Should every school named after Robert E Lee be changed?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Should every school named after Robert E Lee be changed? [/quote]
Only public ones. A “private” (the term gets complicated, actually, but a “private” school should be thought of as literally private) school can do whatever it wants. Washington and Lee can keep its name, or change it to the Mel Gibson Center for Resistance to the Jewish World Plot for all I care. But public land should not commemorate enemy Confederate political/military officers. It never should have.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
When we’re finished whitewashing the nation of the confederacy
[/quote]
I am not talking about whitewashing. We should very much remember everything about the Confederacy, and we should teach all of it to our kids.
But to name a school after someone is to celebrate and commemorate that person. It is inappropriate for public property to so commemorate Confederate leaders, because the CSA was created in order to safeguard the future of black slavery. At which specific step in the foregoing logical progression do you disagree?[/quote]
I don’t disagree with the logic so much as I fear it’s eventuality. [/quote]
That is understandable. However, the thing about slippery slopes is that they aren’t necessary. It’s up to us to apply good logic until it’s not good and, at that point, to turn around and fight the bad logic.[/quote]
Sure; however, logic is a funny thing and when you give an inch what tends to happen? For example (a bit off topic), sanctuary cities on their face are at least partially logical in that we have illegals here, that isn’t going to change anytime soon, and the idea is to give those folks the ability to report crimes without the risk of deportation. Logically understandable; however, these same cities clearly harbor criminal illegal immigrants, they ignore federal law, they ignore ICE detainment requests and American citizens are killed or harmed over and over again by said illegals. That isn’t logical at all, but it happens and it will continue to happen unless something changes. Of course that something is to completely bypass federal law via executive order. The slope is feeling kinda slippery my friend.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Should every school named after Robert E Lee be changed? [/quote]
Only public ones. A “private” (the term gets complicated, actually, but a “private” school should be thought of as literally private) school can do whatever it wants. Washington and Lee can keep its name, or change it to the Mel Gibson Center for Resistance to the Jewish World Plot for all I care. But public land should not commemorate enemy Confederate political/military officers. It never should have.[/quote]
From what I understand Lee only fought for the South because his home state was Tennessee not because he supported slavery. Lee also fought for America in the Mexican-American war.
Basically, do we ignore the entirety of a person’s life because of one portion of it? Even Northern’s respected many things about Lee.
I get what you are saying smh, but to me this is just silly. Changing all of these names does nothing to solve any problems. People alive today really have no reason to be offended by a street or school named after Lee. There aren’t any schools names after Jim Crow as far as I know. I guess it’s a symbolic gesture. Maybe I should record an apology for my ancestors oppressive actions (assuming here) and post it to YouTube?
This reminds me of when I was in the Corps. I was stationed in SC and supported VMFA-122 “The Crusaders.” When their number got called to go to Iraq the DOD forced them to change their name because I guess we didn’t want to offend any terrorists while we killed them.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Should every school named after Robert E Lee be changed? [/quote]
Only public ones. A “private” (the term gets complicated, actually, but a “private” school should be thought of as literally private) school can do whatever it wants. Washington and Lee can keep its name, or change it to the Mel Gibson Center for Resistance to the Jewish World Plot for all I care. But public land should not commemorate enemy Confederate political/military officers. It never should have.[/quote]
From what I understand Lee only fought for the South because his home state was Tennessee not because he supported slavery. Lee also fought for America in the Mexican-American war.
Basically, do we ignore the entirety of a person’s life because of one portion of it? Even Northern’s respected many things about Lee. [/quote]
It is often suggeated that he was anti-slavery. This is myth, though it is true that he was reluctant to see war:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/the-general-in-his-study/?_r=0#
As for your question, which is a good one, I would say that when a man so represents a country, and the country so represents what we all know it does, he is not to be celebrated with the money of a taxpayer.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
From what I understand Lee only fought for the South because his home state was VIRGINIA[/quote]
Sorry, had to fix that.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Should every school named after Robert E Lee be changed? [/quote]
Only public ones. A “private” (the term gets complicated, actually, but a “private” school should be thought of as literally private) school can do whatever it wants. Washington and Lee can keep its name, or change it to the Mel Gibson Center for Resistance to the Jewish World Plot for all I care. But public land should not commemorate enemy Confederate political/military officers. It never should have.[/quote]
From what I understand Lee only fought for the South because his home state was Tennessee not because he supported slavery. Lee also fought for America in the Mexican-American war.
