The Chief Noc-O-Homa at Atlanta in the early 1980s was an embarrassment. They had a tepee at the old stadium in the left field stands and the chief would come out and whoop around and dance when the Braves scored a home run.

As for a previous comment, maybe I should not have posted late at night when I was disgusted by HISD picking something weak as Huskies for the Westbury mascot. My main disgust is with Westbury falling down in academics from a top high school to just another failed urban school so I think the HISD board was rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.

(04-16-2014 10:21 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 09:10 AM)13thOwl Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 08:39 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 08:02 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 07:44 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Wow, and we wonder why our politics have become so divisive. Maybe if we could debate issues without going to hate-filled, venomous, ad hominem attacks as a first resort. Nobody else had even made this partisan until your comment.

Sorry, but schools named after confederate generals, mascots alluding to the confederacy, etc. are simply inappropriate IMHO.

Maybe mascots are an issue. Blacklisting Confederate generals, most of whom were West Point graduates and fought in other campaigns with the U.S. Army, seems like painting with a very, very broad brush.

Getting rid of schools named after N.B. Forrest (a Confederate General) is appropriate, given his post-Civil War ties.

But equating all Confederate generals with someone akin to Forrest's history is grossly distorting, IMHO.

I see where you are coming from, and get that most historical figures have a dark side. I'd just argue that the fact that we are debating it means it probably wasn't a good idea. Especially since most schools named like that weren't named recently in the spirit of examining the complexities of history which don't always lend themselves to clear cut "good guys" and "bad guys" but were named during the Jim Crow days and reflected attitudes I doubt any here would want to defend.

And I'll admit as a non-southerner I simply don't understand the South's inability to move on. When I first moved to the South in the early 80's I was completely blown away by the fact that people talked about the Civil War as if it was a recent occurrence and not something that happened over a 100 (now nearly 150) years ago...

[cough] I believe you mean the war of northern aggression...

We all know that Grant stole Lee's sword and Lee was too much of a gentleman to ask for it back.

I've been a Mustang, Bulldog, Yellow Jacket, Owl, Eagle, and Longhorn.

If any group feels offended by a name or mascot, I will not argue.
But as I've told before, when I lived in Washington in the early 80s I heard Russell Means interviewed on one of the local radio shows. With regard to the Redskins, he said he was flattered that the nation's capital wanted to honor Native Americans and that the logo was dignified. On the other hand, he said he wasn't too crazy about Chief Wahoo and Chief Noc-a-Homa.

At least HISD changed these names in order to not offend certain groups of people. I recently found out that my old middle school changed it's mascot from the Trojans to the Titans because a certain contraceptive company's name. *sigh*

My suggestion was to simply not have a mascot for Lamar or Westbury. Both sides could then claim victory to some extent. And that would have left open the opportunity for new traditions, mascots, etc. to grow organically from the students themselves over time, instead of having something unwanted forced upon them.

It seems to me that the basic intent of a mascot name is to represent the team as valiant and gifted in combat. That is why so few names are like the Banana Slugs and the Gentlemen. Even the Okra is the Fighting Okra.

And nobody selects a name/mascot to denigrate their team. There are no teams called the Yellowbellied Cowards or the Backstabbing Slimeballs.

But times change, and people see different motivations for older nicknames than originally intended. In the current "nobody, but nobody must be offended" atmosphere, all the names associated with people must eventually go. After we get rid of the Warriors and Indians, it will be the turn of the Conquistadors and the Dons, and eventually even the Irish and the Black Knights. The Self-Important Bureaucrats may be the last survivor of human mascots.

There are even animal rights groups wanting to abolish the animal nicknames already.

I don't know where it will end, but I expect to be long gone, so that is a silver lining to that.

I am just glad that Rice has a mascot that will remain politically viable for another century or so. I would hate to have to root for the Fighting Bookworms or the Null Set.

I find Titans offensive because it is now the name of the pro football team that Bud Adams took away from Houston.

I think Texian is actually better for Lamar than Redskin since Lamar himself was an enemy of the Indians. I do not like Huskies for Westbury.

