How Bad Is This For Georgetown?

[mu03eng]

This may be restating a lot of views already expressed but I think the following:

-Historical context is critical, if something was acceptable or within the mainstream then it's not a disqualifier. We should certainly educate people to that aspect of a historical persons "story" but it should not prevent us from honoring them for otherwise important contributions
-To eliminate the honoraries for someone who did something that would be unacceptable in modern times does eliminate that person from memory and ruins a perfectly good teaching moment about past society. It opens the door to our society being doomed to repeat it's history.

A less political example for this is Pete Rose. He should be in the Hall of Fame for his contributions to the game and his playing career, however a large portion of his plaque should talk about all the negative stuff he did within baseball. Same could go for Ty Cobb, etc.

We need to talk about good and bad, not just kill the good because we want to hide from the bad.

[Coleman]

If you have read any scholarly biographies of Father Marquette, you would know that he did not give a rat's ass about politics, and actually saved many Native American lives by protecting peaceful tribes from the warrior tribes (now there is some irony for you) and convinced many of these aggressive groups to give up their murderous and even cannibalistic ways. If France used his actions to further their own less-than-honorable goals, that does not diminish Father Marquette's accomplishments as a peacemaker and spreader of Christian Faith.

Well said!

[Pakuni]

This may be restating a lot of views already expressed but I think the following:

-Historical context is critical, if something was acceptable or within the mainstream then it's not a disqualifier. We should certainly educate people to that aspect of a historical persons "story" but it should not prevent us from honoring them for otherwise important contributions

I generally agree, but I think we shouldn't use "historical context" to give historical figures a pass on their misdeeds. Because slavery was more acceptable in the 18th century than the 21st century makes it no less a crime against humanity. I don't think we need to villainize someone like Jefferson for being a slave owner - and certainly not "erase" him from history - but neither should we whitewash that unsavory aspect of his character or shrug and say "well, that's just the way it was." Slavery was no less evil in 1776 than in 2016, and we shouldn't treat it otherwise.
Anyhow, I think it's far more interesting and worthwhile to exam people like Jefferson as three-dimensional human beings with faults as well as great strengths, rather than the cartoonish superhero Founding Fathers treatment we usually give them.

A less political example for this is Pete Rose. He should be in the Hall of Fame for his contributions to the game and his playing career, however a large portion of his plaque should talk about all the negative stuff he did within baseball. Same could go for Ty Cobb, etc.

Nope. Never.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

In the same vein, I saw that the Treasury Department is nixing replacement of Alexander Hamilton from the $10 and will instead switch out Andrew Jackson from the $20.  I wonder if the Broadway success of Hamilton had anything to do with it?

[warriorchick]

In the same vein, I saw that the Treasury Department is nixing replacement of Alexander Hamilton from the $10 and will instead switch out Andrew Jackson from the $20.  I wonder if the Broadway success of Hamilton had anything to do with it?

Funny you should ask....


http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/04/13/thanks_hamilton_fans_you_might_have_just_cost_us_a_woman_on_the_10_bill.html

[brandx]

In the same vein, I saw that the Treasury Department is nixing replacement of Alexander Hamilton from the $10 and will instead switch out Andrew Jackson from the $20.  I wonder if the Broadway success of Hamilton had anything to do with it?

I think it was more that Jackson is considered the most racist of US presidents, so they decided to replace him instead of Hamilton.

[rocket surgeon]

I think it was more that Jackson is considered the most racist of US presidents, so they decided to replace him instead of Hamilton.

i'm sure all the lyndon b. johnson stuff will be right behind then-heyheyhein'a

[mu03eng]

I generally agree, but I think we shouldn't use "historical context" to give historical figures a pass on their misdeeds. Because slavery was more acceptable in the 18th century than the 21st century makes it no less a crime against humanity. I don't think we need to villainize someone like Jefferson for being a slave owner - and certainly not "erase" him from history - but neither should we whitewash that unsavory aspect of his character or shrug and say "well, that's just the way it was." Slavery was no less evil in 1776 than in 2016, and we shouldn't treat it otherwise.
Anyhow, I think it's far more interesting and worthwhile to exam people like Jefferson as three-dimensional human beings with faults as well as great strengths, rather than the cartoonish superhero Founding Fathers treatment we usually give them.

