GW Panel To Discuss The Need To Drop “The Colonials” as School Mascot

We previously discussed the move by some students to drop the long-standing name “Colonials” for George Washington University. The moniker has been associated with GWU for roughly a 100 years. However, this week a panel at GW will discuss the concerns over the use of the name and the possible need to adopt an alternative nickname, including one based on the hippo mascot. Before we embrace GW “hippocrites” or some other nickname, I would like to again voice my support for The Colonials.

The panel will consist of three faculty members and a former Tanzanian ambassador to discuss the history of colonialism. This will include discussions by Fran Buntman, an associate professor of sociology, on her experiences growing up in South Africa during Apartheid. It will also include Dane Kennedy, a history and international affairs professor, on the history and meaning of colonialism. In fairness to the panelists, they do not appear to be addressing the ultimate issue of the school nickname as opposed to the broader meaning of colonialism.

I have great respect for Professors Buntman and Kennedy. However, the emphasis of the panel seems not only a bit one-sided but misplaced. The Colonials is not a general reference to colonialism or a celebration of colonization. To the contrary, the Colonials (including George Washington) fought against being a colony. They fought the British Empire and its belief that you could subject a people to such foreign rule. The term “Colonials” is an obvious and direct reference to those who fought in the Revolutionary War.

They are people worthy of admiration from George Washington to James Madison to George Mason and others. They joined in armed rebellion against being a colony. It was a moment captured by John Adams when he wrote Abigail Adams on July 3, 1776: “Yesterday the greatest question was decided which ever was debated in America; and a greater perhaps never was, nor will be, decided among men. A resolution was passed without one dissenting colony, ‘that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.'”

The student organizers, SA Sen. Hayley Margolis, CCAS-U, is quoted in the Hatchet as saying “When we talk about the Colonial in history, what does it mean? And is that really what we want our school identity to be?” The emphasis however of the panel is the history of colonialism in the world, not the Colonial as a term in the United States. Just as we strive to understand the meaning and traditions of other countries, there should be a modicum of effort to recognize our own meanings and traditions. The Colonials fought against foreign rule. They were not advocated of colonization. For those interested in GW, that is part of understanding our history and our values.

This is not to say that the panel should not be held. Listening to intellectuals like Buntman and Kennedy is always a learning experience. However, the focus seems curiously misplaced if it is a discussion of the GW Colonials.

The meaning of the Colonials has been obvious for over a 100 years at GW and remains clear to this day. As for the Hippo, it was (and continues to be) a lovely joke. The Hippo (or Riverhorse) is a beloved but relatively recent addition. Indeed, it was something of a joke by former George Washington University President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg in 1996 when he presented the bronze statue as a gift to the University’s Class of 2000. A plaque was placed on the base:

Legend has it that the Potomac was once home to these wondrous beasts.

George & Martha Washington are even said to have watched them cavort in the river shallows from the porch of their beloved Mount Vernon on summer evenings.

Credited with enhancing the fertility of the plantation, the Washingtons believed the hippopotamus brought them good luck & children on the estate often attempted to lure the creatures close enough to the shore to touch a nose for good luck.

So, too, may generations of students of the George Washington University.

Art for wisdom,

Science for joy,

Politics for beauty,

And a Hippo for hope.

The George Washington University Class of 2000.

43 thoughts on “GW Panel To Discuss The Need To Drop “The Colonials” as School Mascot”

  1. Dear Wally World, I don’t think you got the memo. People like me don’t need safe places and my little dog is a black lab that weighs 108 lbs. I smell a snowflake.

    1. You didn’t get the memo? The i-Gen-ers (Gen Z), a.k.a. social justice warriors, are gonna get you, and your little dog too! *cackles*

  2. Mights well sell the naming rights since selling out is the reason for DC to exist How about the Mensheviks

  3. They just keep plugging away don’t they. I’m just wondering when Americans are going to wake up and put an end to all this Bull#*^#. I just hope it’s not too late.

      1. How about compassionate repatriation?

        “Crazy Abe” Lincoln believed that would work wonders for the freed slaves and their descendants whom the constitution precluded from becoming citizens:

        “If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” After acknowledging that this plan’s “sudden execution is impossible,” he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”
        _________________________________________________________________________________

        Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802 thrice required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…”

        1. All heavily supported by the Democrats, soon to be Democrats and later th the socialist liberal regressives having nothing to do with our country, our political system and most of all our Constitution.

          Just call them Mensheviks and turn the Army loose.

