anon5/3/2018 1:46:02 PM
Here's everyones daily dose of bullshit!
squid5/3/2018 2:11:54 PM
Yeah, pretty dumb. And of all things, the Hippo? The stupid fake mascot Trachtenberg invented one day? If you really want to change it, try Presidents or Federals or something related at least. Sheesh.
nj colonial5/3/2018 2:16:41 PM
Couldn't agree more. Total misrepresentation of what "Colonials" means and why it was chosen by the students in 1924. George Washington was a Colonial. The brave soldiers and the families supporting them were known as Colonials - because they lived in Colonial America! They were not the Colonizers, they were residents of the colonies and fighting to become a new, free nation. Colonials fought imperialism, they were not the imperialists. Don't want to overreact to this but I may write a letter to the editor of the Hatchet defending our historic and very appropriate nickname and mascot. This university has too few authentic traditions left and we shouldn't lose this one to a misunderstanding and unfair interpretation of its meaning. GO COLONIALS!
geno5/3/2018 3:14:11 PM
Oh my God... they just substituted Colonialist for Colonial. Those are two completely different words with two completely different meanings.
“Colonialist, terrorist, murderer. In a lot of places that’s what colonials mean to people,”
geno5/3/2018 3:18:27 PM
Colonials is offensive to them, but they suggest it be replaced with Revolutionaries?!?!?!?!?!
brianpaul5/3/2018 3:29:49 PM
Wig-wearers? Slave-holders? Wife-fuckers? (GW was great as an adulterer, because he shot blanks.) Traitors? Come on, let's get creative. Bed wetters?) He slept everywhere. Why?
thinker5/3/2018 3:31:09 PM
Relying on imagery, terminology, ideology, social constructs, etc. from hundreds of years ago opens one to many critiques based on ever evolving notions about history.
Colonials in many parts of the Americas did in fact disrupt, displace, kill, etc. most of the Native Americans in their area. I guess that's different than trying to colonize them? Many of our most cherished "colonials" - or at least the rich ones - were also slave-holders. Slavery being an abjectly evil and brutally violent and cruel institution. An institution that was preserved in this country for many decades after it had been abolished in most other countries.
While I understand that the colonial era was a long time ago and obviously our society has evolved somewhat since then, when one celebrates historical figures/imagery/ideology, etc. it inevitably means having to examine the whole picture.
One can't fairly talk about the heroic colonials without at least acknowledging that they built a nation on land stolen from others (who they saw as subhuman) and largely built with forced labor, cruelly kidnapped a continent away (who they also saw as subhuman).
Many of the folks on this board are priviledged white men - as I am. One of the longtime priviledges of being a white man in America is that we generally get to define the narratives of American history. So mostly we've defined our own ancestors in more noble and heroic terms than the descendants of those we killed or subjugated in the process our building this country.
brianpaul5/3/2018 3:45:49 PM
Thinker, cut the liberal crap. Hahaha. The Nation's 'Exceptionalism' is based, almost entirely in my opinion, on a few hundred years of free labor. And, the fortuity of being protected by two oceans, coupled with the luck of the draw: a bunch of weinies to the North, industrious, hard working peoples to the South.
Heck, privilege, for some of our male ancestors, was simply a matter of falling into it.
Maybe GW's mascots can relate to George's horsemanship. He was well known for having a fat ass, that fit itself to the saddle.
geno5/3/2018 3:52:44 PM
I do not necessarily disagree with most of what you have said. I'm just having trouble understanding how any of that would matter for removing Colonials as the mascot for a school named after Geroge Washington. In my view, it would be hypocritical to request a removal of the Colonial mascot and attend a university named after George Washington. (Or at the very least advocate a change of the name of the University).
It would be really arrogant (and stupid) to advocate for the removal of George Washington as the name of the university, imo.
thinker5/3/2018 3:59:14 PM
I think that's right, Geno.
AND I think that we also need to discuss the whole range of meanings behind historical symbols. Many schools have had to deal with the use of historical figures' names on building. Us (Calhoun Hall), Georgetown (that actually financed the University for a period of time by selling its slaves), Princeton, Yale, etc. One doesn't need to erase history to be respectful, but one does need at least to examine history more carefully.
geno5/3/2018 4:04:42 PM
Thinker, I can always get on board with being better educated on any subject.
nj colonial5/3/2018 4:08:21 PM
Colonials forever, hippos...never!
brianpaul5/3/2018 4:15:57 PM
I'm happy to remain an alum of GWU, and a colonial. It could be a lot worse. TomJefferson used to torment the little slave boys who manufactured iron nails for him. And that business was one of his few financially successful ventures. UVa. They worship the man.
colonial ny5/3/2018 4:52:56 PM
Great idea ... let's drop the Colonials nickname and replace it with one based on our former school president getting drunk, buying a statue at an antique store and donating it to the school for a tax write-off because his wife refused to let him keep it at their house. Actually ... that might encapsulate the lives of many alumni nicely.
nj colonial5/3/2018 5:39:32 PM
C- NY +1 ... if anything on campus is offensive, itis that SJT hippo statue!
mike k5/3/2018 6:55:33 PM
this isn’t politically correct, but Fuck ‘em, they can go to another school if they don’t like ours.
la fan5/3/2018 7:07:43 PM
I say yes Colonials is offensive, change it. I’ve got the perfect new name the GW Redskins.
bp5/3/2018 7:43:16 PM
I don't think 'politically correct' is politically correct anyplace in the real world anymore. Excepting of course, this board, and, the great Midwest, from Winchester Virginia to Las Vegas.
thinker5/3/2018 7:59:25 PM
At a major university, no less, we should not be so hesitant to examine the history of symbols and antiquated narratives. In a world where today people fight to secure health care, feed their children, find meanigful employment, fight against discrimination and sexual harrassment, to overcome the ravages of drug addiction, and on and on --- the height of priviledge is saying -- You must protect and preserve the symbols and narrative behind those symbols that I enjoy. Arguing "don't take my mascot" conveys clearly that you are so priviledged that a "mascot" is somehow something important.
