Ole Miss new mascot hunt update

Submitted by Happyshooter on

Ole Miss's president banned Col Reb. Whatever you think of an adminstrator imposing their will on a University community's traditions (see, eg Eastern Michigan and the Hurons)--- Col Reb needs to be replaced.

The students voted to start a new mascot. Admiral Akbar from Star Wars is in the lead right now for the committee.

http://www.ajc.com/multimedia/dynamic/00417/ackbar_417664l.jpg

jvblaha

February 24th, 2010 at 8:26 PM ^

Col. Reb does not need to be replaced. Banning "From Dixie With Love" and getting rid of Col. Reb is ridiculous. He does not represent a slave owner, no matter how many times people claim that he does. He actually is made in the model of "Blind Jim Ivey," who was a prominent supporter of the team. Making him a Confederate Colonel is a nod to the state's history. Mississippi is a state steeped in its traditions, which include the "romantic lost cause of the War for Southern Independence."
What's next, UNC changing its nickname, which is also a reference for the brave men of North Carolina who fought on the side of the South.

MGoAndy

February 24th, 2010 at 8:27 PM ^

Something tells me that if anyone actually reads this thread, you're going to be introduced a little thing the MGoCommunity likes to call the NEGBANG.

jvblaha

February 24th, 2010 at 8:32 PM ^

As a Michigan student from the South, I am used to it. There are always an incredible amount of misunderstandings from my fellow students. I am regularly asked, "is it still racist down South?" That is an incredibly ignorant question, especially coming from someone from West Bloomfield whose parents are the personification of white flight.

Like it or not, Confederate symbols are and will remain a part of Southern heritage no matter how many people from up north come down and say how wrong it is. The Confederate cause has been romanticized in the region since it happened. As the only American people besides Native Americans to ever lose a war on their home soil, long established Southern families still cling to pieces of their history.

GBOD79

February 24th, 2010 at 9:51 PM ^

There are different types of racism. I think the stereotype of the South is more in terms of overt racism. Individuals holding racist views and expressing them freely.

While both regions have institutional racism, the north tends to, in my opinion, have more than the south. At the same time they try to hide their overt racism. Combine these and you have a group of people who support institutionalized racism while condemning the south as being racist.

amphibious1

February 24th, 2010 at 9:06 PM ^

BUT... as a Native American, saying we lost a war on our home soil is kind of BS sugar coating don't you think? It wasn't so much a war as it was genocide. To have a war, you have to declare war. You don't make like everything is ok, then slaughter women and children when men go hunting and call it "war." Not to mention giving us blankets laced with smallpox, and the trail of tears...
Other than that, I don't give a shit what Ole Miss does lol

amphibious1

February 25th, 2010 at 8:03 AM ^

"I'm pretty sure you're no more native american than anyone else born in this country."

Maybe the term Aboriginal American would be better? America's first nations? Indian? Chippewa? Ojibwa?

I'm native enough to carry a card and dance at powwows...

GBOD79

February 24th, 2010 at 9:45 PM ^

"Like it or not, Confederate symbols are and will remain a part of Southern heritage no matter how many people from up north come down and say how wrong it is."

Well then get used to being asked that question. The confederate flag and everything associated with it is a symbol of hatred and oppression to many people. And it certainly doesn't help the perception when some redneck ass has one posted on his truck.

Claiming it as symbol of pride is, in my opinion, tasteless.

That being said I have not encountered any more racism in the South than I have in California or Michigan. If anything, California is a little worse than all of them.

BlueVoix

February 24th, 2010 at 11:09 PM ^

I don't really get how you've managed to connect: "Is it still racist in the South, where a war was fought partially to keep people enslaved based on the color of their skin?" and "I can move my growing family to the newly created suburbs." It is terribly unfortunate, and yes, racist, that the types of redlining and forced segregation by income occurred in the North. But in no way, shape, or form is it remotely even close to what happened in the South.

willywill9

February 25th, 2010 at 12:24 AM ^

True; but I think the point is, who are we to judge? Racism is institutionalized in this country, especially in the North East and Midwest.

I wish I could remember the documentary, but basically I saw something in a Sociology class at Michigan where two guys of the same socioeconomic background (middle class) but one was white and one was black. They each tried to do the same thing and got different treatment/results. They did things such as, tried to rent an apartment, buy a vehicle at a car dealership, or even get help at a shoe store.

When the black guy arrived to look at apartments, he was told there were none available. Later, the white guy showed up, he was given keys to go check out the apartment himself.

At the car dealership, the white customer was given a better deal.

Finally, at the shoe store, the black guy waited about 15 minutes longer before being helped.

And on a personal level, I visited my step dad's family in the burbs in Illinois. I was about 11 I went with my (white) uncle to a shoe store. He went over to one section, I stayed in another. I noticed a guy looking at me funny, when all of a sudden the owner of the place accused me of stealing a baby Jordan sneaker that was on display.

He searched through my jacket and when he found nothing, he kicked me out the store. I told him I was with my uncle, who was at the other section, and he didn't believe me (I'm hispanic so that must have been really confusing to him for me to be with a white person.) I was embarrassed so I just left. It took me an hour before I could tell my uncle the real reason I left.) This was probably around 1995 to put things into perspective.

BlueVoix

February 25th, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I think racism exists, literally, everywhere. But I don't agree that that a (likely) naive question about racism in the South can be equated to white flight in the North. The two have connections, but are not the same in terms of seriousness or history.

jmblue

February 25th, 2010 at 1:03 PM ^

It is terribly unfortunate, and yes, racist, that the types of redlining and forced segregation by income occurred in the North. But in no way, shape, or form is it remotely even close to what happened in the South.

True, but I think the point being made is that whereas de jure racial segregation in the South hasn't existed for a few decades now, de facto segregation is alive and well everywhere, in 2010, and is strongest in the North.

