ANOTHER VIEW
New Hampshire Union Leader
Tuesday, February 6, 2007

Why such a strong attachment to school mascots that offend others?
By Ibrahim Elshamy

More frequently of late, I have reflected on the idea of what symbols mean. What does a donkey mean to a Democrat, a jaguar mean to a car aficionado, or a wildcat mean to UNH fans? Concluded after much thought, I feel the symbol itself has little significance. It is a tangible image of a larger concept, but NOT the concept itself. One company decided a jaguar would embody the strength and speed of their Jaguar automobiles, but manufacture uses no cats. UNH fans would cheer their incredible hockey team with equal vigor if the symbol were a lightening bolt. Even if others may disagree, a Democrat’s ideals do not center on that of their symbol, an ass.

Likewise, the American Indian of Central and Crusader of Memorial High Schools have little significance as pure images. On awards, at sporting events, and on memorabilia, these are the established representations of each school. Ask alumni how they feel about the symbols, and an overwhelming number will reply in pride. For their purpose, these symbols serve diligently—as focal points of recognition crossing generations. There is something very powerful, after all the changes Central has undergone, to remind an elderly graduate of the Abraham Lincoln statue, and see her delighted reaction. These increasingly sparse links to the past, symbols included, validate our long history. Even so, their identity is surprisingly arbitrary; had Memorial adopted a resolute turtle as their symbol, this turtle would likely see as much support as the Crusader does today.

Comes with little shock that when I asked the school board to change two mascots at our city’s schools, the en masse reaction was defensive. Indeed, if the initial reaction had not been defensive, this may have been a sign for worry! Rather than touch upon either side of the debate, I ask this question; what gets Manchester citizens so upset about the Indian/Crusader, that they cannot even hear rational difference of opinion?

Is it the symbol itself that is being defended so fiercely, or the feeling invested into this symbol that feels under attack? Allow me to expand; I think very few people, if asked to recollect their best high school memories, will recall a symbol. I think what comes to mind is sporting games, friendships, dances, vacations, love, learning, graduation, and so on. Separation of the symbol from its implication may seem counter-intuitive, but looking into one’s own memories, I find the symbol quite insignificant. Yes, I remember it as something visual to invest my happy memories into, remind me of good days, and reflect my school traditions and heritage. For this, a symbol serves an important role. However, I will forever “bleed [Central] Green” no matter what image is on team jerseys. My feelings and memories are sacred, untouchable, and not subject to being restricted by one trivial symbol.

Similarly, criticism of the symbol itself is not a disapproval of these deeper, personal feelings. By seeing my experience liberated from an image, I found easy to distinguish between an incidental symbol, and the warm reality of my experiences.

I dislike change as much as the next person, and changing the symbols that hold personal value for thousands borders on inconsiderate. I do not propose we forget or rewrite history. The American Indian and Crusader will always be a part of the history of these schools, by reality of existence. Alumni can look to any symbol they feel is best, that remind them of the good times—that will never change. But for new generations, continuing to propagate arbitrary symbols that ignore nationwide pleadings of hurt is not a virtue in agreement with either school’s mission.