janeberrill November 16, 2015 Life, Race

Let’s Remove the Lord Jeff

Drawing by Terry R. Peters, Image courtesy of Peter d'Errico, http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

I’ve been planning to write an article on the mascot for some time, but at risk of being redundant I’ve been hesitant to do so. I ask myself, what hasn’t been said about the mascot yet? What could I add?

To be completely honest, I’ve been a bit dismayed that we haven’t removed the Lord Jeff. It seems so commonsensical to change something that causes people on this campus pain and suffering. After the spring of 2014 I thought (and was hopeful) that the mascot really was going to change. Now, before we enter the spring of 2016 (my last semester here), the Lord Jeff still remains Amherst’s mascot. I say Amherst’s on purpose. I say it because I refuse to say the Lord Jeff is my mascot, so I can’t say it is our mascot. And this is the problem with the Lord Jeff as a mascot. Mascots should not divide a school. They should not bring sadness, pain and shame to a school, but ours does. If we want our school to be inclusive, if we want to build community, and if we want to cultivate a space for the development of diverse, future world leaders, then the Lord Jeff needs to go. It cannot represent our school anymore.

Before the Sit-In I was going to approach this article and topic sarcastically. I thought I needed to as a shield. Not changing the mascot shows that the campus does not take the suffering of others seriously, and I wanted protection from this apathy. However, sarcasm and irony are not the nature of the movement that started this Thursday November 12th. This movement is of radical compassion, sharing, openness, understanding, honesty, and sincerity. Whatever comes from this movement should remember this space of compassion that was created. I hope that my change in tone pays some homage to what started this movement.

The mascot is a contradiction. Mascots are supposed to be what people rally behind and identify with. They are gathering and celebratory. However, I do not identify with Lord Jeffrey Amherst, a man who advocated for the use of smallpox-infected blankets as a form of biological warfare and a man who hoped for the death of Native American People. I could never see myself as connected to him, and it is evident that I am not alone. The Lord Jeff cannot bring our community together in celebration. It represents oppression, racism, and biological warfare. My argument for the removal of the mascot is not a naive erasure of history or tradition. For example, I see the merits of a town, like Amherst, keeping its name on the basis of remembering history. Changing the name could be seen as hiding the fact our past is one of violence and oppression, and that this violence and oppression has been ignored. However, the Lord Jeff as a mascot, which should be something celebratory, needs to go because it can only be an ironic mascot. It bears pain, suffering, guilt, and shame (and currently it divides our campus and the greater Amherst College community, which includes Alumni). This is contradictory to the role mascots are supposed to play. I want to embrace what a mascot has the potential to be. It can bring a diverse group of people together as a common identification point. However, the Lord Jeff simply cannot do this. It is unfit for the current Amherst community.

I am not surprised that our school is felt as alienating. I am not surprised that the athlete non-athlete divide is so strong. If people think that they will have to cheer “Go Jeff’s” at a game then they will not go. (I am aware that certain sports teams do not embrace the Lord Jeff and have their own mascots, but given that many people think this is the case it will still keep them away). In lieu of an adequate mascot our campus has seemed to embrace the manifestation of alienation on the campus as our central rallying point: more students connect with the notion of “Amherst Awkward” than with the symbol of the Lord Jeff. This is probably self-perpetuating: we must be awkward in order to maintain our common identification as Amherst students. The reconsideration of the mascot is the necessary when addressing problems with senses of community on campus. It is concerning that such a large portion of campus body is alienated—this cannot be good for the future of Amherst College

At this point, the question of changing the mascot should really no longer be a debate. I do not believe that people can still hold the position to keep a mascot that literally causes other people on this campus pain. I refuse to legitimize a blatant disregard for the suffering and pain of other people by entertaining the idea that the question of changing the mascot is still up for debate. I wish I could say these words and have them be true, but the sad fact is that it is still being debated. The experience of alienation and suffering of people on this campus is somehow a question open for discussion, even though experience is lived truth.