(04-16-2014 11:45 AM)owlaholic Wrote:  At least HISD changed these names in order to not offend certain groups of people. I recently found out that my old middle school changed it's mascot from the Trojans to the Titans because a certain contraceptive company's name. *sigh*

Banana Slugs!
Racing down the field!

(04-16-2014 12:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It seems to me that the basic intent of a mascot name is to represent the team as valiant and gifted in combat. That is why so few names are like the Banana Slugs and the Gentlemen. Even the Okra is the Fighting Okra.

And nobody selects a name/mascot to denigrate their team. There are no teams called the Yellowbellied Cowards or the Backstabbing Slimeballs.

But times change, and people see different motivations for older nicknames than originally intended. In the current "nobody, but nobody must be offended" atmosphere, all the names associated with people must eventually go. After we get rid of the Warriors and Indians, it will be the turn of the Conquistadors and the Dons, and eventually even the Irish and the Black Knights. The Self-Important Bureaucrats may be the last survivor of human mascots.

There are even animal rights groups wanting to abolish the animal nicknames already.

I don't know where it will end, but I expect to be long gone, so that is a silver lining to that.

I am just glad that Rice has a mascot that will remain politically viable for another century or so. I would hate to have to root for the Fighting Bookworms or the Null Set.

Forgot - I was a Gentleman (Centenary) for a year. Smithsonian Magazine said that was their favorite mascot. Just the thought of people chanting, "Fight, Gentlemen."

(04-16-2014 08:39 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 08:02 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 07:44 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 01:18 AM)75src Wrote:  spineless parasites like the so called liberals or progressives.

Wow, and we wonder why our politics have become so divisive. Maybe if we could debate issues without going to hate-filled, venomous, ad hominem attacks as a first resort. Nobody else had even made this partisan until your comment.

Sorry, but schools named after confederate generals, mascots alluding to the confederacy, etc. are simply inappropriate IMHO.

Maybe mascots are an issue. Blacklisting Confederate generals, most of whom were West Point graduates and fought in other campaigns with the U.S. Army, seems like painting with a very, very broad brush.

Getting rid of schools named after N.B. Forrest (a Confederate General) is appropriate, given his post-Civil War ties.

But equating all Confederate generals with someone akin to Forrest's history is grossly distorting, IMHO.

I see where you are coming from, and get that most historical figures have a dark side. I'd just argue that the fact that we are debating it means it probably wasn't a good idea. Especially since most schools named like that weren't named recently in the spirit of examining the complexities of history which don't always lend themselves to clear cut "good guys" and "bad guys" but were named during the Jim Crow days and reflected attitudes I doubt any here would want to defend.

And I'll admit as a non-southerner I simply don't understand the South's inability to move on. When I first moved to the South in the early 80's I was completely blown away by the fact that people talked about the Civil War as if it was a recent occurrence and not something that happened over a 100 (now nearly 150) years ago...

It might help if people remember or understood that Robert E. Lee's men (i.e. the CSA Army, including majority, dirt poor, non-slave owners) loved him in much the same way players love a truly great coach.

People (not directed at you) looking back through history with a narrow or focused context can often miss out on the human aspect of situations. Athletics as we know it, didn't really exist in that era. And in our post-Vietnam era mindset, I don't think we really understood the affection that many soldiers had for their commanding officers. I use athletics for context, because coaches are now often viewed as molders of men, similar to officers.

I don't deny that not every general or leader is worthy of the admiration they claimed in the past. But stating that Lee, Jackson and maybe a few others were probably more loved than Eisenhower, Patton, etc, and equal in their subordinates eyes to Washington, etc is probably not much of a reach.

Which is why to me, I don't see much difference in a R.E. Lee High School versus a Lafayette High or a Patton Middle School. You could argue that a JFK Elementary could be questioned on some levels, if you really wanted to dig (I don't and am not).

(04-16-2014 09:15 AM)13thOwl Wrote:  I would be down for a "Troublemakers" t-shirt! Hell ya! I feel sorry for the marching band that tries to spell that out at halftime, however.

That would be the Treblemakers, and bumper, their lead singer, is a douc@e

If you want good role models, why not Pirates? They were democratic and diverse.

Some people are even saying negative things about Lincoln.

