MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Billy Hoyle on July 07, 2020, 08:46:06 PM
-
Hoping to keep this more philosophical than political (good luck with that, right...)
this article came in a daily email I get for work regarding athletic facilities that are named after people with "questionable" pasts as it relates to race relations:
https://www.bsu.edu/news/press-center/archives/2020/7/project-examines-collegiate-sports-facilities
Among the facilities are Phog Allen Fieldhouse and Rupp Arena. In my city, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, and Franklin high schools are being targeted (so far Grover Cleveland HS has escaped the wrath). I'm also wondering if our alma mater may be targeted if it's claimed Father Marquette acted inappropriately with the Native Americans he came across ("inappropriate" being subjective, of course). Confederate statues, bases, names on buildings, they have to go, but Lincoln and Grant?
The authors of the article say: "using critical race theory and systemic racism theory as interpretative lenses, that naming buildings after racists legitimizes their legacies, rationalizes systemic racism, and continues to unjustly enrich this particular group. Meanwhile, on a recent show Bill Maher said (I'm paraphrasing) we can't apply 2020 values to people in the past. Where is the line?
-
If they were wrong by even conventional moral judgment at the time, it’s reasonable to remove honors (because really, they never should have been honored in the first place). For instance, Adolph Rupp resisted integration well into the 20th century, and even during the height of the civil rights movement. He deserves nothing, especially not simply because he also helped his team win basketball games. The confederate generals who fought to preserve enslaving humans...that’s just crazy.
Not sure I get the logic behind Lincoln and Grant.
-
Hell no on Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, and Franklin high schools. Nothing questionable about them. I hate applying the past through today's prism. Plus the magnitude of the positive they did outweighs any character flaw. Humans are not perfect and why all of a sudden do statues have to be of "perfect people".
Confederate statues all should come down. They are traitors. I'm ok with leaving generic memorials to Confederate war dead. We all have to mourn.
-
We are reaping what we sew. If we would have dealt with the Confederate statues and names, and had serious discussions about racial issues as a society, we wouldn’t have these discussions about people like Washington.
Continuing to ignore racial issues and placating people who can’t let go of the past, has allowed this to fester and explode.
-
Everything I have read about Father Marquette suggests he was beloved by the Native Americans he came in contact with.
I highly recommend "Jacques Marquette" by Joseph O'Donnell, S.J. Even though his goal was to spread Christianity, Father Marquette did so while respecting Native American customs and traditions. He also helped protect peaceful tribes from the violent ones. Ironically, he probably would have been horrified that a university bearing his name had "Warriors" as its nickname.
Also, if someone had some racist dirt on Father Marquette, I am sure we would have heard about it by now.
-
Everyone posting in this thread is reasonable.
The problem is, as likely has always been, the extremists.
-
The problem is, as likely has always been, the extremists.
I think there is another way to cut this.
There have always been extremists. It is up to the 'reasonable' as you put it to agree on something and drive consensus and action.
Somehow instead the minority platform has been elevated and amplified while we all are 'letting' it happen or worse are paralyzed and do nothing.
-
I saw this elsewhere and it seems a reasonable way to judge these things:
1. Was the person retrograde on a clear moral principle at the time.
2. Is the renaming/removal being done in a thoughtful, deliberative and lawful way?
3. Was the statue/institution created in an act of spite (like many of the Confederate statues/memorials in the South) rather than commemoration or celebration?
-
No statues or monuments for things that had shorter life spans than the tv show Saved by the Bell.
-
No statues or monuments for things that had shorter life spans than the tv show Saved by the Bell.
Original or College Years?
-
Everything I have read about Father Marquette suggests he was beloved by the Native Americans he came in contact with.
I highly recommend "Jacques Marquette" by Joseph O'Donnell, S.J. Even though his goal was to spread Christianity, Father Marquette did so while respecting Native American customs and traditions. He also helped protect peaceful tribes from the violent ones. Ironically, he probably would have been horrified that a university bearing his name had "Warriors" as its nickname.
Also, if someone had some racist dirt on Father Marquette, I am sure we would have heard about it by now.
I have been reading about the Jesuits in Brazil, (great being retired).
Also in Oklahoma and Missouri they did what they always did.
They documented, codified, the native languages and approached evangelism in the native languages.
