to what? That, like Kaepernick said, the flag represents a country that oppresses black people and people of color? Oppresses. Really?

Show me an American policy that puts Americans of any kind at a disadvantage, especially considering we've had a BLACK president for 8 years.

Oppression goes beyond policies. There is still a large portion of this country that is racist. I've witnessed it during my 4 years in Nebraska and the rest of my life in St. Louis. This isn't the KKK kind of racism where people go out looking for a black person to lynch. Instead, they don't want to live in neighborhoods that are predominantly black or are even too close to black neighborhoods. They don't want to send their kids to schools that are too "dark". They would rather rent/sell their house to a white family than a black one or existing neighbors put pressure on you to do sell to whites. They don't want public transportation extended out to their white neighborhoods because they would then be connected to "the kind of people" who use public transportation. These are just examples that I have witnessed first hand. Simply having a black president doesn't fix any of this.

East St Louis vs St Louis is an excellent study in institutional racism and poverty. The last numbers I saw (c. 2006), the per pupil spending in East St Louis were barely over $1,100 (less than half the US avg at the time). Right across the river, it was something like 5 times that.The property values are similarly skewed. It is horribly tragic on so many levels.

I hate the poverty card. Sure, there are more blacks in poverty in the US than whites. But they inherited it. It's sad, I know, but that has nothing to do with racism.

(sigh)