The victim methodology cult is now saying the Aztecs were victims, never mind the thousands of lives they sacrificed by cutting open a live person and presentING the beating heart to their god.

Classic leftism.

(04-26-2017 01:26 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:15 AM)justinslot Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 05:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Eventually the name will be changed, and the world won't end.

Here's why

Unlike the Utes or the Seminoles, there isn't a group that the school can go to in order to obtain approval for the appropriation. Regardless of whether one thinks the appropriation is correct or not, it is an appropriation.

Its also, in the case of SDSU, a very tenuous one, that has very little to base a team from San Diego using it.

Its best to just get it over with and have a mascot that won't be a millstone.

Isn't the difference that the Aztecs were a civilization, not an ethnicity? That's why--to me--this is a completely different situation than the Native American mascot issue.

The Aztecs were a distinct tribe, different from others in the area.

So I consider the conference realignment forum at CSNBBS dot com the wrong forum to debate history in--mostly because I have no idea what I'm talking about for most historical questions outside what I can immediately google up. That said--the Aztec Empire was certainly a multiethnic state. And weren't the original Aztecs a distinct political unit of a divided people, like the Spartans and Athenians were both Greeks? And not a separate people with its own language, religion, etc.

Quote:Unlike the Utes or the Seminoles, there isn't a group that the school can go to in order to obtain approval for the appropriation.

If there isn't a group that can give permission to use the name, then there isn't a group that could oppose using the name.

(04-26-2017 12:25 AM)justinslot Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:15 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  San Diego St getting rid of Aztecs would be awful.

Eastern Michigan lost so much identity when they switched from the iconic Fighting Hurons to the bland Eagles.

Ditto North Dakota.

It is an interesting side issue that so many of the non-offensive mascot names turn out to be awful. Like St John's--Redmen to Red Storm, which sounds like a limited edition soda. Or Hofstra: Flying Dutchmen to...the Hofstra Pride. Just atrocious. Stanford sucks in all ways, so it's no surprise that they went from Indians to that horrible tree and/or color. Especially when the kids voted to be the Robber Barons in an tribute to the school's founder.

Why didn't EMU change to being Herons? I mean Eagles are so generic...

Stanford was trying to copy the Ivy League+ crowd. Harvard Crimson, Chicago Maroons, Cornell Big Red, Dartmouth Big Green, NYU Violets. It fits right in with their smug (and knowingly false) "Harvard is the Stanford of the East" attitude.

(04-25-2017 08:35 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Or let's not care and move on. There's a few high schools and streets nearby named for Confederate general Robert E. Lee. Do you think I care, even as a black man? Hell, those are the names I prefer because I may lose track of what the reference was if they ever changed it and not know what people were referring to. There are more pressing issues to life than being PC to the loud ignorant minority.

I agree with you. Let's not care and move on.
*I want to say for the record that I am anti human sacrifice. Other than that, I'm not gonna bust the Aztec's chops too hard. It's not just because they are my own blood relatives either.

(04-26-2017 02:35 AM)NoDak Wrote:  The victim methodology cult is now saying the Aztecs were victims, never mind the thousands of lives they sacrificed by cutting open a live person and presentING the beating heart to their god.

Classic leftism.

Who's saying that? I'm Mexican and I've never ever heard anybody in Mexico refer to the Aztecs as "victims". The only time you hear the word "victim" is as a reference of the Aztecs supertisions as the reason why their empire fell to the Spanish. That's it.

As for SDSU, I really doubt people in Mexico really care if an American school uses the Aztecs as a brand. They might find it flattering but other than that they wouldn't even think about it.

(04-26-2017 01:38 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 02:35 AM)NoDak Wrote:  The victim methodology cult is now saying the Aztecs were victims, never mind the thousands of lives they sacrificed by cutting open a live person and presentING the beating heart to their god.

Classic leftism.

Who's saying that? I'm Mexican and I've never ever heard anybody in Mexico refer to the Aztecs as "victims". The only time you hear the word "victim" is as a reference of the Aztecs supertisions as the reason why their empire fell to the Spanish. That's it.

As for SDSU, I really doubt people in Mexico really care if an American school uses the Aztecs as a brand. They might find it flattering but other than that they wouldn't even think about it.

Practically all faculty in humanities follow the Stuttgart school, who have been teaching for 50 odd years that all non-white, non-male, and non-Christian people have been victims. They get plenty of support from students that have been indoctrinated.

(04-26-2017 01:38 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 02:35 AM)NoDak Wrote:  The victim methodology cult is now saying the Aztecs were victims, never mind the thousands of lives they sacrificed by cutting open a live person and presentING the beating heart to their god.

Classic leftism.

Who's saying that? I'm Mexican and I've never ever heard anybody in Mexico refer to the Aztecs as "victims". The only time you hear the word "victim" is as a reference of the Aztecs supertisions as the reason why their empire fell to the Spanish. That's it.

As for SDSU, I really doubt people in Mexico really care if an American school uses the Aztecs as a brand. They might find it flattering but other than that they wouldn't even think about it.

The issue is that people of Mexican heritage disagree as to the appropriateness of the usage. SDSU is simply asking for strife in retaining the mascot. Its also not really relevant for San Diego.

(04-26-2017 01:41 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 01:38 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 02:35 AM)NoDak Wrote:  The victim methodology cult is now saying the Aztecs were victims, never mind the thousands of lives they sacrificed by cutting open a live person and presentING the beating heart to their god.

Classic leftism.

Who's saying that? I'm Mexican and I've never ever heard anybody in Mexico refer to the Aztecs as "victims". The only time you hear the word "victim" is as a reference of the Aztecs supertisions as the reason why their empire fell to the Spanish. That's it.

As for SDSU, I really doubt people in Mexico really care if an American school uses the Aztecs as a brand. They might find it flattering but other than that they wouldn't even think about it.

Practically all faculty in humanities follow the Stuttgart school, who have been teaching for 50 odd years that all non-white, non-male, and non-Christian people have been victims. They get plenty of support from students that have been indoctrinated.

So you're quoting the extreme left. They have as much credibility as the far right which is none. But just to make it clear, Mexicans don't consider the Aztecs as "victims". They did good things like building their capital on top of a lake (the reason why you see the eagle and the snake on the Mexican flag, it was the founding of the Aztec capital in 1325) and bad things like the whole human sacrificing rituals but make no mistake, they were as ruthless as the Spaniards who conquered them. If anything, Mexicans have a much better opinion of the Mayans and mixed opinions of the Aztecs and the Spanish.

OK, guys, you're not talking sports in this thread any more, you're talking politics. Go do that in the Spin Room.