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

[ColoNoCoHusker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

As a percentage of the whole, there are TON more blacks living in poverty. It's not their fault the were born poor. It's also not their fault the system denies them the same rights and benefits as poor whites.

 

Most any area that is predominantly white will have substantially higher per pupil spending than any area that is predominantly non-white. Easiest way to keep non-whites down is provide sub-standard education.

 

The system is slanted heavily in favor of whites, but yeah, that's not racist, it's just how it's always been /s

 

All US citizens are given equal benefits if they are poor.

 

 

I am going to give you $1. Your neighbor who is in EXACTLY the same situation gets $4. You both got money therefore the benefits are equal.

[knapplc]

 

 

I really didn't get the "How did you find HuskerBoard" comment. Native Americans can't use the internet? I'm certain that's not what that meant, but it kinda sounded like it.

 

 

 

Regarding "White Guilt." That's a copout. I understand that it's easier for some people to whitewash the argument to this degree so they can more easily refute it and dismiss it, but that's not what MRI wants White people to feel.

 

I'm White. I don't feel guilty about anything because I don't persecute minorities. I don't feel that MRI is talking to me, specifically, when he says that "Husker Fans" have called for his ouster, or violence against him, or called him racial epithets. Whites don't represent me, and I don't represent Whites.

 

Maybe if you feel White Guilt... maybe you have a reason to feel that.

I was just surprised that through all that rage and anger for this country he could focus his attention anywhere else.

 

Also worth noting--Flood's rant is completely filled with racist comments. I have not said a single racist thing because it turns out I am not racist.

 

This is the unspoken rule it seems:

 

A non-white person says something racist and we're supposed to be sympathetic to that person.

 

A white person says something racist and he/she is just a racist and should be branded the devil.

 

That's a hell of a "Jump to Conclusions" mat you've got.

 

 

That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom.

[STL Husker]

 

 

 

I really didn't get the "How did you find HuskerBoard" comment. Native Americans can't use the internet? I'm certain that's not what that meant, but it kinda sounded like it.

 

 

 

Regarding "White Guilt." That's a copout. I understand that it's easier for some people to whitewash the argument to this degree so they can more easily refute it and dismiss it, but that's not what MRI wants White people to feel.

 

I'm White. I don't feel guilty about anything because I don't persecute minorities. I don't feel that MRI is talking to me, specifically, when he says that "Husker Fans" have called for his ouster, or violence against him, or called him racial epithets. Whites don't represent me, and I don't represent Whites.

 

Maybe if you feel White Guilt... maybe you have a reason to feel that.

I was just surprised that through all that rage and anger for this country he could focus his attention anywhere else.

 

Also worth noting--Flood's rant is completely filled with racist comments. I have not said a single racist thing because it turns out I am not racist.

 

This is the unspoken rule it seems:

 

A non-white person says something racist and we're supposed to be sympathetic to that person.

 

A white person says something racist and he/she is just a racist and should be branded the devil.

 

That's a hell of a "Jump to Conclusions" mat you've got.

 

 

That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom.

 

[GBRHouston]

 

All US citizens are given equal benefits if they are poor.

That's a nice thought and all, as is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." but we all know that Slavery co-existed with that declaration for another century. In the same way, while we have laws on the books legislating equality, non-Whites are not treated equally to Whites in all manner of ways throughout society.

 

No, it is not legal to discriminate, but let's not pretend this doesn't happen.

 

Slavery was abolished 150 years ago. That cannot be used as a grounds of proving that anthems are a good way to protest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

As a percentage of the whole, there are TON more blacks living in poverty. It's not their fault the were born poor. It's also not their fault the system denies them the same rights and benefits as poor whites.

 

Most any area that is predominantly white will have substantially higher per pupil spending than any area that is predominantly non-white. Easiest way to keep non-whites down is provide sub-standard education.

 

The system is slanted heavily in favor of whites, but yeah, that's not racist, it's just how it's always been /s

 

All US citizens are given equal benefits if they are poor.

 

 

I am going to give you $1. Your neighbor who is in EXACTLY the same situation gets $4. You both got money therefore the benefits are equal.

 

You're lucky I suck at arguing.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Even if there was no racism today, inherited wealth is built on the economics of the past which were driven in large part by slavery, segregation, and hiring bias. Unfortunately, inherited wealth changes very slowly as each generation passes on, so the problems you see with it today are caused by things that happened generations ago.