Instead of reiterating past arguments to remove the mascot, I believe to move forward we should ask: what will happen when the Lord Jeff is removed? The question of the mascot should be posed as: there is something on this campus that causes harm to others. What should we do about changing it? We must remember that symbols have power and this power can be harmful. The symbol of the Lord Jeff mascot confronts us and produces distress, unease, shame, and suffering. The Lord Jeff as mascot expresses the denial of the gravity of Lord Jeffrey Amherst’s actions and the erasure and dismissal of the feelings—both past and present— of those who have been oppressed by his actions and racist attitudes. This denial and dismissal are inherent in the approval of Lord Jeff as a mascot. I am not going to write another article trying to persuade opponents that the mascot must go. I am declaring that it must go based on the suffering its presence causes.

Removing the Lord Jeff and accepting the moose are not equivalent. You can be for removing Lord Jeff without advocating for accepting the moose. My suggestion for moving forward is that people present their different ideas for a new mascot and discuss what factors should go into choosing a new mascot. Different options that have been proposed are the purple squirrels, the moose, the dragons, etc. Personally, I would steer away from human mascots. Even if the Lord Jeff weren’t a person who advocated for intentionally giving small-pox blankets to Native Americans in hopes that they would die, the fact that he is a man makes it a bit hard to identify with him, as a woman. Again, this is thinking into the future about what the new mascot should be like. However, in order for us to move-on to this step we need to vote during the AAS poll this Tuesday about the mascot, and we need vote to remove the Lord Jeff. The next step will be asking what replaces him.

Also please comment, especially to link to useful articles about the Lord Jeff Mascot.

13Comments

Add yours

1

I refuse to be bullied by you people on November 16, 2015 at 3:28 pm
Reply

Should our new mascot be the crybullies?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rise-of-the-college-crybullies-1447458587
- 2
  
  janeberrill on November 16, 2015 at 8:45 pm
  Reply
  
  Your comment expresses a coldness to the feelings of others and an uncaring for the pain of others. Yes people cried; these tears come from the pain and suffering people feel. This pain is often bottled up so that others are more comfortable. It seems that your position allows you to not have to hide when you are hurt or uncomfortable. You make yourself heard. I hope you recognize this is not a luxury other people have. I am sorry that other people’s pain and when other people speak up make you feel uncomfortable. You have the luxury to call people cry bullies anonymously. While others feel both invisible and hyper-exposed.
  - 3
    
    I refuse to be bullied by you people on November 16, 2015 at 9:46 pm
    
    It seems that it is you who is uncomfortable with people who refuse to give in to the hyper-liberal dogma that you and your PC buddies are attempting to impose. Guess what? The world is not such a nice place. The quicker people accept that and learn to deal with being offended, the better. But instead, this college is preparing a group of infants to go back to their mothers after graduation. Grow a pair.
  - 4
    
    janeberrill on November 16, 2015 at 10:02 pm
    
    I’m not sure if you are familiar with the way that AC Voice’s wordpress is set-up. I actually have to put more effort into approving a comment (because it is anonymous) so that it can be posted. (remember that the comments section is run by AC Voice, like any publication there is a process in deciding what is published and not) This means that I actively choose to have them appear; it would be easier for me to just ignore them. If I were someone trying to impose “hyper-liberal dogma,” as you say, it would be easier for me to just dismiss your comments, meaning that they would never show up in the comments section (and you would feel what it is like to be silenced). However, I’ve actively chosen to approve them and respond to them. I am more than aware that the world is not a nice place. Also on “growing a pair” sometimes I think it might be nice to have a feeling of male-entitlement, but I realize that that feeling is what makes so many people jerks, who only care about themselves and don’t care/think about the way that they impose themselves on others.
  - 5
    
    I refuse to be bullied by you people on November 16, 2015 at 10:03 pm
    
    You people have become the laughingstock of America
  - 6
    
    janeberrill on November 16, 2015 at 11:04 pm
    
    You seemed to not read my last reply and I am tired so: If I were someone trying to impose “hyper-liberal dogma,” as you say, it would be easier for me to just dismiss your comments, meaning that they would never show up in the comments section (and you would feel what it is like to be silenced). However, I’ve actively chosen to approve them and respond to them.
    This contradicts what you are saying. You are not being barred from speaking, although you seem to refuse to listen to other people’s perspectives. I personally find engaging with someone who refuses to listen exhausting and pointless. Your video response (an actual regurgitation of hyperbolic media shows that you do not critically think about the media you are consuming) does not address any of the points I raised in my previous comment. You are literally letting others speak for you…
7

