This is a great conversation.  A precise example of the type of civil discourse that this country desperately needs.

22nd&F, I obviously do not know your skin color and please do not feel inclined to reveal this unless you would like to.  If you are in fact a black or brown American, I am curious as to whether you truly feel offended when walking into the Marvin Center or witnessing the glorified legacies of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.  You wrote that we can't have a) without b) and I'm left to wonder if that really is true.  I know for a fact that a) is bigoted and personally offensive.  As for b), I just don't know how personally offensive this is.  It may very well be; as a white person, I just haven't seen this from afar.

DrMike, thank you for the compliment.  Am a fan of your posts as well.  I'll add to 22nd&F's most recent post by saying that referring to a "U.S. decline" prior to the arrival of Trump is too strong in my opinion.  What has gone on in this country prior to Trump's arrival is a divisive rhetoric that has become far too acceptable and which has contributed to major problems with our two-party political system.  I would trace this back to the Clinton administration, the rise of political talk radio with Rush Limbaugh leading the charge, and the subsequent advent of unabashedly biased cable news networks like Fox News and MSNBC.  Somewhere along the line, the object of the game moved away from the evidence or support that was backing up what people said and more towards the volume and frequency in which things were being said.  Our president has undoubtedly taken this to never before seen or heard extremes.  Accountability is out the window.  Being questioned or challenged can easily be solved by quickly moving on to the next subject.  It doesn't help matters when rather than making even the slightest attempt at uniting the country, the president repeatedly refers to his opposing party as "losers" and worse.  No matter what your feelings were towards any prior president, it's safe to assume that no president certainly in our lifetimes has ever sought to divide the country quite like Trump has.

Should Biden win the election, here's my prediction: he's going to go out of his way to compromise/appease Republicans on at least a few issues.  (Of course, control of the Senate may have much to do with this.)  Having seen how divisive his predecessor was, he will make sure not to govern in nearly as one-sided a manner.  Will this make a dent in attempting to fix our two-party system?  Will Americans understand/be appreciative of such an effort?  Even if these answers are "hardly at all", it will be a step in the right direction. 

The Dudelusional still does not seem to understand that unlike the old board, there are measures in place on this site to prevent any individual from posting under multiple names.  Or, let's put this another way.  If it's so easy for me to post under multiple names (which I am not), why are so many of his former names still in retirement? 

Dr Mike, I'd still trust most of the non-political appointees in government.  Trump appointees - not one iota, though even I liberal that I am, find it incredible that Trump could find so many lost souls to appoint.

https://www.gwhatchet.com/2021/10/07/trustees-to-announce-decision-on-colonials-moniker-this-academic-year-speights-says/

Get ready to root for the George Washington Basketball Team

Board of Trustees Chair Grace Speights said trustees have received recommendations from the committee considering the Colonials moniker renaming.

Speights said in an interview Tuesday that the Board will announce a decision on the future of the moniker within the academic year, and trustees had a “very healthy conversation” this week about the matter. Trustees will continue the discussions through the Board’s next meeting in February, she said.

“We’ve had to use this moniker for a long time, and everyone wants to be thoughtful,” Speights said. “We appreciate the report that came from the committee and the committee’s recommendations.”

Last edited by GW0509 (10/07/2021 7:12 am)

Totally outrageous as well as insane.I’d like to say “I don’t get it” but “I do get it” and it’s a frightening 
take on our time.I recommend watching the “Social Dilemma “ on Netflix for those of you who haven’t seen it.
The main takeaway is that there is no “truth” anymore(not that we didn’t that already).The world is upside down.George Washington led the “Colonials” against the British-what else do we need to know?Maybe I need to get a life -but I find this whole episode very upsetting on a macro level.
 

Note the verbiage: “ We’ve had to use this moniker for a long time.”  HAD to?  HAD to? 

We know where this is going.

I made a decision to stop donating if they change the name.  Now I guess I need to stick by it.

The GW Board and executive team appears to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I will be offended if they change the name. I may feel marginalized. As a marginalized person, it will be extremely hard (make that virtually impossible) to make future donations to an entity that marginalizes me. I will support basketball as long as JC is around but the rest of the University will be dead to me. In my discussions with several others, I apparently won't be alone. It's the several others they should worry about - much higher than my GW Society level donations.