On 60 Minutes, recently, there was a piece on Princeton and how they are instituting a program to recruit and admit a lot more students from disadvantaged backgrounds (economically). There was a group interview of a bunch of students admitted under this program and they were asked "what do you say to the alumni for the 1970s and 1980s about what has been changed at their Princeton?" A very bright student answered "well I guess it's our Princeton now."
porter715/3/2018 8:54:14 PM
Counterpoint Thinker - "In a world where today people fight to secure health care, feed their children, find meaningful employment, fight against discrimination and sexual harrassment, to overcome the ravages of drug addiction" it seems like a waste of time and energy to focus attention on a mascot that you have to take out of context in order to be offended by.
This isn't a Washington Redskins, St. Johns Redmen situation where the mascot is blatantly culturally insensitive. The Colonials here represent a group of oppressed people fighting against their British rulers. Yes, they may have been the same people who did terrible things. But we are honoring the thing they did right, not their wrongs. If we have to focus on the wrongs in every instance, there are very few people who would have anything to celebrate. Sadly, almost everyone has some history of terror and vile behavior in their past. I'd like to think we are all capable handling the idea that history is complex.
Speaking of terror....Hippos kill 2,900 per year in Africa. Seems funny that in an effort to protect everyone's from pain, we select an animal that actually kills tons of people every year. Just sayin...
alumnus5/3/2018 9:12:55 PM
I'm proud to say I'm a liberal and I think political correctness, or sensitivity towards other people's feelings, is something important, but I don't look at the mascot and think here's a Colonial. It's George. That's what has me scratching my head a little. If they want to change the school's name, that's a bigger deal. If they want to drop Colonials (but Hippos would be really stupid), I'm not particularly attached to the name, but the mascot means what? People from other countries come to GW games and look at George and say, a colonizer!??? The horror!???
gw695/3/2018 9:34:53 PM
Wow-Some great posts.Thinker and Porter71 incredibly well reasoned and interesting,thoughtful responses.
thinker5/3/2018 10:00:09 PM
I'm not particularly offended by "colonial" but I don't get to say what someone else is offended by. That's the real rub - does your right to use symbology as you wish take precedence over the right of someone else to seek the removal of a symbology that is offensive to them?
Obviously one can find many examples of more egregious symbology than a colonial - just dip your toe into some confederate monument debates.
AND my point, at least, is that having a full discussion about symbols is a very good thing.
Also, Alumnus' point makes a ton of sense as well. Maybe keep the George mascot but call him the General? The George Washington Generals? Has anyone else used that mascot name before?
gw695/3/2018 10:15:56 PM
Washington and Lee Generals.
porter715/3/2018 10:31:49 PM
Not sure I want our basketball program associated with the Washington Generals. I’m pretty sure our team is bad enough without that symbolism.
bigfan5/3/2018 10:34:03 PM
How about the GW PCers?
Or The Generic Washington Virtue Signalers
This spectacular virtue signaling, even more than usual, makes one want to upchuck.
Really hope some of these virtue signaling posts, and some previous ones decrying others and beating one' s breast to signify hier than thou status have all been a parody. Because they read like it.
It would actually be a point, though if it were Colonialiasts? Or GW Colonizers. Then it should be changed because of bad connotations. In fact, would personally lead the protest parade.
But do any of these students calling for this know the difference? Maybe need to bulk up the study of the English language and its usage.
If we got some cool nickname, can at least consider.
In any case, not the frickin' Hippo.
Trachtenberg left a very mixed legacy. The Hippo was not his finest hour.
bigfan5/3/2018 10:49:52 PM
thinker5/3/2018 11:52:06 PM
Or The George Washington Wannabe Thugs - cuz that's not racist
or The George Washington Tanyas - cuz that's not sexist
or The George Washington Trannies - cuz that's not homophobic
So many good names to choose from. It makes me hungry just thinking about it. Anyone know of a good late night deli around campus. Cuz a good late night deli would be a great reason to come to GW.
the sons of liberty5/4/2018 12:51:26 AM
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE NOT THE HIPPOS.
I'm OK with the hippo being the "unofficial" mascot. I think the hippo statue is humorous. It's the kind of odd thing that you'd expect to find on a college campus. But to choose that as the official mascot would signal that we don't take our athletic teams seriously.
Having said that, I'd suggest that those of us who do take our athletic teams seriously at some point come up with a "2nd favorite" mascot/team name. --Because I fear that is where this is all EVENTUALLY heading.
Of course, getting 100% agreement on something like a new mascot is pretty much impossible. BUT, PLEASE. NOT THE HIPPOS.
Eagles is taken. Patriots is taken. (Here in DC.) The Generals would be the natural choice, but there's the Harlem Globetrotters problem. --Although I don't think the Globetrotters are as well known as they once were.
The Revolution? The "Revs"? The Georgies? ...The Tigers? (Ha.) I don't know.
In the meantime...Go Colonials.
former colonial5/4/2018 4:22:35 AM
I don't much care what the name of the GW mascot is, but I'm embarrassed for the entire University reading post from big fan. This guy single-handedly is keeping us out of the top 50.
gw alum abroad5/4/2018 7:23:37 AM
Fuck the hippo.
Colonial and "colonist" are different. Still, given GW's ties to power, the Waterbuggers, Power Brokers or Fifth Estate would all be appropriate nicknames...
brianpaul5/4/2018 7:47:47 AM
This is truly an angst producing thread. I was up most of the night, fretting over it.
I don't agree that the 18th century colonial Americans were oppressed. Imagine living in the old country of that time? All one had to alleviate the muck of urban poverty was cheap gin. And, gin was not all that cheap.
I always liked 'Bureaucrats' as a term for mascots, for any Washington college team. Nice, neutral, bland. Much like Buff.
No matter. This thread might carry the board through the summer. And, that thought inspirers another: Swamp Rats? Hooverites? G-Men? Damn, my brain cells need some sleep.
brod5/4/2018 8:49:19 AM
A lot of what the hatchet publishes is pretty laughable. I remember a few months ago there was an article written about how all conservatives are bad people and should rethink their political views. Even as a lefty it made me cringe.
