When did it become more important to keep tradition than to takeinto account people’s feelings? When did it become necessary tobelong to an ethnic group in order to fight for that group’s cause?
Think about it — if another group on campus were complainingabout the mascot, something would be done about it, no questionsasked. I ask you all to think about the thoughts I offer to you.Hopefully, they’ll make you a little more understanding.
My philosophy is this: if one person is offended by something,then we all should be.
Let’s talk about tradition first. Traditions change, and we startnew ones. Slavery was a tradition where a race was exploited for over200-years. Boy, am I glad that changed.
So does that mean San Diego State University will have to fight acivil war? You never know — Monty Montezuma is a tradition. Yeah!He’s a tradition we laugh our asses off at when we see him runningaround. He’s a tradition we make fun of.
How many of you have said to yourself, “Wow! That Monty sure is astrong representative of the Aztec heritage. I sure am glad he’s ourmascot.”
None of you! We sit there, laugh and then we run to him and say”Oh my God! We want to take our picture with you!” The only traditionI see here is us traditionally cracking jokes about how we’d never dowhat he does.
And for those of you throwing in the excuse that only descendantsof Aztecs or Mexicans should vote; excuse me, but when did it becomenecessary for you to belong to a specific ethnic group for you to beallowed to fight a cause with, or for them? If this was how the gamewas supposed to be played, black allies should have stayed at home inthe ’50s, the ’60s and for that matter, all throughout the 19thcentury.
Black race issues didn’t concern you. Slavery didn’t concern you.The Civil Rights Movement didn’t concern you.
If I really felt this way, all I have learned in my life wouldmean nothing. As far as I’m concerned, human decency is the mostimportant trait you can have.
I am black, and everything in me feels that if we were discussingchanging the SDSU Zulus, there would be no questions asked — we’dfind it offensive and it would be gone. It would have been gone yearsago. There is no way in hell I’d watch some Shaka Zulu look-alike runaround football games representing me, an American student. There’sno way.
But it’s essentially the same thing. What’s the problem here? Isthe pro-change voice not loud enough? Are there not enough peoplepissed off, appalled, sad, affected, made fun of, tired?
If we change the mascot and all that comes with it, we’ll movepast it. Stanford has, since changing its Indians mascot to theCardinals. It’s yesterday’s news. What makes SDSU so different?
To the alumni threatening to cut off their donations to SDSU, Iask you to please reflect on why you were here in the first place.Your objective coming to SDSU was to get an education and youaccomplished that. I am still here, following in your footsteps, andI want you to know that I appreciate all you do, and ask you toremember what is most important — how people feel and the fact thatwe are here to get an education.
We talk about how much this change would cost — but does the costoutweigh the opposition’s feelings?
The state of Minnesota found that the cost of change didn’toutweigh its citizen’s views and feelings. Maine is next in line,hoping to ban the use of the word ‘squaw’ in relation to publicfacilities, with Arizona and California discussing elimination of theword as well.
According to a New York Times article (“Indian Linguists,” Sept. 41996), the word squaw is a derogatory term for Native American women.That makes it offensive to all women. The state of Minnesota has donewhat it needs to for its people by changing signs, maps, names oftownships, mountains, waterways and names of public facilities thatuse the word. They are paying the price now for what some consideredan appropriate term centuries ago.
When I ask people what the word squaw means, most reply that it’sa Native American woman.
In my opinion, it’s equivalent to c–t, nig–r, and bitch. It ismy duty to educate, and with that duty I must enlighten them on howthis word offends Native American women, and myself as well.
That’s all I am trying to do — educate you on a mascot that wesee as offensive. And I say ‘we’ meaning those who are pro-change.
Finally, my thoughts on all of you students who suddenly feel theneed to have a vote: what’s this sudden urge to let your voices beheard? Most of you don’t even know the name of the AssociatedStudents president; what makes you think you deserve a vote on this?
SDSU is breeding a group of hypocrites. That’s sad. Maybe if youhad played an active role in the situation in the first place therewould have been a student vote initially. Have you thought aboutthat? Maybe they didn’t put it to a student body vote on because theydidn’t think you’d take the time to stop at the many booths put uparound campus.
Some people are so anti-change they are making threats. Fear is abetter word to use. I ask you not to be afraid of change, and not tohurt anyone. If you feel that you are an Aztec, you will always be anAztec. But Aztecs are not mascots.
How could you put a human culture on the same level as a bear ormustang? No matter how you try to make yourself feel better byclaiming that it’s good for Aztecs to remain the mascot, understandthat doesn’t make anyone feel any better when they see a key chain, arabbit’s foot or “Monty” Montezuma.
–Feather Ives is a public administration senior and a copy editorfor The Daily Aztec.
–This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of TheDaily Aztec.
