Thanks Poog for addressing what was on my mind.  First, why is this a rigged committee?  Am asking genuinely, not cynically?  Yes, there is academic representation, but there is also more athletic representation than I would have thought.  

I'll also add this:  if virtue signaling is high up there on your list of priorities, then maybe you shouldn't cut 7 sports and initiate widespread layoffs throughout the school, immediately followed by committing to spend in the neighborhood of $2 million on THIS.

Gwmayhem wrote:

Thanks Poog for addressing what was on my mind.  First, why is this a rigged committee?  Am asking genuinely, not cynically?  Yes, there is academic representation, but there is also more athletic representation than I would have thought.  

I'll also add this:  if virtue signaling is high up there on your list of priorities, then maybe you shouldn't cut 7 sports and initiate widespread layoffs throughout the school, immediately followed by committing to spend in the neighborhood of $2 million on THIS.

Perhaps you should look more deeply into some of the statements and opinions offered by some of the academic members of the committee ... it might suggest where this is headed. These are not folks without fairly strong points of view on issues like this (particularly vestiges of Colonialism). Just worth noting as we try to read the tea leaves here. I will be shocked if the committee recommends anything other than a new name. 

https://gwtoday.gwu.edu/carving-thanksgiving-story

http://www.elizabethrule.com/

http://blackpolicyconference.com/team/nemata-blyden/

https://www.marycheh.com/news/bowser-boosts-effort-to-rename-wilson-high-but-calls-for-broader-discussion-on-name-change/



 

Last edited by GWRising (8/20/2020 12:22 pm)

https://thegwlocal.com/brandon-hill-is-aiming-to-change-the-university-with-sa-bid/

One of the college kids on the committee....

“As a member of the Colonial Moniker Task Force, I hope to sustain support for the change of the colonial moniker”

Gwmayhem ... I would say the evidence is becoming a bit overwhelming that this Committee has a strong pre-disposition to a name change. In fact, I can't find a single member who has publicly stated any trepidation or opposition.This committee might be better renamed the Committee to Determine the Replacement Name lol. If GW has already determined that a new name is in order why all the smokescreen process?

I'll give you one opinion. They know it's wildly unpopular among the donors so this way they hope to have a process to take the edge off the decision so certain donors don't walk. Looks like it was carefully reviewed and debated.

 

GWRising wrote:

Lastly, while I'm not so married to the Colonials name, this is not ending here. The name of the University will be next. GW is laying the groundwork for its own demise.

PREACH!!!!!

22ndandF wrote:

GWRising wrote:

Lastly, while I'm not so married to the Colonials name, this is not ending here. The name of the University will be next. GW is laying the groundwork for its own demise.

Sounds like I'm in the minority here...in more ways than one!!  However, I'm a little surprised there's so much apparent resistance to changing the team name.  Am I the only one who sees a very distinct difference between being a proud American (which I am), and at the same time being opposed to the Colonials moniker, which many, if not most, would associate with American Colonialism?  

GWRising, I know it bothers more than a few people that a major university, located only blocks away from the home that Donald J. Trump lives in, has memorialized a man who did many great things, but also enslaved, beat, whipped and bought and sold their ancestors.  It wasn't until recent protests against the murdering of innocent black people by our police that the school decided to do anything about changing the name of the Marvin Center.  So I wouldn't worry too much right now about the school changing its name.  Maybe down the road, but I don't see it happening now.

Also, thank you for the links in your post. I feel better informed after having read the articles.

So I think a bunch of things can be true at once. You can be for the change in Marvin Center and against the Colonials name change. I do not agree that it has any connotation of American colonialism. Rather it speaks to people who lived in colonies who overthrew the oppressor. This is certainly true of George Washington. And in that context (which is really the only context and hence the juxtaposition to GW), this is a completely misguided application of concerns. 

