Are we gonna change mascot name from "Gamecocks"?

[GarnetBeamer]

Based on the recent recommendation to rename some facilities, it seems this has to be up for discussion. If we want to change the name of a building or a tree because someone was racist, then the same logic HAS to be applied to the most well-known identifier of the University, right?

We were named "Gamecocks" after Thomas Sumter. He was a proponent of slavery.

"In 1781 General Thomas Sumter offered one slave to each white citizen who joined as a private soldier for ten months and as many as three grown and one small slave to those who joined as colonels. Sumter did not have these slaves at the time he made this promise. He was banking on slaves he hoped would be seized from Loyalists during future campaigns. General Andrew Pickens also adopted this recruiting incentive, which became known as 'Sumter’s law,'"

African Americans in the Revolutionary War - South Carolina Encyclopedia

African Americans contributed to both the American and British causes during the Revolutionary War as laborers, soldiers, sailors, guides, teamsters, cooks, and spies. While it is impossible to know the exact number, it has been traditionally accepted that as many as five thousand African...

www.scencyclopedia.org

You can't draw arbitrary lines in the sand. If you start changing some names, you have to change them all. Or change none and just recognize that times were different and learn from our history.

 

[GarnetBeamer]

To be totally clear: I'm am NOT advocating for the name change. Simply pointing out that it seems the same rationale has to be applied to all names associated with the University.

 

[vacock#]

Based on the recent recommendation to rename some facilities, it seems this has to be up for discussion. If we want to change the name of a building or a tree because someone was racist, then the same logic HAS to be applied to the most well-known identifier of the University, right?

We were named "Gamecocks" after Thomas Sumter. He was a proponent of slavery.

"In 1781 General Thomas Sumter offered one slave to each white citizen who joined as a private soldier for ten months and as many as three grown and one small slave to those who joined as colonels. Sumter did not have these slaves at the time he made this promise. He was banking on slaves he hoped would be seized from Loyalists during future campaigns. General Andrew Pickens also adopted this recruiting incentive, which became known as 'Sumter’s law,'"

African Americans in the Revolutionary War - South Carolina Encyclopedia

African Americans contributed to both the American and British causes during the Revolutionary War as laborers, soldiers, sailors, guides, teamsters, cooks, and spies. While it is impossible to know the exact number, it has been traditionally accepted that as many as five thousand African...

www.scencyclopedia.org

You can't draw arbitrary lines in the sand. If you start changing some names, you have to change them all. Or change none and just recognize that times were different and learn from our history.

Not that it matters but politicians can do anything they want. South Carolina name has to be changed too? After all, the civil war, Jim Crow, etc. and most voted for Trump. Influx of more from out of the country to balance things out?

 

[andersoncountycock]

Here we go buckle up

 

[GarnetBeamer]

Not that it matters but politicians can do anything they want. South Carolina name has to be changed too? After all, the civil war, Jim Crow, etc. and most voted for Trump. Influx of more from out of the country to balance things out?

Well, unlike the names of buildings and such, I don't think legislature approval is required to change the name Gamecock. Just seems if the University is serious about this issue, this is one pretty easy way they could demonstrate it.

I mean, what's the worst thing Strom Thurmond ever did in comparison to offering slaves as "payment" for signing up for military service?

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

A couple of items to unpack.
1. There has not been one individual or group that has even hinted about changing the mascot name.
2. The OP makes the quantum leap that if a building has been considered for a name change, then the team mascot may fall under the same guidelines, and then suggests that option should be either all or nothing.
3. This purpose of this thread looks to be more of made up reason to excite and or enrage, than actually engage in any meaningful dialogue.

Flame away.

 

[rogue cock]

A couple of items to unpack.
1. There has not been one individual or group that has even hinted about changing the mascot name.
2. The OP makes the quantum leap that if a building has been considered for a name change, then the team mascot may fall under the same guidelines, and then suggests that option should be either all or nothing.
3. This purpose of this thread looks to be more of made up reason to excite and or enrage, than actually engage in any meaningful dialogue.

Flame away.

Agree. This was a "roll your eyes" type subject.