(04-16-2014 01:00 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 08:39 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 08:02 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 07:44 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 01:18 AM)75src Wrote:  spineless parasites like the so called liberals or progressives.

Wow, and we wonder why our politics have become so divisive. Maybe if we could debate issues without going to hate-filled, venomous, ad hominem attacks as a first resort. Nobody else had even made this partisan until your comment.

Sorry, but schools named after confederate generals, mascots alluding to the confederacy, etc. are simply inappropriate IMHO.

Maybe mascots are an issue. Blacklisting Confederate generals, most of whom were West Point graduates and fought in other campaigns with the U.S. Army, seems like painting with a very, very broad brush.

Getting rid of schools named after N.B. Forrest (a Confederate General) is appropriate, given his post-Civil War ties.

But equating all Confederate generals with someone akin to Forrest's history is grossly distorting, IMHO.

I see where you are coming from, and get that most historical figures have a dark side. I'd just argue that the fact that we are debating it means it probably wasn't a good idea. Especially since most schools named like that weren't named recently in the spirit of examining the complexities of history which don't always lend themselves to clear cut "good guys" and "bad guys" but were named during the Jim Crow days and reflected attitudes I doubt any here would want to defend.

And I'll admit as a non-southerner I simply don't understand the South's inability to move on. When I first moved to the South in the early 80's I was completely blown away by the fact that people talked about the Civil War as if it was a recent occurrence and not something that happened over a 100 (now nearly 150) years ago...

It might help if people remember or understood that Robert E. Lee's men (i.e. the CSA Army, including majority, dirt poor, non-slave owners) loved him in much the same way players love a truly great coach.

People (not directed at you) looking back through history with a narrow or focused context can often miss out on the human aspect of situations. Athletics as we know it, didn't really exist in that era. And in our post-Vietnam era mindset, I don't think we really understood the affection that many soldiers had for their commanding officers. I use athletics for context, because coaches are now often viewed as molders of men, similar to officers.

I don't deny that not every general or leader is worthy of the admiration they claimed in the past. But stating that Lee, Jackson and maybe a few others were probably more loved than Eisenhower, Patton, etc, and equal in their subordinates eyes to Washington, etc is probably not much of a reach.

Which is why to me, I don't see much difference in a R.E. Lee High School versus a Lafayette High or a Patton Middle School. You could argue that a JFK Elementary could be questioned on some levels, if you really wanted to dig (I don't and am not).

(04-16-2014 11:45 AM)owlaholic Wrote:  At least HISD changed these names in order to not offend certain groups of people. I recently found out that my old middle school changed it's mascot from the Trojans to the Titans because a certain contraceptive company's name. *sigh*

so many jokes, so little time.

(04-16-2014 01:38 PM)kinderowl Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 09:15 AM)13thOwl Wrote:  I would be down for a "Troublemakers" t-shirt! Hell ya! I feel sorry for the marching band that tries to spell that out at halftime, however.

That would be the Treblemakers, and bumper, their lead singer, is a douc@e

I knew I had the potential to be the straight man...

(04-15-2014 06:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I shop for husky sizes. Talk about a demeaning name. Why not just name them the Fatties? Oh, you mean the dog... Well, as long as he doesn't bite, it should be OK.

Wolf Pack just seems wrong. They hunt Bambi.

I think Peacemakers and Negotiators should be the new names. Maybe the Butterflies.

Warriors would be a good name for West Point, though.

I like peacemakers...

They could use the B-36 as their symbol... (the Peacemaker was manufactured by Convair (I think in Ft Worth)).

Superimpose the B-36 over a mushroom cloud and they could mimic the SAC motto "Peace is our profession"

The old joke was that after completing the mission... "Now it's Miller Time"... That suggests a particular sponsor. I wish I had a chance to buy that T-Shirt.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I have seen a photo of two 19th Century Colt Peacemaker revolvers with the caption "Blessed are the Peacemakers" with a different meaning than what was in Matthew 6-the Sermon on the Mound.

(04-16-2014 05:24 PM)Memphis Owl Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 06:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I shop for husky sizes. Talk about a demeaning name. Why not just name them the Fatties? Oh, you mean the dog... Well, as long as he doesn't bite, it should be OK.

Wolf Pack just seems wrong. They hunt Bambi.