But let's be frank - Colonials name aside, if you are against the Marvin Center and Colonials name for social justice reasons, how do you justify allowing the University to be named after a man who held slaves? This is the slippery slope GW is about to embark upon. I predict it will not end well if they start on this journey for two reasons - one because it is intellectually inconsistent and second, because once there is success on the Colonials name, some will feel more emboldened to knock down the doors to change the GW name. 

 

GWRising wrote:

22ndandF wrote:

GWRising wrote:

Lastly, while I'm not so married to the Colonials name, this is not ending here. The name of the University will be next. GW is laying the groundwork for its own demise.

Sounds like I'm in the minority here...in more ways than one!!  However, I'm a little surprised there's so much apparent resistance to changing the team name.  Am I the only one who sees a very distinct difference between being a proud American (which I am), and at the same time being opposed to the Colonials moniker, which many, if not most, would associate with American Colonialism?  

GWRising, I know it bothers more than a few people that a major university, located only blocks away from the home that Donald J. Trump lives in, has memorialized a man who did many great things, but also enslaved, beat, whipped and bought and sold their ancestors.  It wasn't until recent protests against the murdering of innocent black people by our police that the school decided to do anything about changing the name of the Marvin Center.  So I wouldn't worry too much right now about the school changing its name.  Maybe down the road, but I don't see it happening now.

Also, thank you for the links in your post. I feel better informed after having read the articles.

So I think a bunch of things can be true at once. You can be for the change in Marvin Center and against the Colonials name change. I do not agree that it has any connotation of American colonialism. Rather it speaks to people who lived in colonies who overthrew the oppressor. This is certainly true of George Washington. And in that context (which is really the only context and hence the juxtaposition to GW), this is a completely misguided application of concerns. 

But let's be frank - Colonials name aside, if you are against the Marvin Center and Colonials name for social justice reasons, how do you justify allowing the University to be named after a man who held slaves? This is the slippery slope GW is about to embark upon. I predict it will not end well if they start on this journey for two reasons - one because it is intellectually inconsistent and second, because once there is success on the Colonials name, some will feel more emboldened to knock down the doors to change the GW name. 

 

GWRising, I feel you are right about the distinction between Colonials and Colonialism, but there are a lot of people who may not agree or understand the difference.  As for George Washington, he certainly did overthrow the oppressor (awesome), but he was also the oppressor as it relates to his slave ownership and treatment of those slaves.  And he didn't have the courage to free his own slaves until his death (terrible, at least in IMO).  All in all, I think there's plenty of reason to celebrate the name George Washington, as long as we're loud and clear and teach the truth about all the terrible things he did to black people.

I just don't see a university name change in the cards, at least not for a very long time.  I think it's too expensive, too controversial, and the administration certainly does not have the guts to even address it. The only reason they're considering the Marvin change is because of the protests, riots and civil unrest, which is the result of police brutality and systemic racism (again, in my opinion).  So I don't see the same slippery slope.

Last edited by 22ndandF (8/21/2020 7:41 am)

Gwmayhem wrote:

Am not in favor of a nickname change because simply put, Colonials and Colonialism are not one and the same thing.  I can't help but think that people are very frustrated with the world these days and many want to enact change.  If a change is made for the sake of making some change, that is wrong.  If there is a good, solid reason for the change, then I'd be all for it.  The Marvin Center I understand.  Not Colonials.  Anyone who has a cogent explanation as to why the name Colonials is offensive is welcome to contribute to this thread and explain it to me.

If I am opposed to changing Colonials, consider me strenuously opposed to changing George Washington.  He was this country's first president and is considered the father of our country.  Take a poll asking people what's the first thing they think of when hearing the name George Washington and you're going to hear responses like "first president", "never told a lie", and "chopped down the cherry tree."  Yes, he owned slaves at a time when this was not considered unacceptable behavior.  You can argue that it should have been unacceptable all along and I would agree with this.  But the fact of the matter is that it was not unacceptable.  So as horrific as slave ownership was, is the answer to dishonor an American here for engaging in something that wasn't even scorned upon at the time?  Changing the name of the university would be a devastating decision.  I'd have to believe that most of us could eventually embrace a new nickname if we had to, but taking pride in a school name that isn't the one we attended would be much tougher to come by. 

