|
|
Post by bulkey on May 29, 2023 12:04:46 GMT -5
Still named for that guy who helped free everyone in America except his own slaves (despite what most want to believe about him being a reluctant slave holder, he actually was pretty persistent: just google Ona Judge). But the school's nickname has changed:
George Washington adopts 'Revolutionaries' as new moniker
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- George Washington University's sports teams will now be known as the Revolutionaries, the school announced Wednesday.
Revolutionaries replaces Colonials, which had been GW's name since 1926. Officials made the decision last year to drop the old name after determining it no longer unified the community.
GW said 8,000 different names were suggested and 47,000 points of feedback made during the 12-month process. Revolutionaries won out over the other final choices of Ambassadors, Blue Fog and Sentinels.
"I am very grateful for the active engagement of our community throughout the development of the new moniker," president Mark S. Wrighton said. "This process was truly driven by our students, faculty, staff and alumni, and the result is a moniker that broadly reflects our community -- and our distinguished and distinguishable GW spirit."
George the mascot will stay and a new logo developed soon for the Revolutionaries name that takes effect for the 2023-24 school year. The university is part of the Atlantic 10 Conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by knightsbridgeaz on May 29, 2023 16:43:55 GMT -5
Meh. Thank goodness they didn't choose "Blue Fog", the comments relating it to Foggy Bottom would be endless and perhaps not complementary.
I am all in on not having things named for Confederates that rebelled against the US. Not rabid about it, but I can say it makes some sense. I am not however part of the movement that, at least to a degree, is against honoring the slave holders that were important in our history, such as Washington and many of his contemporaries.
In the end, folks lived in their times. It is fine to say that these folks should have just "known" they were wrong to hold slaves (and some may have) and that they should have done the "right" thing and freed them, but the truth is this is placing expectations on individuals who were the product of their times. I have often pointed out that Martin Luther, who was crucial in the Protestant Reformation, was a virulent anti-Semite to the degree that a few years back the Lutheran Church offered an apology, pointing out that Luther isn't a "god", he was a human, the church simply has followed his teachings on theology. In the same way, I strongly support contextualizing our founding fathers that they were not perfect (and in some cases, not only for being slave holders) but never the less our great country wouldn't exist without them.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockymtblue2 on May 29, 2023 19:54:04 GMT -5
I wonder if any undergrads know what a moniker is? Or know the century of our war of independence.
|
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on May 29, 2023 20:20:12 GMT -5
The question of Washington's relationship to slavery was my own editorial, perhaps unnecessary. Not being colonials, however, is the larger question of colonizing people and therefore occupying and controlling them. For example, many South Asian-American students think of colonials as the British Raj, which resulted in terrible tragedies in South Asia. So, maybe the name is worth changing without feeling like it's a "politically correct" gesture.
|
|
|
|
Post by knightsbridgeaz on May 29, 2023 22:16:24 GMT -5
The question of Washington's relationship to slavery was my own editorial, perhaps unnecessary. Not being colonials, however, is the larger question of colonizing people and therefore occupying and controlling them. For example, many South Asian-American students think of colonials as the British Raj, which resulted in terrible tragedies in South Asia. So, maybe the name is worth changing without feeling like it's a "politically correct" gesture. I don't really like the term "politically correct"; it isn't "politically correct" to try not to be insulting or upsetting to a group of folks, it is polite and appropriate. George Washington University has - as I understand it - a very diverse student body and has had some issues (like many schools, as you would know better than I) relating to diversity. I'm sure the issue was largely exactly as you state, it makes sense. As to George Washington, your remark matched what I have read. One of my pet "theories" is that folks have lost the ability to understand that 2 things that may seem contradictory can actually be true at the same time. In politics and history and life in general. A corollary is that things are often more complicated than they seem. So no issue with commenting on Washington and slavery. |
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on May 29, 2023 22:35:59 GMT -5