Regarding this brilliant piece of writing - I think you have to stretch your imagination to be offended by our mascot. Sure in the wrong context colonials weren't the good guys, but is there anyone who genuinely is offended without doing mental gymnastics.
gonzo5/4/2018 9:38:46 AM
Here's our chance to just change it to what many people already think: The Colonels. Or Hoyas.
geno5/4/2018 9:53:32 AM
The students in the article claim to be offended by the Colonial mascot. I have no idea whether they are *actually* offended. However, claiming to be offended by the Colonial mascot while attending a university named after George Washington is antithetic. I think it is far more likely that these kids are not offended at all and are merely seeking a shameless attention grab than it is that they are actually offended by the Colonial mascot.
free quebec5/4/2018 10:18:34 AM
Whatever you think of this argument against the word Colonials, these kids blew it on two fronts.
1) Their issue is the school nickname, not the mascot. The mascot is George Washington. They should have launched a petition to change the nickname. But they are young, new to college, and don't know much yet.
2) They aren't putting their most persuasive argument forward. Their argument is that the word "Colonials" is offensive, but it relies on conflating the word "Colonial" (meaning someone from the original 13 Colonies, which is how George Washington defined himself) with the word "Colonialist". They even conflate those terms in the article. Further, by leading with the argument that the name should be changed, they are asking those who decide to agree that the name is offensive.
The argument that would have been most persuasive would be something like "The university is losing money becuase around the word people confuse the word 'Colonial' with 'Colonialist', therefore the university would have more international appeal and make more money by moving to a nickname less likely to be perceived as offensive." That argument is more or less in the article, but it's somewhat buried and they certainly don't put it forward as their strongest.
But the way they put the argument out there leaves lots of holes in their argument, makes people who oppose them dig in, and ultimately will make it harder for them to succeed.
kdb sand diego5/4/2018 10:28:38 AM
How about "La Jollas," works on a number of levels.
nj colonial5/4/2018 11:14:37 AM
I really feel better after reading these posts. Our university doesn't have a lot of authentic, time-honored traditions but calling ourselves COLONIALS is defintely an important one. It should be a source of pride since our university's namesake, George Washington, was a Colonial and his Colonial Army fought to break away from an imperialist monarchy to create a democratic republic. That's something to be proud of! And I am very proud of all the Colonials who came before us, representing GW on the playing field, in the classroom and in the professional world. Tuffy Leemans, Colonial football great and Hall of Famer, the 1957 Sun Bowl Colonials, all of our basketball heros that have worn the Buff & Blue and the many teams that represent our Alma Mater today. They are all Colonials., fighting to Raise High the university. We need to defend our school's heritage and proud tradition. And if anyone will help me get rid of the !@#*#! hippo statue, I'd love to dump it in Trachtenberg's yard! Or the Potomac.
notta hater5/4/2018 1:18:35 PM
I’d be more worried if they found Rice Hall offensive.
dmvpiranha5/4/2018 1:37:33 PM
Agree with most on here. What does George Washington have to do with hippos apart from that statue on campus? It's amazing to me that so many news outlets are covering this. It just feels so trivial more than anything else. Isn't it finals season? I guess it is this kind of content that gets clicks nowadays. Apparently the other proposed mascot is the "river horse". I admittedly was not aware the sculpture on campus had a name. There is a wikipedia article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Horse_(sculpture)
Many times I can understand where people are coming from when they say team names like the Washington Redskins or Cleveland Indians is insensitive, but I see no case to be made here. That's not to say the hippo wouldn't be viewed as insulting to those who are overweight.
Between this and the sorority snapchat photo from earlier this year, I feel like when the university gets publicity lately it's almost always negative (maybe that's just me that sees it that way). I'm still hopeful that LeBlanc will get the school moving in the right direction.
We already have enough posters changing names around here. We don't need reputable ones like NJ Colonial who I agree with a lot of the time (including here) changing theirs as well. Imagine him having to change it to NJ Hippo? Or Former Colonial as "Former Hippo"??
bigfan5/4/2018 1:47:52 PM
Wonder how it would affect recruiting.
Colonials is not a huge lure.
But unless we add sumo wrestling, hard to imagine some athletic young man or young woman commiting to GW in a tweet boasting:
"Proud to announce that I am going to be a Hippo."
nj colonial5/4/2018 2:42:05 PM
Thanks DMV and no worries , I am a loyal COLONIAL, forever!
bigfan5/4/2018 2:56:49 PM
It may be worth it for the following hashtag, another recruit magnet:
bobo5/4/2018 3:08:05 PM
gonzo5/4/2018 3:45:21 PM
Traditions are meant to be broken. I dont feel particilarly connected to 'Colonial' since it is a bit of a misnomer, as some people have mentioned.
But if they change the name to 'The Hippos', I will chain myself to Rice Hall.
colonial ny5/4/2018 7:42:11 PM
the George Washington University Dead Presidents.
danjsport5/4/2018 8:54:47 PM
i really like my hat with the colonial on it. And I’d be sad to see it go. But, if there are enough people offended by the name/mascot, I’d be fine changing it. I’ve actually found this to be an insightful and thought provoking thread. Thanks to all who participated in a meaningful way.
dc native5/4/2018 9:53:05 PM
Actually, the army that Washington led in the Revolutionary War was the Continental Army, not the Colonial Army. Washington had previously served in the Colonial Militia, which was part of the British Army staffed by colonials...
GW Continentals? At least no one would call us the Colonels anymore. Anything is better than the Hippos...
thinker5/4/2018 10:52:58 PM
This is unlikely to lead to anything because there are obviously tons of much more offensive symbols in plain sight.
But I think its unfortunate that so many people are so concerned about symbols. Symbols are the gruel of the proletariat.
I try to choose valuing people over symbols. Substance over style. If symbols really hurt real people and obstruct real progress then I'm happy to ditch most of the symbols.
Now do I think Colonials hurts any one in a significant way? No and FQ makes an excellent point that the mascot is George and the nickname is colonial. But this kind of debate is exactly the kind of debate that students should have in college.
the dude5/4/2018 11:19:25 PM
Hippos would be a bad choice, but Colonials has always been a terrible one. As an example, of how often does anyone on this board ever say "Go Colonials!!" Its really not a terrible choice for the reason the students are arguing though. A colonial is defined by Websters as "a native or inhabitant of a colony." That is to say all those living in the Colonies were "Colonials." Conquistadores would be a bad name, Colonials means something else. Ben Franklin was a Colonial, Christobal Colon was a Conquistador.
