|
How silly is this?: a Berkeley elementary school wants...
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Spacey Orange |
| 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? |
|
|
| 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." |
|
|
| George Smiley |
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 |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| 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. |
|
|
| Itarillė |
| i'm in agreement with neo as well... |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| 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. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| 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). |
|
|
| Shakka |
| 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. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
God damn it we need to eliminate all nickels as well.
|
Maybe we should.;) :D
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. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Maybe we should.;) :D
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. 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 ... |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| 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. 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 ing difference between slavery and what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
|
