Letter to the Editor
Mizzou designer explains position in ‘Scoreboard’ shirt
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007
I am the initial maker of the “scoreboard” Lawrence burning shirt you reference in one of your articles. I would like to explain that I certainly recognize that slavery was an issue at the time and absolutely do not support prejudice or injustice toward African-Americans or any other group, and the shirts were in no way meant to connote that. On the contrary, I have very good African-American friends and have for many years gotten offended by KU fans calling Missourians ‘slavers’ and their team wearing ‘redlegs’ for their games with Mizzou.
The point of the shirt was as an informal protest against the University of Kansas’ continued use of the “Jayhawk” as its athletic logo and mascot. Any KU grads or students upset about the image on the shirt really need to investigate the origins of the term jayhawk, and they will find that things like town burning, citizens being murdered, lawlessness and looting are all things that ‘jayhawkers’ also did during that era. Wikipedia notes that jayhawker bands committed some of the most notorious atrocities of the Civil War, including the massacre at Osceola, Mo., in which the entire town was set aflame and at least nine of the male residents killed, and that items stolen in raids into Missouri were frequently referred to as having been “jayhawked.” Is the supposed cause of abolition really justification for a university to celebrate murder, stealing and lawlessness? What sort of example did those jayhawkers set for the persons whose freedom they supposedly fought for? Perhaps the free black who rode alongside Quantrill during the raid on Lawrence did so because he disapproved of those acts by jayhawkers?
Moreover, KU forcing civil rights issues to the forefront by using terms like ‘jayhawk’ is inappropriate because Kansas’ own civil rights record is far from praiseworthy. After emancipation Kansas as a state continued to allow for segregation in its schools and elsewhere. It took the Brown v. Board of Education decision, whereby the U.S. Supreme Court forced Kansas to finally overturn its own statewide adopted segregation laws, for there to actually begin to be true equality in Kansas—and Brown v. Board was well after most all northern states had already voluntarily desegregated. I don’t understand why, if Kansas’ proud ‘Jayhawkers’ were so intent on fighting for a people’s freedom, the state of Kansas would turn right around and subjugate those people even at a time in the 1950s when many other states didn’t. It’s hypocritical in my opinion to evoke the ‘jayhawk’ and ‘redlegs’ as university symbols while ignoring Kansas’ own skeletons in the closet as far as race. That said, if the University of Kansas acknowledges these points and agrees that its mascot can be seen as offensive and an inappropriate symbol to use. I will then do what I am sure many Kansans would like to see happen to these shirts: I will burn them.
Sincerely,
Jeff James, University of Missouri graduate
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
For someone to involke the "I have a black friend" line is usually someone who is a racist, but doesn't like to admit it. It allows someone to ignore and get away with the ignorance they harbor towards a group of people.
Kansas's civil rights back in the day can be seen as priaseworthy because Kansas was formed as a states to give women the right to vote, their rights with child custody, and admission to the university.
We may have skeletons in our closets as James have mentioned with the term "jayhawker", but people were doing shady things back in the day from both sides. That doesn't excuse involking those shady deeds today.
The Jayhawk has lost its historical meaning, and I'm sure if you ask anyone on the street of what a Jayhawk is, then they would say it's a mythial bird that wears shoes, not the raiders from when slavery was an issue.
Agreed with the above poster, and laughing at the "I have a black friend. No really, I do" line from the letter. What I can say about MU is I actually grew up in Missouri as a kid. I was watching a basketball game, where the student section very classily yelled "M-I-Z- F*** K-U," (Muck Fizzou is at least a tiny bit less direct) I realized I didn't want to go there.
To seal my decision, though, one of my friends a couple years ahead of me was in the marching band, and had things thrown at her from the stands when the band came to perform at MU. Really classy! So, I did what I knew was best, and decided that MU was a waste of time. I haven't been to Columbia since, except to stop in to use a bathroom on my way to St. Louis for a NCAA tournament game (it's kinda like the NIT... Only... it's for good teams).
EVERYONE was segregated back then James, you tard. I suppose you guys aren't big fans of Abraham Lincoln, since he ordered all of western Missouri depopulated after your terrorist raids.Bottom line...yes there was bloodshed on BOTH sides. It was a war, for crying out loud!
HOWEVER...you were fighting to keep African Americans as slaves, and to secede from the Union, you un-American SOB. We were in the right, we're still in the right, and I don't care how many black friends you keep around just to make yourself feel better for being a slave-backing, union-seceding piece of redneck, meth-smoking trash.
He used wikipedia, for crying out loud.
He didn't even refer to the KU website at all, let alone dispute what is on there.
what a dork!
(Oh, and I don't like the John Brown shirts either)
Everyone knows that the "cause" that the shirt's quote refers to was slavery. Everyone also knows that today pro-slavery is no longer the "cause" of the people of Missouri. Instead of just making a game rivalry shirt, the writter of this letter stepped across the line and brought both Kansas and Missouri down to the level of those Civil War days.
Because the upcoming game is so important, tensions are obviously high. All he did was make the situation worse. I don't think a real fan would tarnish the reputation of his school to "protest" something that happened last century.
From the horse's mouth:
http://www.missouri.edu/about/history/mascot-colors.php
"Soon after Missouri's first football team was formed in 1890, the athletic committee adopted the nickname 'Tiger' in official recognition of a group of local Civil War militia called “The Missouri Tigers.” Their fighting spirit is now embodied in MU's official mascot, 'Truman the Tiger.'"
Congrats, Jeff. Your entire rant looks pretty good going down the toilet!
You make those people from the Ozarks look smart.
Share your 2¢
Requires free registration.