- Quickdraw McLaw
- 42 Comments
- 114 Views
As the South (and retailers across the country) begins a movement to eradicate the confederate flag, Senator Harry Reid set off some debate in Nevada yesterday by suggesting that the Board of Regents should take a look at UNLV’s “Rebels” nickname and mascot. You can get more details on the history of why the the school has the Rebel nickname and a history of confederate imagery in this article from the RJ. The article quotes two attorneys on the Board of Regents and their opinion. Michael Wixom says he doesn’t see it as an issue and James Dean Leavitt says UNLV has fully shed its controversial image. We thought we’d give some more attorneys a chance to weigh in. What do you think? Does the Rebels name need to change? Does “Hey Reb” really convey a mountain man–because he looks an awful lot like a civil war general… Is Nevada anything like South Carolina–maybe if you think like Ralston?
Should UNLV change its mascot?
People need to relax. UNLV has nothing to do with the tragedy that happened in South Carolina. It's not like they get the General Lee Dukes of Hazzard car doing stunts at half time waiving a Confederate flag. Let the State of South Carolina decide what they want to do with their "heritage" and the Confederate flag. What's next…changing the Washington Redskins to become the Washington Red hawks? People need to relax and they can decide if their elected officials are doing their job come election season. Vote some turkeys out of office, including those damn RINOs.
" What's next…changing the Washington Redskins to become the Washington Red hawks?"
YES.
It's amazing than any educated person thinks that mascot is acceptable. Not only is it a caricature, but it's also racial slur. When I see people in Washington NFL gear, I assume they are ignorant and/or bigots, I judge them and I think less of them. The same is true for those who defend/rationalize the current Washington NFL mascot.
The name is a slur, and I think it should be changed. I don't get why the mascot is offensive, but I'm not a Native American so I guess I wouldn't get it. I get that it's depicting a whole race of "redskins" as dudes in head dresses, but I think that could be remedied by changing the name to warriors or something.
In regards to offensive nicknames, I like the nickname a reader of Bill Simmons came up with for the potential NFL London team, "The Ugly Fat Americans." LOL
This is just another one of Reid's pushes trying to remain relevant.
Let's see, Reid grew up in Southern Nevada and has been "representing" Nevada for decades. Never heard a peep from the opportunist about UNLV's mascot and/or nickname, until now.
His son, Rory, attends UNLV games, cheering on Hey Reb. The Reid family are a bunch of idiotic, crooks.
http://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2015/jun/23/reid-says-he-didnt-urge-unlv-rethink-its-mascot/
The Rebel mascot doesn't bother me because Las Vegas isn't in the south and doesn't have ties to the civil war. But, for the same reason, it's kinda weird that UNLV uses that mascot. I'd dump it just because it's dumb and doesn't represent our state. We might as well be the Dolphins.
New thread: Mascots Which Have Little or No Relation to Their City or Region
1. Utah Jazz
2. Los Angeles Lakers
9:41 here: as I'm sure you know, those two teams are named for the city they moved from. I think it's dumb they held onto the names. I recognize that lots of teams have names that aren't related to their region. Sometimes (perhaps here) inertia is a good enough reason to hold onto the name. That said, I think it's bizarre for UNLV to be the Rebels. The story that goes with it–that UNLV is in the southern part of the state, and they are pitted against the (then) more established northern part of the state–seems contrived, and doesn't satisfy me. Whatever, the name won't change either way.
That's because you don't know UNLV's history. At one time, it was part of UNR. It had to fight to really establish its independence. So, given the North-South comparisons, it made sense to be the Rebels, and for a time the mascot was a Wolf (UNR's mascot) in confederate colors. That connections was severed when the students thought the imagery was inappropriate, and we got a bombastic trail-blazin' Hey Reb! instead.
Ya, I know that history. Doesn't make selecting a confederate mascot fit. We're Nevada. We weren't in the confederacy, ill-fitting analogs be damned.
