They need start teaching Critical Thinking Theory in school. Along those lines, I’ll plug Jay Heinrich’s fantastic rhetoric book, “Thank You for Arguing.”
Excellent column, again...With regard to the upcoming vote on Tuesday, we received the Glens Falls description in the mail of the proposed spending projects and it explained ALLLL about them....except for "why" they are needed.
I say thank God the retired teacher is just that! No one with those crazy ideas belongs in any school system spewing conspiracy theories, although I’m sure there are many, many more who believe nonsense like this.
Ken, as usual with the media surrounding this topic, you have delivered one very small slice of it, and you are among the many that keep going down that path. There are more sides to this than you will ever care to explore, the least of which is a Native/Indian Family in our community (20 members, 11 children) who are seeing their heritage erased before their very eyes. It is discrimination of the highest order. Suffice it to say that there is much more harm being done to Native/Indian children in our community, than that of privileged white children who are being used by their parents. The native children are the "marginalized" group here, not vice-versa. Many folks from both sides spoke their minds last week, and once again, as usual, you (media) have chosen the sample that supports clearly your personal and political narrative. Like so many others, you want to broad-brush everyone under the same umbrella that do not think as you do. You are clueless, and Evan does a disservice to many in Cambridge who do look at this through a different lense. There is much, much more to this than you know. Do your homework.
I get it Ken. But at the end of the day, our community keeps getting trashed and if you cherry pick and don't offer alternative viewpoints, even within the pro-mascot crowd, then this is the perception that people have of us. Not one media outlet has sat down and looked at this from a pro-mascot perspective. They would rather quote John Kane, who also, trashes the people in our community whenever the opportunity arises. We don't recall appointing him "community spokesperson". Yet, he is always quoted and "our" native family is never quoted. Seems a bit one-sided.
W Tucker, truly too many facets to address in this forum. Suffice it to say that the overwhelming majority of community members, faculty and staff, students and alumni support "pro-mascot" in our community. And NOT just because. We have made the case, supported our position, and the people have voted. Those votes have been denied by anti-mascot folks in our community and the state ed commissioner. Democracy is being denied in Cambridge. That is a fact.
Steve, while it is true that a majority of voters voted for the two pro-mascot board members, it is disingenuous to claim that it's "a denial of democracy." The (duly elected) school board voted to retire the mascot in June, and presented mountains of evidence to support the decision. And this is important: that evidence has not been refuted. In July, the newly constituted board voted to reinstate the mascot, but did not present any new evidence to refute the basis for the June decision. Board decisions are not to be made based on the personal feelings of individual board members, they are to be made using evidence based reasoning. I know you disagree, but the evidence really is overwhelmingly indicative of the need to remove these mascots. I have nothing but respect and appreciation for Dillon and his family and how they feel about this. Their view has been well represented in the media. But it's not about one family, or even one school district. Additionally, the Equity and Inclusion policy that was voted in unanimously by the board, really does not allow for race-based mascots if it is going to do what it commits to doing. I do think the anti-mascot folks have failed to understand the underlying issues that the pro-mascots folks find important, and in some cases, offensive. But the pro-mascot folks fail to understand the larger issues at play. The fact the the majority of community members might support the pro-mascot position still doesn't make it right to keep it, because the evidence is very clear. If most people in Cambridge wanted to call the team "The Gringos" would that be okay? Of course not. The fact that you (and others) don't understand that the mascot is racist and offensive doesn't mean it isn't. I deeply wish the process had been different and better handled, and I hope that the commissioner's order regarding Native American education will be taken seriously, as this is really the best way to express honor. All the best.
There is no evidence that the majority of CCS staff, faculty and students carry the same obsession as you. And there has been NO referendum on the issue nor should there be. The way the system is supposed to work is that district residents elect responsible community members to sit on school boards who will use evidence and research to make the best informed decisions for the good of CCS students. The fact that two people ran for the school board completely on a pro-mascot platform undermines the idea of electing qualified board members and their actions prove out the problem with electing unqualified candidates. You can’t have it both ways! You can’t call their elections a mascot referendum and also claim they were elected based of their overall qualifications. They ran on one issue!