Gwmayhem, I feel you are very wrong regarding the highlighted parts of your post. Many of our founding fathers spoke out about the inhumanity of slavery, including some of the slave owning founding fathers (that includes George Washington).  Hamilton, Adams (both John and Samuel), Thomas Paine and other founding fathers never owned slaves and were loud and mostly frequent voices opposing the practice.

The real fact of the matter is that many founding father slave owners knew it was despicable and inhumane to whip and beat black people, but they wanted the free labor (of course they had to buy them and provide room in board, so there was some "investment").  Washington grew his stable of slaves from the 10 or so that he inherited, to over 300 as he grew his property and wealth.  There's plenty of documentation, including Washington's own writings, that proves he knew it was morally wrong.  But that's how he ran his businesses...on the backs of black people imported and bred for profit and social status.

If you want to argue that slavery was "not unacceptable behavior" then I feel you should at least acknowledge that Washington and our other founding fathers knew it was wrong/terrible/inhumane.  And if that's the case, at least in my eyes, I'm not so sure I'd celebrate that kind of a person.  

To me it's sad, but interesting that while the dynamic has changed, the economics still have that same common thread today.  Most people know the social, judicial and economic inequities are wrong.  But it's much easier and certainly more valuable to them to look the other way and have black folks continue to clean their toilets, shine their shoes in the airport, operate heavy machinery and stuff like that.

Last edited by 22ndandF (8/21/2020 11:15 am)

Gwmayhem, I would direct you to Ron Chernow's G. Washington biography, Washington: A Life.  It provide plenty of information mostly in the form of notes from Washington's personal diaries.  Additionally, for your reading pleasure:

[url]https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/washingtons-changing-views-on-slavery/#:~:text=Throughout%20the%201780s%20and%201790s,act%20on%20his%20antislavery%20principles.[/url]

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/gwslav.htm

Lots more available.  Just google it .  I feel the facts are readily available and straight-forward.  Again, I feel there is much to celebrate, including that he freed his own slaves upon his death.  Of course, nobody is perfect, but I feel Washington's flaws were somewhat devastating as it relates to slavery. 

After reviewing the information in the links above and researching a little more on your own, i'd be interested if you still feel the same way.
 

Gwmayhem wrote:

22andF, thank you for providing this information.  Clearly, this was a complex issue.  Washington did feel a moral dilemma about retaining slaves but he also recognized that this could only be done lawfully.  He was concerned that a debate over slave ownership would divide an already fragile country.  When Virginia loosened its restrictions, he started to put the wheels in motion.  As you suggest, he put in his will that his slaves were to be immediately freed upon the death of Martha. 

To me, this is a distinct contrast to the person who owned slaves, was proud to own slaves, and who would never want slaves freed.  If George Washington was THAT person, I'd feel far more inclined to rename the school.  The fact that he did feel conflicted, that he had reasons why he couldn't act sooner, and that he ultimately did free his slaves when he felt he could, all contribute to a legacy that I believe is stronger than you and some others are perceiving.

Gwmayhem, still, while Washington felt conflict, he continued to buy, sell, own and enlarge his stable of slaves, to whip and beat them, to enlist them into his army for some of the most treacherous and dangerous duty in the War against England.  He did it.  I'd at least hope you'd agree that it was a crime against humanity, maybe a step less than what Hitler did to the Jews (sorry, maybe it was two or three steps less, but both were terrible crimes that should never be forgotten, at least in my opinion).  In my book, I don't care how badly Washington felt or that he waited until he was dead to release his slaves.  But we can agree to disagree.  And, I don't expect or want the name of the school changed. However, it would be nice if they taught everyone the whole story of George Washington.  Most people don't know it, because the institution doesn't teach it.

I appreciate your candor and thank you for reviewing the information I provided.