Seriously speaking, Ole Miss dropped the old "Colonel Reb" mascot three years ago - he looked like a representation of a white plantation owner / confederate colonel. Recently, the student body voted to get a new mascot, instead of being the only SEC team without one. They will keep the nickname "Rebels" but are looking for a new visual representation of what a rebel is. Enter Admiral Ackbar - a student favorite. Of course, the school says there is "virtually no way" Ackbar will become the official mascot....but then again, they are putting the choice of mascot in the hands of a bunch of college students.....
Should be interesting to watch what happens. They are forming a committee to decide on the new mascot. Any ideas from the Hatrack community? How would you represent "Rebel"?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While the student body may have voted on it, I'm betting that the school administration would like a mascot that they can license to merchandise manufacturers. There's a lot of money in licensing, for schools...
They're facing quite a creative challenge, I think. I'd suggest they start over from scratch and open up the possibility of a completely different mascot. But, I'm not a marketing guy. Maybe they can find something that will work...
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, count me amount those voting for Ackbar. If they start losing in any game they can all just shout out "It's a trap!"
I was actually going to come in here and suggest some one from the Rebel Alliance. Can we make a change to copyright law, whereby if enough time has passed that people have grown up on a story and it's character and are now in college that that story and its characters then enter the public domain? I mean, come on! Star Wars first came out 30 years ago! It's just part of our culture at this point. It really ought to be in the public domain.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Revolutionary ward soldier. There isn't a single other Rebel in our shared history that would be okay.
If licensing weren't a problem, Star Wars would be fine. If being dated weren't a problem, a Brando/Deanesque 50's greaser.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, the school says there is "virtually no way" Ackbar will become the official mascot....but then again, they are putting the choice of mascot in the hands of a bunch of college students.....
Student choice or no student choice, there is no way the school could make Ackbar the mascot without permission from George Lucas. There is no way that could happen without either Lucas agreeing to wave the royalties or the school agreeing to pay them. So yeah, I'm think "virtually no way" is accurate.
What bunch of college students are willing to campaign for and what they are willing to shell out money for are two quite different things.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I'm pretty sure he'd let them use it. Lucas has always been quite willing to let people use his property provided they aren't profiting by it, and while the school might derive some profit indirectly, I doubt he'd care much. Its one of his better qualities, and one he learned from the best on (the first Star Wars movie is significantly lifted from The Hidden Fortress).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Oh, I'm pretty sure he'd let them use it. Lucas has always been quite willing to let people use his property provided they aren't profiting by it, and while the school might derive some profit indirectly, I doubt he'd care much. Its one of his better qualities, and one he learned from the best on (the first Star Wars movie is significantly lifted from The Hidden Fortress).
Yes but a college mascot is in a bit of a gray area when it comes to profit. The mascot promotes the football and basketball teams which bring revenue to the University. Lucas would likely at a minimum want restriction on the use of the Mascot in advertising, broadcasts, and University paraphernalia. The University might be very wary of accepting those kinds of restrictions given how difficult it would be for them to control students and community use of the mascot.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it sucks that the history of our nation has been so fabricated in the school system that the use of a confederate rebel as a mascot is considered inherently racist. He is rebelling for states rights. He is rebelling against a union 800 miles away deciding what is right for him.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: I think it sucks that the history of our nation has been so fabricated in the school system that the use of a confederate rebel as a mascot is considered inherently racist. He is rebelling for states rights. He is rebelling against a union 800 miles away deciding what is right for him.
I think its highly unfortunate that the history of the civil war has been mythologized in the southern states that some one could actually say what you did and think that was honorable.
In the lead up to session to session, and the first year of the war, slavery was the only issue southern leaders were giving for their actions. It wasn't until the end of the war and the defeat of the south that southerns started talking about states rights.
The southern states didn't give a hoot about states rights when they were campaigning for the fugative slave acts or a dozen other similar issues prior to the war. States rights was strictly a post-hoc issue.
[ February 25, 2010, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always heard they were trying to get out of paying unfair taxes pushed through by the North. Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not really sure who has the burden of proof here, but I'd like some sources from both sides.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not interested in a fight, but here are some sources.
First, The declarations of secession from 4 of the states. You will note that all of them cite slavery as a primary cause. Some of them invoke states rights, but that is in the specific context of "states right to have slavery".