Everyone seems to have strongly held opinions and beliefs these days, most of the opinions are uninformed.
-
Hoping to keep this more philosophical than political (good luck with that, right...)
this article came in a daily email I get for work regarding athletic facilities that are named after people with "questionable" pasts as it relates to race relations:
https://www.bsu.edu/news/press-center/archives/2020/7/project-examines-collegiate-sports-facilities
Among the facilities are Phog Allen Fieldhouse and Rupp Arena. In my city, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, and Franklin high schools are being targeted (so far Grover Cleveland HS has escaped the wrath). I'm also wondering if our alma mater may be targeted if it's claimed Father Marquette acted inappropriately with the Native Americans he came across ("inappropriate" being subjective, of course). Confederate statues, bases, names on buildings, they have to go, but Lincoln and Grant?
The authors of the article say: "using critical race theory and systemic racism theory as interpretative lenses, that naming buildings after racists legitimizes their legacies, rationalizes systemic racism, and continues to unjustly enrich this particular group. Meanwhile, on a recent show Bill Maher said (I'm paraphrasing) we can't apply 2020 values to people in the past. Where is the line?
Very interpretative at times.
-
I have been reading about the Jesuits in Brazil, (great being retired).
Also in Oklahoma and Missouri they did what they always did.
They documented, codified, the native languages and approached evangelism in the native languages.
Everyone seems to have strongly held opinions and beliefs these days, most of the opinions are uninformed.
I'm waiting for the "he forced Christianity upon the Native population" or "he brought disease" argument for Marquette and other missionaries as we're seeing out west.
-
I'm waiting for the "he forced Christianity upon the Native population" or "he brought disease" argument for Marquette and other missionaries as we're seeing out west.
According to O'Donnell, Father Marquette was willing to compromise a little to blend the cultures. If you already had two wives, for example, he was willing to look the other way. He did say, however, that cannibalism was a non-starter.
-
According to O'Donnell, Father Marquette was willing to compromise a little to blend the cultures. If you already had two wives, for example, he was willing to look the other way. He did say, however, that cannibalism was a non-starter.
Imposing his Western, Judeo-Christian values on the native population. Classic case of Cultural Imperialism.
-
Imposing his Western, Judeo-Christian values on the native population. Classic case of Cultural Imperialism.
Well played, sir. Well played.
And thank you to the contributors to this thread for having an intellectually based discussion about this topic.
-
He did say, however, that cannibalism was a non-starter.
Drats!
Seriously, Chick and I went to a high school in Nashville named for a Confederate priest who described African-American folks as a fungus. He ministered to white Confederate soldiers who, by legal standards, committed treason. He sided with a people whose goal in life was to enslave and preserve a traditional way of life that violated the Great Commandment and the U.S. Constitution.
Despite all of this, Father Ryan High School alumni by and large are violently resisting changing the school's name. So much so that a Ryan Facebook site removed all comments about the debate regarding the legacy of Father Abram Ryan. The school said they were hiring a diversity consultant to deal with the issue.
If Father Marquette had enslaved the Native American population, then OK, become something else. But in this case, Father Ryan needs to become St. Elizabeth Seaton High School. The legacy of Father Ryan is both unChristian and unAmerican.
-
Drats!
Seriously, Chick and I went to a high school in Nashville named for a Confederate priest who described African-American folks as a fungus. He ministered to white Confederate soldiers who, by legal standards, committed treason. He sided with a people whose goal in life was to enslave and preserve a traditional way of life that violated the Great Commandment and the U.S. Constitution.
Despite all of this, Father Ryan High School alumni by and large are violently resisting changing the school's name. So much so that a Ryan Facebook site removed all comments about the debate regarding the legacy of Father Abram Ryan. The school said they were hiring a diversity consultant to deal with the issue.
If Father Marquette had enslaved the Native American population, then OK, become something else. But in this case, Father Ryan needs to become St. Elizabeth Seaton High School. The legacy of Father Ryan is both unChristian and unAmerican.
Yep. He also changed his name from "Abraham" to "Abram" because he hated Abraham Lincoln so much.
-
Meanwhile, on a recent show Bill Maher said (I'm paraphrasing) we can't apply 2020 values to people in the past. Where is the line?