If they ever do change the name, they can do much better than Hippo though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only relation to Hippo was SJT's affinity for the animal? surely we can do better than Hippo. The Hungry Hippos?
bigfan5/5/2018 2:29:48 AM
Read all the comments, many amusing, under the Post story and see how the public would view this.
fred dann5/5/2018 6:46:43 AM
Hippos reeks of fuck school spirit. It’s super snark like that Boaty McBoatface shit. It reeks of all the silly reasons students hate their universities. Reeks of idiot righteous pride over not giving money to GW because I paid my tuition. Not enamored of GW, Ok. But you better find a school (any grade) to give because too many people think it’s the other guy’s job to give money and time. I’d like to ask these students what do you support that binds you to people who are not not you or is being morally superior your North Star?
bobo5/5/2018 1:21:12 PM
From FQ's reframing of the arguement that it's more about GW losing money worldwide by people confusing "Colonials" and "colonialists", it would also be helpful if they could provide actual data to that affect and not rely solely on antictodal examples.
long suffering fan5/5/2018 4:15:58 PM
It is crap like this that makes me embarassed to be a liberal.
grb5/5/2018 6:07:02 PM
Thinker. You are an idiot with the libtard drivel. This is why I will no longer do ate. Idiocy run amok in pseudo intellectual garb
gw695/5/2018 10:59:02 PM
LSF-If only we could find some folks on the Right who have the guts to admit how insane things have become.
Good example from you.May they follow your lead.
long suffering fan5/5/2018 11:09:00 PM
GW69...the term that used to be thrown around when we were younger is "backlash", and for someone to complain about the name "Colonials" for the reasons stated just make those on our side look petty and not very smart. Of all the issues to circulate a petition about, they are going to choose this one? I have nothing against political correctness...but this????
davis5/6/2018 4:34:02 PM
Fuck the stupid ass liberals. Those same moron students are pushing BDS with secret ballots because we all know they are big pussies and don’t want their Jew hating on blast. GW has some real “winners” as students these days.
gw695/6/2018 4:56:21 PM
Any examples on the Right? I'm sure there must at least one or two outrageous positions taken on their behalf.
Im able to distinguish a mainstream conservative from an Alt-Right looney tunes--so I Hope you can see the difference
between an 18 year old and a thoughtful Progressive.
davis5/6/2018 7:54:03 PM
Please tell me what the difference is between say Elizabeth Warren and these 18-22 year old know nothings? I will wait.
thinker5/6/2018 8:59:37 PM
Gosh Davis you sound suspiciously like a Russian bot
gw695/7/2018 8:36:11 AM
Got you--I'll trade you Elizaberh Warren for 90 percent of whack job Republican senators.
nj colonial5/7/2018 11:46:46 AM
LSF+1! These protesting students are not only uninformed about what it means to be a GW Colonial and why the nickname was chosen and is appropriate for our university, they apparently have no respect for the history and traditions of an institution that they they chose to join as students. I will do whatever it takes to preserve this tradition and I hope all of you do the same. Go COLONIALS!
thinker5/7/2018 11:57:09 AM
I'm sure you mean well NJ, but symbols mostly aren't worth fighting for. Might you consider fighting and doing whatever it takes to preserve something else like education for all who cannot afford it, healthcare, etc?
nj colonial5/7/2018 1:12:07 PM
Thinker: why is it either/or? You shouldn't assume that I am not also focused on important issues and social challenges. I happen to have spent my entire career in public service. I work every day trying to improve people lives by promoting the development of affordable housing, improving public transit and by planning and advocating for better transportation infrastructure, to serve all users. I have written plans and served on project teams to bring about sustainable development to help keep our air and water clean, for historic preservation and to preserve open space and farmland. In my personal life, not that it is any of your business, I give back to GW annually at the Luther Rice Society level. Most of my gifts are earmarked for the Power and Promise Fund of Columbian College. This is to provide financial aid to needy students who want to remain at GW. Lastly, I do think symbols such as our nickname are important because of what it communicates about the university and about us. Also, school symbols, rituals and traditions can unite us as a community and build pride in our Alma Mater. Symbols can also represent who we are and what we stand for. That is why I am proud to be a George Washington alumnus...and a GW Colonial.
bigfan5/7/2018 2:02:17 PM
Answer: NJColonial, you are a good man and proud Colonial who actually uses your GW education to do those things to help society, not merely signal your virtue and others' failings by posts on the Internet.
So, of course, that doesn't really count.
brianpaul5/7/2018 2:42:24 PM
How good of a Colonial is he? (Sure, he's off topic. But, I love the guy's slavish admiration of petty tyrants.)
the dude5/7/2018 4:20:10 PM
Virtue signaling, when repeated over and over as a phrase, gets old very fast.
davis5/7/2018 4:24:14 PM
Actual virtue signaling when done over and over again is as phony as a three dollar bill.
brianpaul5/7/2018 4:36:47 PM
'Virtue signaling,' huh?
Of all the guys on the board, I'm surprised BF is the one to nail it. Nice job, BF. The electrons and neurons are functioning, still.
thinker5/7/2018 5:14:16 PM
I appreciate your answer, NJ. You're right -- It doesn't have to be either or.
I still maintain that symbols are mostly not worth fighting for. And i dont see the colonial uniting GW. My love and occasional unhappiness with GW centers exclusively on the peope i met there, the experiences i had, the professors who i learned from, the memories about things like basketball.
My feelings about GW would not be altered in any way, shape, or form if the name was changed to Foggy Bottom University. Because my affections are tied to a place, people, ideas and memories ---- not nicknames or symbols.
nj colonial5/7/2018 5:26:55 PM
Thanks Thinker, for considering my point of view. As for people... George Washington was one... shouldn't a university named for him live up to his ideals and commitment to this democratic republic? He was also a Colonial, as were the members of his Colonial Army. All brave people who sacrificed a lot to start this country. I am inspired by our university's namesake and nickname. Raise High the Buff & Blue!
the dude5/7/2018 6:26:33 PM
FWIW, when names have been changed, people move on qiuckly. St Johns, Syracuse etc. But this is the wrong reason to change the name, which doesn't need any changing IMO.