You and I are in 100% agreement on this part and was mostly what I was trying to say.

[keefe]

In the same vein, I saw that the Treasury Department is nixing replacement of Alexander Hamilton from the $10 and will instead switch out Andrew Jackson from the $20.  I wonder if the Broadway success of Hamilton had anything to do with it?

A couple of my colleagues are prominent thought leaders from Indian Country. They really do not like Andrew Jackson.

Which raises an interesting twist to this conversation: Should Andrew Jackson have any place or word of honor in the cavalcade of American heroes?

He was a war hero and the first western President whose election and Presidency signaled the rise of the Common Man.

But he was also a fierce advocate of slavery and a major proponent and participant in the genocide campaign waged by the US Government against American Indians. Jackson personally led the military effort that slaughtered tens of thousands of Indians, including women and children, throughout the southeast.

As President he advocated for the forced removal of entire communities of Chickasaws, Choctaws, Creeks, Seminoles, and Cherokees in order to open up the land for white slave holders who would begin tobacco and cotton cultivation.

As GooooMarquette rightly points out, many practices we find objectionable were societal norms in the day. Slavery is abhorrent to us but many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were themselves slaveholders.

But Jackson was more than just a slaveholder. He actively worked to expand slave holding territories through ethnic cleansing those areas of Indians. And his treatment of Indians was not the benign neglect which has characterized much of Federal Indian policy but, rather, active extermination.

People want to scrub many names from history and yet say nothing when they pull out a twenty from their wallet. Moral indignation isn't relative.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I think it was more that Jackson is considered the most racist of US presidents, so they decided to replace him instead of Hamilton.

That and the fact Hamilton was essentially the creator the US economic system so it's only appropriate he appears on a piece of currency.

[brandx]

A couple of my colleagues are prominent thought leaders from Indian Country. They really do not like Andrew Jackson.

Which raises an interesting twist to this conversation: Should Andrew Jackson have any place or word of honor in the cavalcade of American heroes?

He was a war hero and the first western President whose election and Presidency signaled the rise of the Common Man.

But he was also a fierce advocate of slavery and a major proponent and participant in the genocide campaign waged by the US Government against American Indians. Jackson personally led the military effort that slaughtered tens of thousands of Indians, including women and children, throughout the southeast.

As President he advocated for the forced removal of entire communities of Chickasaws, Choctaws, Creeks, Seminoles, and Cherokees in order to open up the land for white slave holders who would begin tobacco and cotton cultivation.

As GooooMarquette rightly points out, many practices we find objectionable were societal norms in the day. Slavery is abhorrent to us but many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were themselves slaveholders.

But Jackson was more than just a slaveholder. He actively worked to expand slave holding territories through ethnic cleansing those areas of Indians. And his treatment of Indians was not the benign neglect which has characterized much of Federal Indian policy but, rather, active extermination.

People want to scrub many names from history and yet say nothing when they pull out a twenty from their wallet. Moral indignation isn't relative.

[warriorchick]

You have a point there.

In a show of my disgust with Thomas Jefferson's slave ownership, I will immediately get rid of all my $2 bills and refuse to use them going forward.

[muwarrior69]

You have a point there.

In a show of my disgust with Thomas Jefferson's slave ownership, I will immediately get rid of all my $2 bills and refuse to use them going forward.

While were at it lets tear down his monument and burn the Declaration of Independence or at least white out Jefferson's or any other slave owners name. In fact as a person who suffers from white privilege I'll give all that I have to the descendants of slaves; but only if everyone else who suffers from white privilege does, to paraphrase someone who is running for president.

[GooooMarquette]

I generally agree, but I think we shouldn't use "historical context" to give historical figures a pass on their misdeeds. Because slavery was more acceptable in the 18th century than the 21st century makes it no less a crime against humanity. I don't think we need to villainize someone like Jefferson for being a slave owner - and certainly not "erase" him from history - but neither should we whitewash that unsavory aspect of his character or shrug and say "well, that's just the way it was." Slavery was no less evil in 1776 than in 2016, and we shouldn't treat it otherwise.
Anyhow, I think it's far more interesting and worthwhile to exam people like Jefferson as three-dimensional human beings with faults as well as great strengths, rather than the cartoonish superhero Founding Fathers treatment we usually give them.