Bingo. People who don’t view history contextually are not just morons, they’re dangerous.
-
Bingo. People who don’t view history contextually are not just morons, they’re dangerous.
Do you accept that there's a difference between viewing and understanding a dark part of history contextually and honoring it?
-
Do you accept that there's a difference between viewing and understanding a dark part of history contextually and honoring it?
Of course.
Do you accept that some attitudes considered dark today were once not only accepted but were considered “best science”? For example, homosexuality was deemed a mental illness by our most learned less than 50 years ago. Should any psychiatrist who agreed with that scientific consensus be “cancelled” because of what we know now?
Placing today’s standards on people who lived in much different societies 50, 100, 200 or 2000 years ago misses the points that history should be explaining rather than demonizing.
If statues were erected in the south 50 or 100 years after the Civil War to intimidate the black community they should be removed from the public square. But the fact that Washington had slaves (while it should be noted by historians) does not disqualify him from being honored.
-
But the fact that Washington had slaves (while it should be noted by historians) does not disqualify him from being honored.
I recently heard Jelani Cobb on The Argument speaking about the idea of monuments honoring events rather than individuals. I agree with that and think it's less problematic long term because eventually, most everyone will have events in their past that are judged harshly by the passage of time.
That said, the above feels like a slippery slope. Washington owning slaves being the norm at the time isn't that far away from Robert E Lee fighting for the South being the norm for people where he lived at the time which isn't that far away from norms in 1940s Germany. That's why I'm more a proponent of honoring events than individuals. Contextualized events are more likely to hold up to the scrutiny of time passing and if the name of an event has to be relegated to the history books, I feel people are less likely to have the same level of emotional attachment.
-
Of course.
Do you accept that some attitudes considered dark today were once not only accepted but were considered “best science”? For example, homosexuality was deemed a mental illness by our most learned less than 50 years ago. Should any psychiatrist who agreed with that scientific consensus be “cancelled” because of what we know now?
Placing today’s standards on people who lived in much different societies 50, 100, 200 or 2000 years ago misses the points that history should be explaining rather than demonizing.
If statues were erected in the south 50 or 100 years after the Civil War to intimidate the black community they should be removed from the public square. But the fact that Washington had slaves (while it should be noted by historians) does not disqualify him from being honored.
IMO, you're not entirely wrong, but you're not entirely right either.
Just because a belief or ideology or practice was commonplace some time ago doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't criticize the people who held them. Slavery may have been common, but it was never morally acceptable and there were plenty of people saying so well before America even existed (including the Catholic Church).
"Best science" is misleading, If you look at that science, it wasn't based on any actual science. There never was any science that said homosexuality is a mental disease or people with dark skin are inferior to people with white skin. There were only prejudiced scientists who invented that to justify their prejudice. People shouldn't be let off the hook because they created or embraced pseudoscience to rationalize their sh*tty views.
If you say we ought to judge people like Washington and Jefferson in their totality rather than just their flaws, I agree. But let's not give them a pass on reprehensible behavior because of "context." Jefferson was a great statesman. He also was guilty of exceptional cruelty and morally reprehensible behavior. In any context. Just because he wasn't alone doesn't make his behavior any less abhorrent.
As for statues ... it's pretty simple. There should be no Confederate statues in public places and no one who fought for the Confederacy should be publicly memorialized or honored. These people were traitors who took up arms against their country - in many cases violating oaths - in the name of a morally repugnant and unjustifiable cause. Honoring them in any way is a national insult, regardless of when or why the memorial was created.
-
I recently heard Jelani Cobb on The Argument speaking about the idea of monuments honoring events rather than individuals. I agree with that and think it's less problematic long term because eventually, most everyone will have events in their past that are judged harshly by the passage of time.
That said, the above feels like a slippery slope. Washington owning slaves being the norm at the time isn't that far away from Robert E Lee fighting for the South being the norm for people where he lived at the time which isn't that far away from norms in 1940s Germany. That's why I'm more a proponent of honoring events than individuals. Contextualized events are more likely to hold up to the scrutiny of time passing and if the name of an event has to be relegated to the history books, I feel people are less likely to have the same level of emotional attachment.
I disagree. Regardless of imperfection, George Washington is an heroic figures when viewed in any reasonably fair context. Lots of others also fit that category. Anyone demanding perfection in his or her heroes doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.