 

[GarnetBeamer]

A couple of items to unpack.
1. There has not been one individual or group that has even hinted about changing the mascot name.
2. The OP makes the quantum leap that if a building has been considered for a name change, then the team mascot may fall under the same guidelines, and then suggests that option should be either all or nothing.
3. This purpose of this thread looks to be more of made up reason to excite and or enrage, than actually engage in any meaningful dialogue.

Flame away.

If you have meaningful dialogue, I'd love to hear it. This is how it always goes. Folks cherry pick some things they want to see changed, but don't REALLY want that rationale applied across the board b/c they know it'll eventually come to something they care about.

 

[GarnetBeamer]

A couple of items to unpack.
1. There has not been one individual or group that has even hinted about changing the mascot name.
2. The OP makes the quantum leap that if a building has been considered for a name change, then the team mascot may fall under the same guidelines, and then suggests that option should be either all or nothing.
3. This purpose of this thread looks to be more of made up reason to excite and or enrage, than actually engage in any meaningful dialogue.

Flame away.

Agree. This was a "roll your eyes" type subject.

Can you offer any kind of reasonable explanation why we should consider removing the name "Strom Thurmond" because he supported segregation and voted against the Civil Rights Act, but should NOT consider changing our mascot's name that was taken from a SC slave trader.

For the record, I don't think we should be changing any names. I don't think anyone should. But IF you do start, you can't just pick and choose based on what's easy/convenient.

The logic for changing the mascot name is 100% absolutely identical to the logic for changing building names. No difference whatsoever, except that the mascot name is much more widely recognized.

 

[SCGCock07]

A couple of items to unpack.
1. There has not been one individual or group that has even hinted about changing the mascot name.
2. The OP makes the quantum leap that if a building has been considered for a name change, then the team mascot may fall under the same guidelines, and then suggests that option should be either all or nothing.
3. This purpose of this thread looks to be more of made up reason to excite and or enrage, than actually engage in any meaningful dialogue.

Flame away.

The national debate about this began with Confederate statues and names. The folks who warned against the removal of these statues and names warned that it would not end there. And it hasn't ended there, as the Presidential Commission's report has clearly established. The social justice crowd has a Puritanical desire to erase every vestige of our history that in any way can be construed as offensive. At some point and time that will expand from building names to our mascot, as it is inextricably linked with a man who was a proponent of slavery.

 

[USCBatgirl21]

The thing that gets me is 99% of the students on campus have no idea who these people were that the buildings were named after. And they think our mascot came from Cockfighting being a thing in the South.

 

[redrogers]

Our name came from a newspaper column when a writer referred to us playing like a bunch of gamecocks after a win. At the time, we were the Jaguars.

 

[Bleedgarnet33]

The logic is no where near 100% identical, most students probably don't even know who Thomas Sumter was, our mascot name can stand alone without his affiliation anyway. We are not Thomas Sumter U.

 

[GarnetBeamer]

The national debate about this began with Confederate statues and names. The folks who warned against the removal of these statues and names warned that it would not end there. And it hasn't ended there, as the Presidential Commission's report has clearly established. The social justice crowd has a Puritanical desire to erase every vestige of our history that in any way can be construed as offensive. At some point and time that will expand from building names to our mascot, as it is inextricably linked with a man who was a proponent of slavery.

This is thing. When you simply take the same logic and apply it something that people care about, they act gobsmacked. They say things like "The OP makes the quantum leap that if a building has been considered for a name change, then the team mascot may fall under the same guidelines, and then suggests that option should be either all or nothing."

Well, why SHOULDN'T it be all or nothing? Why SHOULDN'T the rationale be applied across the board?

 

[TopHook]

Simple solution. Don't bend the knee to pussies.

 

[GarnetBeamer]

The logic is no where near 100% identical, most students probably don't even know who Thomas Sumter was, our mascot name can stand alone without his affiliation anyway. We are not Thomas Sumter U.

I guaran-dadgum-tee that almost NO students could tell you anything about any of the names on the buildings that have been proposed to be changed. Were it not for recent publicity, most students probably don't even have a clue who Strom Thurmond was. IF they even know his name, the ONLY thing could tell you is that he supported segregation b/c that's what's been publicized. If you stopped 100 students and asked "what can you tell me about who _______ building was named after?" You'd get 100 "I dunno" responses.