Second, here is the text of the speech given by Alexander Stephens, the confederate VP in 1869 in which he explains the superiority of the confederacy.
quote:Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
Third, I'd highly recommend you read thisbook. In it, Charles Dew quotes hundreds of original sources from commissioners who were seeking to persuade states to join the rebellion. Interestingly, Dew is a white man who grew up in the south in the 1940s and 50s when the assertion that the secession was about states rights not slavery was considered gospel truth. He reports in the book that he was absolutely stunned by what he found in his research. Those people promoting secession argued slavery and racial issues almost exclusively. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the book on hand or I'd give you quotes. They are some of the most horrid racial bigotry and obscene defenses of a moral bankrupt institution you will ever see.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no interest in a fight with kat or anyone else. But if you look at the evidence, its pretty clear that "states rights were the reason for the civil war" is revisionist history and a myth.
The southern states seceded first and foremost to protect slavery and racial inequality, everything else was an after thought. As a result of that, 2 million Americans died. Its high time we stopped tolerating those who want to dress the confederate pigs up in perfume fancy clothes and call the rebels heroes. This is one of the blackest marks on our history.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not interested in a fight, but here are some sources.
The second half proves the first half is a lie.
Your sources are incomplete and you are biased.
I am biased against a lie. I have no personal reason other than loyalty to the truth to believe one way or the other on the issue. Neither I nor my ancestors fought on either side of the civil war. I have no conflict of interest on the subject.
There is no such think as a complete source of information on the the civil war. I can't link you to every word spoken by every southerner in the lead up to the civil war. I have provided the actual texts of some declarations of secesssion, a quote from the VP of the confederacy, and a reference where you can find hundreds of quotes from southern commissioners in the lead up to the war. Slavery and racial inequality were the pivotal issues behind secession. They were named as such thousands of times by the people seceding.
Read the book I referenced and then lets talk about it. There is no point in fighting over it.
[ February 26, 2010, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not interested in a fight, but here are some sources.
The second half proves the first half is a lie.
Your sources are incomplete and you are biased.
Kat, These are rather personal attacks on my integrity. If you want to discuss the issue civilly. I'd be happy to but please do so by providing data, facts and sources rather than insulting me.
Raymond asked for sources. I believed he was sincerely interested so I provided some.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for providing the declarations, Rabbit. South Carolina starts out looking like it just wants to reassert its rights to sovereign statehood, but its big complaint after all the history is that other states won't give back runaway slaves.
The others mention slavery almost immediately as the problem. With some fascinating insights into the justifications for it. Who knew it was vital for civilization that we hold slaves? </tongue in cheek>
Definitely some revisionist history in play here.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wrote a 3 page paper on the causes of the civil war. Can I just suggest that you are all right because there were MULTIPLE causes.
A major part was the fight for private property against the federal government, at a time slaves were considered property.
Posts: 856 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I appreciate your contributions here. I didn't realize how clear cut slavery as the primary cause of the war was. I also really appreciate how you are not rising to kat's attempts to start a fight.
---
Honestly, the obvious choice for a mascot is a revolutionary war soldier. It's actually a little strange to me that we don't have a cultural archetype of a rebel besides that that is not shameful. I guess the counter-culture of the 60s and 70s could fit, but certainly not in a universal way.
In that vein, what about Martin Luther King Jr? He was definitely considered a rebel at the time and what a way to turn the racism thing on its head.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the Star Wars angle is not a bad one....honestly it's funny but Ackbar is not the right choice. Choose a good looking, athletic Ole Miss student each year to dress up like Han Solo and call it a day. He even wears dark blue pants with a red stripe - red and blue being Ole Miss colors. It would work!
Barring that...I think a revolutionary war soldier would be fine. Or do what other SEC teams do (*cough* Alabama *cough* Auburn *cough*) and pick a mascot that has nothing at all to do with the name of the team. Choose an Irish setter or something. I mean, it makes as much sense as the Crimson Tide being represented on field by an elephant, or a team called the tigers with a chant of War Eagle and an eagle flying in before every game. *shrug*
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given the whole "turn the racism thing on its head" idea, Squicky, I admit I was tempted to suggest someone like Nat Turner. But honestly, that'd probably wind up being even more offensive.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Honestly, the obvious choice for a mascot is a revolutionary war soldier. It's actually a little strange to me that we don't have a cultural archetype of a rebel besides that that is not shameful.
I think it's because in the real world, a majority of rebels (not all, certainly, but a significant number of them) tend to take things too far and become as bad or worse than what they're rebelling against. This makes for a lousy role model.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm not interested in a fight, but here are some sources.
First, The declarations of secession from 4 of the states. You will note that all of them cite slavery as a primary cause. Some of them invoke states rights, but that is in the specific context of "states right to have slavery".