Response on November 16, 2015 at 7:07 pm
Reply

Eliminating the mascot is the slipperiest of slopes. The College will still be named after Lord Jeffrey Amherst, directly or not. And the moment the Trustees accede to the vote to eliminate the mascot, the activists will push to change the name of the College.

There isn’t one argument that has been put forth for changing the mascot that doesn’t apply to changing the school name. And changing the school name will destroy the last remaining history of the school and render the degrees issued from Amherst worthless and unknown. The exact piece above can be used to make the case for changing the school name with nearly no changes:

“It seems so commonsensical to change something that causes people on this campus pain and suffering. [Names] should not divide a school. They should not bring sadness, pain and shame to a school, but ours does. If we want our school to be inclusive, if we want to build community, and if we want to cultivate a space for the development of diverse, future world leaders, then the [name Amherst] needs to go.

“At this point, the question of changing the [name] should really no longer be a debate. I do not believe that people can still hold the position to keep a [name] that literally causes other people on this campus pain. I refuse to legitimize a blatant disregard for the suffering and pain of other people by entertaining the idea that the question of changing the [name] is still up for debate. I wish I could say these words and have them be true, but the sad fact is that it is still being debated. The experience of alienation and suffering of people on this campus is somehow a question open for discussion, even though our (and I mean all of our) experiences are our lived truths.”

If you want a degree of greatly reduced value from “Emily Dickinson College” or “Frost College” then by all means, vote to eliminate the mascot.
- 8
  
  janeberrill on November 16, 2015 at 8:36 pm
  Reply
  
  I believe you might have missed my point. I hold that the mascot is supposed to be something people celebrate. As such, the Lord Jeff is an unsuitable mascot. I do not believe activists would push to change the name of the college, the name of the college is part of a history that includes oppression and violence. This part of history should not be deleted. It is important to remember history, including histories of violence. Again, the mascot is different because mascots are by nature celebratory.
- 9
  
  Alum on November 16, 2015 at 11:35 pm
  Reply
  
  A “slippery slope” has the same logical force as a “sticky staircase” where the current issue is indeed the issue at hand and on whose merits we are discussing. What your argument fails to address is the fact that there are many more negatives associated with changing the school’s name from Amherst College. The largest negative, which is not true with the current mascot, is that the name Amherst College has a much more well known value as a brand that scholars, faculty, potential students and the world associate with the best liberal arts education. I highly doubt that many people outside of Amherst actually know what the Amherst mascot is but for the controversy surrounding it. You say “Amherst College” to the world and many think of the rigorous academics (and insert what else people think when they think of Amherst College). You say “Lord Jeffs” to the world, and most people say what are you talking about. “Amherst College” has a huge benefit for the institution in many regards, mainly in drawing future students and faculty and this draw would be reduced by the confusion associated with changing the name. I doubt that anyone is drawn to Amherst because of our mascot and anecdotal evidence from admissions green deans suggest that Native American students decide not to come to Amherst because of it. This huge negative separates the issue of the mascot from the issue of changing the college’s name (which, as is clear by the article on which you are commenting, is not being debated), and, in my mind, turns your slope into a staircase. Let’s focus on the mascot and not shift the argument to another issue for which you have a much stronger argument, as I just stated above.
  - 10
    
    Response on November 17, 2015 at 12:19 am
    
    Those are a lot of compelling reasons as to why it’s unlikely that a decision will be made to change the name anytime soon; however, those are purely matters of self-interest for the students, alumni, faculty and trustees. None of those reasons would refute the argument in the original essay, were it put forth as-is in favor of changing the school name. The slippery slope is the point; the same arguments apply down the slope, there’s just a whole lot more entrenched resistance. Changing the Lord Jeff mascot seemed unthinkable ten years ago, and with enough controversy the balance of self-interest on the school name could shift.
    