I think Peacemakers and Negotiators should be the new names. Maybe the Butterflies.

Warriors would be a good name for West Point, though.

I like peacemakers...

They could use the B-36 as their symbol... (the Peacemaker was manufactured by Convair (I think in Ft Worth)).

Superimpose the B-36 over a mushroom cloud and they could mimic the SAC motto "Peace is our profession"

The old joke was that after completing the mission... "Now it's Miller Time"... That suggests a particular sponsor. I wish I had a chance to buy that T-Shirt.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(04-16-2014 08:39 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And I'll admit as a non-southerner I simply don't understand the South's inability to move on. When I first moved to the South in the early 80's I was completely blown away by the fact that people talked about the Civil War as if it was a recent occurrence and not something that happened over a 100 (now nearly 150) years ago...

Amen. They're almost as bad as the Irish!

(04-16-2014 09:12 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 08:39 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And I'll admit as a non-southerner I simply don't understand the South's inability to move on. When I first moved to the South in the early 80's I was completely blown away by the fact that people talked about the Civil War as if it was a recent occurrence and not something that happened over a 100 (now nearly 150) years ago...

Amen. They're almost as bad as the Irish!

And to clarify, I would not qualify as a Southerner (born in Oklahoma to a family that emigrated to the Midwest in the late 19th century. I've also talked to people who get downright angry if the Civil War is couched in terms of anything other than 'States Rights' (as if the war would've occurred over anything other than slavery - although it was clearly a 'states rights' issue at the time, it's the only one of that magnitude), and in fact still see the Federal government as being 'in the wrong' over that. Don't understand it much either.

My point was merely that I don't necessarily feel that honoring certain CSA officers, whether by way of a statue or as a given name to a school, building or other feature is wrong in and of itself.

There are monuments to CSA's soldiers all over the South (including one in downtown Houston). I don't see the issue there either. It is history. It's not quite the same thing as the Taliban destroying Buddhist statues that were thousands of years old. But destroying the pyramids because some of them were built using forced labor would be at least similar in nature, albeit with a lot more time having passed.

(04-16-2014 10:04 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 09:12 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 08:39 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And I'll admit as a non-southerner I simply don't understand the South's inability to move on. When I first moved to the South in the early 80's I was completely blown away by the fact that people talked about the Civil War as if it was a recent occurrence and not something that happened over a 100 (now nearly 150) years ago...

Amen. They're almost as bad as the Irish!

And to clarify, I would not qualify as a Southerner (born in Oklahoma to a family that emigrated to the Midwest in the late 19th century. I've also talked to people who get downright angry if the Civil War is couched in terms of anything other than 'States Rights' (as if the war would've occurred over anything other than slavery - although it was clearly a 'states rights' issue at the time, it's the only one of that magnitude), and in fact still see the Federal government as being 'in the wrong' over that. Don't understand it much either.

My point was merely that I don't necessarily feel that honoring certain CSA officers, whether by way of a statue or as a given name to a school, building or other feature is wrong in and of itself.

There are monuments to CSA's soldiers all over the South (including one in downtown Houston). I don't see the issue there either. It is history. It's not quite the same thing as the Taliban destroying Buddhist statues that were thousands of years old. But destroying the pyramids because some of them were built using forced labor would be at least similar in nature, albeit with a lot more time having passed.

It seems as if the lack of letting go holds for both sides.

(04-16-2014 12:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  ...And nobody selects a name/mascot to denigrate their team. There are no teams called the Yellowbellied Cowards or the Backstabbing Slimeballs...

You have hit upon the answer! Select a mascot with which nobody will ever admit they identify and you can keep that mascot forever. Backstabbers it is!

(04-16-2014 11:58 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 12:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  ...And nobody selects a name/mascot to denigrate their team. There are no teams called the Yellowbellied Cowards or the Backstabbing Slimeballs...

You have hit upon the answer! Select a mascot with which nobody will ever admit they identify and you can keep that mascot forever. Backstabbers it is!

I can hear the cheerleaders now...


"Stop being selfish! let the other team have the ball for a while!"

Who's going to score? NOT us, NOT us!

Sorry about that!




But it will help usher in the modern era of noncompetition.