George Washington University changes its nickname
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,419
Location: Long Island, New York
25 May 2023, 1:30 pm
The new name will apply to each of the school's athletic teams, and comes after years of pushback against the school's former moniker, "Colonials." Students had protested its connotation, given the violent and oppressive history of American colonization.
"We, as students of the George Washington University, believe it is of great exigence that the University changes its official mascot," reads the description of a petition organized by George Washington University students, which received more than 530 signatures. "The use of 'Colonials,' no matter how innocent the intention, is received as extremely offensive by not only students of the University, but the nation and world at large."
"The historically, negatively-charged figure of Colonials has too deep a connection to colonization and glorifies the act of systemic oppression," the organizers wrote. In addition to "Revolutionaries," "Hippos" and "Riverhorses" were also suggested as alternative monikers.
Chuck Todd, who hosts the NBC talk series "Meet the Press" and is a GW alumnus, announced the school's new name in a broadcast-style video released on Wednesday. The video also included feedback from students and staff at the school.
"The nickname that will represent GW's athletic teams and the community at large ... What's in a name? Plenty, it turns out," said Todd from behind a news desk. "Raise high, Revolutionaries."
The university's new moniker was decided based on 47,000 points of feedback from community members, collected over 12 months, George Washington said.
"Revolutionaries" was one of 8,000 original suggestions that officials narrowed down through community engagement and outreach over that time period, including focus groups, random sample surveys and merchandise distribution, the school said. The university's board of trustees then voted on a recommendation from the president and Moniker Advisory Committee, which the school said included students, faculty and alumni, to officially change the moniker.
The university plans to fully adopt Revolutionaries as its nickname in the 2023-24 academic year.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
25 May 2023, 2:48 pm
Its not offensive. It just a friggin stupid name because its a total contradiction.
GW's whole claim to fame is that he lead a "war of national liberation" against a colonial ruler (ie the British).
Well that, and being our first POTUS.
So its would be like calling the student body of a school named after Darwin "the Creationists", or after St. Patrick "the Pagans",or Henry Ford "the horsemen". Even if the thing the person opposed, or ended, wasnt offensive in and of itself as such, it make no sense to knickname the populaton of the school named after the person after that thing.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,461
Location: Right over your left shoulder
25 May 2023, 3:56 pm
GW's whole claim to fame is that he lead a "war of national liberation" against a colonial ruler (ie the British).
It's not really a contradiction, your logic is flawed.
It was a rebellion where the colony and the colonials broke away from the empire they were a part of. That war of national liberation was fought by colonials. They remained colonials after breaking away, all that changed is where the colonial ruler sat.
That said, Revolutionaries celebrates a more positive aspect of Washington's legacy than Colonials does.
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
25 May 2023, 5:16 pm
GW's whole claim to fame is that he lead a "war of national liberation" against a colonial ruler (ie the British).
It's not really a contradiction, your logic is flawed.
It was a rebellion where the colony and the colonials broke away from the empire they were a part of. That war of national liberation was fought by colonials. They remained colonials after breaking away, all that changed is where the colonial ruler sat.
That said, Revolutionaries celebrates a more positive aspect of Washington's legacy than Colonials does.
The US was no longer a colonial. So the residents were no longer "colonials".
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,461
Location: Right over your left shoulder
25 May 2023, 5:18 pm
GW's whole claim to fame is that he lead a "war of national liberation" against a colonial ruler (ie the British).
It's not really a contradiction, your logic is flawed.
It was a rebellion where the colony and the colonials broke away from the empire they were a part of. That war of national liberation was fought by colonials. They remained colonials after breaking away, all that changed is where the colonial ruler sat.
That said, Revolutionaries celebrates a more positive aspect of Washington's legacy than Colonials does.
The US was no longer a colonial. So the residents were no longer "colonials".
The US wasn't a colony of the British, it was still a invasive colony filled with colonizers.
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
25 May 2023, 5:40 pm
GW's whole claim to fame is that he lead a "war of national liberation" against a colonial ruler (ie the British).
It's not really a contradiction, your logic is flawed.
It was a rebellion where the colony and the colonials broke away from the empire they were a part of. That war of national liberation was fought by colonials. They remained colonials after breaking away, all that changed is where the colonial ruler sat.
That said, Revolutionaries celebrates a more positive aspect of Washington's legacy than Colonials does.
The US was no longer a colonial. So the residents were no longer "colonials".
The US wasn't a colony of the British, it was still a invasive colony filled with colonizers.