Last edited by GWRising (10/07/2021 12:44 pm)

First: GWRising, are you Jamion Christian's dad?

Also I am not sure why this would be that upsetting. I mean, don't get me wrong, it is deeply stupid - if our team was The Colonialists, this would be another issue. But aren't we all used to stupid at this point? We are living in the dumbest timeline.

I'm going to root for GW whether the team is The Colonials, The Lobbyists, The Southern Hoyas, The Froggy Bottoms, The Trachtenbergs, or most other names. Being super pissed about this is only marginally less dumb than being pissed about Colonials. 

Also, changing the name doesn't marginalize anyone. It might alienate or annoy a lot of folks, but trying to copt language of the oppressed when your basketball team name gets changed is pretty small. (Again, anyone who feels marginalized by the name itself is also being pretty dim)

Steve wrote:

First: GWRising, are you Jamion Christian's dad?

Also I am not sure why this would be that upsetting. I mean, don't get me wrong, it is deeply stupid - if our team was The Colonialists, this would be another issue. But aren't we all used to stupid at this point? We are living in the dumbest timeline.

I'm going to root for GW whether the team is The Colonials, The Lobbyists, The Southern Hoyas, The Froggy Bottoms, The Trachtenbergs, or most other names. Being super pissed about this is only marginally less dumb than being pissed about Colonials. 

Also, changing the name doesn't marginalize anyone. It might alienate or annoy a lot of folks, but trying to copt language of the oppressed when your basketball team name gets changed is pretty small. (Again, anyone who feels marginalized by the name itself is also being pretty dim)

Nope not JC's father lol.

Obviously, what I wrote was a bit tongue in cheek related to language of marginalization to make a point. It won't affect my life too much if GW calls themselves the Hippos or anything else. However, I'm not giving any more money to an institution so weak-kneed that they can't stand up to the progressive crazies when they are clearly in the wrong. There are plenty of more fun ways to piss away five figures every year. 

Steve, there are a few things in play here.  First, I like to believe that the one emotion above all others which the college/university experience brings out in many of us is pride.  We follow the team because we went to school here and want to feel proud of the team accomplishments.  We want higher US News & World Report rankings because we want to feel proud of where we went academically.  Every so often, I'll be asked where I went to school and when I provide the answer, I'll hear something along the lines of "oh, you're a Colonial."  In a silly way, this elicits pride as well. "Colonial" is essentially part of our collective identity, even if it's some small part.  This means a name change for any reason is akin to taking some very small part of our identity away from us.

So, based on the above, the reason for a name change had better be a good one.  Or an intelligent one.  Or, a politically correct one.  That brings up the next issue.  Proponents of the change are believing they are politically correct when in reality, they are being erroneous in their thought process.  This just isn't a matter of opinion where two sides may have to agree to disagree without either being definitively right or wrong.  It should be construed as fact that the word Colonial is not offensive.  As you say, Colonialist is, but that's a different word with a different meaning.  Therefore, changing this name is a decision that's being made for faulty reasons.  I wonder whether anyone has even brought this up to the Board of Trustees.  If so, is this a generational decision being made with the interests of young adults in mind, even if the conclusion being made isn't truly applicable?

A decision like this will cost the school millions of dollars though I'm hesitant to mention this because I would be all for a name change if the reasons for this were meaningful and accurate.  Unfairly, this also gives me cause to wonder whether this sets an ugly precedent.  What will be the next proposed sweeping change and will the group who shouts the loudest get their way?  Even if the interpretation behind the change is misguided or inaccurate.

Nobody vehemently objected to changing the name of the University Student Center because it would be impossible to craft a salient defense as to why that name should have remained.  It seems like any major change needs to be carefully considered particularly if there is legitimate controversy over the issue or issues.  Again, in this instance, what's "stupid" is not a difference of opinion but rather, a misinterpretation of a fact.  How can any decision that is predicated upon a faulty premise not be scrutinized?