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

[zoogs]

Either way, the national anthem is not the time or place to protest.

I have to disagree with you there. Let's say the hopes you express prevail and take hold.

Which world is one where American principles and ideals are more faithfully upheld?

One where active, engaged citizens protest peacefully when they feel we're falling short of those ideals?

Or one where, regardless of anything, we have achieved mandatory (in effect, if not in policy) universal reverence of patriotic symbols before our sporting events?

 

[gobiggergoredder]

I didn't listen to this, but his stance yesterday on KFAB was the role of MRI, and anyone else on the team for that matter was to play football and attend school. That was the contract that they entered into. What they did outside of the contract was completely up to them.

That being said, he went on to indicate that they were representatives of the University and it was their role to perform as football players/students and they should not be allowed to use the forum of the University of Nebraska football team as a social or political advocate. He went on to say that the athletic department took it a step further by allowing him to hold a press conference that had nothing to do with football.

His final point, which is one that I am in complete support of, was that the University has to be very careful allowing this because they are setting a precedent that is going to be very hard to step back from. Who decides when a player/representative gets to use the universities stage when it isn't applicable to the contract/function they are a part of?

 

[GBRHouston]

Either way, the national anthem is not the time or place to protest.

I have to disagree with you there. Let's say the hopes you express prevail and take hold.

Which world is one where American principles and ideals are more faithfully upheld?

One where active, engaged citizens protest peacefully when they feel we're falling short of those ideals?

Or one where, regardless of anything, we have achieved mandatory (in effect, if not in policy) universal reverence of patriotic symbols before our sporting events?

I am pretty sure the message is gotten and society is working on it as we speak. But protests can happen without pissing off half of the country at the same time. Sure, some people will be inconvenienced, but a protest does not mean offending a good chunk of the country.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Maybe it's the people who are pissed off because of the protest that need to reassess their feelings and actions.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Wow...just finishing up listening to the interview.

Mr. Daub got a little testy and sensitive about simple questions. Maybe he should step down so he has some time to contemplate things and not be so stressed about them.

 

[GBRHouston]

Maybe it's the people who are pissed off because of the protest that need to reassess their feelings and actions.

What actions do we need to reassess? We believe that protesting during the anthem is bad, and that there are certainly better alternatives that inconvenience less of the population. That is that.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Maybe it's the people who are pissed off because of the protest that need to reassess their feelings and actions.

What actions do we need to reassess? We believe that protesting during the anthem is bad, and that there are certainly better alternatives that inconvenience less of the population. That is that.

That part of the statement is interesting.

How did their protest inconvenience anyone? Maybe the question should be.....how did their protest inconvenience you personally?

 

[Landlord]

We believe that protesting during the anthem is bad, and that there are certainly better alternatives that inconvenience less of the population.

Which completely defeats the purpose of protesting.

 

[zoogs]

I am pretty sure the message is gotten and society is working on it as we speak. But protests can happen without pissing off half of the country at the same time. Sure, some people will be inconvenienced, but a protest does not mean offending a good chunk of the country.

If it's not the message but the manner that is bad, and we reach this ideal where national symbols are never protested, only revered, wheresoever they may appear -- is that what we want? Is that the American utopia? Why?

If a protest does not inconvenience anyone or make anyone uncomfortable, we stay where we are. If we *only* have inoffensive protests, how do we avoid stasis? How does any message of change get 'gotten'?

 

[gobiggergoredder]

Maybe it's the people who are pissed off because of the protest that need to reassess their feelings and actions.

What actions do we need to reassess? We believe that protesting during the anthem is bad, and that there are certainly better alternatives that inconvenience less of the population. That is that.

That part of the statement is interesting.

How did their protest inconvenience anyone? Maybe the question should be.....how did their protest inconvenience you personally?

How have multiple instances of people killing, attacking, threatening and/or not complying with police officers impacted MRI personally?

If you feel like your culture is being destroyed in front of you eyes. The questions should be the same.

 

[TAKODA]

Time has not changed Duab one bit.