A "colony" is a territory ruled by an outside power. Americans kicked out the foreign rulers and were then independent. So the "colonial" period was over. End of discussion.
The fact that American still had both voluntary immigrants, and involuntary slaves coming in, and the fact that Amerind population resented the newcomers is irrelevent. The new comers were migrants. Not "colonist" because they no longer had allegiance to a colonial ruler.
And they representation in Congress (no more "taxation without representation").
Except in the District of Columbia where they still have that -which is the reason for the protest bumper stickers that say "DC is the last colony".
And dont forget that the first "colonists" in Anglo North America were in 1606 and 1619. White English speaking Americans had been born and living in America for seven generations by the time of the declaration of Independence in 1776. Only a minority of folks in the Colonies were first generation immigrants from either England, nor any place else by that time.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,461
Location: Right over your left shoulder
25 May 2023, 5:58 pm
GW's whole claim to fame is that he lead a "war of national liberation" against a colonial ruler (ie the British).
It's not really a contradiction, your logic is flawed.
It was a rebellion where the colony and the colonials broke away from the empire they were a part of. That war of national liberation was fought by colonials. They remained colonials after breaking away, all that changed is where the colonial ruler sat.
That said, Revolutionaries celebrates a more positive aspect of Washington's legacy than Colonials does.
The US was no longer a colonial. So the residents were no longer "colonials".
The US wasn't a colony of the British, it was still a invasive colony filled with colonizers.
A "colony" is a territory ruled by an outside power. Americans kicked out the foreign rulers and were then independent. So the "colonial" period was over. End of discussion.
The fact that American still had both voluntary immigrants, and involuntary slaves coming in, and the fact that Amerind population resented the newcomers is irrelevent. The new comers were migrants. Not "colonist" because they no longer had allegiance to a colonial ruler.
And they representation in Congress (no more "taxation without representation").
Except in the District of Columbia where they still have that -which is the reason for the protest bumper stickers that say "DC is the last colony".
And dont forget that the first "colonists" in Anglo North America were in 1606 and 1619. White English speaking Americans had been born and living in America for seven generations by the time of the declaration of Independence in 1776. Only a minority of folks in the Colonies were first generation immigrants from either England, nor any place else by that time.
Your definition of colony is incomplete.
kŏl′ə-nē
noun
A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country.
A territory thus settled.
A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.
Since you started with a flawed premise, you're guaranteed to reach a flawed conclusion. You typed out a lot of words to double down on an objectively incorrect argument.
The US most certainly fit the definition of a colony, but beyond that was actively colonizing other peoples lands in the interior.
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,419
Location: Long Island, New York
25 May 2023, 7:37 pm
The term does not refer to American Colonialism. Sometimes when discussion about the U.S. and U.K. occurs people occasionally endearingly call America “The Colonies”. This is typical woke stuff, no context, no sense of humor.
But it is selective wokeism. Where is the call to change name of George Washington University?
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
25 May 2023, 11:33 pm
Here is your quoted definition of "colony".
====================================
A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country.
A territory thus settled.
A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.[/quote]
=============================================
That's exactly what I said it meant. Are you saying that I am right therefore I am wrong? WTF?
You obviously have a distorted idea of what the word "colony" means. But its not your fault. Many Americans use the word in the same illiterate sloppy way. There is a period of early America called "the Colonial Period". It is so called because it was that era (1600 to 1790) when the US was ruled as a colony of Britain. But in 20th century America it got distorted in usage to mean "that era when they wore three cornered hats and powdered wigs". Its come to mean a style of furniture or clothing or like that.
What is now the US was territory fought over by European Colonial powers (England, France, Spain). England won out. Took over eastern North America and ruled it as it's colonies.
But then we broke away in the Revolutionary War. Freed the British colonies south of what is now the Canadian border. Became our own nation, and were then no longer "colonies". Because we were independent country. We ceased to fit your cited definition of "being subject to a foreign power....being a dependency of a foreign power". Canada remained a colony of Britain. The New World from Mexico south remained colonies of Spain until Simon Bolivar liberated South America.
The US expanded westward ...settlers moved westward.
But the US itsself did not become a "colonial power" until the Spanish American War when we subjugated and ruled faraway places like Hawaii, the Phillipines, the Canal Zone, and Puerto Rico. And those places became American colonies.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| George Santos Will Now Run as an Independent |
25 Mar 2024, 3:31 pm |
| George RR Martin Calls out Anti-Fans |
10 Feb 2024, 10:33 am |