-
Anyone demanding perfection in his or her heroes doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.
Is anyone doing this?
It seems to me that demanding one not be a cruel and incorrigible racist is not the same as demanding perfection.
-
I disagree. Regardless of imperfection, George Washington is an heroic figures when viewed in any reasonably fair context. Lots of others also fit that category. Anyone demanding perfection in his or her heroes doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.
While that is true, we also aren't having honest discussions about placing people in context. The last time this issue boiled over, we had a lot of people claiming that Colin Kaepernick was "disrespecting the troops" while peacefully kneeing, yet defended honoring the general of a rebellion that literally killed 300,000+ troops.
That's a context problem.
-
I am reasonably certain that up until the last 40-50 years are so, very few men would allow their wives to have a full-time career, and expected them to perform the overwhelming majority of housework and childcare.
So tear those guys' statues down. They were all misogynists.
-
I am reasonably certain that up until the last 40-50 years are so, very few men would allow their wives to have a full-time career, and expected them to perform the overwhelming majority of housework and childcare.
So tear those guys' statues down. They were all misogynists.
But I guess this is the point. I am all for placing people into the context of history, but then let's have honest discussions about that history.
-
I am reasonably certain that up until the last 40-50 years are so, very few men would allow their wives to have a full-time career, and expected them to perform the overwhelming majority of housework and childcare.
So tear those guys' statues down. They were all misogynists.
Could you cite some specific examples?
Like, was Martha Washington a fledgling young architect until George came along and banished her to the kitchen?
-
I am reasonably certain that up until the last 40-50 years are so, very few men would allow their wives to have a full-time career, and expected them to perform the overwhelming majority of housework and childcare.
So tear those guys' statues down. They were all misogynists.
This was science based.
-
Of course.
Do you accept that some attitudes considered dark today were once not only accepted but were considered “best science”? For example, homosexuality was deemed a mental illness by our most learned less than 50 years ago. Should any psychiatrist who agreed with that scientific consensus be “cancelled” because of what we know now?
Placing today’s standards on people who lived in much different societies 50, 100, 200 or 2000 years ago misses the points that history should be explaining rather than demonizing.
If statues were erected in the south 50 or 100 years after the Civil War to intimidate the black community they should be removed from the public square. But the fact that Washington had slaves (while it should be noted by historians) does not disqualify him from being honored.
Yes, I’m pretty much with you the whole way here. To be clear though, there’s a difference between “not canceling someone” and “honoring” them. That context is important. Cancel culture generally is unhelpful, and I think lots of folks who think certain statues should come down also think cancel culture is impulsive and problematic. People should learn about Lee, for example, rather than pretend he didn’t exist. At the same time, that doesn’t mean we should honor him or what he stood for. And it seems reasonable to identify that he represented a horrific part of American history.
-
I am reasonably certain that up until the last 40-50 years are so, very few men would allow their wives to have a full-time career, and expected them to perform the overwhelming majority of housework and childcare.
So tear those guys' statues down. They were all misogynists.
Is this true in the case of the slave owning founding fathers? If I recall correctly slaves were used for the vast majority of the housework and nannying responsibilities.
-
Is this true in the case of the slave owning founding fathers? If I recall correctly slaves were used for the vast majority of the housework and nannying responsibilities.
Not necessarily. Their wives supervised those activities, just as their husbands supervised the slaves on the plantation.
Also, none of these guys thought women should vote. Tear 'em down!!!!
-
I am reasonably certain that up until the last 40-50 years are so, very few men would allow their wives to have a full-time career, and expected them to perform the overwhelming majority of housework and childcare.
So tear those guys' statues down. They were all misogynists.
Replace them with statues of Baby Boomer Heros!!!!!!!!
-
Not necessarily. They wives supervised those activities, just as their husbands supervised the slaves on the plantation.
Also, none of these guys thought women should vote. Tear 'em down!!!!
Fair enough. I'll get my pitchfork and torch ready to join the tear em down rabble
-
I disagree. Regardless of imperfection, George Washington is an heroic figures when viewed in any reasonably fair context. Lots of others also fit that category. Anyone demanding perfection in his or her heroes doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.