 

Here's link showing the data for wealth inequality: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/

Summary: white households average $141,900 of net worth, Hispanics $13,700, blacks $11,000

 

Edit - fixed typos

[GBRHouston]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Even if there was no racism today, inherited wealth is built on the economics of the past which were driven in large part by slavery, segregation, and hiring bias. Unfortunately, inherited wealth changes very slowly as each generation passes on, so the problems you see with it today are caused by things that happened generations ago.

 

Here's link showing the data for wealth inequality: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/

Summary: white households average $141,900 of new worth, hispnaics $13,700, blacks $11,000

 

I knew somebody was going to say what I bolded right when I made that post. Yes, sadly, they cannot help the racism that happened 50 years ago, and it still plagues them to today. However, getting them out of poverty has more to do with simply eliminating poverty than racism.

[STL Husker]

 

 

All US citizens are given equal benefits if they are poor.

That's a nice thought and all, as is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." but we all know that Slavery co-existed with that declaration for another century. In the same way, while we have laws on the books legislating equality, non-Whites are not treated equally to Whites in all manner of ways throughout society.

 

No, it is not legal to discriminate, but let's not pretend this doesn't happen.

 

Slavery was abolished 150 years ago. That cannot be used as a grounds of proving that anthems are a good way to protest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

As a percentage of the whole, there are TON more blacks living in poverty. It's not their fault the were born poor. It's also not their fault the system denies them the same rights and benefits as poor whites.

 

Most any area that is predominantly white will have substantially higher per pupil spending than any area that is predominantly non-white. Easiest way to keep non-whites down is provide sub-standard education.

 

The system is slanted heavily in favor of whites, but yeah, that's not racist, it's just how it's always been /s

 

All US citizens are given equal benefits if they are poor.

 

 

I am going to give you $1. Your neighbor who is in EXACTLY the same situation gets $4. You both got money therefore the benefits are equal.

 

You're lucky I suck at arguing.

 

It's not that you suck at arguing. It's that you ran out of arguments to support your side. Come to the good side!

[STL Husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Even if there was no racism today, inherited wealth is built on the economics of the past which were driven in large part by slavery, segregation, and hiring bias. Unfortunately, inherited wealth changes very slowly as each generation passes on, so the problems you see with it today are caused by things that happened generations ago.

 

Here's link showing the data for wealth inequality: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/

Summary: white households average $141,900 of new worth, hispnaics $13,700, blacks $11,000

 

I knew somebody was going to say what I bolded right when I made that post. Yes, sadly, they cannot help the racism that happened 50 years ago, and it still plagues them to today. However, getting them out of poverty has more to do with simply eliminating poverty than racism.

 

This study begs to differ.

 

http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief16/

[knapplc]

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.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Even if there was no racism today, inherited wealth is built on the economics of the past which were driven in large part by slavery, segregation, and hiring bias. Unfortunately, inherited wealth changes very slowly as each generation passes on, so the problems you see with it today are caused by things that happened generations ago.

 

Here's link showing the data for wealth inequality: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/

Summary: white households average $141,900 of new worth, hispnaics $13,700, blacks $11,000

 

I knew somebody was going to say what I bolded right when I made that post. Yes, sadly, they cannot help the racism that happened 50 years ago, and it still plagues them to today. However, getting them out of poverty has more to do with simply eliminating poverty than racism.

 

Poverty and racism have strong historically ties. How do you eliminate poverty when racist people oppose doing that very thing?

[knapplc]

 

 

All US citizens are given equal benefits if they are poor.

That's a nice thought and all, as is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." but we all know that Slavery co-existed with that declaration for another century. In the same way, while we have laws on the books legislating equality, non-Whites are not treated equally to Whites in all manner of ways throughout society.

 

No, it is not legal to discriminate, but let's not pretend this doesn't happen.

 

Slavery was abolished 150 years ago. That cannot be used as a grounds of proving that anthems are a good way to protest.

 

You either let that whoosh over your head or intentionally aren't getting the point.

[Kiyoat Husker]

 

I'm a little late to the discussion on Flood's rant, but I find Herbie's and Jeremy's responses to it very comical.

 

I can't see post counts on my phone, but I'm pretty sure Flood has been a frequent contributor to this board for quite some time, yet he is treated as a new member when we know he is Indian. Also, what was surprising about him being a Husker fan? I'm guessing this is the first time anyone has asked him that.

 

As close as we are to the reservations and social issues with Indians, why are we so ignorant of Indian history, and the causes of those issues? It is much easier and simpler to blame people in poverty for their "choices"

 

(1. )What are the causes of the issues on reservations and in the Native American community? (2.) What are the solutions to these issues? (3.) 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. (4.) Is this really a crazy or ignorant philosophy to have?

