TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- How silly is this?: a Berkeley elementary school wants...
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

How silly is this?: a Berkeley elementary school wants...

to change its name from Jefferson elementary because President Jefferson had slaves. If anything the school was named after the president because of accomplishments as a founding father, not because he was a slaveholder. Your thoughts?

I think it's silly for two reasons.

1 - It totally overlooks all of the positives that Jefferson did for this country. It also overlooks a thinker that was ahead of his time.

2 - It "punishes" Jefferson for doing something that we consider wrong today (owning slaves) that at the time was both legal and culturally acceptable. If we're going to look at history only in the context of our modern eyes, I don't think many great figures of the past can be seen as completely "good."

Er I don't know much about American history (other than we kicked your ass in the American Revolution but then realised that we had a great place to send all our crazies and Irish so pretended to lose to get shot of em all) but wouldn't quite a few (if not all?) of the founding fathers had slaves?

Hate to admit it but I agree with NeoPhono altho if there are a large number of people who are black and go to that school and are offended then I suppose you should take that into account, but still think its daft

Agree with NeoPhono. A further reason for the change of name being stupid, is that it's associated with a lot of expenses to change your name. Being PC doesn't outweigh that waste of money and effort IMO.

Neo wins.

i'm in agreement with neo as well...

I'm not. You have to be non-white to understand. He did own slaves afterall. And if I we're black, I probably wouldn't be too fond of any of the founding fathers.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I think it's silly for two reasons. 1 - It totally overlooks all of the positives that Jefferson did for this country. It also overlooks a thinker that was ahead of his time. 2 - It "punishes" Jefferson for doing something that we consider wrong today (owning slaves) that at the time was both legal and culturally acceptable. If we're going to look at history only in the context of our modern eyes, I don't think many great figures of the past can be seen as completely "good."

at the same time, you could easily argue, that not doing so(changing the name of the school):

1 - Totally overlooks all the negative aspects of Jefferson's personality.

2 - We shouldn't gloss over negative aspects of American history and many important political figures(of the past).

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z at the same time, you could easily argue, that not doing so(changing the name of the school): 1 - Totally overlooks all the negative aspects of Jefferson's personality. 2 - We shouldn't gloss over negative aspects of American history and many important political figures(of the past).

God damn it we need to eliminate all nickels as well. They are a constant reminder of the bastard that was not only a founding father, but a U.S. president as well. I can't bare to spend another nickel on anything without feeling like I'm supporting racism. This is an excercise in futility.

My advice to the non-whites who "take offense" would be to grow some thicker skin and spend your time worrying about something more important.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka God damn it we need to eliminate all nickels as well.

Maybe we should.

The fact of the matter is that the colonizers and early "americans" were slave owners and racists. Such men shouldn't be portrayed as heroes. If you choose to glorify such personalities, that says something about our culture.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Maybe we should. The fact of the matter is that the colonizers and early "americans" were slave owners and racists. Such men shouldn't be portrayed as heroes. If you choose to glorify such personalities, that says something about our culture.

Of course. And because the women's suffrage movement didn't come to fruition until 1920 with the ratification of the 19th amendment, we can similarly conclude that nearly every single individual before then was "sexist" or at the least relatively content with such inequities and therefore should be condemned as opposed to glorified. Fuck Lincoln. He doesn't deserve to be on the $5 bill. What would it say about our culture if we praised his acheivments in the face of such monstrosities? Continue this argument ad nauseum as far back in history as you desire ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Of course. And because the women's suffrage movement didn't come to fruition until 1920 with the ratification of the 19th amendment, we can similarly conclude that nearly every single individual before then was "sexist" or at the least relatively content with such inequities and therefore should be condemned as opposed to glorified. Fuck Lincoln. He doesn't deserve to be on the $5 bill. What would it say about our culture if we praised his acheivments in the face of such monstrosities? Continue this argument ad nauseum as far back in history as you desire ...

That is no way comparable to slavery and all the injustices black people had to face. Men didn't "own" and "sell" and "torture" women. That's a horrible argument. There's a big fucking difference between slavery and what you're talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z That is no way comparable to slavery and all the injustices black people had to face. Men didn't "own" and "sell" and "torture" women. That's a horrible argument. There's a big fucking difference between slavery and what you're talking about.

You're fucking kidding me right? Women are "owned", "sold", and "tortured" to this very day. "Honor" killings were rampant in the west for the past several centuries, and is still widely prevalent in underdeveloped countries to this day. What big fucking difference is there? Slavery existed long before blacks were enslaved, so does our condemnation of every historical figure for their intransigences only begin when Africa was raided??? You got to fucking kidding me.