IMO, him talking today on 1620, proves he needs to be sent packing. What a shameful example of a regent!

Thanks BRB for the link. +1

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

Maybe it's the people who are pissed off because of the protest that need to reassess their feelings and actions.

What actions do we need to reassess? We believe that protesting during the anthem is bad, and that there are certainly better alternatives that inconvenience less of the population. That is that.

That part of the statement is interesting.

How did their protest inconvenience anyone? Maybe the question should be.....how did their protest inconvenience you personally?

How have multiple instances of people killing, attacking, threatening and/or not complying with police officers impacted MRI personally?

If you feel like your culture is being destroyed in front of you eyes. The questions should be the same.

To the second statement - 3 people out of ~90k kneeling for the national anthem in silent prayer is how you define "culture destruction"? Even if that was 3 out of ~150 people on sidelines, that's a pretty excessive response. I would ask you to maybe re-evaluate if this is reasonable if I could...

The first statement has been pretty well covered in this thread but sounds like you refuse to accept the answers.

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

I am pretty sure the message is gotten and society is working on it as we speak. But protests can happen without pissing off half of the country at the same time. Sure, some people will be inconvenienced, but a protest does not mean offending a good chunk of the country.

Didn't the civil rights movement offend a good chunk of the country? I guess the difference is that they were the "bad people", right? The Bigots. Only problem with that, is that at the time, there were plenty of people, good people who weren't bigots, that were saying: "Why do they have to cause so much trouble?" or "can't this protest happen somewhere where they aren't causing so much inconvenience"

 

[Cina]

There seems to be a lot of confusion about institutional racism vs. structural racism. There seems to be an argument that protesting during the anthem is not proper because the US Government (for which it's being assumed the flag is a symbol) is not enacting racist practices. While the government isn't taking part in any overt institutional racism (i.e. segregation laws) there is a case, as Landlord points out, that the government has taken part in structural racism, which is where a policy by a governing body substantially effects one group over another.

Another example of this would be the Vietnam War draft boards, which were preferential to educated, wealthy (almost solely white) young men, while those without an opportunity of an education were drafted first. The government wasn't saying "Let's send the poor black kids first" (which would've been institutional racism) but what their policy ended up doing was sending the poor black kids to war first.

I would also like to make the admission that I judge people by their appearances all the time. I try not to let a stranger's race, their clothing, their socioeconomic status, effect how I treat them or think of them, but I would be lying if I said that this didn't effect my thinking. (The goal is to recognize these biases so one can consciously not act on them.) I'd venture to say that anyone who says this is not the case for themselves is naive, and being indignant about the idea that minorities do not suffer as a result of that judgement seems to be where a lot of backlash from this protest is coming from.

I just don't think saying "I'm not racist and none of my friends are racist and the government isn't doing anything racist, also these kids are overreacting" is not made better if you add "...but yeah, racism is a thing. I hope it goes away some day tho."

 

[gobiggergoredder]

Maybe it's the people who are pissed off because of the protest that need to reassess their feelings and actions.

What actions do we need to reassess? We believe that protesting during the anthem is bad, and that there are certainly better alternatives that inconvenience less of the population. That is that.

That part of the statement is interesting.

How did their protest inconvenience anyone? Maybe the question should be.....how did their protest inconvenience you personally?

How have multiple instances of people killing, attacking, threatening and/or not complying with police officers impacted MRI personally?

If you feel like your culture is being destroyed in front of you eyes. The questions should be the same.

To the second statement - 3 people out of ~90k kneeling for the national anthem in silent prayer is how you define "culture destruction"? Even if that was 3 out of ~150 people on sidelines, that's a pretty excessive response. I would ask you to maybe re-evaluate if this is reasonable if I could...

The first statement has been pretty well covered in this thread but sounds like you refuse to accept the answers.

If you think this is over and is going to stop with 3 people at Memorial Stadium, you're kidding yourself. The precedent has been set and if you don't agree with it you're filled with hate and/or a racist.