San Diego State Moves To Remove Long-Standing Aztec Mascot As Culturally Insensitive

downloadSan Diego State has long rallied about its mascot The Aztecs, but may soon join other schools in changing its symbol to avoid objections over cultural insensitivity.  We previously discussed the controversial decisions to drop the “Fighting Sioux” and “Chief Illini.”  This decisions and polls show Native Americans largely supportive of team names referencing National American icons or tribes.

What is striking is that students have rejected past referendums calling for a name change.  The faculty senate then stepped in to force the change. The senate passed a non-binding resolution 52-15  for a name change and to “retire all human representations of the Aztec Warrior and accompanying symbols.”  The senate also recommended the removal of the use of spears or “weapons that connote barbaric representations of the Aztec culture.”

As a historical footnote, the Aztecs were pretty brutal with a culture based on blood-curdling human sacrifice.

The resolution goes to  interim university President Sally Roush for consideration, though she could table the resolution until a new president is hired.



52 thoughts on “San Diego State Moves To Remove Long-Standing Aztec Mascot As Culturally Insensitive”

  1. I have said before that the majority of Democrats with their OCD urge to virtue signal are actually severely mentally ill with a form of Munchausen’s Syndrome By Proxy. I will add a blurb further down but for now, here is what is happening:

    Democrats and SJWs are sooo hungry and needy for attention that they will create racism where none exists so that they can save and rescue the poor victims of the alleged racism, and thus appear virtuous and good to the outside word. Here, the insanity is particularly evident because there not even any extant Aztecs to rescue.

    More on Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy from Wiki:

    Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP or MbP) is a condition where a caregiver or spouse fabricates, exaggerates, or INDUCES mental or physical health problems in those who are in their care, with the primary motive of gaining attention or sympathy from others. Its name is derived from the term Munchausen syndrome, a psychiatric factitious disorder wherein those affected feign disease, illness, or psychological trauma to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves.

    However, unlike Munchausen syndrome, in MSbP, the deception involves not themselves, but rather someone under the person’s care. MSbP is primarily distinguished from other forms of abuse or neglect by the MOTIVES of the perpetrator. Some experts consider it to be an elusive, potentially lethal, and frequently misunderstood form of child abuse or medical neglect.However, others consider the concept to be problematic, since it is based largely on supposition regarding a person’s motives, which can be open to radically different interpretations.

    The perpetrator continues the abuse because maintaining the child in the role of patient satisfies the abuser’s needs. The cure for the victim is to separate the child completely from the abuser. When parental visits are allowed, sometimes there is a disastrous outcome for the child. Even when the child is removed, the perpetrator may then abuse another child: a sibling or other child in the family.

    The adult care provider who has abused the child often seems comfortable and not upset over the child’s hospitalization. While the child is hospitalized, medical professionals must monitor the caregiver’s visits to prevent an attempt to worsen the child’s condition.

    The current definition of MSbP includes children and people under the care of the sicko, but I think a good case can be made for extending that definition to include entire groups of people not under the care of the person, for example Blacks. Liberal Whites have the need for the attention and emotional strokes that come from helping underdogs or victims. In the 1960s and maybe 1970s their actions were based on Blacks’ real problems.

    However, as Blacks got their long overdue rights, then black people became more responsible for their own status in society. They chose in large numbers to take drugs, eschew education, and to avoid sensible levels of responsibility in bringing children into the world.

    But the Democrats and SJW types could not let loose of all those good feelings they got back in the 60’s marching for the colored folks down South. Even though the whole game had changed. Sometime in the 1980s and 1990s it should have evident to the meanest intelligence that Blacks were simply screwing up their own lives with bad choices, yet many Liberal Democrats could not let go. Some Democrats are onto the real state of affairs, but they choose to use that to race bait. But I think the majority are honestly unable to admit that 50 years past the Civil Rights Era, Blacks are their own worst enemy, and the problem isn’t racism, or white privilege or any of the other bugaboo excuses.

    Sooo, to meet their own emotional needs, Democrats and SJWs will find racism, where none exists, to be the Mighty Whitey Saviors of Downtrodden Minorities, even to the point of saving the long dead Aztecs.

    Like I said, most Democrats are simply severely mentally ill.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. They chose in large numbers to take drugs, eschew education, and to avoid sensible levels of responsibility in bringing children into the world.

      Age-adjusted school enrollment among blacks hardly differs from that of the general population. Blacks tend to have messy domestic lives, but they’re not particularly fecund (tfr is 2.1 children per woman per lifetime) nor are they given to exceptionally early childbearing (median age at the birth of the 1st child is 23). The broad you see on the television with the 7 kids by four different fathers jonesing for a housing voucher is a freak located by reporters who have a point they’re trying to make.