The previous board reviewed thousands of pages of research, data, statements and findings. They reviewed resolutions from Native councils and organizations. They read reports from psychological associations and child development experts and they heard plenty of opinions. They also considered the overall move to eliminate race-based mascots nationally, including moves by the Washington NFL team and Cleveland MLB franchise. They voted to retire the mascot based on their responsibilities and their commitment to properly uphold them. When the two single issue candidates were seated, they immediately undermined the conscientious efforts of the previous board and acted irresponsibly based on their own opinions and the loud voices of the angry mob. That mob has silenced much of the dissent the community has from their views. The State Education Commissioner reviewed the actions of the previous board and their reasons for finally doing what the Education Department called for twenty years ago. And when pressed to provide a rationale for rescinding the actions of the previous board, this board with its two new pro-mascot members could provide no such reasoning. Commissioner Rosa easily determined the current CCS board was arbitrary and capricious in their actions to reverse the actions of the previous board and further found this board was abusing its discretion by maintaining this race-based Native mascot. These are the facts!
John, with all due respect, telling someone they have "an obsession" is counterproductive. And the evidence that most people in the school district want to keep the mascots is that an overwhelming majority voted for those two pro-mascot candidates, based on a platform to keep the mascot. In addition, the teachers and staff of the school were surveyed, and a majority did want to keep the mascot. It's clear that the mascot is going to change. There is no reason to throw fuel on the fire. The mascot is going to change. But we have a community to live in together, and while I deeply appreciate the work you have done here, your continued attacks on individuals do nothing but add to our community's division. It seems that the mascot battle in Cambridge is coming to an end. The community will have to find a way to move on. Perhaps you should too.
There are those in our community who feel that calling the team "Indians" and using the clip-art mascot somehow honors Native Americans and their heritage. I understand completely how Dillon and his family feel and I empathize. I also know that many on the pro-mascot side resent people coming in and trying to change longstanding Cambridge tradition, and this is understandable. We need to make change happen, while at the same time honoring local traditions.
There is not one part of the retired Cambridge mascot that represents any true Native heritage. It is truly sad if the handful of children in the area with their trace amounts of Native ancestry have to rely on a mascot that is so superficial that the logo is basically “clip art” and the name is a misnomer ala Christopher Columbus. The folks in Cambridge cannot even clearly establish what “Indians” they claim to be. Because they don’t really claim ANY true Native identity nor represent ANY true Native heritage. The pro-mascot crowd depends on or rather uses a family with virtually no connection to any Native community and now their very own mascot in the form of a new school board member (who is NOT a member of either of the Native peoples he claims affiliation to) to give them permission for this mockery. Oh! And by the way, neither the Oneidas nor the Onondagas are indigenous to the Cambridge region so the town’s favorite “Indians” cannot even claim an indigenous connection to the place. And now they want to use a few children with even less cultural connection yet, to suggest CCS must continue this mockery to give meaning to their ancestry? Really?
Ken, you are wise to be concerned about the conspiracy theories especially the hype over Critical Race Theory. This fear and hysteria will only ensure that the true history of the Native people of area and where they went will never be told or be so whitewashed with “happy endings” that NO white child will be burdened with the truth or, heaven forbid, white guilt.
Cambridge needs to move on past this obsession with “playing Indian.” Perhaps the whole idea of school mascots has run its course. In the new and necessary era of school mergers for sports programs, requiring the imposition of one school’s mascot over another’s is problematic anyway. These folks need to cheer for their kids and maybe their schools but not for a mascot and certainly not one that mocks the culture and imagery of the most marginalized people in American history.
They need start teaching Critical Thinking Theory in school. Along those lines, I’ll plug Jay Heinrich’s fantastic rhetoric book, “Thank You for Arguing.”
I totally agree with you.