Technically, Nevadans (and therefore Las Vegans) fought for the Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_in_the_American_Civil_War
Hello, the state motto is "Battle Born." We were admitted, because we provided silver to the Union. This whole rant about changing Reb is absurd. Why isn't Reid doing more constructive things in office, like holding banks accountable for liar mortgages for people who lost their homes? Reid really is a jerk!
"Technically, Nevadans (and therefore Las Vegans) fought for the Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_in_the_American_Civil_War "
OMG. Tell me more about how people from a town founded in 1905 fought for the Union in 1864. We really are the dumbest state in America.
Not only that, this part of the state wasn't part of the Nevada territory then.
As an alumnus of UNLV, and having grown up rooting for the Runnin' Rebs, I have fond memories of the the mascot. However, it's clear that some people do not share the same positive associations with that iconography, and perhaps rightly so. As much as I'd hate to see it go, I think we ought to just get in front of this thing and change it once and for all, rather than accepting the less offensive permutations of the theme that have evolved over the years. What I don't think would serve the university and community well is to allow this thing to fester and drag on such as is happening with the Washington Redskins. I'm no Harry Reid fan, but I think he's right on this one.
I don't see anyone else clamoring for the mascot to be changed, other than Reid. And even he is now backing off of that statement. The fact that the mascot has now been stripped of any relation to the confederacy should suffice.
Although, if we want to make sure we never offend anybody, we could change the mascot to the UNLV Human Beings and be done with it.
"As an alumnus of UNLV," I stopped reading at this point.
Reading isn't for everyone.
I went to USC aka "University of Spoiled Children." It's a lot "gooder" than UNLV. Ha ha! March On Trojans!!!!
@ 1:57 – cool story, bro.
@ 1:57 No you didn't. It's "Fight On" and any self respecting Trojan knows that. Nice job UCLA/UNLV troll.
Reid just showed that he's an idiot with these clown comments. There is nothing wrong with the Rebels' mascot. End of story. Reid needs to go away. He just likes to see his name in the newspaper.
Just writing out loud:
We need to be very careful about changing names for political correctness. What is politically correct now may not be politically correct at a later date. How far do we take it?
What if we change names to colors? We would have to knock out white, black, brown, orange, yellow …. think of all the sports teams that have colors in their names … Say goodbye to the Reds, the Browns, the Blackhawks etc…
How about we call UNLV simply ThE UNLV BaSkEtBaLl TeAm (lower case and caps for emphasis).
I am a bit frustrated about Bank of America. It seems to me that this should be Bank of United States of America …. or are we including all of America?
On a side note, as I have friends that are balled (sorry friends if that offends) but the name Harry excludes my friends…there goes Harry and the Hendersons and Senator, please change your first name.
I hate playing cards until we change the names of the deck of cards to remove Hearts, Clubs, Spades and Diamonds,
I personally don't like the name Wiznet….too many offensive connotations and may remind people of their personal incontinence issue
Just writing out loud.
I actually do take offense to the name Bank of America, because they are all criminals, stealing people's homes. This is my country, where veterans and "rebels" fought and died for it. Soldiers in the American revolution were referred to as "Rebels." This is not my bank and it never will be. Anyone affiliated with it, including their lawyers are a bunch of a-holes.
Racism can be overt but it can also be subtle, and simply because someone does not consider themselves a racist or intend their words or actions to be racist does not mean it is not racist. I don't agree with Ralston on several things, but he makes valid points here. http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/23/ralston-reports-nevada-south-carolina-confederate-flag-unlv-rebels-harry-reid/29186785/
Define racism and tell us why it is bad. Is there something wrong with preferring your own people? If so, why do we have Latino Clubs, Asian Clubs, African American Clubs, etc. Are these people being irrational, or human?
Why limit it to race. How about nationality. What about American Clubs overseas? Or Canadian Clubs here?