    Perhaps calling the mascot “celebratory” and the school/town name “historical” is one difference. But there are currently multiple campaigns underway or that have concluded to change the name of buildings (or Calhoun College at Yale) because of actions of the man it was named after, and building names seem a lot closer to a college name than to a mascot.
    
    Because the mascot and Lord Jeffrey are very poorly known outside out Amherst (and few would know how to pronounce the word “Ephs” either), it seems extremely unlikely that potential students would know the mascot well enough to decide not to enroll because of it. And if the mascot does cause students to decide against Amherst, then wouldn’t the school name still be a huge issue?
11

Mike Kelly on November 17, 2015 at 5:26 pm
Reply

The assumption that the historical figure of Lord Jeffrey Amherst is “poorly known outside Amherst” is a pretty myopic view. He is absolutely unavoidable to anyone working in the field of Native Studies in 18th-century North America, or anyone working on the origins of the American Revolution. Pick up almost any book about the French and Indian War and its aftermath and he is a central figure — as the commander of British forces in North America in the mid-18th century, he is far from a minor player.

Among the Indigenous people of North America he is very well known as an agent of British colonial power that disrupted and forever changed their world. There are many towns named for Amherst, but only one school has ever had someone dress up in a Lord Jeff costume to lead cheers at sporting events.

I wholeheartedly agree with those who have called for closer attention to the historical context of Amherst’s actions; it is a fascinating lesson in the destructive clash of very different cultures and world views. A recent book on the subject that digs deeply into the Native perspective on that mid-century clash is available to AC students and alumni through the JSTOR database: Beyond Pontiac’s Shadow: Michilimackinac and the Anglo-Indian War of 1763 by KEITH R. WIDDER http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/j.ctt7zt91d

The original article above is explicit about the need to learn and acknowledge the history behind the name of the school and the town (and the dozens of other towns named Amherst). Maybe 100 years from now there will be no towns named for Amherst or even Washington or Jefferson; 257 years ago there was not a town named Amherst, MA. Changing these names won’t change the facts of history, which will always be painful and uncomfortable for many people.

But as the author of this piece emphasizes, the issue before the community today is what kind of mascot the college wants to have. What kind of message does the college send to the world at large when “Lord Jeff” is held up as a symbol of community, celebration, and teamwork?
12

David Dorwart on November 18, 2015 at 9:53 am
Reply

In light of what’s going on around the world (see Guardian Article) and even what are the deeper issues underlying US campus demonstrations, this mascot issue seems petty (I know, I know: symbolism).

The Guardian view on defeating Isis: winning hearts and minds
Read the full story

Those opposed to the Jeffs come across like the Republican candidates continuing to perpetuate lies and when called on their lies scream them in-your-face louder. For example, “Planned Parenthood practices vivisection and sells baby parts.” (I doubt they’d actually know what vivisection is.) There is no evidence that LJA actually utilized infected blankets. He may have talked about it but as has been pointed out, the very idea of biological warfare is a more modern concept, and we should not use our terminology and sensibilities to judge but rather try to understand and learn from behavior nearly three hundred years old. So, too, with his denigration of Native Americans (at least the many, many tribes aligned with French against him), yet he counted among his allies the Iroquois. In light of the most recent Paris attacks, who among us has not called ISIS terrorists by a myriad of slanderous epithets?

I have little stake/care whether the mascot is the Jeffs or the Sabers or whatever. What irks me is those who are so arrogant as to feel they have the exclusive answer when indeed the complexity demands not a myopic and superficial reaction but investigation and balance. It seems, however, in this world of tweets and soundbites and crash reality TV, measured and discerning thought is the actual victim.
13

Adam (2011) on November 18, 2015 at 7:04 pm
Reply

Why does everyone want a Moose that has no connection to the College?

What about Amherst Frost or just a simple color (like Harvard, Stanford, etc.) Amherst Royal Purple.

Share this:

Like this:

Related