Basically, do we ignore the entirety of a person’s life because of one portion of it? Even Northern’s respected many things about Lee. [/quote]
It is often suggeated that he was anti-slavery. This is myth, though it is true that he was reluctant to see war:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/the-general-in-his-study/?_r=0#
[/quote]
Fair enough; however, many of the founder of this nation were for slavery and I’m guess many of them have street, schools, etc… named after them. So is it just because he sided with the South or something else?
[quote]
As for your question, which is a good one, I would say that when a man so represents a country, and the country so represents what we all know it does, he is not to be celebrated with the money of a taxpayer.[/quote]
I respect your opinion on the matter even though I’m not sure I agree.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
From what I understand Lee only fought for the South because his home state was VIRGINIA[/quote]
Sorry, had to fix that.[/quote]
My brain’s not working very well today…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I get what you are saying smh, but to me this is just silly. Changing all of these names does nothing to solve any problems. People alive today really have no reason to be offended by a street or school named after Lee.[/quote]
Celebration of the Confederacy is its own problem. I am not saying (and Critical Race Theory clowns surely would) that any of this stuff is some kind of horrible tool of direct oppression by which blacks are kept beneath the feet of white America. I am simply saying that Confederate leaders are not appropriate objects of public commemoration.
This is not a moral equivalence but rather the testing of a maxim: if the names of things present no actual problem, Adolf Hitler Elementary School must be included. If, instead, it depends on the name and what it stood for (as it surely does), then somebody needs to argue that the CSA was created under circumstances and for reasons other than the ones I’ve listed (or that those reasons are OK for us to celebrate).
[quote]
I guess it’s a symbolic gesture. Maybe I should record an apology for my ancestors oppressive actions (assuming here) and post it to YouTube?[/quote]
Please don’t. But it would also be strange and out of character for you to find out the name of a slaver-ancestor and name your house after him.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Fair enough; however, many of the founder of this nation were for slavery and I’m guess many of them have street, schools, etc… named after them. So is it just because he sided with the South or something else?
[/quote]
This is certainly a good point, and it would be stupid of us to ever forget it. For me, it’s the explicit centrality of slavery to the CSA (and the ensuing war) that makes the difference.
The American flag, after all, was created for a slaving nation. But slavery was not the entire issue, and the flag has come through the years to represent a changing country. The CSA was born and died for a comparatively narrow and explicit set of reasons, and I simply can’t turn away from them.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I get what you are saying smh, but to me this is just silly. Changing all of these names does nothing to solve any problems. People alive today really have no reason to be offended by a street or school named after Lee.[/quote]
Celebration of the Confederacy is its own problem. I am not saying (and Critical Race Theory clowns surely would) that any of this stuff is some kind of horrible tool of direct oppression by which blacks are kept beneath the feet of white America. I am simply saying that Confederate leaders are not appropriate objects of public commemoration. [/quote]
Understood. Like I said, I’m more concerned about the where this leads than anything else.
[quote]
This is not a moral equivalence but rather the testing of a maxim: if the names of things present no actual problem, Adolf Hitler Elementary School must be included. [/quote]
Well, I would argue that Adolf Hilter has almost nothing to do with American history other than him being an enemy of the State for a short time. Someone like Robert Lee, on the other hand, served in the U.S. Army for 35 years and went on to accomplish other things after the Civil War.
Basically, if viewing Hitler through an American lens, is about as black and white as it gets. Where as Lee is pretty grey, imo anyway.
[quote]
If, instead, it depends on the name and what it stood for (as it surely does), then somebody needs to argue that the CSA was created under circumstances and for reasons other than the ones I’ve listed (or that those reasons are OK for us to celebrate). [/quote]
I’m not going to argue that. My beef isn’t with the attack on the CSA or the Confederacy. It’s with the eventuality of changing things to be political correct and/or as to not offend a group of people.