This is a WEAK argument.

 

[SCGCock07]

The logic is no where near 100% identical, most students probably don't even know who Thomas Sumter was, our mascot name can stand alone without his affiliation anyway. We are not Thomas Sumter U.

And how many students know who Wade Hampton is, or Marion Gressette or Robert Barnwell or any of the other names on the Presidential Commission list? OP's logic is more than consistent. If we're offended over the names of a few buildings on campus, why should that school have a mascot that is based on the nickname of a proponent of slavery? I mean, the mascot represents all of our athletic programs, which is much more consequential than the names of a few buildings. It all boils down to one thing: the Presidential Commission list is rank virtue signaling by a bunch of white-guilt, self-loathing leftists.

 

[rogue cock]

Can you offer any kind of reasonable explanation why we should consider removing the name "Strom Thurmond" because he supported segregation and voted against the Civil Rights Act, but should NOT consider changing our mascot's name that was taken from a SC slave trader.

For the record, I don't think we should be changing any names. I don't think anyone should. But IF you do start, you can't just pick and choose based on what's easy/convenient.

The logic for changing the mascot name is 100% absolutely identical to the logic for changing building names. No difference whatsoever, except that the mascot name is much more widely recognized.

Mainly due to the different era's in which they espoused those beliefs. Much harder to justify holding such a position in the 1960s than it was in the 1760s or even the 1860s.

 

[DarkHorse2001]

Not that it matters but politicians can do anything they want. South Carolina name has to be changed too? After all, the civil war, Jim Crow, etc. and most voted for Trump. Influx of more from out of the country to balanc/e things out?

What does Trump have to do with this ?

 

[Who Cares_Who Cares]

This is thing. When you simply take the same logic and apply it something that people care about, they act gobsmacked. They say things like "The OP makes the quantum leap that if a building has been considered for a name change, then the team mascot may fall under the same guidelines, and then suggests that option should be either all or nothing."

Well, why SHOULDN'T it be all or nothing? Why SHOULDN'T the rationale be applied across the board?

Well, because most people don't really care about what those buildings are named, so changing them is a relatively low-cost way of signaling tolerance or whatever. Whereas people actually care about the name "Gamecocks" and won't so quickly sacrifice it to score woke credibility.

 

[polo-loco]

Based on the recent recommendation to rename some facilities, it seems this has to be up for discussion. If we want to change the name of a building or a tree because someone was racist, then the same logic HAS to be applied to the most well-known identifier of the University, right?

We were named "Gamecocks" after Thomas Sumter. He was a proponent of slavery.

"In 1781 General Thomas Sumter offered one slave to each white citizen who joined as a private soldier for ten months and as many as three grown and one small slave to those who joined as colonels. Sumter did not have these slaves at the time he made this promise. He was banking on slaves he hoped would be seized from Loyalists during future campaigns. General Andrew Pickens also adopted this recruiting incentive, which became known as 'Sumter’s law,'"

African Americans in the Revolutionary War - South Carolina Encyclopedia

African Americans contributed to both the American and British causes during the Revolutionary War as laborers, soldiers, sailors, guides, teamsters, cooks, and spies. While it is impossible to know the exact number, it has been traditionally accepted that as many as five thousand African...

www.scencyclopedia.org

You can't draw arbitrary lines in the sand. If you start changing some names, you have to change them all. Or change none and just recognize that times were different and learn from our history.

We're not named after Thomas Sumter.

 

[king ward]

This is a sink hole we're walking straight into.

 

[rogue cock]

OurWe're not named after Thomas Sumter.

Wondered when someone was going to bring that fact up. Kudo's!!!

Our name came from a description of how we played in a newspaper article.....which makes this whole issue much ado about nothing.

 

[PaleoCock]

Even though the world is upside down at the moment, the apex of "wokeness" might have hit a fevered pitch a few months back and the pendulum is now swinging back to the center, and closer to sanity. The current administration's counterproductive actions are definitely assisting with this process.

 

[uscg1984]

Mainly due to the different era's in which they espoused those beliefs. Much harder to justify holding such a position in the 1960s than it was in the 1760s or even the 1860s.