Second, here is the text of the speech given by Alexander Stephens, the confederate VP in 1869 in which he explains the superiority of the confederacy.
quote:Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
Third, I'd highly recommend you read thisbook. In it, Charles Dew quotes hundreds of original sources from commissioners who were seeking to persuade states to join the rebellion. Interestingly, Dew is a white man who grew up in the south in the 1940s and 50s when the assertion that the secession was about states rights not slavery was considered gospel truth. He reports in the book that he was absolutely stunned by what he found in his research. Those people promoting secession argued slavery and racial issues almost exclusively. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the book on hand or I'd give you quotes. They are some of the most horrid racial bigotry and obscene defenses of a moral bankrupt institution you will ever see.
I dunno. I think the idea that it wasn't about slavery is ridiculous. Obviously it was a huge problem, and I would personally call it the single biggest factor, but it was hardly the only one. States rights was a big issue. The problem I think really came in the post-war period when the South convinced itself that it wasn't slavery, it was states rights, and slavery was just a minor issue.
But, let's consider a few things. First off, slavery in general. While the Crittendon Compromise failed to achieve popularity in the north, it wasn't because of southern slavery, it was because of free soilers who wanted to make sure that all future territories weren't allowed to be slave states. Mostly not because of the kindness of their own hearts, but because they didn't want to be around black people. But, most Republicans, including Lincoln, were absolutely on board with a smaller version of the Crittendon Compromise that gave the south a constitutional protection for slavery. So, with a promise from the government of guaranteed permanent legality for slavery, why would they still secede?
Well that brings us to point two; power. The south favored the Crittendon Amendments because they guaranteed slavery all the way to the Pacific Ocean, under a certain latitude. This was figured to be a promise of power, since it's generally understood that Lincoln's election was the harbinger of things to come, since the slave states couldn't run the government anymore, at least, not like they had previously. But the problem with that was few figured slavery would expand far beyond the Mississippi, especially not in Arizona and New Mexico. Yet the south was largely in favor of this measure. They also had Texas in their back pocket as a theoretical base of power. While Texans who claim that Texas had the right to secede built into their admission as state are wrong, Texas is unique amongst states in that part of its admission as a state guaranteed them the right to break off into six smaller states, which could radically alter the basis of power in the Senate. Also, look at the things that largely pissed off the south in the past. The Tariff of Abominations that set off the secession crisis in the early 1830s with the Nullification Crisis had nothing to do with slavery, it was an issue of state versus national power.
Also, consider the foot soldiers of the war. What was the average soldier in the south fighting for? Slavery? Unlikely. First off, the grand majority of southerners were small land holding non-slave owners. They didn't particularly care about slavery. They certainly weren't dying to protect the continued power of the slave holding elite. The line that was sold to them, and the line that they went to the grave with on their lips, was state power, anti-federal government, individual rights. I think the reason you see slavery ensconced in official declarations is that the people writing those declarations were the slave holding elite, but it wasn't the slave holding elite that actually fought the war. There's a disconnect between the politicians and wealth holders and the actual foot soldiers, and I think that disconnect is absolutely key, because they were still together, even if they fought for totally different reasons.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's painfully simplistic, and only half-true.
Millions volunteered for service. And for those who didn't, what compelled them to actually go along with a draft? Instituting a draft doesn't automatically entail service. Many were hesitant because they didn't believe it was worth it, either to leave their families alone, or to fight for a cause they weren't willing to risk their lives for.
Many went because of pressure from their families, who were driven by nationalism derived from a belief in the independence of their own state, rather than slavery. To them, the fight over slavery wasn't really about slavery, it was merely a symptom of the larger disease.
Just as many in the north went to fight both over slavery, and not over slavery, to free the slaves, but also to preserve the continuity of the union. I think it's easy to say that slavery caused the war, but there was a whole lot more going on than just slavery, and slavery alone probably wouldn't have done it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Confederacy only had fewer than 1.1 million soldiers altogether. Many did volunteer, but they did so because their country was at war, not because they necessarily agreed with the reasons their government started the war.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Confederacy only had fewer than 1.1 million soldiers altogether. Many did volunteer, but they did so because their country was at war, not because they necessarily agreed with the reasons their government started the war.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amend that to maybe hundreds of thousands, but I think your 1.1 million number is likely a low ball estimate. Estimates range anywhere from a million to two million. Given the size of the male population of the south, conscription ranges, and for that matter, the domestic pressures put on families to enforce conscription, I think a million and a half is probably more likely, including the navy (small, but still there).
Regardless, I think you're wrong. That's far too simplistic a statement. Asking "why did they fight?" and answering with "because people were fighting" is ridiculously simplistic. I think that could be an explanation for some of those that fought, but as is, you're wrong.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The decision to go to war was not made by referendum. It was made by the government at the behest of the "slave holding elite". Once the war was started the men of fighting age were compelled to fight, whether legally by the draft, by family and social pressure, or by a sense of patriotism. It really did not matter how they felt about the ideology behind the war.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
