Mike brought up an interesting point in re the teapot tempest that reared its
vacuous head some time ago at UMass-Amherst.  Students -- a VERY small group
of very vocal misguided activists -- were clamoring for a change from
MINUTEMEN to some other, innocuous, vapid, puerile mascot.  At the time, a
celebrated media news-byte featured some lightweight undergraduate
proclaiming to one and all that the image of "a white male with a gun" was an
inappropriate symbol for the university.  My feeling then, unchanged as of
this writing, was for the aforementioned pinhead to SHUT UP, GO TO CLASS, AND
LEARN, preferably something about American history.  To their everlasting
credit, the administration did NOT cave in to the pressure exerted by a noisy
few, and maintained the Minuteman mascot.  The appalling ignorance
demonstrated by the activists, and by that student in particular, was beyond
excuse.
 
The current situation at Miami is certainly not the same, but similar.  Is
there basis, beyond mere attention-seeking, for a change?  Does Miami present
their mascot as some sort of parody?  Is the "Redskin" portrayed as a
barbaric savage?  Or are alums and present students/faculty/admin using this
"mascot" as a symbol of courage, bravery, and honor?  To the best of my
knowledge, "NO" to the first of my three posits, and "YES" to the last.
 
Let's stop kowtowing to every self-interest group that manages to grab a
headline by dint of volume.  Remember, "minority" doesn't mean "downtrodden,
oppressed, deprived racial group" -- it means "lacking sufficient numbers,
i.e., not of the majority."  That's why we vote, folks, to establish a
numerical superiority for one issue or another.  And the outcome is based on
the wishes of the MAJORITY.
 
The thread to Miami HOCKEY is getting more tenuous as this continues...
 
--Dave
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.