I was so struck by the complete and utter stupidity of this discussion, that I decided to send the quoted professor an email:
"Dr. Karlberg,
Sir, you've never met me, I'm not even from your state, but I've been following the news a lot recently and there are seeming to be a lot of cases similar to the following which strike me as odd, and completely out of our national character.
I just read an article (
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/repo...Cn/#cmComments) which centers around a discussion currently being had at your university with respect to your current mascot and what it represents. You are quoted as saying "I think this mascot also reflects a sort of hyper masculine, hyper violent sort of image which is doubly problematic,” communications studies professor Michael Karlberg told The Western Front, the university’s main student newspaper. “I think we really ought to reconsider.”
First and foremost - I don't have a dog in this hunt. I have no vested interest one way or the other in your mascot.
My only interest in this discussion lies in what I'm seeing as a general "softening up" of our society. If you were quoted correctly - you view your mascot in terms of hyper masculinity and over aggressiveness. I view it as an embodiment of the "warrior spirit" - which often manifests itself on the football fields and basketball courts and running tracks as competitors finding in themselves the fortitude and grit required to take that "extra step" required to win - or, as Rudyard Kipling so aptly described in his poem "If" - "filling the unforgiving minute with 60 seconds worth of distance run." Sports serve many purposes to society besides entertainment - namely they are a vehicle with which to instill in young men and women the perseverance and character needed to push through and ultimately overcome the necessary obstacles of life. Which is not to say that sports are the only way to do that - they're not.
On to my next point. Mr. Karlberg - do you suppose that our nation will never be called to fight another war of necessity, ever again? And if not - why? Do you suppose the natural state of man is peace? If so - what purpose does the social contract serve? What purpose do police forces serve? If we can rely on the mutual altruism of our neighbors to keep society afloat then it would follow that we have no need for governments or militaries. We can simply agree to exist and form collectives with divisions of labor and have no need for laws.
If you agree that governments are necessary to protect us from the worst of each other - then you'd agree that often violence is called for. And if you agree to that then you'd agree that at some point we may have our national bluff called, once again. If we were to fight again, of what substance would the men and women sent to fight that war be made of? The same type that wrings its hands in horror over a mascot which may at some level represent violent struggle? I seriously doubt it. If we have become so weakened as a society that we have the space and time to have these idiotic debates over the appropriateness of a Viking as a school mascot, then we might as well hand over this entire country to a people that want our land and resources more than we do. We obviously have zero interest in keeping it.
Regards."
Linear Mode