Are there not people today saying the same about Lee and Davis? When you say "reasonably fair context" you are looking through your own lens. That's exactly why it's a slippery slope. Honestly, I don't get any obsession with monuments. Who cares about a monument to anyone, or what something is named after? We don't teach history at monuments, we don't read placards at a park and write papers on them. History has never needed monuments.
Through my own lens, I agree that Washington should be viewed as a heroic figure. But who makes that call, who defines reasonably fair, that's always going to be the rub. I just don't care that much about monuments or what things are named after. I just don't think it's that important.
-
I disagree. Regardless of imperfection, George Washington is an heroic figures when viewed in any reasonably fair context. Lots of others also fit that category. Anyone demanding perfection in his or her heroes doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.
Through the context of a British mindset they might reasonably and fairly say otherwise
-
What will be interesting to me, regarding cancel culture, is if or when it comes for MLK. He was no saint, he was an abuser and adulterer 40+ women). Does that mean MLK should be “cancelled?”
https://theconversation.com/im-an-mlk-scholar-and-ill-never-be-able-to-view-king-in-the-same-light-118015
-
What will be interesting to me, regarding cancel culture, is if or when it comes for MLK. He was no saint, he was an abuser and adulterer 40+ women). Does that mean MLK should be “cancelled?”
https://theconversation.com/im-an-mlk-scholar-and-ill-never-be-able-to-view-king-in-the-same-light-118015
What's so interesting to you about it?
Like Lenny, you're setting up a false dilemma here. Nobody engaged in any serious thought or discussion on these topics has suggested that one need to be "perfect" (his word) or a "saint" (yours) to merit some form of honor.
And, as Fluffy has suggested, the kind of extreme slippery slopes narratives being tossed about in this thread only serve to distract from having a real discussion of the issue.
-
Honestly, I don't get any obsession with monuments.
The only people “obsessed” over the monuments are the people who have been lawlessly tearing them down.
-
What's so interesting to you about it?
Nobody engaged in any serious thought or discussion on these topics has suggested that one need to be "perfect" (his word) or a "saint" (yours) to merit some form of honor.
You clearly have not read Brew’s posts. He wants zero monuments because nobody is a hero in everyone’s eye. That sounds like nobody’s perfect or a saint to me.
-
You clearly have not read Brew’s posts. He wants zero monuments because nobody is a hero in everyone’s eye. That sounds like nobody’s perfect or a saint to me.
I read Brew's post, and then re-read them to make sure I wasn't missing anything.
I wasn't missing anything.
-
The only people “obsessed” over the monuments are the people who have been lawlessly tearing them down.
Lenny - I don't know that it is actually fair. The person/people who fund & erects a monument is in some way 'obsessed'. Having a dialog about the person being honored & the motivation for erecting a monument is fair game.
I classify ripping something down in anger as just that. A symptom of rage that is unfair and doesn't give a satisfactory conclusion to anyone.
-
Lenny - I don't know that it is actually fair. The person/people who fund & erects a monument is in some way 'obsessed'. Having a dialog about the person being honored & the motivation for erecting a monument is fair game.
I classify ripping something down in anger as just that. A symptom of rage that is unfair and doesn't give a satisfactory conclusion to anyone.
Frenns,
In general, the people responsible for putting them up have been dead quite some time. Whether they were “obsessed” is anyone’s guess but I would doubt it.
-
I read Brew's post, and then re-read them to make sure I wasn't missing anything.
I wasn't missing anything.
No big deal, but we disagree.
-
Frenns,
In general, the people responsible for putting them up have been dead quite some time. Whether they were “obsessed” is anyone’s guess but I would doubt it.
I am pretty sure we can research & document the motivation side on the Confederate monuments erected after 1900.
It's not like we are trying to figure out stonehenge.
-
Confederacy aside, I think there is this, for lack of a better term, obsession with the need for the statue’s representation to be blameless in order for it to stand.
Look at the people flipping out over Churchill. The man who was instrumental in guiding England through hell and making sure they weren’t the Isle of Deutschland or complete shambolic has-been after the War. He was far from perfect, but if you’re English and you decry Churchill, then you better decry England’s entire history and identity up until the last 30-40 years, if that. His negative criticisms are largely a result of his embodiment of the mentality of English exceptionalism and imperialism. So either you’re not proud to be English and you realize Churchill was an imperfect as the country’s historical identity that you’re proud to be from, or you’re not.