Do you think most of those pushing for name changes are really making that distinction?

I think it's more likely that someone has told them this object is named after a racist but they havent yet been told that other object is named after a racist

 

[GarnetBeamer]

Mainly due to the different era's in which they espoused those beliefs. Much harder to justify holding such a position in the 1960s than it was in the 1760s or even the 1860s.

Not at all. There were PLENTY of people in the south in the 60s who still supported segregation. Was it wrong, sure. Support for segregation was STRONG in the south. Just as support for slavery was strong at the time of Sumter. Both were wrong, but both were very popular in the south in their respective eras.

 

[polo-loco]

I guaran-dadgum-tee that almost NO students could tell you anything about any of the names on the buildings that have been proposed to be changed. Were it not for recent publicity, most students probably don't even have a clue who Strom Thurmond was. IF they even know his name, the ONLY thing could tell you is that he supported segregation b/c that's what's been publicized. If you stopped 100 students and asked "what can you tell me about who _______ building was named after?" You'd get 100 "I dunno" responses.

This is a WEAK argument.

Your entire argument is premised on the mascot being based on Thomas Sumter. It's not.

 

[GarnetBeamer]

We're not named after Thomas Sumter.

Well, the University claims to have taken their mascot name from Sumter, so I guess the University is confused.

 

[uscg1984]

All I can conclude from this thread is that it's not looking good for the Sumter Gamecocks.

 

[GarnetBeamer]

Your entire argument is premised on the mascot being based on Thomas Sumter. It's not.

The University begs to differ.

 

[GarnetBeamer]

All I can conclude from this thread is that it's not looking good for the Sumter Gamecocks.

boy, that's a double whammy

 

[rogue cock]

Do you think most of those pushing for name changes are really making that distinction?

I think it's more likely that someone has told them this object is named after a racist but they havent yet been told that other object is named after a racist

The funny issue is that the "other object" is not named after a racist....or any individual.

 

[Mcbulldog1]

Was his name Thomas Gamecock Sumter? If not leave cocky out of this. I guess by your logic the county Sumter should be in for a name change. I know let’s just name everything “Woke” how’s that?

 

[coolcock2001]

OP no, this is not being talked about. All the scrutiny is on buildings. Sims and Thurmond are in the biggest crosshairs.

Also, we are not really nicknamed after Thomas Sumter. The State paper hung the Gamecocks nickname on USC: "they fought like Gamecocks."

Any future battle over the mascot will be with PETA etc -- it's not a racial issue. And again, it is not on the radar of any major discussion right now. So you're kinda just stirring a pot and borrowing trouble OP

 

[GarnetBeamer]

Was his name Thomas Gamecock Sumter? If not leave cocky out of this. I guess by your logic the county Sumter should be in for a name change. I know let’s just name everything “Woke” how’s that?

Whoooooa, sport. It's not my logic.

 

[polo-loco]

The University begs to differ.

Then Cocky should look more like this...

 

[GarnetBeamer]

OP no, this is not being talked about. All the scrutiny is on buildings. Sims and Thurmond are in the biggest crosshairs.

Also, we are not really nicknamed after Thomas Sumter. The State paper hung the Gamecocks nickname on USC: "they fought like Gamecocks."

Any future battle over the mascot will be with PETA etc -- it's not a racial issue. And again, it is not on the radar of any major discussion right now. So you're kinda just stirring a pot and borrowing trouble OP

Yes, I know of the State reference, but the local comparison to a Gamecock was based on Thomas Sumter. I'm not opposed to it.

 

[coolcock2001]

Ok @GarnetBeamer, where's your link? Since you know the university's official position on everything

 

[GarnetBeamer]

Ok @GarnetBeamer, where's your link? Since you know the university's official position on everything

where did I claim to know the University's official position on everything?

 

[rogue cock]

The University begs to differ.

Here's the story from the University (though not the one I remember reading):

Why are we Gamecocks?

Of all the mascots the University of South Carolina might have chosen, how did the gamecock — a feisty bird that relishes a scuffle — get the nod? It all goes back to the aftermath of a football game in 1902 in which Carolina students nearly came to deadly blows with their in-state rival.

sc.edu