Or sex? Why Women's clubs? Gay clubs? Transsexual clubs?
Why do people keep seeking to congregate with people like themselves?
What's wrong with you people! sheez
I didn't know Cliven Bundy knew about this blog. You are seriously questioning why racism is a bad thing and and in the same breath attempting to equate discrimination against race or religion with clubs that embrace a particular ethnicity or lifestyle? Every one of the clubs you mention is open to people of all races, religions and backgrounds. Those clubs do not have a history of discriminating against other people, let alone holding onto (and even venerating) a relic of slavery.
The largest number of slaves over recorded time were Europeans enslaved by each other, followed by Europeans enslaved by North Africans, followed by Africans enslaved by some other Africans, and then, finally, Africans enslaved by Europeans. So what?
Is that seriously your best argument @ 2:58?
2:12 – If you are under 12 years of age, go read a history book, watch a few documentaries, and talk to a few rational older people. If you over over 12 years of age, fuck you.
I don't think 2:58's argument is that more whites have been slaves over history than blacks. I think the argument is that 2:34 is completely off base by invoking slavery and claiming "all arguments are over." Slavery has nothing to do with it.
What is racism and why does it matter. No one wants to tackle that. Frankly, this blog is probably the wrong place for this discussion. Ad hominems like 3:17's comment is all one ever gets in response to the why and so what question. For good reason, of course. Just as Mohammed is beyond question upon penalty of death, so is questioning modern liberal dogma today subject to penalty of being ostracized, ridiculed, etc. Some ideas and truths are simply so potent that their mere utterance can destabilize the status quo.
Back to work. Bye.
3:46 Slavery has nothing to do with what, exactly? The confederate flag issue has nothing to do with which race had the most people enslaved over centuries or "modern liberal dogma." It has to do with the confederate flag being the symbol people who were willing to go to war to keep black people enslaved – in the US and not all that long ago. Just because you believe something does not necessarily make it "truth."
Hey, I think you would enjoy this book. And this one.
I disagree with the poster that just because you don't intend words or actions as racist, that doesn't mean that it isn't racist. "Racist" is getting up there with the N word, and no one should be labeled as that if they don't have racist intents.
I am sure there were a lot of people in South Africa during apartheid who did not think they were being racist in that they were simply following what the laws and the customs permitted them to do. Whether they had any bad intent does not alleviate the fact that they were engaging in racism. I am not equating the personal character of a person who engages in overt racism with a person who engages in subtle or non-intended racism, but rather am pointing out that even people who do not intend to engage in racism often do so without thinking.
Colin Cowherd had a good bit on the radio this morning about the confederate flag. He basically said that if we see someone wearing a confederate flag (belt buckle, hat, shirt, etc.), we just think they are a bigot. I don't disagree with him. I mean, if a potential juror told me that s/he had a confederate flag bumper sticker, I would presume they were a racist/bigot and drove a lifted pick up truck.
What interests me about the whole debate over the confederate flag and its spinoffs is the amount of intolerance shown by those who claim to be fighting it. Claim the flag represents anything other than slavery? Racist. Disagree with decisions to take town statues of Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee? Racist. Disagree with decisions to rename schools bearing their name? Racist.
Any opposition is slapped with a racist label intended to mark the end of discussions. No thoughtful debate on the subject, just quick and dirty ad hominem attacks. If you feel so uncomfortable with your position then maybe it is you who are intolerant.
3:36/8:29 Why don't you troll elsewhere? If the confederate flag isn't a symbol of racism, then what is it a symbol of? You like to make declarations about others but I don't see you engaging in any thoughtful discussion. And please stop saying ad hominem. We all went to law school. Repeatedly using that term doesn't make you sound clever as you seem to think it does. Despite your ignorant conclusory declaration, I am not at all "uncomfortable" with my position on the matter. I think I recognize your brand of pompousness from law school – you comes across now just like you did then.