[quote]
[quote]
I guess it’s a symbolic gesture. Maybe I should record an apology for my ancestors oppressive actions (assuming here) and post it to YouTube?[/quote]
Please don’t. [/quote]
Rest assured I never would.
[quote]
But it would also be strange and out of character for you to find out the name of a slaver-ancestor and name your house after him.[/quote]
I think it’d be kinda strange to name my house in general, but I get your point. However, if I was to name my house and that ancestor did extraordinary things, but also fought for the confederacy I wouldn’t automatically rule his name out. It’s not as simple as that, imo.
To use an analogy of sorts, I look at it much like Pete Rose and baseball. Pete bet on baseball and lied about it. It’s deplorable (the lying) and the betting itself I suppose was wrong (not sure I agree). However, it is undeniable that he’s one of the greatest baseball players of all time. Arguable the greatest hitter to ever play the game. I don’t think Rose should be banned from the hall of fame simply because of one small part of his career. Ty Cobb was a complete piece of shit and he’s in the hall of fame.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Should every school named after Robert E Lee be changed? [/quote]
Only public ones. A “private” (the term gets complicated, actually, but a “private” school should be thought of as literally private) school can do whatever it wants. Washington and Lee can keep its name, or change it to the Mel Gibson Center for Resistance to the Jewish World Plot for all I care. But public land should not commemorate enemy Confederate political/military officers. It never should have.[/quote]
Didn’t Congress make all Confederate soldiers US Veterans?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Fair enough; however, many of the founder of this nation were for slavery and I’m guess many of them have street, schools, etc… named after them. So is it just because he sided with the South or something else?
[/quote]
This is certainly a good point, and it would be stupid of us to ever forget it. For me, it’s the explicit centrality of slavery to the CSA (and the ensuing war) that makes the difference.[/quote]
Fair enough.
[quote]
The American flag, after all, was created for a slaving nation. But slavery was not the entire issue, and the flag has come through the years to represent a changing country. [/quote]
True, but many of the states would have refused to revolt had slavery been abolished during the revolution. So slavery was a pretty big issue pre-revolution and the people for revolution but against slavery either explicitly or implicitly accepted slavery in order to achieve their goal.
[quote]
The CSA was born and died for a comparatively narrow and explicit set of reasons, and I simply can’t turn away from them.[/quote]
Understood.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Rant [I call this a rant because I won’t be devoting a bunch of time to fighting this out again]:
Proposition: Nothing owned/funded by the taxpayer is to be named after political/military leaders of [an enemy country of the United States] that was [created explicitly in order to protect and proliferate an institution whereby black slaves were legally owned as property]. Either bracketed fact is sufficient. The two in combination are overkill.
In 2015, it is normal for people not to want to take their children to a publicly-funded school/park that is named after someone who killed Americans because he seceded from the union in the suspicion that maybe the property-status of slaves was under threat from northern meddling and obstructionism. Nobody’s rights are being trampled or even lightly touched – this isn’t about the commemorative plates you might want to eat off of or the sheets you might want to cover your bed with.
But it is fascinating to discover that, after all, people here do in fact feel perfectly correct and comfortable when commenting on events/decisions/controversies in a state in which they don’t live. One wouldn’t have guessed at such a thing a few weeks ago when it was being suggested (in a continuous loop and by many different posters) that what South Carolina does vis-a-vis Confederate colors was not to be commented upon by a New Yorker. I suppose that logic changes by the week.
Rant over.[/quote]
That only really holds if you first assume the right of secession doesn’t exist. If you take the other side, it was the North that invaded a separate country and many got killed doing it. And the “right” of it was ultimately decided by nothing more than brute force.[/quote]
No, it was an enemy country either way, and it seceded in order to protect slavery. The futile and in fact meaningless question of a “right of secession” has no bearing on the simple progression of historical events.
