Is Marquette "Culturally Insensitive?"

[Heisenberg]

He's on a roll today.  He must have found his 7th grade History book.

I'll send it to you as it is obvious you were too busy Toobin-ing during that class.

[Hards Alumni]

This member of the "enlightened circle jerk of the Superbar" said it.  He called everyone from that period an awful terrible racist. 

And if the "enlightened" truly believe this, there is only one conclusion, tear down all symbols of them and cancel them from history.

And that includes Father Marquette, and all his symbols, including the name of our school, when he is also deemed a vicious racist by the "enlightenment."

Do you know what a logical fallacy is?

[MU82]

82s view is just conventional wisdom that everyone agrees with ... or they are incapable of complex thought like the "enlightened ones of the circle jerk."

We know, Smuggles. Anybody who doesn't agree with you on everything is "incapable of complex thought."

I suggest a cross-country trip to genuflect in front of the tributes to traitors and racists ... while they're still standing. Then you can go into mourning when they're in museums, as they should be.

[Pakuni]

Yes, thinking that not everyone that came before the "enlightening period" is an awful terrible racist that needs to be canceled is now an extremist view.

Who said this, exactly?
But this entire thread is an example of your extremist thinking.
I think most of us can agree there's a reasonable discussion to be had about which historical figures ought to be exalted in the public square and which should not. And I imagine most of us fall somewhere in the middle, not wanting to banish those like Lincoln or Jefferson for what today is recognized as retrograde thinking, but also believing that guys who violated their oaths to fight a treasonous war in defense of slavery shouldn't be glorified with public monuments or have military bases named in their honor.

But you're incapable of being a part of that kind of reasonable discussion, and instead rant about the mere discussion itself being some kind of existential threat. Thus, you come up with gems like Lincoln Park will be renamed Obamaville and Marquette University will be forced to change its name. And that's not to mention your willingness to rewrite U.S. history to defend your terrible takes.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I for one think that Heisy was very clever to see through Fluffy and know that by talking about "traitors who fought a war for the primary purpose of continuing to enslave other people" he actually meant "everyone that came before the "enlightening period" including Father Marquette." And that by "shouldn't be honoring" he actually meant
"is an awful terrible racist that needs to be canceled".

Without Heisys translation I would have fallen into the trap of reading comprehension and logic. Thank you Heisey

[The Sultan]

This member of the "enlightened circle jerk of the Superbar" said it.  He called everyone from that period an awful terrible racist. 

Me?  On that quote?

You're lying.  I never used the word "racist."  I never said "everyone."

You're basically flailing away at the computer in desperation.

[Heisenberg]

Me?  On that quote?

You're lying.  I never used the word "racist."  I never said "everyone."

You're basically flailing away at the computer in desperation.

You wrote

honoring traitors who fought a war for the primary purpose of continuing to enslave other people.

And who was honoring them? The entire southern half to the country, Ergo you called half the country racist, if not worse.

And this guy continues to call most of the country racist

We know, Smuggles. Anybody who doesn't agree with you on everything is "incapable of complex thought."

I suggest a cross-country trip to genuflect in front of the tributes to traitors and racists ... while they're still standing. Then you can go into mourning when they're in museums, as they should be.

Don't worry, I made my point, you only have ad hominem attacks, which means you do not have a response.  I will eventually grow bored and you can all go back to pleasuring yourself circle trying to show who is more enlightened than the next guy.

So, get the lube ready.

[Heisenberg]

Who said this, exactly?
But this entire thread is an example of your extremist thinking.
I think most of us can agree there's a reasonable discussion to be had about which historical figures ought to be exalted in the public square and which should not.

Really (highlighted part).  which part of these statements suggests we are ready for a reasonable discussion?

We know, Smuggles. Anybody who doesn't agree with you on everything is "incapable of complex thought."

I suggest a cross-country trip to genuflect in front of the tributes to traitors and racists ... while they're still standing. Then you can go into mourning when they're in museums, as they should be.

Nobody here is saying ignore the past. We're saying don't honor traitors who were fighting for the right to continue enslaving human beings.

Exactly. Far too many people (mostly racists, but not all) like to argue that the statues were put up in the years shortly after the war to honor the confederate heroes for their sacrifice and that they are an important part of American history. But the vast majority actually were put up decades later as a way for racists to "reclaim" their white heritage, to rally their white supremacist supporters, and to intimidate Black people.

I have yet to hear one viable reason to display a confederate statue or flag or any other kind of confederate symbol on public land in the United States.

Statues were placed to intimidate the Black population, and because the myth of the "Lost Cause" was en vogue in the South.  The country had abandoned reconstruction and was moving backward towards what became the Jim Crow era.

Because we shouldn't be honoring traitors who fought a war for the primary purpose of continuing to enslave other people.

It's not hard.

These are not the comments of those that want a reasonable discussion to be had about which historical figures ought to be exalted in the public square and which should not.

They are the comments of closed minds that want total agreement or cancellation.

[MUBurrow]

Jaques Marquette-Louis Jollet Memorial

Heisey, do you think there is anything about this statue that warrants discussion and maybe modification?

[Hards Alumni]

This has to be either the best trolling the board has ever seen, or the total mental collapse of a human being.

It's really hard to tell which.

[Heisenberg]

This has to be either the best trolling the board has ever seen, or the total mental collapse of a human being.

It's really hard to tell which.

Another example that only total agreement or ad hominem attacks and cancellation are the options.