    2. Brilliantly stated, Squeaky. The new epidemic of “transgender” children has the same origin, with the parents scoring an instant social status upgrade.

  2. SDSU has a lot of blue collar, common sense, first generation, college students. This is instructive. The faculty is trying to push the common sense, down to earth, out of these blue collar kids. Despicable!

  3. Nothing argues against a cause than when that cause expresses itself to the extreme in such a way that illustrates its faults. That the names of tribes, civilizations, whatever, are used as logos, mascots, references to represent the qualities upon which the team or group rests, is an honor. The very idiots that argue against this are the true bigots, racists, whatever. Who in their right mind would want to scrub history of the qualities of the Aztecs, Spartans, Redskins, Irish, whatever? Only idiots; the only answer.

    1. Independent Bob – it’s a racist stereotype and I have been meaning to sue Notre Dame over it when I get some time. 🙂

  4. I would recommend nominating the geoduck as the mascot, but it suffered enough being The Evergreen State College’s.

    If this poor creature were to be disgraced twice it would shame itself into extinction.

  5. Why do white people insist on telling non-white people what they should be offended about?

    1. It is necessary according to the leadership of certain political flavors to generate victims, who once labeled can be made to misbelieve that whitey’s racism is putting them down and only certain politicians can come to their rescue. Of course this is all smoke and mirrors because these politicians really couldn’t give a damn about them but they serve as useful voters to keep elitists in power. Elitists that is who hardly ever interact with the unfortunate but claim they “feel their pain” whilst lounging around in corporate jets funded by average people’s labor and payroll taxes.

      One step below these “leaders” are apparatchiks who simply follow the leaders and further the deception, either unknowingly or for them good intentions but not being fully informed. They do most of the leg work such as protesting and virtue signaling.

      Going after whitey’s crimes against humanity (i.e. being born white) offers a complete distraction available to politicians who accomplish nothing on their own accord or are simply ineffective. It is almost always easier to destroy than to create. Destroying the morale of a people is much easier than uplifting them through much work and establishing virtue.

      1. Of course, if there are no Aztecs left around, there is no one left to be offended by the mascot. I truly do not believe that SDSU intended its mascot to be offensive or a caricature. That would be a silly waste of a mascot. I can only conclude that the university intended the Aztec warrior to be a symbol of bravery to be transmitted to the athletic field. After all, it is an Aztec warrior, not an Aztec accountant, that is the mascot. That said, the Aztecs (may they rest in peace) should feel honored. SDSU could have chosen a conquistador for its mascot.

        1. Hey now! Accountants can be brave, too. After all, we have to contend with the tax code AND the IRS.

          1. It’s a frickin mascot. It wasn’t intended to offend or not offend. It was intended to create esprit de corps for college kids. Since historical revisionism is en vogue maybe we ought to beat up SDSU for letting their students defile the environment. Years ago they used to maintain a giant letter (I believe it was an “A” for Aztecs) near Navajo Drive (uh oh, Navajo Drive? might be racist) in what is now a park but back then was open country.

    2. Why do white people insist on telling non-white people what they should be offended about?

      Because the offended are asking for benefits and gestures of deference. If I tell them ‘no’, do you object to me giving them a reason why I think they’re asking for the wrong things?

  6. The SDSU Snowflakes has kind of a contemporary ring to it. And I hear “Pajama-boys” is already taken. Personally and given the California locale, I like the “Fleeing Weinsteins.” Call me old fashioned.

    1. I’m sure, if it hasn’t been done already, we are being set up for the first openly gay mascot. Maybe Bronies?

  7. I’m so happy to hear that all the world’s problems have been solved so that the issue of “culturally insensitive” mascots can be addressed. Get a life, people.

    1. Suze – I would agree with except on two points. The Fighting Irish (racial stereotype) and Wilber and Wilma of the University of Arizona, who should be fixed and released into the wild. It is for their own good and the good of humanity.

      1. Paul – We Sun Devils suspect Wilma wears that pants in that family, and wherever she goes, Wilbur follows.

        1. Modern Miner – this Sun Devil thinks that both Wilber and Wilma need to be fixed and released into Sabino Canyon. 😉 They are neither wild nor cats.

    1. Modern Miner – you can always go with the eventual winner, the Conquistadors, and Indian allies.

  8. Sad, sickening and stupid. The names and symbols such as the ‘Washington Redskins’ or the ‘Cleveland Indians’ were meant as ‘honors’ to Americas ‘Native people’, they were not and are not, meant in any form of a negative manner. This is just another case of political correctness gone stupid!

  9. I think the Aztecs are a perfectly fine mascot in the Southwest. People need to lighten up. Especially the faculty, who seem to have their panties in a knot.

  10. Very few Aztecs are complaining about the use of the name, none actually, given that the Aztec culture has been extinct for more than 500 years. Political correctness run amok.

Comments are closed.