[quote]
As for your slavery exclusion, if we exclude countries/times/people that fought for slavery, let’s get out the history books and look at the war of 1812. I guess the “star spangle banner” gets the ax since its celebrating a country fighting for the preservation of its slaves.[/quote]
I’m not sure you have a good handle on the War of 1812. How about you come up with primary and direct evidence for slavery as a major/the primary factor in that historical event (and a major/primary motivator of the U.S.), and I’ll do the same for the creation of the CSA, and we’ll see who ends up with a strong case for pushing symbols off of public property.
It should have been clear to you that I think you can have an opinion whether you went to the park or not. I was mocking the stupid suggestion that I should not have been expressing opinions about S.C.'s CSA colors (because I don’t live there) by making the point that the people up in arms about this legislation don’t live in California.[/quote]
Slavery was a huge part of the fight in the Atlantic. They were absolutely fighting over slavery in that theater. And the US was absolutely fighting for its preservation. Hell, it even had its own emancipation proclamation:
'A Proclamation
Whereas it has been represented to me that many persons now resident in the United States have expressed a desire to withdraw therefrom with a view to entering into His Majesty’s service, or of being received as free settlers into some of His Majesty’s colonies.
This is therefore to give notice that all persons who may be disposed to migrate from the United States, will with their families, be received on board of His Majesty’s ships or vessels of War, or at the military posts that may be established upon or near the coast of the United States, when they will have their choice of either entering into His Majesty’s sea or land forces, or of being sent as free settlers to the British possessions in North America or the West Indies where they will meet with due encouragement.
Given under my hand at Bermuda this second day of April, 1814, by command of Vice Admiral.â??
It was a big part of the war. What percentage of the motivation does it have to be to make them unworthy? The US was fighting to preserve slavery, period. Was it the only reason? No, but it was still a big issue. Why shouldn’t that qualify the US at the time for exclusion?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Should every school named after Robert E Lee be changed? [/quote]
Only public ones. A “private” (the term gets complicated, actually, but a “private” school should be thought of as literally private) school can do whatever it wants. Washington and Lee can keep its name, or change it to the Mel Gibson Center for Resistance to the Jewish World Plot for all I care. But public land should not commemorate enemy Confederate political/military officers. It never should have.[/quote]
From what I understand Lee only fought for the South because his home state was Tennessee not because he supported slavery. Lee also fought for America in the Mexican-American war.
Basically, do we ignore the entirety of a person’s life because of one portion of it? Even Northern’s respected many things about Lee. [/quote]
It is often suggeated that he was anti-slavery. This is myth, though it is true that he was reluctant to see war:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/the-general-in-his-study/?_r=0#
As for your question, which is a good one, I would say that when a man so represents a country, and the country so represents what we all know it does, he is not to be celebrated with the money of a taxpayer.[/quote]
He did voluntarily free his slaves though, contrary to some Union Generals.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think it’d be kinda strange to name my house in general, but I get your point.[/quote]
Say you come into many, many millions of dollars, then, and move into the kind of estate that it would be weird not to name : )
[quote]
However, if I was to name my house and that ancestor did extraordinary things, but also fought for the confederacy I wouldn’t automatically rule his name out. It’s not as simple as that, imo.[/quote]
Fair enough, but my analogy wasn’t perfect: say this ancestor was enormously associated with the Confederacy/slavery, and it’s not your house but a public fountain that is owned and maintained by your community, including your black neighbors. Then, I would argue, it crosses a line.
[quote]
To use an analogy of sorts, I look at it much like Pete Rose and baseball. Pete bet on baseball and lied about it. It’s deplorable (the lying) and the betting itself I suppose was wrong (not sure I agree). However, it is undeniable that he’s one of the greatest baseball players of all time. Arguable the greatest hitter to ever play the game. I don’t think Rose should be banned from the hall of fame simply because of one small part of his career. Ty Cobb was a complete piece of shit and he’s in the hall of fame. [/quote]
Agreed on Rose. However – and this is why analogies are tricky (as evidenced by my failed one above) – betting/lying are not exactly comparable to slavery. If Pete Rose had owned slaves in his basement or killed a bunch of women and children, I think we’d have a good argument for keeping him out of our celebrations.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Slavery was a huge part of the fight in the Atlantic. They were absolutely fighting over slavery in that theater. And the US was absolutely fighting for its preservation. Hell, it even had its own emancipation proclamation:
'A Proclamation
Whereas it has been represented to me that many persons now resident in the United States have expressed a desire to withdraw therefrom with a view to entering into His Majesty’s service, or of being received as free settlers into some of His Majesty’s colonies.