Please someone find me one significant historical figure, event or era that could not in some way be found "offensive" to someone. Yes, we must look at the good with the bad of any figures of the past, but we must also make a judgement call. Does Jefferson owning slaves, something legal and acceptable at the time, outweigh everything else that he did in a positive manner for this country to the point that we're going to strip him and his name from the public eye? Again, what figure in the past can't be found guilty of some modern day crime or offensive action that they too shouldn't be removed from public record?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider You're fucking kidding me right? Women are "owned", "sold", and "tortured" to this very day. "Honor" killings were rampant in the west for the past several centuries, and is still widely prevalent in underdeveloped countries to this day. What big fucking difference is there? Slavery existed long before blacks were enslaved, so does our condemnation of every historical figure for their intransigences only begin when Africa was raided??? You got to fucking kidding me.

Husbands and fathers don't sell their wives/daughters. You know what I was referring to, common ppl, not criminals.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Does Jefferson owning slaves, something legal and acceptable at the time

Exactly. It doesn't matter if it was legal or acceptable it's still wrong and has been understood to be wrong for several centuries now(unfortunately not that long in the West). Eigther way, it's still wrong by own values NOW.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Exactly. It doesn't matter if it was legal or acceptable it's still wrong and has been understood to be wrong for several centuries now(unfortunately not that long in the West). Eigther way, it's still wrong by own values NOW.

In that case we might as well burn our history books.

Law, culture and even morality are constantly evolving. If we are to judge the people of the past strictly with our own set of each of these, without being able to see them in the context of their own set of beliefs, we will always find something that doesn't fit into our own system.

According to you only "non-whites" would be able to fully comprehend the travesty of slavery (bullshit, in my opinion) but I guess that since you have such difficulty putting yourself into other people's shoes, you would be unable to understand the thought process of slavery to the colonists. So I guess you are equally unsuited to understand how slavery was thought of and felt to those people or unable to see what a revolutionary Jefferson was.

I feel for your small mindedness and lack of ability to see from different historical perspectives.

For once (and hopefully for the last time ) I actually agree with conservatives on this issue.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono In that case we might as well burn our history books.

Now that's absurd, I didn't suggest anything like that. How many history school text books have you read that will put an equal emphasis on all the rotton things specific figures have done (and "not so specific figures" :P). Alot of personalities that are glorified wouldn't be so respected by many ppl if their stories we're told more objectively and with less bias. Yes, they did some good things, had some good ideas, but they also did some pretty rotton things, and had some pretty rotton ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Law, culture and even morality are constantly evolving.

Yes but some values are pretty universal. So I don't feel that argument really applies in this case.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono If we are to judge the people of the past strictly with our own set of each of these, without being able to see them in the context of their own set of beliefs, we will always find something that doesn't fit into our own system.

I agree but you have put your foot down at some point. Slavery is one of them.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono According to you only "non-whites" would be able to fully comprehend the travesty of slavery (bullshit, in my opinion)

Ok, maybe I should have worded that better. I don't think white ppl can't comprehend the travesty of slavery, but they're definetly not as sensitive towards it as black people (which is understandable). I also agree that many times minorities complain and bitch about something trivial or get too sensitive about something or the other and that can be really fucking annoying. I just think in this case they have a valid point. The man, although he did some good things, also did some things which are completely unacceptable. I mean, what's the big deal, they're only asking to change the name of the school not tear it down (correct me if I'm wrong).

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono but I guess that since you have such difficulty putting yourself into other people's shoes, you would be unable to understand the thought process of slavery to the colonists. So I guess you are equally unsuited to understand how slavery was thought of and felt to those people or unable to see what a revolutionary Jefferson was.

You have to draw the line somewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I feel for your small mindedness and lack of ability to see from different historical perspectives.

Like I said earlier, you have to draw the line somewhere. I feel for your small mindedness and lack of ability to see history from a different historical perspective too, and, your lack of sympathy/understanding.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono you would be unable to understand the thought process of slavery to the colonists.

I guess I can't since I'm not racist and I don't think it's ok to own, sell and torture other human beings.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono but I guess that since you have such difficulty putting yourself into other people's shoes

You should apply that same standard to yourself. I assume you're not black (neigther am I), so I don't think we can fully comprehend the travesty of slavery.

My point simply was that we shouldn't glorify ppl involved in such injustices. No, we shouldn't burn our history books. But we should have ones that are more objective and don't gloss over all the ugly aspects of history. And we (Americans) aren't the only ones who do it. I can't think of a single nation that doesn't.

Plus, I know people make mistakes and we should try to be forgiving and non-judgmental but some things are simply not acceptable.

I'd also like to add that I understand how alot of you think this is ridiculous and feel like it's another one of those cases where minorities are bitching about nothing. I feel the same way too many times(even though I am a minority), but in this case I feel they actually have a valid point and it isn't one of those cases where they're bitching about nothing. All it is a simple request to change a schools name.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Exactly. It doesn't matter if it was legal or acceptable it's still wrong and has been understood to be wrong for several centuries now(unfortunately not that long in the West). Eigther way, it's still wrong by own values NOW.

Huh??? This is the exact same mentality I was using in my facetious post about the 19th amendment that you so summarily dismissed as a "horrible" argument. Yet now you cling to the very same logic in what must be the quickest reversal of opinions I've ever seen.