  4. “A resolution was passed without one dissenting colony, ‘that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.’”

    – John Adams, as quoted by Professor Turley
    ______________

    Professor Turley, please allow a clarification of a gross misrepresentation. America does not enjoy John Adams’ freedom. The “freedom, ” referenced, fought for and implemented by John Adams, the American Founders and the “manifest tenor” of their Constitution, does not exist in America. The principles of the Communist Manifesto hold dominion in John Adams’ America. The Communist Manifesto was written 59 years after the Constitution because the Constitution did not include the principles of the Communist Manifesto. If the Constitution had included the principles of the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx would have had no need to write it. He wrote it:
    :

    – Central Planning

    – Control of the Means of Production (i.e. unconstitutional regulation)

    – Redistribution of Wealth

    – Social Engineering

    To wit,

    Ubiquitous unconstitutional regulation, affirmative action, welfare, food stamps, quotas, Obamacare, forced busing, rent control, utility subsidies, social services, WIC, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, TANF, SSI, EPA, Dept. Education, Dept. Labor, Dept. Agriculture, Dept. Energy, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, biased and unconstitutional “Fair Housing,” biased and unconstitutional “Non-Discrimination,” “hate crime,” unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments,” “injurious” 19th amendments (abortion, fertility rate in a “death spiral,” imported population) etc., etc., etc.

    1. If the US were really as “Marxist” as you assert, then:

      Every price and every production schedule would be dictated by the government. (as it was in the USSR)
      All the “Means of Production” would be OWNED by the government, not just regulated by the government.
      The wealthy would have ALL of their wealth confiscated, and then would be executed or imprisoned. (as happened in the USSR)
      All social organizations (schools, fraternal organization, etc) would be organized and run by the government, without local control. (as was done in the USSR)

      I also wonder what America would be like if everything in your laundry list were abolished. No Social Security, Medicare, disability, etc? What should happen to the elderly, the infirm, the unlucky? No safety net? Just let them die by the side of the road?
      No EPA – the environment should not be protected, at all? Do you want to be free to dump (say) tons of arsenic in your back yard, where it could seep into my back yard? No Department of Energy? They are in charge of our nuclear arsenal. Maybe atomic bombs should be unregulated, and included on the 2nd Amendment.

      I’m not sure what you mean by the fertility rate being in a “death spiral.” I was stuck in a ten mile traffic jam just this morning. In my opinion, this country would be much more enjoyable with about 10% of the present population. Do you feel that unchecked population growth is a good thing? Without any limit?

      Can you name any country on the face of this planet where there are no laws, no regulation, and everyone is prosperous and happy?

      1. “EFFECTIVELY” what you said.

        To reiterate:

        Ubiquitous unconstitutional regulation, affirmative action, welfare, food stamps, quotas, Obamacare, forced busing, rent control, utility subsidies, social services, WIC, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, TANF, SSI, EPA, Dept. Education, Dept. Labor, Dept. Agriculture, Dept. Energy, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, biased and unconstitutional “Fair Housing,” biased and unconstitutional “Non-Discrimination,” “hate crime,” unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments,” “injurious” 19th amendments (abortion, fertility rate in a “death spiral,” imported population) etc., etc., etc.

        The American Thesis is Freedom and Free Enterprise under infinitesimal government which exists solely to facilitate the aforementioned freedom and free enterprise.

        Charity is industry conducted in the free markets of the private sector.

        Were the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution implemented, democrats and RINO’s would operate or be employed in the private charity sector of the economy.

        Please site the Constitution where any form of central planning, control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth or social engineering is provided for.

        Private property is held “in exclusion of every other individual” making affirmative action, rent control, etc. unconstitutional. The only regulation in the Constitution is of the flow, trade of exchange of commerce “…among the several states…” to preclude favor or bias by one state over another and, by way of deliberate omission and exclusion, no other aspect of private property free enterprise may be regulated. Redistribution is individual welfare as everything from cash assistance and food stamps to HAMP, HARP, TANF, WIC and Obamacare/Medicare/Medicaid etc., and the Constitution provides Congress ONLY the power to tax for “…general Welfare…” as things all people use in similar amounts at similar frequency, ALL WELL GET ALONG – roads, water, sewer, post office (1789), electricity, natural gas, etc., etc., etc.

  5. “The student organizers, SA Sen. Hayley Margolis, CCAS-U, is quoted in the Hatchet as saying ….”