The question of Washington's relationship to slavery was my own editorial, perhaps unnecessary. Not being colonials, however, is the larger question of colonizing people and therefore occupying and controlling them. For example, many South Asian-American students think of colonials as the British Raj, which resulted in terrible tragedies in South Asia. So, maybe the name is worth changing without feeling like it's a "politically correct" gesture. I don't really like the term "politically correct"; it isn't "politically correct" to try not to be insulting or upsetting to a group of folks, it is polite and appropriate. George Washington University has - as I understand it - a very diverse student body and has had some issues (like many schools, as you would know better than I) relating to diversity. I'm sure the issue was largely exactly as you state, it makes sense. As to George Washington, your remark matched what I have read. One of my pet "theories" is that folks have lost the ability to understand that 2 things that may seem contradictory can actually be true at the same time. In politics and history and life in general. A corollary is that things are often more complicated than they seem. So no issue with commenting on Washington and slavery. I certainly agree with your response to "politically correct," which is why I put it in scare quotes, referring to what others might call it. I was resisting using words more often expressed on Murdoch's news. |
|
|
|
Post by meyers7 on May 30, 2023 9:32:02 GMT -5
Never thought of Colonials as a bad thing. I guess I still don't. They were just people early in our (U.S.) history. Who wore wigs. (That was when I didn't confuse it with Colonels  ) Not that I care what GW does. Though one of my kids did apply there. Didn't end up going there though. And Revolutionaries is ok, I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on May 30, 2023 9:49:10 GMT -5
Never thought of Colonials as a bad thing. I guess I still don't. They were just people early in our (U.S.) history. Who wore wigs. (That was when I didn't confuse it with Colonels ) Not that I care what GW does. Though one of my kids did apply there. Didn't end up going there though. And Revolutionaries is ok, I guess. True in the circumscribed way you've stated: " rise up! when are these colonies gonna rise up?" ( Hamilton). But, as I said, it's a term of submission and oppression for a large part of the world, and a lot of people from those parts of the world are now American or going to school in America. OTOH, Revolutionaries kinda sucks. Go Colonials! has a lot better ring than Go Revolutionaries! (Go where? like to the Capital on Jan 6?  ) How about Minutepeople? |
|
|
|
Post by UConnChapette on May 30, 2023 10:07:46 GMT -5
Revolutionaries is 6 syllables. Nothing is going flow well from a cheer perspective unless they change it to "Revs", ReVols (gag, no!) or some other shortened version ('Naries anyone?)
|
|
|
|
Post by swash on May 30, 2023 10:11:40 GMT -5
The question of Washington's relationship to slavery was my own editorial, perhaps unnecessary. Not being colonials, however, is the larger question of colonizing people and therefore occupying and controlling them. For example, many South Asian-American students think of colonials as the British Raj, which resulted in terrible tragedies in South Asia. So, maybe the name is worth changing without feeling like it's a "politically correct" gesture. I am not defending (and have no desire to do so) actions and events of the past. History is an interest, not a career for me. Perhaps some of you with a deeper historical study and insight might help me with this interpretation: I wonder about the following: I have always believed the term Colonizing was about moving "our" people to new locations ... a step up from "settling" a location. Thus, graduating from a settlement to a permanent Colony was more about the place and its resources, that is governed from afar. Controlling peoples was perhaps the inevitable and obvious outcome, but the decision-makers of those bygone days would have described those as secondary ("They should be thanking us! Right?") goals. The inhabitants (indigenous or from prior colonization efforts by other entities), would have been secondary and fall into wording more like ... introducing culture ... educating ... saving souls ... protecting "our" people/assets ... expanding access to local resources ... etc, etc. Clearly there were local individuals who went straight to "conquer, kill, kowtow, or enslave them all." |
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on May 30, 2023 10:24:51 GMT -5
The question of Washington's relationship to slavery was my own editorial, perhaps unnecessary. Not being colonials, however, is the larger question of colonizing people and therefore occupying and controlling them. For example, many South Asian-American students think of colonials as the British Raj, which resulted in terrible tragedies in South Asia. So, maybe the name is worth changing without feeling like it's a "politically correct" gesture. I am not defending (and have no desire to do so) actions and events of the past. History is an interest, not a career for me. Perhaps some of you with a deeper historical study and insight might help me with this interpretation: I wonder about the following: I have always believed the term Colonizing was about moving "our" people to new locations ... a step up from "settling" a location. Thus, graduating from a settlement to a permanent Colony was more about the place and its resources, that is governed from afar. Controlling peoples was perhaps the