As for fathers not selling their daughters and wives, exactly what rock have you been living under???

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2783655.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4204675.stm

This alone is in the 20th century as well. I don't even have to dredge up the past fucking millenium of history to make my point.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider As for fathers not selling their daughters and wives, exactly what rock have you been living under??? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2783655.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4204675.stm This alone is in the 20th century as well. I don't even have to dredge up the past fucking millenium of history to make my point.

No, I haven't been living under a rock. I'm already aware of this. I didn't say it doesn't happen at all even till this day. That's not what I was referring to (even if you were). You mentioned women's sufferage movement right? (which does cover issues like this put still isn't the primary focus). Not that I'm trying to undermine any of it, issues like this are much bigger that women having equal rights and the right to vote(in context to sex slave trade).

quote:

Women's suffrage From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The international movement for women's suffrage, led by suffragists (commonly called suffragettes), was a social, economic and political reform movement aimed at extending the suffrage (that is, the right to vote) to women, advocating equal suffrage (abolition of graded votes) rather than universal suffrage (abolition of discrimination due to, for instance, race), which was considered too radical. In 1869 the Wyoming Territory in the United States became the first modern polity where equal suffrage was extended to women. The earliest country extending that right was Pitcairn Islands in 1838. In 1893, New Zealand was the first country to introduce universal suffrage, following a movement led by Kate Sheppard. Timeline Main article: Timeline of women's suffrage Women's suffrage has been granted (and been revoked) at various times in various countries throughout the world. In many countries women's suffrage was granted before universal suffrage, so women (and men) from certain races were still unable to vote. The first women's suffrage (with the same property qualifications as for men) was granted in New Jersey in 1776, but rescinded in 1807. The Pitcairn Islands granted women's suffrage in 1838. Various countries and states granted restricted women's suffrage in the latter half of the nineteenth century, starting with South Australia in 1861. The first unrestricted women's suffrage in terms of voting rights (women were not initially permitted to stand for election) in a major country was granted in New Zealand in 1893.

source: Wikipedia

Now how is that comparable to slavery?

EDIT: Just to make my point clear:

quote:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Yeah, that is so comparable to slavery dude.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Huh??? This is the exact same mentality I was using in my facetious post about the 19th amendment that you so summarily dismissed as a "horrible" argument. Yet now you cling to the very same logic in what must be the quickest reversal of opinions I've ever seen.

uhh.. no I'm not. All I was saying is that SOME VALUES are pretty universal and have been understood for quite some time. Everyone has a concious ok, regardless of what period of history they live in (and I'm not talking about apes).

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z source: Wikipedia Now how is that comparable to slavery? EDIT: Just to make my point clear: Yeah, that is so comparable to slavery dude.

Hmmmm let's think about this for a second. So the sexual slavery of women is alive, thriving, and purportedly an even bigger epidemic than the historical slavery of Africans despite the fact that women's rights are equal today in every respect to the rights of men. So let's think back to what it must have been like in the 18th and 19th century when the lack of women's rights was implicitly universal, and perpetutated by the fact that they were officially inferior and unequal according to the law derived from the contitution. Yup, the sexual slavery of women must have laid dormant until after the 13th amendment because men were too busy enslaving blacks to enslave women . Ratification of the 19th amendment probably did as much to help end the slavery of women in the US by eliminating the official endorsement of inequity as the 13th amendment did for blacks. In actuality I would say less so because while I don't hear a lot about slavery among blacks today, I still hear a shitload about female slaves in the US and among the rest of the world.

quote:

uhh.. no I'm not. All I was saying is that SOME VALUES are pretty universal and have been understood for quite some time. Everyone has a concious ok, regardless of what period of history they live in (and I'm not talking about apes).

Ummm ok so what are you saying?? Women's rights are not universal or understood for quite some time? You DO remember my original argument don't you? The one you so solidly rejected because it's not the "same" as slavery? Why do we tolerate Lincoln on the $5 bill, why do we recognize his acheivements when he perpetuated the gross inequities of women's rights by failing to give them the same rights as men? I guess SOME VALUES are worth more than others when we look upon historical figures ...

Welp...I guess if we're "drawing the line at slavery" we better get started.

Tear down the pyramids...they were made by slaves. Wouldn't want to have those pro-slavery icons around anymore.

Tear down the Coloseum in Rome too...how many slaves died there for enjoyment?

Tear down the Great Wall of China...another structure built by slaves.

When George Washington died, he had 316 slaves...it's time to remove his name and legacy from our history.

Aristotle argued for the "naturalness" of slaves...no more reading his philosophical works.

I'm sure we could go on.

And although I am not black, or a first-hand witness to slavery, it does not make me any less sympathetic to that plight. However, I can also realize that trying to put modern day morality into the events of the past is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is not only trying to hold figures of the past to these modern standards, but punishing them for not doing so.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.