Excellent column, again...With regard to the upcoming vote on Tuesday, we received the Glens Falls description in the mail of the proposed spending projects and it explained ALLLL about them....except for "why" they are needed.
I say thank God the retired teacher is just that! No one with those crazy ideas belongs in any school system spewing conspiracy theories, although I’m sure there are many, many more who believe nonsense like this.
Ken, as usual with the media surrounding this topic, you have delivered one very small slice of it, and you are among the many that keep going down that path. There are more sides to this than you will ever care to explore, the least of which is a Native/Indian Family in our community (20 members, 11 children) who are seeing their heritage erased before their very eyes. It is discrimination of the highest order. Suffice it to say that there is much more harm being done to Native/Indian children in our community, than that of privileged white children who are being used by their parents. The native children are the "marginalized" group here, not vice-versa. Many folks from both sides spoke their minds last week, and once again, as usual, you (media) have chosen the sample that supports clearly your personal and political narrative. Like so many others, you want to broad-brush everyone under the same umbrella that do not think as you do. You are clueless, and Evan does a disservice to many in Cambridge who do look at this through a different lense. There is much, much more to this than you know. Do your homework.
Actually, in this one, my concern was more for the conspiracy theories being shared as fact.
I get it Ken. But at the end of the day, our community keeps getting trashed and if you cherry pick and don't offer alternative viewpoints, even within the pro-mascot crowd, then this is the perception that people have of us. Not one media outlet has sat down and looked at this from a pro-mascot perspective. They would rather quote John Kane, who also, trashes the people in our community whenever the opportunity arises. We don't recall appointing him "community spokesperson". Yet, he is always quoted and "our" native family is never quoted. Seems a bit one-sided.
What is the pro-mascot perspective?
W Tucker, truly too many facets to address in this forum. Suffice it to say that the overwhelming majority of community members, faculty and staff, students and alumni support "pro-mascot" in our community. And NOT just because. We have made the case, supported our position, and the people have voted. Those votes have been denied by anti-mascot folks in our community and the state ed commissioner. Democracy is being denied in Cambridge. That is a fact.
Steve, while it is true that a majority of voters voted for the two pro-mascot board members, it is disingenuous to claim that it's "a denial of democracy." The (duly elected) school board voted to retire the mascot in June, and presented mountains of evidence to support the decision. And this is important: that evidence has not been refuted. In July, the newly constituted board voted to reinstate the mascot, but did not present any new evidence to refute the basis for the June decision. Board decisions are not to be made based on the personal feelings of individual board members, they are to be made using evidence based reasoning. I know you disagree, but the evidence really is overwhelmingly indicative of the need to remove these mascots. I have nothing but respect and appreciation for Dillon and his family and how they feel about this. Their view has been well represented in the media. But it's not about one family, or even one school district. Additionally, the Equity and Inclusion policy that was voted in unanimously by the board, really does not allow for race-based mascots if it is going to do what it commits to doing. I do think the anti-mascot folks have failed to understand the underlying issues that the pro-mascots folks find important, and in some cases, offensive. But the pro-mascot folks fail to understand the larger issues at play. The fact the the majority of community members might support the pro-mascot position still doesn't make it right to keep it, because the evidence is very clear. If most people in Cambridge wanted to call the team "The Gringos" would that be okay? Of course not. The fact that you (and others) don't understand that the mascot is racist and offensive doesn't mean it isn't. I deeply wish the process had been different and better handled, and I hope that the commissioner's order regarding Native American education will be taken seriously, as this is really the best way to express honor. All the best.
There is no evidence that the majority of CCS staff, faculty and students carry the same obsession as you. And there has been NO referendum on the issue nor should there be. The way the system is supposed to work is that district residents elect responsible community members to sit on school boards who will use evidence and research to make the best informed decisions for the good of CCS students. The fact that two people ran for the school board completely on a pro-mascot platform undermines the idea of electing qualified board members and their actions prove out the problem with electing unqualified candidates. You can’t have it both ways! You can’t call their elections a mascot referendum and also claim they were elected based of their overall qualifications. They ran on one issue!