Northerners need to get off our high horses in this discussion. I've studied racial attitudes in the North in the 18th and 19th centuries. In no way was the North a racially enlightened place before or after the Civil War. Most abolitionists were shockingly racist; many opposed slavery not out of any sense of egalitarianism but because they couldn't stomach the presence of black people in their home state. (The country of Liberia was founded by Northern abolitionists who hoped to ship all black people out of the United States.) John Brown was a rare abolitionist who actually believed in genuine racial equality, and he was shunned throughout his life by mainstream abolition groups.

One common thread through history has been that while white Southerners have tended to view the country as a biracial society, albeit one in which black people were not equal, white Northerners have tended to view the country as a monoracial society, in which black people had no place at all.

BlueVoix

February 25th, 2010 at 3:37 PM ^

I'm not trying to argue that this is a black and white history, no pun intended. History is incredibly gray when it comes to matters as these. I've also had quite a bit of study in this area as an American History concentrator at M (and taking a class with Julius Scott provided me with a TON of information about 19th century African American history). I think the North was exceedingly racist in the antebellum era. It wasn't even just racism, but rather downright bigoted anger at anyone that wasn't a part of a small cultural or ethnic group. The Irish, Chinese, and, well, anyone that wasn't already entrenched, have more than enough stories on that. Despite that, slavery was not extant in the North like it was in the South. Were the attitudes that different? Probably not. But I'm not going to defend the history of a region that fought a war to keep slavery. Sorry, that's abhorrent.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about in terms of the monoracial v. biracial, but I'm curious about it. Book, professor, or your own personal study? (I'm not trying to be snarky here, I'm genuinely curious.)

willywill9

February 25th, 2010 at 7:35 PM ^

I think he means that Southerners had this bi-racial concept (e.g. Whites are superior to blacks, but blacks served a purpose as slaves, property etc.) By monoracial I think he's saying Northerners didn't even want blacks around, there should only be whites in their territory. (Hence, sending Blacks back to Africa, forming Liberia.)

jvblaha

February 24th, 2010 at 10:41 PM ^

If he had been black there would be similar accusations of racism. Remember Uncle Remus in Walt Disney's "Song of the South?" The truth is, anything done by a Southern institution that reaches towards the past in a favorable light will lead to cries of racism from people outside of that tradition.

Colonel Reb as a mascot was a pretty ridiculous looking caricature. If this had been a caricature of a black man it would have looked similarly ridiculous and been interpreted by many as racist.

Baldbill

February 25th, 2010 at 8:34 AM ^

The primary motivation of the Civil War was about states rights vs federal rights, not slavery. Yes slavery was the issue that was forcing states vs federal but there were many other smaller issues along those lines that kept it the prominent reason.
The war was also a loooong time ago. Lets move on. We in America have corrected our worst problems and will continue to do so, sometimes it takes a little time to work them out, but we have a history of improving things. We as a society want to be fair, in as much as we can be.

Baldbill

February 25th, 2010 at 11:44 AM ^

Nothing I said was politics, I sure wasn't angling there.

Take a look at other countries around the world, look at thier problems, look at thier 'solutions' America is far and away a better place. We have in our 200+ yrs done a pretty good job of working on our issues. The issues we have are small next to some you see in other countries. The fact that our "problem" here is one of a mascot that represents a team??? is this seriously a 'problem'?

That is all I was saying.

goblueclassof03

February 25th, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^

"The primary motivation of the Civil War was about states rights vs federal rights, not slavery"

I challenge you to argue that the Civil War would have happened irrespective of the issue of slavery. The issue of slavery was the dispositive raison d'etre of the war, and it was a war that was fought to prolong slavery... and I guarantee you will not be able to produce any qualified arguments to the contrary. And maybe 400 years of racism and slavery was something of the past to you, but it's simply asinine to request others to just "move on."

Tacopants

February 25th, 2010 at 11:18 AM ^

Saying the Civil war was about state's rights means that Confederate propaganda still works today.

There are 3 main reasons why the South claimed "State's Rights"

1. The majority of people who would become soldiers in the south had no money and/or slaves. Telling them the war was about fighting for the Plantation owner's slaves would be counterproductive.

2. The South wanted to bring England and France into the war on their side. England had abolished slavery a long time ago, and telling them that they were fighting to keep slaves would have been a no go from the start.

3. Some people actually believed that a weak central government would work out well. The abject failure of the Confederate Govermnet proved that a loose confederation of states a unified whole. Even had the South won the war, the Confederacy probably wasn't built to last long before something unpopular happened and a state seceded again.

Tacopants

February 25th, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^

I think a nod to the state's history is keeping "Rebels" as the nickname. Nobody's suggesting that Ole Miss still can't be the rebels. UNC, Tennessee, Missouri, and LSU all have nicknames that relate back to their civil war regiments, but their mascots (respectively, a Ram, a Dog, and 2 Tigers) don't remind people of the War of Northern Aggression.

victors2000

February 24th, 2010 at 8:37 PM ^

a 'let's make a diffence' kind of move. The kind of thing students aspire to do when they are in college. I don't know if you truly believe what you wrote is the whole truth, but the fact is 'Colonel Reb' represents a model of the old south plantation owner, one who happened to own slaves. It's a freaking stereotype that modern day 'Ole Miss students has decided to distance themselves from, and I say good for them.

jvblaha

February 24th, 2010 at 8:46 PM ^

At this point, the students are pushing to be allowed to have a mascot. They are currently nicknamed the Rebels, but do not have a mascot. It's similar to our situation, where we are the Wolverines, but do not have an actual mascot. They want to be allowed to establish a physical representation of their nickname. Assuming they could get permission from Lucas, Ackbar would indeed have a shot.