Colonialists, that name would be worth changing. I can tell you what is worth changing! 2 Transfers to the roster! Any word on that front?
brianpaul5/7/2018 6:33:35 PM
Colonizers. For another negative connotation. But, my considered conclusion 1) The name change proponents are nuts. Not liberals, not 'libtards.' Nuts. 2) Anon. is nuts, too. Why fear posting about this stuff? A Colonial eunich?
gw alum abroad5/7/2018 8:33:44 PM
"The Dude" has obviously never sat with older alums at a Snobford football game or met people who still call them the "Bullets".
GW is not the DC area's offensively named team. And I hate the fucking hippo.
brianpaul5/7/2018 8:44:25 PM
(I was posting about a unique eunuch. Eunique. Bad spelling is all.)
tennessee colonial5/7/2018 9:13:53 PM
This is a new fad.Name changing for political correctness. (How about a tatoo?) Most southern states are changing names of places at a rapid pace. But most natives don't care. Really. But enough is enough. Colonials is a bad name? Really? I guess Volunteers and Commodores are equally offensive to some people. Well, Tigers and Lions hurt people too! No, I like GW Wood Teeth, or GW Buckets . But have we had another nickname? I don't remember another. But Colonials is pretty lame for a team name, not very vicious at all, but some people are actually offended by it? What is their problem? Not enough home work?
thinker5/7/2018 9:59:47 PM
I know TC -- Will the indignities never cease??
As a priviledged white man, its not enough that i have advantages over MANY in most endeavors. I want to use any symbol i want regardless of who that hurts or offends. Who cares if i get a better career, more wealth, better treatment in the law, better healthcare. Why cant i use offensive symbols?
tennessee colonial5/7/2018 10:55:17 PM
"Priviledged white man". Really. A WASP you mean? Ever read the book called, "The Jungle". Boy, those immigrants had it really good. Coming from my area of NJ I don't remember anyone being "priviledged". Unless they changed their name. I never saw affirmative action for what was considered the "lower" nationalities from Europe. I don't think that mass ever became "Priviledged". I know that those people were never hurt or offended. Think again.
the dude5/7/2018 11:16:43 PM
Many of these school nicknames were indeed problematic. Several, were clearly offensive and racist in their origin, to Native Americans, e.g.
Colonials doesn't fall in this category. Well intentioned, misguided and unnecessary because the name doesn't convey what its critics suggeset that it does. Perhaps it does to the ill informed, and in that case, there's at least a discussion worth being heard.
However, "Colonials" its just such a weak nickname as evidence by how little any of us ever use it. How little the media uses, etc. In all candor I wonder if some of our rival fan bases could even come up with the name. "GW" is so predominant. the 4 syllabic "co-lo-ni-als" is almost never used.
More needed are a pair of transfers, the name is meh... but fine.
bigfan5/8/2018 12:19:19 AM
Tennessee Colonial nails it.
thinker5/8/2018 12:21:44 AM
These days being a white man is a pretty big advantage and leads to many priviledges. But I get your point. My father was an orphan, displaced person, refugee, Jew who escaped Eastern Europe in 1947 at age 14. He arrived in North America not speaking a single word of English. He survived because he had a rich uncle who could bribe his way out. My Aunt Susan was not as fortunate having been deported by the orders of Adolph Eichmann and perished in Buchenwald after having spent time in Ravensbruk first. I guess that's not as bad as living in New Jersey, but still it's a bit to overcome.
Even with all of that, my father had smoother sailing (after his arrival) and more doors easily opened for him than any woman, much less a person of color would likely have experienced. At age 14, my horrifically traumatized and broken WHITE father had a more positive projected life arc than most any 14 year old black kid would have had. His priviledge, disadvantaged as it was, still was enough to yield great success in at least four different careers -- including many years as a professor at THE George Washington University. BTW he never expressed to me any pride in being a colonial nor do I expect that he would have ever heard the term in association with GW.
You might say "well the military and the rest of America was still segregated in 1947 and Jim Crow was prevalent and there was no voting protection for black people, etc. but that's all changed now." I'd respond by saying that last Friday I was pulled over by a policeman for doing 36 in a 25 (neighborhood had been complaining about speeding) trying to take my wife to the airport. The officer was almost apologetic for stopping me and gave me a warning. I just do not believe that the same would have happened if the driver was black or an hispanic/immigrant type person. There is simply no way that I don't get better treatment or service at most banks, hospitals, car dealerships -- whatever -- than would most people of color.
I am confident that I have had a very difficult life - in many ways - but I still feel like my priviledged status helped me overcome many things that less priviledged people might not have been able to overcome. I can't "give up" my priviledge but I also don't believe that I should use that priviledge hold on to "traditions and symbols" that cause pain to others and help form a historical narrative that discounts, diminishes, and ignores the viewpoints and perspectives of less priviledged communities.
Again, I am not offended by colonial but I agree with Dude that it's a particularly weak nickname anyway. But if a lot of people are offended by colonial or volunteer or commodore, then I say get rid of them because that's the right thing to do.
porter715/8/2018 12:40:12 AM
Thinker - I think your heart is the right place here, but your logic is flawed. Based on what you are saying, since you have privilege and advantages in society in general, you are generally deferential to the opinions of those who feel oppressed and offended. That sounds right, but the issue here is that you make the false assumption that all feelings of oppression are real and all feelings of offense are justified. Many are (probably most), but some are not. It is important that if we are going to address the real issues in our society, we are able to make the determinations between the real instances of oppression, and those that are not, but are caused by misunderstandings or ignorance.
Privilege and non-privileged groups are all obviously human and humans are not perfect. A couple human traits we all share are ignorance and a tendency for overreaction when something appears to touch on strongly held opinions. That is what is happening here. Individuals are taking the term Colonial, which as one destinct meaning in this context that people aren't completely familiar with, and then adding their own incorrect intrepetation of the term to lump it in with something offensive. Namely, that Colonial is the same as Colonizer because they sound similar. Just because their offense is strong, does not mean it is founded.