-
The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.
George Orwell
Where do we stop.... Alexander the Great Genghis Khan The Pharaohs?
All men are flawed . we celebrate the good deeds they have accomplished
-
Confederacy aside, I think there is this, for lack of a better term, obsession with the need for the statue’s representation to be blameless in order for it to stand.
Look at the people flipping out over Churchill. The man who was instrumental in guiding England through hell and making sure they weren’t the Isle of Deutschland or complete shambolic has-been after the War. He was far from perfect, but if you’re English and you decry Churchill, then you better decry England’s entire history and identity up until the last 30-40 years, if that. His negative criticisms are largely a result of his embodiment of the mentality of English exceptionalism and imperialism. So either you’re not proud to be English and you realize Churchill was an imperfect as the country’s historical identity that you’re proud to be from, or you’re not.
You're being kind to Winnie.
There's a few million dead Indians who may have stronger words for him than "far from perfect."
-
All of our forefathers were flawed. Just as we are all flawed. On balance, were they working to move society forward and better?
-
The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.
George Orwell
Where do we stop.... Alexander the Great Genghis Khan The Pharaohs?
All men are flawed . we celebrate the good deeds they have accomplished
What state has these statues? May not even need an angry mob, neglect may knock those over.
-
You're being kind to Winnie.
There's a few million dead Indians who may have stronger words for him than "far from perfect."
I don’t know if any leader will be viewed favorably if scrutinized for decisions made in extreme wartime. The Bengal famine was awful and pretty ghastly from a British decision making standpoint, and I’m not defending it, but people seem to frame that as pure cruelty instead of war crisis.
-
I think the forefathers would be horrified if they saw DC with the monuments. They didn’t want that, but rather something close to a plaque. I believe there’s a halt on adding anything to the National Mall.
I listened to the podcast “Presidential” from Washington Post. One episode dedicated to each president. It went into their flaws as well to give a nice picture of the whole person in my opinion.
-
I don’t know if any leader will be viewed favorably if scrutinized for decisions made in extreme wartime. The Bengal famine was awful and pretty ghastly from a British decision making standpoint, and I’m not defending it, but people seem to frame that as pure cruelty instead of war crisis.
I'm by no means an expert on the subject, and there seem to be varying points of view on it. But those on the Indian side of things certainly don't view it as merely the cruelties of war, but something at best the result of callous indifference and at worst intentional policies.
Churchill also was pretty outspoken in his white supremacy.
Regardless, I'm no advocate for tearing down Churchill statues. But I do think that glossing over the very bad acts of notable historical figures, or passing them off as merely "flaws and imperfections," fuels those who do want to tear down statues.
-
You clearly have not read Brew’s posts. He wants zero monuments because nobody is a hero in everyone’s eye. That sounds like nobody’s perfect or a saint to me.
I don't care about monuments. I do care about people who are reminded of trauma due to their presence.
I also feel that if there is a need to celebrate such things publicly, celebrating events makes more sense than individuals. I notice you prefer going after me for things I haven't said rather than addressing the things I actually say. It's interesting that you claim you aren't obsessed with monuments and yet you go back to the diatribe of people tearing them down. Meanwhile, you have yet to address the idea of monuments that celebrate events rather than just the individuals.
For instance, instead of a strict Washington monument, design a monument dedicated to crossing the Delaware, which could also include other contemporaries of Washington such as Henry Knox and James Monroe, focus on the importance of Trenton strategically, or that the crossing happened on Christmas Night. A monument to Selma could incorporate not just King but John Lewis and Ralph Bunche, the role it played in the Civil Rights Movement, and provide a richer context than just an individual statue.
I'm really trying to have this debate in good faith, but it's tough when you try to build this caricature of what you seem to think I am.
-
I don't care about monuments. I do care about people who are reminded of trauma due to their presence.
I also feel that if there is a need to celebrate such things publicly, celebrating events makes more sense than individuals. I notice you prefer going after me for things I haven't said rather than addressing the things I actually say. It's interesting that you claim you aren't obsessed with monuments and yet you go back to the diatribe of people tearing them down. Meanwhile, you have yet to address the idea of monuments that celebrate events rather than just the individuals.