inevitable and obvious outcome, but the decision-makers of those bygone days would have described those as secondary ("They should be thanking us! Right?") goals. The inhabitants (indigenous or from prior colonization efforts by other entities), would have been secondary and fall into wording more like ... introducing culture ... educating ... saving souls ... protecting "our" people/assets ... expanding access to local resources ... etc, etc. Clearly there were local individuals who went straight to "conquer, kill, kowtow, or enslave them all." A matter of perspective. Certainly, it's about moving our people. Or, it's about moving our people t o where other people already are and usually conquering them and extracting their wealth, often sending it back to the metrapole. The British Raj wasn't mainly about relieving an overpopulation problem in the UK; it was about wealth extraction. Kenneth Pomerantz's important book, The Great Divergence, explains how Europe blew past China in 19th Century GDP (when China was on track to exceed the West), by taking advantage of "ghost acres"--American farmland, enabling the UK to move their own farmers into factories. That's a more subtle form of wealth extraction. Without going into semantics, I think GWU got it exactly right in its statement: "determining it no longer unified the community." Just for way too many people it has a negative connotation. If it can't be fun for the students, no point in hanging on to it. "Revolutionaries" on the other hand.... Since it's in Washington, why not "The Bureaucrats?" |
|
|
|
Post by linkster on May 30, 2023 14:06:00 GMT -5
Gimme an R, gimme an E gimme a V gimme an O .... LUTIONARIES  (I don't think so) GO GW !!! |
|
|
|
Post by UConnChapette on May 30, 2023 15:24:30 GMT -5
A (a)
L (l)
B (b)
U (u)
QUERQUE! (querque)
Aaaaa, Aaaaa, Aaaaa, Aaaal bu querque!
(Only those truly special will know the reference)
|
|
|
|
Post by knightsbridgeaz on May 30, 2023 20:49:56 GMT -5
I am not going to post it, but I recommend those who are not familiar to Google Ambrose Bierce's definition of an aborigine. It is definitely blunt and accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamseason on May 31, 2023 11:34:45 GMT -5
The "natives" in the Americas are not "native" at all. They migrated from Asia. Are we to say that "getting there first" is all that matters? Based on what logic or moral argument? And when the first settlers came, the country was sparsely populated. So, it was a way for people to escape both religious persecution and a far more densely populated country. England enacted control which made it a colony. Washington and Jefferson led the effort to break that control. Yes, the settlers turned colonizers turned nation builders did some bad stuff to the descendants of previous settlers. But the "natives" did bad stuff to each other too. It wasn't all rainbows and unicorns when the european settlers arrived. People with superior weapons have been taking stuff from people with inferior weapons for as long as man has existed. It wasn't just the Brits doing it to their colonies. This desire to judge people of the past by the moral code of the present is just flat out narcissism. I like how Bill Mahre put it. "Being woke is like a magic moral time machine where you judge everybody against what you imagine you would have done in 1066: And you always win". People who engage in these practices are narcissists with a savior complex.
When one tribe or clan or whatever took control of a region previously controlled by another tribe or clan, they were colonizers too. And before we get all judgey about Washington and Jefferson having slaves, let's not forget that slavery existed well before the colonies, or even England, ever existed. Jews in Egypt? Bill Mahre also made a great comment about this. Maher reminded his audience that slavery was not unique to America, pointing out the root of the term is Slav – adding that Slavic people are not Black. “Slavery throughout history has been the rule, not the exception,” he continued, adding that all humans have a capacity for cruelty not just white people. There were many black slave owners in early America and it was black slave traders in Africa that sold other blacks that they, themselves, enslaved to the white slave traders.
Lastly, this desire to not offend anyone is fundamentally anti-progressive. No progress is made between people agreeing with each other in an echo chamber. Progress is always in conflict with the past and present. In order for it to take root, it must be spoken, written or demonstrated by action. And that will always involve risk of offending someone who disagrees. So, no, I don't care if you are offended nor will I change anything based on that alone. Give me a rational reason to change what you want changed. Being offended is not enough. Not even close.
|
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on May 31, 2023 11:57:20 GMT -5
Okay. We've managed to take this far away from where it meant to be going. My fault for even mentioning Washington's treatment of his slaves. But now, it's a political rant with nothing to do with basketball. We've made our points and jokes about GWU's mascot. Thread closed.
|
|
|
|
Post by UConnChapette on May 31, 2023 12:32:00 GMT -5
Thanks, Bulkey.
|
|
)
)
(I don't think so) 