 

 

OK, you asked me four questions, so I will try to answer them.

 

1. This is not an easy or simple question, but you knew that when you asked it. I'm not going to try and give you a complete answer, because that would require a good deal of research on my part, and I'm at work. Besides, nobody wants to read a history lesson on a message board.--

 

I will just say that Indians, especially plains Indians, especially the Sioux, have a complicated history with the US government colonizing and yes, outright stealing thier lands, marginalizing them, treaty after treaty, to smaller and smaller lands that were progressively less productive. To understand the history of reservations, and why they are so screwed-up, you have to understand the history of the BIA, and how it is so screwed-up.

 

As to the social problems such as rampant alcoholism, drug use, crime, murder, poverty, abuse, etc: individual people make choices, and are responsible for themselves, but the mix of poverty, desolation and failed BIA policies creates a very difficult situation to escape, or "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" Add in cultural differences that we, outside of the res, do not understand well, and you have a very toxic mix.

 

For example, did you know that Indians (yes, its OK to not say Native Americans) are very strongly genetically predisposed to alcoholism, diabetes, and obesity because of the way their bodies process sugars? The US Army knew this very well, as they often traded "fire water" to bands of Indians they might have problems with, in order to pacify them and wreak havoc on their social structure (a smart-bomb of sorts, like smallpox-laden blankets). That doesn't absolve individuals from drinking, but it's part of trying to understand why the 90% alcoholism rate contributes to Indian societal problems. I assume you want to understand the cause, since you asked the question.

 

Another example of not understanding cultural differences is absenteeism in schools. When a member of an Indian child's family is sick or dying, he/she is "expected" to be there no matter what. If that means leaving high school and being with family on the rez for a month, too bad. You have to be there. The school's perspective is that is inexcusable truancy. From the tribe's perspective, it is being a good person, honoring your family and tribe. Which side is more correct? From the student's perspective he would be called a stuck-up @sshole that has turned his back on his family if he stayed in school. His family's opinion will matter a great deal more to him. This is also a contributing factor why most Indian college students don't finish their studies, despite getting a free education in SD colleges. I could go on for awhile, but I won't. I would just encourage you to try to understand another person's experiences before making too many assumptions.

 

2. Do you really think that I have the solutions to the "Indian problem"? Maybe I could fix the "poverty" problem or the "Arab/Isreali" problem next.

 

3. You are mis-reading Flood's comments. He was trying to explain his perspective and experience, not blame you for Indian Alcoholism.

 

4. I'm going to assume the philosophy you are referring to is the philosophy of "pulling yourself up, and not blaming people for your problems". No, you are not crazy for having that philosophy. To some extent I believe in that as well. However, many who have that philosophy fail to knowledge that it is much much much more difficult for some to succeed than others.

 

You were able to rise from poverty. I commend you for that. Its not as easy to do than for someone to "stay rich" or "stay middle-class". There are reasons why rising out of poverty is not easy, and the reason is NOT that all poor people are lazy. Was your father or grandfather lazy? I doubt it. What I think you are not acknowledging is that for Indians or Blacks in poverty, it is even harder to rise out of it. And that's not the kind of "equality" that we should be seeing in America at this point in history. IMO

[GBRHouston]

 

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.

 

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.

[GBRHouston]

 

 

 

All US citizens are given equal benefits if they are poor.

That's a nice thought and all, as is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." but we all know that Slavery co-existed with that declaration for another century. In the same way, while we have laws on the books legislating equality, non-Whites are not treated equally to Whites in all manner of ways throughout society.

 

No, it is not legal to discriminate, but let's not pretend this doesn't happen.

 

Slavery was abolished 150 years ago. That cannot be used as a grounds of proving that anthems are a good way to protest.

 

You either let that whoosh over your head or intentionally aren't getting the point.

 

Everybody on both sides is refusing to accept what the other side says. Yes, that does include me.

[zoogs]

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.

Throughout this discussion, it feels like there's a lot of unnecessary defensiveness.

 

Generally I think we are saying the system is skewed, the system is full of racial injustice, and yes, part of that is having racist tropes and attitudes pervade all of us. One of those tropes is whenever we get to talking about a positive action targeting a demonstrably disadvantaged group, this "woah, woah. It's all colorblind already now. No need for that" response. But it's not a charge of racism so much as it is an acknowledgement of the state of affairs, and a call to change it.

 

It's a very different thing from saying "Look, I'm not racist but you guys and all these guys are." That's not the conversation, and I'd agree that it would be a highly unproductive one if it were.