Heisey, do you think there is anything about this statue that warrants discussion and maybe modification?

Don't be bashful, plenty of room in the circle for you ... go ahead and plainly state say what you mean and what should be done about it, and the larger issue of what Father Marquette was.

[Galway Eagle]

What's with the constant masturbation references you're posting between "toobin-ing" "circle jerk" get the lube ready and room in the circle it's a weird fixation especially when you're trying to cast blame on others for being unable to have an actual discourse about this topic.

[MUBurrow]

Don't be bashful, plenty of room in the circle for you ... go ahead and plainly state say what you mean and what should be done about it, and the larger issue of what Father Marquette was.

I'm sorry to have directly asked you the original question posed by the thread you started and including the picture you had embedded.

[Heisenberg]

I'm sorry to have directly asked you the original question posed by the thread you started and including the picture you had embedded.

Ok, nothing should be done about it ... what say you.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Don't worry, I made my point,

Only in your own head, son. Everyone else understands your arguments are failures.

[Hards Alumni]

Another example that only total agreement or ad hominem attacks and cancellation are the options.

Don't be bashful, plenty of room in the circle for you ... go ahead and plainly state say what you mean and what should be done about it, and the larger issue of what Father Marquette was.

But I've never said we should cancel Father Marquette, you absolute lunatic.

[Pakuni]

Another example that only total agreement or ad hominem attacks and cancellation are the options.

The cognitive dissonance here has to be intentional, right? Nobody can be this self-unaware.

[The Sultan]

You wrote

honoring traitors who fought a war for the primary purpose of continuing to enslave other people.

And who was honoring them? The entire southern half to the country, Ergo you called half the country racist, if not worse.

You are the one making the leap saying "if you are honoring them, therefore you are racist."  I never made that statement or that inference.

[MUBurrow]

Ok, nothing should be done about it ... what say you.

Thanks for answering. I was genuinely interested in what you thought.

I believe that the depiction of the Native American figure compared to Marquette and Joliet is problematic.  I think the awestruck expression, trailing behind and lower height combine as a hamfisted attempt at visually representing Marquette's achievements through negative comparisons to the native population. I don't know enough about the historical accuracy of the dress to speak to that.  I think that a discussion about how the representation could be modified in a more positive and equal light, with input from experts and persons of Native American descent is warranted.

[MU82]

What's with the constant masturbation references you're posting between "toobin-ing" "circle jerk" get the lube ready and room in the circle it's a weird fixation especially when you're trying to cast blame on others for being unable to have an actual discourse about this topic.

Yes, but others are making "ad hominem attacks."

These are not the comments of those that want a reasonable discussion to be had about which historical figures ought to be exalted in the public square and which should not.

They are the comments of closed minds that want total agreement or cancellation.

Excellent. BUT NEXT TIME TRY BOLD AND ALL CAPS. AND LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!

[warriorchick]

I'll admit, my history knowledge on Father Marquette isn't perfect. Have their been any claims that he committed any sort of violence against native peoples? If there hasn't, I don't think the comparisons to Father Serra are valid.

I am far from being a Jacques Marquette scholar, but I have read what is considered to be the most detailed and thoroughly researched biography of him.  According to that book, Father Marquette was highly respected by the native peoples he encountered.  Yes, he did preach about Christianity, but he also avoided condemning their cultural traditions (such as polygamy) that were at odds with church doctrine.  He spent a great deal of his time trying to protect peaceful tribes from the warring ones (hence the irony of MU's Warrior nickname). 

Anyone who wants to lump Father Marquette in with the conquering explorers is an idiot.

[The Sultan]

On a side note, I once spent a day in Father Marquette's hometown of Laon, France.  It is gorgeous.

[Heisenberg]

Thanks for answering. I was genuinely interested in what you thought.

I believe that the depiction of the Native American figure compared to Marquette and Joliet is problematic.  I think the awestruck expression, trailing behind and lower height combine as a hamfisted attempt at visually representing Marquette's achievements through negative comparisons to the native population. I don't know enough about the historical accuracy of the dress to speak to that.  I think that a discussion about how the representation could be modified in a more positive and equal light, with input from experts and persons of Native American descent is warranted.

I understand what you are saying ... but is this how we are to view history over time?  That is, constantly changing emotional responses to the "look" of a statue?

The people that commissioned and made it thought it was a proper depiction.  Why can't we learn to understand their point of view?  Why do we have to modify it to what we believe is the proper interpretation based on today's sensibilities?  Should we change it again in 2o to 50 years should those views change again?

[Heisenberg]

Me?  On that quote?

You're lying.  I never used the word "racist."  I never said "everyone."

You're basically flailing away at the computer in desperation.

Correct, you did use the word racist. 
Instead, you gave the definition of it.

[Galway Eagle]

I understand what you are saying ... but is this how we are to view history over time?  That is, constantly changing emotional responses to the "look" of a statue?

The people that commissioned and made it thought it was a proper depiction.  Why can't we learn to understand their point of view?  Why do we have to modify it to what we believe is the proper interpretation based on today's sensibilities?  Should we change it again in 2o to 50 years should those views change again?

Because many of the views of the people who commissioned it were inherently flawed. If Alabama had a statue commemorating the Governor who tried to stop the university from integrating is it on us to say "well maybe this is why he did it and we should commemorate him for that" or should we say "yeah this guy was clearly in the wrong and those commemorating him for this are trying to honor an inherently wrong side of history that we should not"