Here is a real life example that has some similarities to the current situation. Back when i was in college, there was a brief scandal in the DC government. A DC city official was trying to describe the DC budget, and used the word niggardly to describe it as stingy. Some people, not knowing what this term meant, assumed it had racist conotations, and complained. The official was fired by Mayor Williams. I'm sure you would agree that his firing was not just, but the logic you use in your statements would indicate that it is ok because a party took genuine offense, regardless of whether their reason for being offended was correct.
The funny thing about the proposed new names is "Revolutionaries" can be just as offensive to some people. Ask natives of Cuba and Iran what they think of Revolutionaries. I think they make give a different answer on the conotation of that term.
thinker5/8/2018 1:42:56 AM
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Porter.
Again, I don't think colonial is offensive and don't think that a few students complaining about it will cause it to be changed. My comments in this thread are intended to address the notion of symbols more broadly. The reason why I repeatedly bring up the concept of priviledge is that "priviledge" also determines who can and cannot complain and get a response to those complaints about symbols. A white man can kneel for the national anthem with less likely repurcussions than apparently a black man can. Mind you, the anthem and the flag are just symbols. But they are also definitely symbols of different things to different communities.
But in America 2018 only the viewpoint of priviledged white (mostly) men matters. In fact in the famous battle that Francis Scott Key wrote about, many of the lyrics speak of killing the escaped slaves who fought for the British who promised them freedom. When the War of 1812 ended, the Americans demanded the return of all blacks that fought for the British so they could be returned to the plantations. The British refused and sent over 3000 former slaves to Canada where they would live as free men and women. So what does the "Star Spangled Banner" represent to you? Were we fighting aggression? Were we fighting to preserve our oppression of slaves? It seems like the escaped slaves were fighting for their freedom and to be recognized as human beings and accorded basic human dignity. Land of the free and home of the brave? Only if you were a white man - mostly only property owners as well. I'm not saying we should eliminate the national anthem - but one can't claim that that there is no problematic history associated with the anthem.
brianpaul5/8/2018 9:08:28 AM
I grew up in a housing project. My mother was a prostitute, my father abandoned us. We needed 'connections' to get into the housing project. Years later, I had a client, a black man, 10 years my senior. By happenstance, he had lived near my little hovel. He told me his Momma (who I later met), told him growing up 'At least we don't live in that slum housing project' across the street.
I wish I had suffered more profoundly, of course. Because, even though all these facts are accurate and true in every way, I feel guilty for every wrong in this world. I represented people who had the tatoo on their arm. The ones I knew, women who survived, were the sweetest, most kind folks one could know. And, I represented hookers and druggies and worse, because we all ar guilty of something.
Thinker, the British didn't just transport those freed slaves to Canada. When some of them were discontented by the Canadian winters, etc. (They had come up from Carolina), the British transported them to London, or Freetown (now Sierra Leone) or the West Indies. The Brits ran a ferry service for their loyal black subjects, and rightly so.
Thinker, you're taking your points to absurdity. Of course there's white privilege. And, of course there's an advantage in being born male. There's also the advantage of being The Lucky Sperm. The one born with sight and hearing and all four functioning limbs.
Get off your high horse, once in a while. I doubt many in this crowd appreciate the lecture.
My whore of a mother? Still alive. Still expects to get to Heaven. Because she's confessed to being a whore. Now, there's a scam for ya. How about we incorporate, and start a TV religion? I once helped a communications law firm, and discovered an array of hundreds of basement and garage based TV 'ministries' The scum of the earth.
brianpaul5/8/2018 9:42:01 AM
Oh, I ought to have clarified. The British benefitted the slaves who helped them in the Revolution, and the 1812 episode, too. My treatise on the 1808 Slave Trade Ban will be available in the Fall. My bio, on life in the slums, the following Spring.
thinker5/8/2018 2:29:55 PM
I have no quarrel with you BrianPaul, but you saying that I've taken my points to absurdity is quite something.
brianpaul5/8/2018 3:41:04 PM
Thinker, I enjoy your thoughts, quite a bit. But, you're becoming Captain Obvious. How many whiitish-pinkish guys on this board are there, do you think, who don't comprehend they got the lucky draw by being male and light-hued? You've been hitting them over the head with this for days. And, you'll do it again.
Plus, my guess is that we have one or two women readers, and more than a few gents with dark tans, and more, at the very least. How about cutting a break. 'Colonials' is nowhere near as imperialistic, jingoistic, or downright offensive as Colonizers, Indians, Chiefs, Seminoles, or BananaSlugs.
You want to be known as Thinker? Great. You provoke thought. That's just fine. But occasionally you seem to expect folks to buy into your dogma, without any backtalk. It's a bit unreasonable.
thinker5/8/2018 3:53:10 PM
I think very few whitish-pinkish guys anywhere truly get that they got the lucky draw by being male and light-hued.
nj colonial5/8/2018 4:24:51 PM
I do, so do a lot of my friends.
brianpaul5/8/2018 4:29:06 PM
I'd concur, Thinker. In the greater universe of whitish-pinkish male America, few comprehend how very much advantaged they are. But, your viewing audience is a few dozen GW educated knuckleheads, most of whom have heard the sermon before, from others, if not from you.
In my opinion, you're preaching to the choir. Sometimes, even the converted need to hear The Word again and again. Just not, again and again and again and again. Ad infinitum, and again.
Maybe someone will come up with a hipster mojo for GW, like Lin-Manuel did for The Ham.
brianpaul5/8/2018 6:37:42 PM
Just because my mother was a whore and my father took off the day I started talking (and I haven't stopped) doesn't mean I don't know basketball. The local Rabbi taught me everything I know - shame I couldn't show it on the playgrounds because the other kids bullied me and wouldn't let me play. Therefore, I'm going to make the GW hoops fans pay for the sins of others!
thinker5/8/2018 6:53:20 PM
I will make this concession -- i think a lot more of these guys understand the broad notion of their priviledge without being as aware of how that priviledge manifests itself.
brianpaul5/8/2018 7:30:30 PM
Thinker, it's quite alright if you want to believe all your fellow posters are ignorant, insensitive louts. GW 08 Alum, Dudette, GW Future, and MV (the Quadruplets) certainly fit the bill. So does the faux BP, who posted at 6:37.
