OT: Black Missouri players threatening to strike from football activities of demands aren't met.

Submitted by SAMgO on
Here's the PDF list of demands that a student group called "Concerned Student 1-9-5-0" at Missouri is making, which 32 black Missouri football players are a part of: http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/columbiatribune.com/content… Judging by the extremity and in some cases probable illegality of their demands, it seems highly unlikely that they will be met, which actually leaves uninvolved onlookers with quite the intriguing situation. Will Mizzou pull the scholarships of all these players? Will they relent and show up to practice tomorrow? I, for one, think it'll be fascinating to see how this plays out.
MGoBoard

Rabbit21

November 8th, 2015 at 5:21 PM ^

Doesn't it turn out that nearly every one of these symbolic drawings on campus, much like the swastika in feces, is a hoax drawn up to "increase awareness."?  

Slurs yelled by townies I'll believe.  The swastika in feces seems overly dramatic and much more likely to be a student trying to draw attention to him or herself and the cause of fighting prejudice.

Joined: 11/12/2009

MGoPoints: 30387

Jon06

November 8th, 2015 at 2:43 PM ^

From what I can tell, the Rubicon got crossed here when he allowed his driver and his police force, all of whom I believe answer ultimately to him, to basically make violent threats towards the students who confronted him during the parade. He should have defused the situation by guaranteeing them meetings, instead of having police brandish pepper spray canisters to end the protest.

Joined: 09/19/2009

MGoPoints: 15573

trustBlue

November 8th, 2015 at 4:35 PM ^

Asking for his removal is essentially a vote of no confidence. These student's dont trust the President or his ability to act, based on his past record of inaction and what they perceive as unwillingness to address the racial hostility on campus as a serious issue.  

He probably did himself few favors by reacting to a previous student protest by ignoring them, bumping into them with his car, and then allowing the police threaten to arrest the protesters and spray them in the face with pepper spray.  

That seems like a bad move on his part and I doubt it did much to encourage the students that he was willing to listen, let alone take significant action on their behalf. 

 

Joined: 04/14/2014

MGoPoints: 8251

The2nd_JEH

November 8th, 2015 at 1:13 PM ^

For all that those that don't really understand, I have a close friend that goes to Mizzou. We're both African American and I was just as confused to what was happening until I asked him last night. Apparently, there have been multiple race related incidents on campus the past few months, one including a swastika in feces. The president of the school hasn't done or said anything in regards to the incidents even though people have asked him to address them for months. My friend told me straight up, he does not feel safe on campus.

The football team seems to realize that the president seems to be completely ignoring the racial tension and the racial issues happening on that campus.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 06/11/2010

MGoPoints: 7026

mGrowOld

November 8th, 2015 at 1:23 PM ^

As a 56 year old anglo-saxon caucasion I'm puzzled by why the African-American community feels threatened by a swastika symbol.  Wouldnt that be more directed at the jewish community, not them?

Unless their protest is against hateful symbols in general I dont understand the connection.

 

Joined: 10/04/2010

MGoPoints: 214024

Towelette

November 8th, 2015 at 1:29 PM ^

The swastika event only occurred during these events, they didn't discuss it as part of their issues, I broke the story down below this. I hate to question people's level of fear, but nothing violent has occurred on campus, I'm on campus every week, I don't fear anything from anyone, no matter their color. I've been discriminated against, I've been physically assaulted for the color of my skin, it doesn't make me think any different about a group of people. There are bad eggs everywhere, you can't fix stupid.

Joined: 01/01/2015

MGoPoints: 242

sadeto

November 8th, 2015 at 2:01 PM ^

Nobody is trying to "reclaim" it, that would be offensive, my point is it persists as an important religious symbol - it was never appropriated in the minds of Buddhists and Hindus. When I point to swastikas in Japan or China to my friends there and try to explain how it would be perceived as offensive to someone in the West, most of them just don't really get it. They are aware of Nazism but it didn't really impact their history directly. Now, the flag of the Japanese Imperial Navy is another thing...

Joined: 01/17/2014

MGoPoints: 10469

ats

November 8th, 2015 at 9:14 PM ^

Oh hell no.  The Nazi Swastika maybe, but the Swastika is a universal symbol of hope, good, luck, etc.  It dates back thousands of years and is still in widespread use in most of the world.  It has significant historical links to Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddism.  Yes in western culture it is heavily linked with Nazism (and hence racism), but the western world is not the world.

 

Joined: 09/20/2009

MGoPoints: 781

BornSinner

November 8th, 2015 at 2:07 PM ^

Yeah sorry your stupid fear of the swastika that was misappropriated to mean hatred doesn't drive my religious convictions (or that of around 1.5-2 billion other HIndus/Buddhists/Jains etc) 

 

The symbol is 4000+ years old and Nazis won't change my view of it just cuz you said so. 

 

There is an eastern part of the world believe it or not. I know it's hard for Americans to understand that concept. 

 

 

Joined: 09/20/2014

MGoPoints: 14672

ghost

November 8th, 2015 at 2:28 PM ^

First not an American.  Second the Nazis did change the meaning of that symbol forever whether you like it or not.  It is a fact.  Perhaps you should google WWII.  It was a world war not a US war.  It is just plain offensive to argue about what that symbol means.

No normal person would argue that it is not an offensive symbol.  The fact that you think its a US thing that the swastika is offensive just shows how ignorant you are. 

Joined: 09/02/2011

MGoPoints: 4140

BornSinner

November 8th, 2015 at 2:35 PM ^

No shit I know it's offensive in the west dumbass. 

It's not offensive to the other half of the world in the east. 

To claim universal mandates that it is now offensive and off limits to the whole world is pure stupidity. 