For instance, instead of a strict Washington monument, design a monument dedicated to crossing the Delaware, which could also include other contemporaries of Washington such as Henry Knox and James Monroe, focus on the importance of Trenton strategically, or that the crossing happened on Christmas Night. A monument to Selma could incorporate not just King but John Lewis and Ralph Bunche, the role it played in the Civil Rights Movement, and provide a richer context than just an individual statue.
I'm really trying to have this debate in good faith, but it's tough when you try to build this caricature of what you seem to think I am.
Brew,
You say “I don’t care about monuments” - then go on a diatribe advocating that we do away with any that honor individuals - even the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. That sounds to me like someone who cares about monuments a great deal.
I have nothing against monuments that commemorate events - the Marines raising the flag on Mt Suribachi, Iwo Jima is a personal favorite (my Dad fought there). If the powers that be had decided on “Washington Crossing The Delaware” instead of the Washington Monument I’d be totally OK with that. They didn’t, and I’m OK with that, too. The point is he deserves to be honored, and bowing to those on the fringes who disagree would be a mistake IMO.
-
Brew,
You say “I don’t care about monuments” - then go on a diatribe advocating that we do away with any that honor individuals - even the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. That sounds to me like someone who cares about monuments a great deal.
You are confusing indifference and a suggestion for a better way going forward with a desire to tear down. The presence or lack thereof of the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, or other such monuments are a complete non-factor in what I care about.
-
This happened in Tennessee yesterday...not 50 or 100 years ago, yesterday. And it was a...competitive topic too:
https://twitter.com/TheTNHoller/status/1281273717742538761?s=19
-
and here we go with Rupp Arena:
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/29525237/some-kentucky-faculty-want-name-arena-named-former-basketball-coach-adolph-rupp-changed
Do Black students really not attend games because the arena is named after Rupp?
"The Adolph Rupp name has come to stand for racism and exclusion in UK athletics and alienates Black students, fans, and attendees," the AAAS faculty wrote in the letter. "The rebuilding of the arena and the convention center offer an opportunity to change the name to a far more inclusive one, such as Wildcat Arena."
I don't know how accurate this article is but would it matter to those demanding Rupp's name be removed if it were accurate?
https://www.kyforward.com/dick-gabriel-let-me-interrupt-your-misperceptions-about-adolph-rupp-will-some-facts-on-the-race-issue/
-
Good. Why should an avowed racist have his name on a college basketball arena?
Put a plaque up in the university museum if you want to, with the unvarnished truth of the good and bad of him. Offer a course on who Rupp was -- I'd have gladly taken such a course, because it would have been interesting as hell.
But to honor a guy who literally hated Black people and discriminated against them at every turn? No. To me, it's a no-brainer.
-
Good. Why should an avowed racist have his name on a college basketball arena?
Put a plaque up in the university museum if you want to, with the unvarnished truth of the good and bad of him. Offer a course on who Rupp was -- I'd have gladly taken such a course, because it would have been interesting as hell.
But to honor a guy who literally hated Black people and discriminated against them at every turn? No. To me, it's a no-brainer.
The article I posted has a different take from Disney villain Rupp from Glory Road.
-
I don't know how accurate this article is but would it matter to those demanding Rupp's name be removed if it were accurate?
https://www.kyforward.com/dick-gabriel-let-me-interrupt-your-misperceptions-about-adolph-rupp-will-some-facts-on-the-race-issue/
This is interesting, and I didn't know any of it. If nothing else it has given me the desire to do a bit more research for myself. Thanks for sharing it.
-
Al thought he was racist. Good enough for me.
-
According to O'Donnell, Father Marquette was willing to compromise a little to blend the cultures. If you already had two wives, for example, he was willing to look the other way. He did say, however, that cannibalism was a non-starter.
What if one wife ate the other to get into conformity?
-
The article I posted has a different take from Disney villain Rupp from Glory Road.
I read the piece.
Poor Adolph Rupp. For decades and decades and decades, he wanted to recruit Black athletes, wanted to sign Black athletes, sought to help Black athletes, wanted to hire Black coaches, etc, etc, etc.
He was a true hero of Black folks, but he himself was the big victim because so many conspired against his heroic stands.