    The “Hatchet” is truly frightening of a word. It is a trigger word for violence, hate, terror, etc

    As for “Colonialism”, it is a medical term:
    Colon: bodily organ involved in excrement
    – ism: act of suffering such a malady

    JT, apply to Georgetown for a job. The Jesuits are still grounded in scholasticism but clearly GW has gone belly up like a Hippo. 🤡

    1. Wow, that was such a misplaced use of definition that I am totally stupefied….oh, no, I am not…to wit;

      Dictionary result for colon
      co·lon/ˈkōlən/
      noun
      noun: colon; plural noun: colons
      a punctuation mark (:) used to precede a list of items, a quotation, or an expansion or explanation.
      a colon used in various technical and formulaic contexts, for example a statement of proportion between two numbers, or to separate hours from minutes (and minutes from seconds) in a numerical statement of time.
      “10:1”
      the number of the chapter and verse respectively in biblical references.
      “Exodus 3:2”
      noun
      noun: colón; plural noun: colones
      the basic monetary unit of Costa Rica and El Salvador, equal to 100 centimos in Costa Rica and 100 centavos in El Salvador.

      …..the word you are referring to, the one that tells me that you are FOS, is Kolon…originated in the Greek…

  6. However, this week a panel at GW will discuss the concerns over the use of the name and the possible need to about an alternative nickname, including one based on the hippo mascot.

    If we took an English language dictionary and perused it for the removal of words/definitions that were found to be offensive there wouldn’t be many words left to articulate.

  7. Since the panel is obviously part of the eternal search by liberals for the Golden Fleece, a perfect politically correct
    symbol for today’s Politically Correct University Student and given the hippo myths baseline, may I suggest GW call themselves the Castors, after the Ancient Greek God Castor, as his life’s journey certainly symbolizes todays liberally educated student. Castor not only joined Jason in the quest for the Golden Fleece, but also was able to cut deals to attain immortality after a run in with a redneck cattle farmer mortality wounded him. After that sucess, Castor was empowered to do whatever it took to take over as Speaker….I mean as Prophet of the Temple and Kerper of the Narrative. He was arrogant and cruel, killing anyone who stepped out of line. Those little mistakes were corrected with an apology and covered and ignored by the mainstream scribes who obediently ran interference and elevated them to divine virtues, because Castor did what it took to get things done for the Temple Agenda and perpetuate the Narrative.
    This was perfectly fine with his diciples who loved, adored and deeply admired him, because they were on board with that whole ends justifies the means stuff too.
    In addition to the God Castor, the name Castors would also satisfy those traditionalists who want to keep the Colonial Symbol alive yet politically correctly hidden, do no harm to the millieflakes who populate GW as well as show GW is a 21st Century School fighting 21st Century evils like wealth, the slavery of having to get a job and Whitey. Since the old school disciplines like coherant writing, grammar and spelling are dead, The Castors could easily switch back and forth between being “The Castors” and “The Casors” and nobody would notice. GW would then have the option, depending upon the audience, to honor Castor The Great Vanquisher of Individuality and Free Thinking OR That Great Heroic Black Colonist John Casor, who valiantly fought long and hard for his freedom the All American way of suing the sh!t out of his wealthy tobacco farmer owner Antonio Johnson, THUS STRIKING A BLOW FOR FREEDOM FOR ALL OPPRESSED BLACK AMERICANS AGAINST THE THREE CAPITALIST EVILS OF WEALTH HARDWORK AND WHIT…..oh wait….
    Damn!

  8. But those “Colonials” – some were slave owners. Therefore the name is bad by mere association.

    Caucasians will continue to put up with this nonsense until they realize it’s merely a mechanism for minorities to have more to “hold over the head” of them. Grow some cajones already. (Oops, I culturally appropriated there. So sorry. Not.)

  9. JT, Kudos for your sanity. Normally, praising a person for being sane is “damning w/ faint praise.” But, a sane and courageous person in academia is an endangered species.

  10. Turley says: ” The term “Colonials” is an obvious and direct reference to those who fought in the Revolutionary War.” No, it isn’t. Those would be revolutionaries or some other name. A “colonial” is a citizen of distant country that has taken over another territory which it claims as its possession, or colony, and who continues to identify him or herself as a citizen of the distant land. A colonial resides in a colony of his or her homeland, but remains a loyal citizen of and who identifies with the homeland. One who resides in the subsumed place but who renounces such subjugation and seeks freedom and a separate identity is not a “colonial”. George Washington did not identify himself as a British subject. If he did, why did he join in fighting against his own country? He identified himself as a citizen of a new land with new guiding principles, among which were elimination of the monarchy and establishment of democracy. That’s why “colonial” is not the proper term to refer to George Washington, who was the antifhesis of a “colonial”.