He's likely one of Mom's clients, too.
tennessee colonial5/8/2018 7:49:06 PM
Sorry I got bummed. My grandfather was born in PA,(1900) but he only learned how to read after he came back from serving in France during WW1. I asked him what was wrong with the schools in Pennsylvania? Nothing, but the KKK kept him from going to school beyond the 2nd grade. I said what? The KKK in the farmlands of Pennslyvania? Yes. That was a shock to me. Go to the schoolhouse and we'll burn your barn down. Nice.
A black friend of mine from Macon, Georgia, lamented what happened to his family in middle Georgia after the Civil War. That's when I asked him to read that book by Sinclaire, "The Jungle". He was shocked. He didn't know what was happening to the people working in the coal mines, slaughter houses, and factories up in the north. It was a tough time for most people during the era of the Robber Barons. Its too bad History isn't being taught much anymore in the schools.
thinker5/8/2018 8:18:07 PM
Very interesting post, TC.
I am married to a history professor who has really opened my eyes about history in general but certainly American history as well. You're EXACTLY right about the lack of history education America. Its shocking how little exposure to critical thinking about history Americans get in school.
rkgw5/9/2018 9:39:57 PM
Here's the reality of what we're dealing with these days: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise-of-victimhood-culture/404794/
Instead of the values that my grandparents and father abided by--honor and self-reliance--the goal in our modern society is to appeal to those in power by any means possible in order to get a pat on the head. This is victimhood culture because a common means of getting attention and making the boss/the popular alpha boy/a Khardasian notice you and give you something is to play victim. Notice give as opposed to earn.
In such a hyper-competitive, overpopulated world, where people are being replcaced by machines and jobs are constanty outsourced to nations with lower taxes and therefore wages, getting a leg up on your competition by cheating is an enticing option. Working hard and relying on yourself to achieve is obviously difficult and scary. You could fail and then you'd only have yourself to point the finger at. If we don't enforce values like character and honesty via parents, schools, religious organizations, then people will lie and cheat and cut corners to get ahead. It's the path of least resistance these days, and it includes as good or better of a payoff.
I haven't heard one coherent argument as to why the GW mascot is offensive and needs to be replaced. All of the arguments border on absurdity and seem purely kneejerk and emotional. Villainizing colonialism is villainizing the foundation of our country and culture. Colonialism is not good nor bad, it just is. GW exists, Washington D.C. is a successful city, and the United States is a wealthy country because colonists risked their lives to leave tyranny and start completely from scratch in a completely foreign, harsh, undeveloped, unclaimed land. They colonized the land, fought for it, claimed it, and developed it. From nothing amounted a super prosperous country. Setting the precedent that we need to forget our historical achievements because they were accomplished by backward men is absurd. Of course they were backward! They lived in a backward world! That's how progress works--you start from some lesser place and you improve upon that foundation.
By this same philosophy that they argue against the Colonial, we are without a doubt all villains to our future generations. After all, we'll be in some way backward compared to people living in the year 2100. Oh heavens no! Those savages used deoderant with aluminum in it! Turning our back on history to avoid the lawsuits/crying of overly-sensitive and/or attention-seeking scammers is only going to end in more problems. Look how much the NFL sucks now. As of 2009 the NFL was awesome. Just saying.
This idea that we can't celebrate any part of history because the people were backward, and did things we disagree with is absurd. You can't learn and improve as a society is you're constantly pointing at your elders and telling them they're evil. And the idea that certain groups need to pay for what their ancestors supposedly did wrong is also absurd. But if you're going to take that route, at least allow some accounting and objective research and an open discussion to allow for an equal-handed, efficient outcome. Instead, we typical just blame a certain powerful group unfairly, tax them for things they're innocent of, and get everyone butthurt and angry. A little but of empathy would be nice too...
Anyway, this all rant is for not because our societal values are completely off. This type of thinking is now the rule rather than the exception and my rant is what sonds absurd.
davis5/9/2018 9:57:45 PM
These self-absorbed weak kneed know nothings are going to precipitate the end of days.
brianpaul5/10/2018 1:48:20 AM
Tyranny is an overused word these days. Political correctness is an inane phrase.
Only my comments are perfect, reasoned, and thought provoking. Everything else is crap.
i'd say more, but you nitwits and Neandethals would not grasp my wisdom.
the mv5/10/2018 10:00:24 AM
While I don't disagree with Thinker's position here in a broad sense, I would question whether this position fits this particular situation. As others have also indicated, I have yet to learn a valid reason why the name Colonials should be offensive to anyone. If Colonials is being confused with Colonialists, then there is your answer. Otherwise, I'm just not sure where the violated students are coming from.
It's easy to say that if anyone is offended, then consideration should be given towards making a change. The problem with this in today's day and age is that someone will take offense towards presumably everything. During the whole Redskin name controversy, I once heard someone say that they should change the name to PotatoSkins but once this was done, the Irish farmers would cry foul. So I'm not sure that we as a society can afford to overreact every time a small minority feels slighted about something. When enough people feel the same way about a cause, that's when change should be carefully considered.
I can anticipate Thinker's counter-response to this being that the majority are white, privileged folks and as long as things stay this way (by the way, check out US Census information and you'll see that this country is very much moving away from being dominated in number by white males), we will rarely see much by way way of societal change, and perhaps there is some truth to this. At the same time, I'd like to believe that all white privileged males don't think, talk and act the exact same way. Just because one may not be behind changing the Colonial name/mascot does not mean that all feel this way.
thunker5/10/2018 11:38:57 AM
I am a loser with no friends so I come on here with my long winded diatribes and sermons even though though you all know I am full of shit. Even Ziik has seen through my b.s. and has questioned me. That makes me sad. All I have now is my make believe pal the Dude.
gw695/10/2018 11:46:54 AM
Generally if I know my intention (a big if) --one has to be rigorous and honest about their intent and most of all conscious,
then I can say or do pretty much what I want.Exceptions are legion --children,those who are clearly unable to protect
themselves from me and those who I believe one should be merciful to.One of the tenants that has been helpful to me is
"not to protect people from me" -Again if I know my intent is not to victimize then I'm being withholding and assuming that
the other person can't take care of themselves.The other person can claim victim hood -they have that right(even though I
dont believe they are).At that point I can say -"Sorry you feel that way"and move on.They have "protected " themselves from
me-again their right.