Agree.

[warriorchick]

I think it was more that Jackson is considered the most racist of US presidents, so they decided to replace him instead of Hamilton.

The article I referenced said that the $10 bill was the next inline to get enhanced security features, which is why it Hamilton was going to get axed favor of a dead vajajay-possessing American.

[brandx]

The article I referenced said that the $10 bill was the next inline to get enhanced security features, which is why it Hamilton was going to get axed in favor of a dead vajajay-possessing American.

Yup. That was the original plan.

I nominate Sally Hemmings. She looked like a white woman (her father was Jefferson's father-in-law)  -- so the righties won't even need to boycott the Twenty.

[GGGG]

Maybe they should rotate who are on these bills every couple of years. Why should they be set in stone?

[warriorchick]

Yup. That was the original plan.

I nominate Sally Hemmings. She looked like a white woman (her father was Jefferson's father-in-law)  -- so the righties won't even need to boycott the Twenty.

But she allegedly had extramarital relations with Thomas Jefferson, so we could never let a immoral hussy like that on our money.

[brandx]

But she allegedly had extramarital relations with Thomas Jefferson, so we could never let a immoral hussy like that on our money.

That was my point.

You're off your game tonight. Usually I have to hustle to keep up with you.

[Tugg Speedman]

Maybe they should rotate who are on these bills every couple of years. Why should they be set in stone?

In a couple of years it will all be digital (bitcoin) and this entire process will be irrelevant.

[warriorchick]

That was my point.

You're off your game tonight. Usually I have to hustle to keep up with you.

Yep.  I think i need a reset.

[ChicosBailBonds]

A less political example for this is Pete Rose. He should be in the Hall of Fame for his contributions to the game and his playing career, however a large portion of his plaque should talk about all the negative stuff he did within baseball. Same could go for Ty Cobb, etc.

We need to talk about good and bad, not just kill the good because we want to hide from the bad.

Completely disagree because the context was plain as day... DO NOT EVER BET ON BASEBALL OR YOU WILL BE BANNED.  That was in every clubhouse when he was there.  Drilled into every player, manager.  Not the case with players or managers 20, 30, 50 years earlier, but it was unacceptable when Pete did it and he knew it. 

[keefe]

Maybe they should rotate who are on these bills every couple of years. Why should they be set in stone?

Uh...is that a joke???

[Pakuni]

A less political example for this is Pete Rose. He should be in the Hall of Fame for his contributions to the game and his playing career, however a large portion of his plaque should talk about all the negative stuff he did within baseball. Same could go for Ty Cobb, etc.

By the way, there's some new research/evidence that shows that the common portrayal of  Ty Cobb as an extreme racist, dirty player and all around a-hole is a gross mischaracterization.

http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/who-was-ty-cobb-the-history-we-know-thats-wrong/

[MU82]

Completely disagree because the context was plain as day... DO NOT EVER BET ON BASEBALL OR YOU WILL BE BANNED.  That was in every clubhouse when he was there. 

Yes, but did you know that the Hall of Fame had no rule prohibiting banned players from being inducted until 1991 - two years after Rose was nailed for gambling and just before he was supposed to go on the BBWAA ballot? The Hall didn't want Rose, so it scrambled to enact what really was the Pete Rose Rule. It was not even thinly disguised as anything else.

I have been a Hall voter for 20 years now (and yes, everybody is happy for me). I have never cast a write-in vote for Rose, as a few of my peers have. However, had he been on the ballot, I would have voted for him as a player because he had been implicated only for what he did as a manager, not a player. I wrote columns saying he should never be allowed to be involved in baseball - not as a manager, coach, GM, ambassador, etc. - but I thought his playing exploits deserved Hall recognition.

Having said that, I'm glad he wasn't on the ballot to get my vote. It has since come out that he likely did bet on baseball as a player, and I would have wanted my vote back!