Offline
Offline
Good!
Online!
When the student center was "named" some time after it opened in 1970, the student body was aware of Marvin's racist history and never recognized the name of the "Marvin Center" and continued to refer to it simply as the "Student Center".
Offline
Kind of surprising there was action on this but nothing either way about the Colonials nickname, no?
Offline
I feel this is great news and I appreciate GW recognizing how bad this was. I know some people here think it's not important, but to me and so many, the decision to take Marvin's name off the building is like getting someone to stop slapping you in the face. I look forward to continued progress and unity.
Offline
A good move. Does anyone who was around in the 60's remember when the classrooms were painted "Marvin Green?"
Offline
The Ross-Man! wrote:
Kind of surprising there was action on this but nothing either way about the Colonials nickname, no?
My understanding is that there are separate committees involved in evaluating the Marvin Center and Colonials issues so this news does not necessarily impact the other.
I hope we can retain the Colonials nickname. But if you're going to change Colonials, you might as well change the name of the university as well. If you have a problem with one, there's an excellent chance you have a problem with both.
Offline
The Ross-Man! wrote:
Kind of surprising there was action on this but nothing either way about the Colonials nickname, no?
Not surprising and please don’t conflate the two.
The only issue with the Colonials nickname is dumbasses who don’t know the diffidence between “colonials” (people who lived in the original colonies and fought the British for our independent) and “colonialists” or “colonizers” (people who turn others into colonies).
It’s pretty amazing to me that people can’t tell the difference, and there’s no reason to compare refusing to an honor a segregationist to a nickname that is only controversial if you literally don’t understand the word.
Offline
Had no idea that Marvin was such a piece of dung.
Just thought he had a funny full name. Never aware a discussion of his background.
Unlike the nonsense over Colonials, this is a clear wrong that should have been righted long ago.
Last edited by jf (6/30/2021 9:34 pm)
Offline
Free Quebec wrote:
The Ross-Man! wrote:
Kind of surprising there was action on this but nothing either way about the Colonials nickname, no?
Not surprising and please don’t conflate the two.
The only issue with the Colonials nickname is dumbasses who don’t know the diffidence between “colonials” (people who lived in the original colonies and fought the British for our independent) and “colonialists” or “colonizers” (people who turn others into colonies).
It’s pretty amazing to me that people can’t tell the difference, and there’s no reason to compare refusing to an honor a segregationist to a nickname that is only controversial if you literally don’t understand the word.
This is 100 percent correct.
Rip the Marvin name off the building and acknowledge that allowing his sick legacy to be honored was a huge mistake.
But the Colonials name idiocy is shielded in ignorance fostered by presumably educated people who should know the difference.
If the stacked committee facultywise pushes this stupidity, we need to push back.
Not that the name is so great,but the misguided rationale "no matter what it actually means, is frankly embarassing for GW.
For a supposed educational institution, this would be just dumb.
Offline
I saw a petition a while back to rename us the Hippos. God that would be a dark day
Offline
100% Right Skittles!
Offline
I don't see any basis for changing the Colonial moniker. However, do see a case for changing the name of the University because of George Washington's relationship with slavery, his treatment of slaves (including many of his own slaves) and his refusal, as President, to fight to abolish slavery.
I can see why many would not like to see the name changed. Certainly there would be no US without Washington's military and political leadership (of course, there would be no US without the slaves). But if you don't ignore or deny our history history, there are some very valid reasons why George Washington's name should be removed.
Last edited by 22ndandF (7/01/2021 2:08 pm)
Offline
22ndandF wrote:
However, do see a case for changing the name of the University because of George Washington's relationship with slavery, his treatment of slaves (including many of his own slaves) and his refusal, as President, to fight to abolish slavery.
And the First Nations peoples. Don´t forget them, His "relationships" with them are what got him to the rank of General in the first place.
Offline
GW Alum Abroad, thank you for brining up that point. I feel it is correct in Washington's private writings he expressed empathy for some Indians, but he seems to have had no problem taking their land and was responsible for the killing of many of them. There is no doubt that George Washington was a conflicted monster in many ways and at the same time was a great general and proved to be an adept politician at the time.
Offline
Foggy Bottom University.... think of the nickname possibilities
Offline
Good news. Did not know Cloyd was a racist *sshole. I'd be willing to lay odds Lloyd Elliott probably had a robe and hood in his closet as well.
Last edited by Mentzinger (7/03/2021 9:53 am)
Offline
I'm not the type of person to whine about PC this and PC that but renaming GWU would set a dangerous precedent. This is our founder, the first president, the general who led the colonists to freedom. Educate people on his darker side. Acknowledge the past but erasing the founders of our nation is ridiculous
Offline
Reality check on two unrelated issues;
1. George Washington was not the university’s founder. He said we should have a national university in the nation’s capital but he was dead for over twenty years when Columbian College was founded.
2. Lloyd Elliott was hardly a bigot. He had taught at Cornell and been president at U of Maine. Very low key, tried to avoid publicity, sometimes too slow to accept change, but basically a good, kind man.
Don’t get me started on Luther Rice.
Offline
During my sophomore year(it was Elliotts sophomore year also I believe) a small delegation of students led
by Mark Plotkin,that included me,went to see Elliott about the poor food served on campus.I can’t remember
the name of the food service-Aramark?-something like that.We we’re ushered into his office and he got up from behind his desk ,came around the desk and shook our hands.We had about a twenty minute
discussion . He was very kind to a bunch of extremely entitled young men.Very gentle.