    1. Colonial:

      1. Of or relating to or characteristic of or inhabiting a colony
      2. Of animals who live in colonies, such as ants
      3. (zoology) composed of many distinct individuals united to form a whole or colony
      4. Of or relating to the style of architecture prevalent in America before independence

  11. HISTORIANS NEED TO FIGHT BACK..

    WITH NARRATIVES TRUTHFUL OF EUROPEAN HISTORY

    When Columbus first sailed in 1492, Europe had barely emerged from the Middle Ages. So it’s not surprising that Columbus possessed a medieval mentality. Yet revisionist historians presume that Columbus should have had the sensitivities of a 21st Century college student.

    When British colonials first migrated to American colonies in the 1600’s, England was engulfed by decades of violence as Protestants and Catholics jockeyed for control. The atmosphere was such that anyone with ambition had a strong incentive to move far away. This history needs to be better known so people can put those early colonists into proper perspective.

    During the American Revolution, British soldiers and German mercenaries had no hope of owning land in their home countries (modern Germany didn’t even exist). Therefore it amazed these soldiers that America had seemingly boundless expanses of undeveloped land.

    After the Revolution, when our Founding Fathers set about to write The Constitution, the vast majority of Europeans were landless peasants with few if any civil rights. The idea that even White commoners should have equal rights was a radically liberal idea at the time. Historians need to be more forceful in presenting these facts.

    The problem is that European history is long and highly complicated. British history alone can require years of intensive study. Therefore contemporary historians have distilled history into simplistic narratives where White men are typically portrayed as aggressive racists. These simplistic narratives have to be countered with histories emphasizing the wretched lives most Europeans lived well into the 19th Century.

    1. I completely agree that Columbus shouldn’t be viewed as having the sensitivities of a 21st Century college student, but it is equally wrong to view him as some idealistic adventurer exclusively driven by the quest to expand mankind’s knowledge of the earth and its inhabitants. That Pollyannesque view of the truth behind Columbus’s voyage is the reason why Native Americans object to Columbus Day as a national holiday. Contemporary writings of Columbus, especially his appeal to the Spanish crown for financing, establish that his primary motivation was to acquire gold and other wealth, and possibly people who could be subjugated for the benefit of the crown.

    2. When Columbus first sailed in 1492, Europe had barely emerged from the Middle Ages. So it’s not surprising that Columbus possessed a medieval mentality. Y

      Thanks for the cliches. It’s been an education.

  12. When you erase a person’s, place’s or thing’s history, you take their enduring legitimacy and hence take their power away, The Maoists always knew that. Why don’t our betters?

    1. You mean someone is attempting to take power away from actual Americans?

      Where are George Washington and George Armstrong Custer when you need them?

      If American women had fewer abortions and more babies, America would have a sufficient number of men with which to form an army for the defense of America.

      Alas, women got the vote, the fertility rate is in a “death spiral,” the population is imported and America got a death sentence.

  13. Rather more concerning is Ms. Margolis saying, “When we talk about the Colonial in history, what does it mean? And is that really what we want our school identity to be?”

    Did she miss all of her HS history classes? Perhaps they were poorly taught. Yikes.

  14. All of a piece with the institution of a PC tyranny.

    “They” define what is correct and the rest of the world either follows or gets branded as racists. PC is being weaponized as another tool to keep conservatives off-balance.

    These are the same people who agonize about Gov. Northam wearing blackface 30 years ago, but just shrug at his suggestion that a mother and a doctor have the right to kill her child after birth.

    1. “Dumb Schmucks” would be a good name. The mascot could be the image of Hillary Clinton holding hands with Bill.

  15. IOW, people with too much time on their hands will get their way because the people with other things to do will give it to them, instead of just telling them to buzz off like they should.

    #winning

  16. While the panel is at it, let them discuss GW’s continued use of a student dressed as George Washington as a mascot. The nickname is the colonials, not the George Washingtons. Does Xavier University use as a mascot a student dressed as St. Francis Xavier? Does Stanford dress a student in the likeness of Leland Stanford? Robert Morris? Brigham Young?

    1. Who the PHUCK cares?????
      Why must every hair be split….I’m gonna hafta resort to equally demoralizing and politically unconscionable verbage…..OMG I’m gonna talk like a Republican!!!!!!

Leave a Reply