The previous board reviewed thousands of pages of research, data, statements and findings. They reviewed resolutions from Native councils and organizations. They read reports from psychological associations and child development experts and they heard plenty of opinions. They also considered the overall move to eliminate race-based mascots nationally, including moves by the Washington NFL team and Cleveland MLB franchise. They voted to retire the mascot based on their responsibilities and their commitment to properly uphold them. When the two single issue candidates were seated, they immediately undermined the conscientious efforts of the previous board and acted irresponsibly based on their own opinions and the loud voices of the angry mob. That mob has silenced much of the dissent the community has from their views. The State Education Commissioner reviewed the actions of the previous board and their reasons for finally doing what the Education Department called for twenty years ago. And when pressed to provide a rationale for rescinding the actions of the previous board, this board with its two new pro-mascot members could provide no such reasoning. Commissioner Rosa easily determined the current CCS board was arbitrary and capricious in their actions to reverse the actions of the previous board and further found this board was abusing its discretion by maintaining this race-based Native mascot. These are the facts!
John, with all due respect, telling someone they have "an obsession" is counterproductive. And the evidence that most people in the school district want to keep the mascots is that an overwhelming majority voted for those two pro-mascot candidates, based on a platform to keep the mascot. In addition, the teachers and staff of the school were surveyed, and a majority did want to keep the mascot. It's clear that the mascot is going to change. There is no reason to throw fuel on the fire. The mascot is going to change. But we have a community to live in together, and while I deeply appreciate the work you have done here, your continued attacks on individuals do nothing but add to our community's division. It seems that the mascot battle in Cambridge is coming to an end. The community will have to find a way to move on. Perhaps you should too.
There are those in our community who feel that calling the team "Indians" and using the clip-art mascot somehow honors Native Americans and their heritage. I understand completely how Dillon and his family feel and I empathize. I also know that many on the pro-mascot side resent people coming in and trying to change longstanding Cambridge tradition, and this is understandable. We need to make change happen, while at the same time honoring local traditions.
From my view from afar, it seems like the newspapers I have read have repeatedly told the story from the pro-mascot point of view in news stories.
Actually ken, after skimming thru your article several times I question that?
There is not one part of the retired Cambridge mascot that represents any true Native heritage. It is truly sad if the handful of children in the area with their trace amounts of Native ancestry have to rely on a mascot that is so superficial that the logo is basically “clip art” and the name is a misnomer ala Christopher Columbus. The folks in Cambridge cannot even clearly establish what “Indians” they claim to be. Because they don’t really claim ANY true Native identity nor represent ANY true Native heritage. The pro-mascot crowd depends on or rather uses a family with virtually no connection to any Native community and now their very own mascot in the form of a new school board member (who is NOT a member of either of the Native peoples he claims affiliation to) to give them permission for this mockery. Oh! And by the way, neither the Oneidas nor the Onondagas are indigenous to the Cambridge region so the town’s favorite “Indians” cannot even claim an indigenous connection to the place. And now they want to use a few children with even less cultural connection yet, to suggest CCS must continue this mockery to give meaning to their ancestry? Really?
Ken, you are wise to be concerned about the conspiracy theories especially the hype over Critical Race Theory. This fear and hysteria will only ensure that the true history of the Native people of area and where they went will never be told or be so whitewashed with “happy endings” that NO white child will be burdened with the truth or, heaven forbid, white guilt.
Cambridge needs to move on past this obsession with “playing Indian.” Perhaps the whole idea of school mascots has run its course. In the new and necessary era of school mergers for sports programs, requiring the imposition of one school’s mascot over another’s is problematic anyway. These folks need to cheer for their kids and maybe their schools but not for a mascot and certainly not one that mocks the culture and imagery of the most marginalized people in American history.
Not worth my time.
Of course not!
Y'know folks, if the mascot offends some, why not change it? Tradition? Expense? Or are some just plain ornery, looking for a reason to be angry?