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

[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.

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.

[GBRHouston]

 

 

 

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.

This is absolutely false. The 1st Amendment protects you from censorship not from criticism. You are being criticized not censored.

 

I get what the 1st amendment means, and in most cases, I will agree with you. Nobody non-violent on either side of this issue has been arrested. However, I see supporters using the first amendment as a platform to argue with non-supporters. The first amendment means that somebody cannot be prosecuted for what they say or what message they try to send.

 

So then why claim your "freedom of speech goes out the window", when that is clearly not the case by your own admission?

 

I did not mean legally, I mean socially. People will use the freedom of speech argument, until they are told something they disagree with. Then they say "they have the freedom of speech to protest", while not respecting the other person's freedom to speak against that protest.

 

 

 

You do know the anthem was written roughly 150 years BEFORE slavery was abolished, right?

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

[Moiraine]

I was responding to Savage Husker's statement who made that connection...

I know. I'm recovering for an illness so it seems I'm confusing everyone.

 

I was too lazy to dig back for his original post and forgot that I can just remove your response.

[ColoNoCoHusker]

 

Also, slavery was abolished 150 years ago. Using that for a platform about how that makes the anthem racist is 150 years outdated. Same with any other argument about this country, albeit by a shorter time frame.

 

You seem to insist, over and over, that equality for all has long arrived in America.

Why do we believe this to be true? What's the basis for that claim?

 

 

It was 143 years between end of the Civil War and electing the first black POTUS. The first non-white male POTUS.

 

At best, we are looking 97 years from women's suffrage (19th Amendment) to electing the first female POTUS.

 

These ignore untold years of explicit & legal institutional slavery & discrimination. Even so, do these situations seem equitable & fair given our nation's population demographics?

[Moiraine]

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?

[zoogs]

It's hard to say racist implications have gone away while we still cling to the racist relics of the past.

[lo country]

 

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

 

I'm still waiting on the "official" meaning you claimed earlier.

Here is a historical meaning of the song. Look at the controversial stanza 3. Obviously, unsure if this is what FSK meant we he wrote it, but it is a historical interpretation.

 

http://www.american-historama.org/1801-1828-evolution/star-spangled-banner-lyrics.htm

[GBRHouston]

 

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.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

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.

This is absolutely false. The 1st Amendment protects you from censorship not from criticism. You are being criticized not censored.

 

I get what the 1st amendment means, and in most cases, I will agree with you. Nobody non-violent on either side of this issue has been arrested. However, I see supporters using the first amendment as a platform to argue with non-supporters. The first amendment means that somebody cannot be prosecuted for what they say or what message they try to send.

 

So then why claim your "freedom of speech goes out the window", when that is clearly not the case by your own admission?

 

I did not mean legally, I mean socially. People will use the freedom of speech argument, until they are told something they disagree with. Then they say "they have the freedom of speech to protest", while not respecting the other person's freedom to speak against that protest.

 

 

 

You do know the anthem was written roughly 150 years BEFORE slavery was abolished, right?

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

 

Whether I respect your opinion or not has absolutely nothing to do with your freedom of speech. Again, you're confusing censorship and criticism.

 

You should reread the lyrics. The verse celebrating (or at least supporting) slavery most definitely contradicts your argument.

[GBRHouston]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

This is absolutely false. The 1st Amendment protects you from censorship not from criticism. You are being criticized not censored.

 

I get what the 1st amendment means, and in most cases, I will agree with you. Nobody non-violent on either side of this issue has been arrested. However, I see supporters using the first amendment as a platform to argue with non-supporters. The first amendment means that somebody cannot be prosecuted for what they say or what message they try to send.

 

So then why claim your "freedom of speech goes out the window", when that is clearly not the case by your own admission?

 

I did not mean legally, I mean socially. People will use the freedom of speech argument, until they are told something they disagree with. Then they say "they have the freedom of speech to protest", while not respecting the other person's freedom to speak against that protest.

 

 

 

You do know the anthem was written roughly 150 years BEFORE slavery was abolished, right?

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

 

Whether I respect your opinion or not has absolutely nothing to do with your freedom of speech. Again, you're confusing censorship and criticism.

I was saying in most arguments, not this one specifically. I said the exact same thing you're saying in the post you quoted.

 

You should reread the lyrics. The verse celebrating (or at least supporting) slavery most definitely contradicts your argument.

Refer to my last post.

[RedDenver]

 

 

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

I'm still waiting on the "official" meaning you claimed earlier.

Here is a historical meaning of the song. Look at the controversial stanza 3. Obviously, unsure if this is what FSK meant we he wrote it, but it is a historical interpretation.

 

http://www.american-historama.org/1801-1828-evolution/star-spangled-banner-lyrics.htm

 

FSK was a notorious racist and staunch supporter of slavery. I'd quote him, but it's wildly offensive.

[Moiraine]

 

 

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.

[BigRedBuster]

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.

[GBRHouston]

 

 

 

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.

[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.