Having said all that if a person "plays" victim too often I move on until I can find some one who realizes that not being a victim
or a victimizer is one of the most important lessons in this lifetime.
brianpaul5/10/2018 12:05:49 PM
Is that from Viktor Frankl?
brianpaul5/10/2018 12:07:46 PM
Doc, I think we all are taking this handwringing a bit too seriously. What's up with that, Doc?
(I think we all need to move on, before this thread hits 110)
gw695/10/2018 12:37:32 PM
Just a thought not a sermon.Something to do before I go food shopping.This shtick is my own- but I clearly take whatever
I can from anyone who makes sense to me--including Frankl.
gw695/10/2018 12:41:20 PM
Oh--I also take from Bernie my next door neighbor.Great idea man.
squid5/10/2018 2:02:03 PM
Wow, looks like the WTOP or Washington Times comments section in here
brianpaul5/10/2018 4:44:45 PM
Is that Bernie, the Attorney?
If so, Dave Frishberg mentioned him to me.
poog5/10/2018 8:25:27 PM
They’re all gone now but perhaps it’s best to go back to debating the relative merits of Gusti’s, Luigi’s and Marrocco’s
gw695/10/2018 10:06:45 PM
I was a host at Gustis one summer-I seated folks on the outdoor patio.I preferred the food at Morroccos-and the owners were
tough looking which I thought was cool.But--my favorite joint was Trieste run by Luca and Pasquale Fiordelise.Great bracciole.
I was a regular there and they treated me like a son.So did the Pugliese brothers-barbers,across the street.Good night.
herve5/11/2018 1:00:19 PM
I agree everyone, especially with
brianpaul5/12/2018 11:16:34 AM
I agree with 69, 100% about Morroccos. The owners ought to have been included, somehow, in Goodfellas. The ice cream concoction was great. The food was always 'just fine' or better. The Trieste was one of 2 places in 50 years where I sent the food back. It must have been 'just me' cause, I never heard that sort of complaint from any pals.
Then, there was a tiny place, Nino's or Nina's, a few blocks North of GW. I took The Goddess there, the next year, I took the gal who became. Mrs. BrianPaul. My waiter asked "what happened to the big blond?" But, otherwise, things were perfect.
The Pugliese's. Thank you for that. My law clerk, Tony went there, years after I did. I vaguely recalled them, but not by name. Tony told me, "Oh, they recall you, BP" I asked how. "Nice hair." Nice guys, great law clerk. Italian, too.
Herve, you're the most disagreeable GW alum I know. How does hervette, not to mention mrs. herve, deal with you?
rich maier5/12/2018 12:39:01 PM
Morroccos was the best. My wife and I went there on our first date. It became our favorite restaurant.
gw695/12/2018 12:49:13 PM
Interesting-no one is mentioning Luigis--overrated?
brianpaul5/12/2018 1:07:36 PM
I operated on $5.00/month budget as an undergrad. I went to the Campus Club, too much, stole other guys' beers when they got up to dance. I may have stolen yours. By law school, I was rolling in dough, went to Adam's Rib, once a week, to fuel up and to have some veggies, martinis, and dessert. I was 'food deprived' unless my girl was in town, for maybe 10 years. I could fill up on popcorn and junk at the Circle Theater, double features of Casablanca and Play it Again Sam.
I had a friend who was a waiter at the Astor. He took care of me there when I dated 'Miss Hall of Fame 1968." We were roommates one summer. He committed suicide. I always wondered if I drove him to it. We used to ride our motorcycles together. He rode his into a freight train, intentionally. I liked the Astor a lot. But, that killed the place for me.
tennessee colonial5/13/2018 2:20:26 PM
The Astor was cheap and good. So was the Bellydancing.
bigfan5/13/2018 5:52:21 PM
Forgot about the belly dancing. Good point, TC.
As pointed out before, believe the Astor had a number of 75 cent drinks available anytime.
Quite a lure to students.
gw695/13/2018 6:55:42 PM
Enjoyed the Astor a great deal and ate there a lot.--The belly dancing was not as erotic as I had hoped--for that the
Good Guys was the place to go!Those were the days.
herve5/15/2018 1:35:52 PM
Personally I am okay with this change...I am tired of being associated with racist pigs and the white devil. Let’s change all the offense mascots while we are at it...all three of the Rams need to go. I am a Christian and the ram is often used in satanic images. Very offensive to me. St. Louis’ mascot? Also a demonic presence who needs to go.
In fact I vote we get rid of all mascots and simply have a gender neutral, amorphic, rainbow being as the universal sports mascot. They will hug and cheer the other teams win or loose. Now no one can be offended!
brianpaul5/15/2018 1:44:23 PM
Banana Slugs: the most sexist, penile, peurile, misogynistic symbols of athletic domination and rapist culture in American sports. Even worse than Widcats.
Rainbows? Too, too anti-hetero and therefore (this is for you, BF) Politically Correct.
I'd go with Pond Scum. Or, Doggie Doo.
bigfan5/15/2018 5:48:10 PM
What about the GW Generics? Has a nice alliterative ring to it.
Of course, those who favor Brand Names might get offended.
brianpaul5/15/2018 5:55:38 PM
BF: The fake news would call us the GW Generals, if they saw 'Generics' Heck, maybe even Georgetown Generals.
herve5/15/2018 10:10:22 PM
Oh it will be an ever so slightly better world when I turn on the new board and people stop posing as anyone else. Faith. Trust. Pixie dust.
nj colonial5/16/2018 1:17:11 PM
Colonials forever...hippo, never!
tennessee colonial5/16/2018 5:35:02 PM
Here's a good one. My scoreboard has Cricket scores on it. Can we tell the the Mumbai Indians Cricket Team to never make a trip to the US?