This is therefore to give notice that all persons who may be disposed to migrate from the United States, will with their families, be received on board of His Majesty’s ships or vessels of War, or at the military posts that may be established upon or near the coast of the United States, when they will have their choice of either entering into His Majesty’s sea or land forces, or of being sent as free settlers to the British possessions in North America or the West Indies where they will meet with due encouragement.
Given under my hand at Bermuda this second day of April, 1814, by command of Vice Admiral.�¢??
It was a big part of the war. What percentage of the motivation does it have to be to make them unworthy? The US was fighting to preserve slavery, period. Was it the only reason? No, but it was still a big issue. Why shouldn’t that qualify the US at the time for exclusion?
[/quote]
I’m well aware of the black refugees and the excerpted proclamation, which postdated the start of the war by years. I asked for direct, primary evidence that slavery played an even slightly comparable part in the raison d’etre of the war. Without that, you are comparing a country that was created to protect slavery with a war that was fought by a country in which slaves happened to exist. Slavery was the CSA cause, and you and I both know that I can easily prove it. For your comparison to hold, you need to show that it was similarly explicit and prominent in the War of 1812.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think it’d be kinda strange to name my house in general, but I get your point.[/quote]
Say you come into many, many millions of dollars, then, and move into the kind of estate that it would be weird not to name : )
[/quote]
If that happens I’l gladly let you name the estate 
[quote]
[quote]
However, if I was to name my house and that ancestor did extraordinary things, but also fought for the confederacy I wouldn’t automatically rule his name out. It’s not as simple as that, imo.[/quote]
Fair enough, but my analogy wasn’t perfect: say this ancestor was enormously associated with the Confederacy/slavery, and it’s not your house but a public fountain that is owned and maintained by your community, including your black neighbors. Then, I would argue, it crosses a line. [/quote]
Sure, but again, I think it’s just not that simple. What if said guy founded said community after the civil war and created a trust to help send community members to college that graduate from the high school named after him?
[quote]
[quote]
To use an analogy of sorts, I look at it much like Pete Rose and baseball. Pete bet on baseball and lied about it. It’s deplorable (the lying) and the betting itself I suppose was wrong (not sure I agree). However, it is undeniable that he’s one of the greatest baseball players of all time. Arguable the greatest hitter to ever play the game. I don’t think Rose should be banned from the hall of fame simply because of one small part of his career. Ty Cobb was a complete piece of shit and he’s in the hall of fame. [/quote]
Agreed on Rose. However – and this is why analogies are tricky (as evidenced by my failed one above) – betting/lying are not exactly comparable to slavery. If Pete Rose had owned slaves in his basement or killed a bunch of women and children, I think we’d have a good argument for keeping him out of our celebrations.[/quote]
Sure, again though I think we’d find a lot of publicly paid for things are named after folks that did some pretty crummy things during their lives if we looked hard enough. We just happen to be focused on the confederacy right now.
Like I’ve said, and I don’t think you disagree, it’s more about where we’re headed with all this to me.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Sure, again though I think we’d find a lot of publicly paid for things are named after folks that did some pretty crummy things during their lives if we looked hard enough.[/quote]
True. And if the things they did were bad enough, and they were sufficiently involved with the bad things, and particularly if the bad things were sufficiently historically consequential, I don’t have any problem changing them. If I were to find out that the person after whom my high school was named had in fact been an architect of the holocaust before immigrating to the U.S., I would definitely support a name change. Not to spare anybody’s feelings, but because I am particular about what is commemorated with public property and money.