 

You should go ghost like your nickname. It will always remain being a symbol with duality in the west and the east beyond your time on planet Earth. 

You mad bro? 

 

Joined: 09/20/2014

MGoPoints: 14672

MotownGoBlue

November 8th, 2015 at 2:10 PM ^

How did you go 56 years without knowing what the Nazis stood for? The Jewish community wasn't the only community effected. Start here man: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005143 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-strange-and-awful-history-of-black… "Among other forms of oppression, the Nazis sterilized German blacks. The intent was to prevent Afro-German men from having children with white German women and “diluting” the Aryan race. In the 1997 documentary Hitler’s Forgotten Victims, black German survivors talked about the forced sterilization. After the procedure, often administered without anesthesia, the blacks were free to leave after getting a certificate … and vowing to never sleep with German women." American History X?

Joined: 08/09/2014

MGoPoints: 25374

SalvatoreQuattro

November 8th, 2015 at 2:13 PM ^

million Russians POWs, and slaughtered millions more of Slavs, Romani, and others.

The largest mass sterilization was agaisnt Germans and the AKtion T4 program. The Nazis were able to sterilize 100,000 Germans before the Catholic Church was able to raise enough hackles to get Hitler to stop. This ability is in part why the Church is accused of being complicit in the Holocaust. 

Joined: 11/30/2010

MGoPoints: 79667

SalvatoreQuattro

November 8th, 2015 at 1:28 PM ^

These are issues far beyond his ability to control. But if what you say is correct he should have at least condemned it and instituted a task force if for no other reason than to sooth concerns.

 

However, the racial tensions are not going away. Economic distress, a sense of a loss of power among white right wingers and a perceived assault on cherished white institutions and personalities like Jefferson(as was done at Mizzou) has created a groundswell of anger.

I would not be surprised to see an American Freikorps develop and a Bleeding Kansas-style civil conflict break out in the coming decades. The bitterness and hatred of the government is that intense.

People are focusing on black issues(rightly so), but a very real concern ought to be the cadres of armed white men with military backgrounds who feel marginalized and disenchanted.

America has to learn that problems like these are multifacted. You can't just focus on black or white grievances(perceived or actual) but both simultaneously.

 

Joined: 11/30/2010

MGoPoints: 79667

BornSinner

November 8th, 2015 at 1:55 PM ^

As absurd as this sounds... this very thing happened at Michigan last year. Remember when that conservative Muslim Daily reporter got his dorm vandalized with pork? 

 

Turns out other liberal SJW Muslims did it themselves and got caught on camera. Nothing happened to them cuz you know Michigan.

Joined: 09/20/2014

MGoPoints: 14672

BornInAA

November 8th, 2015 at 1:16 PM ^

Let me just say, taking no sides, because I don't know the university atmosphere, the players, students or administration, that:

strikes are a valid means of protest against a company policy, however:

it has to be a company/employee relationship

the employees have to be organized officially and recognized by the government

it has to be legit grievances like working conditions, contract desputes, wages

 

So striking as an unorganized, unrecognized group against a organization you don't work for to get a company official to resign because he said (or didn't say) something - this isn't legal on any level. So they are risking repercussions that they would have no recourse for.

A more productive protest would be to start a sit-in at the president office, or some on-field gesture before the game.

 

Joined: 11/21/2009

MGoPoints: 14510

Picktown GoBlue

November 8th, 2015 at 3:05 PM ^

the employees are not being paid or having any of the benefits of being an employee.  There are consequences of striking.  There may be lingering effects as well.

I'm not sure I'd call it illegal; that would imply that the students are legally bound to participate in football.  Not sure it would even be a breach of contract.  But I would assume they are striking understanding fully well there may be repercussions.

Joined: 01/21/2011

MGoPoints: 6299

Towelette

November 8th, 2015 at 1:17 PM ^

I live in Columbia, so I'll give you a run down of the events: I won't go into crazy details or specifics. African American fraternity was practicing for their upcoming fall performance, they were working on a play performance, they were practicing outside on school grounds. Another fraternity decided to yell racist slurs at them. A little later that month president of a African American group was walking down what we call Fraternity row, we was discriminated against and had slurs and accusations yelled at him. Nothing formal was ever brought up from official University employees. At homecoming of the Florida game the young man mentioned above and fellow members of his group staged a sit in during the parade and stood in front of the University Presidents car and refused to move. He listened to the group and after a few hours both sides went on their way. The group said they would organize other rallies. This Thursday, ESPN came to town for the game and national media was in town. The man had then decided to go on a hunger strike until the University President resigned for never commenting on these events. Also during this time their was the swastika event, which wasn't brought up by the group above, it was led by a Jewish chapter on campus but a letter that included all 38 divisions of the separate chapters of nationalities was given to the President. He then released a statement, months after the first event. As of last night the football players have joined the man on a hunger strike, they just stand with him, not on the hunger strike portion. Make of it what you will, neither side is going about it correctly.

Joined: 01/01/2015

MGoPoints: 242

TheSacko221

November 8th, 2015 at 2:33 PM ^

What should the President of a University do? He guys this black man said someone called him a racial slur. I have zero idea who it was, but I will expel random white folks until the person who said the slur is brought forth.

Also the articles I see state it was a single drunk person who yelled a slur.

The swastica thing is crazy as it was done in shit. Anyone using shit to draw anything has mental problems and should never be taken seriously, but simply taken to psych evaluation.

The more I read up on this the more I is clear that the BLM nut jobs have gotten their hands on the black community of The University of Missouri and is using them to push an agenda.

There are more serious racial issues that should draw attention. BLM movement is actually doing more damage than good.

Joined: 10/12/2013

MGoPoints: 385