Why do you think it's important to be (or not to be) Politically Correct?

[Blake]

Obviously, it's not simple.

Yeah, it's pretty simple.

[Spurminator]

It's self-centered because it pretends that this era is objectively better than the previous one.

Well that's the crux of our disagreement. I do believe things are objectively better now than they were then, particularly when it comes to racial equality and diversity, and I don't believe people who are known for fighting against racial equality are en led to permanent honor on government buildings.

A name on a school is not the complete historical record for someone's life. Like I said before, people will be free to read about Robert E. Lee and make their own judgments throughout the future.

My point is that it doesn't matter if the person is still on their pedestal. Most people don't care about the person after whom their school was named. What does matter is people thinking that being part of the confederacy is a scornful offense. It's lazy.

You keep saying this. You really do. But it's not true. The South freaked out about the North's growing population, believing they were eventually going to be outvoted and forced to industrialize. They wanted to keep being who they are, which meant having slaves for sure, and they saw the North as a threat to that. But Lincoln didn't run on a stance to get rid of slavery. He didn't run arguing for blacks as equal humans to whites. He died holding the view of "Slavery is wrong, but..." just like nearly every political figure from that time.

Acting like Lincoln fought the South to free slaves is bogus. Andrew Jackson wanted to invade South Carolina after hearing that Calhoun was arguing for secession, and he was a slave-owner (who had a much more complicated relationship with slavery than most political figures of the time, btb). Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union, plain and simple. Slavery wasn't abolished until eight months after Lincoln's death. Union States like Maryland still had slaves at the end of the Civil War (since the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to non-Confederate states).

Simply put, to equate Lee to slavery is ignorant, and a just society shouldn't allow that to become the prevailing view. The Civil War was a very complex period, and it shouldn't be boiled down to the bad, racist South versus the Northern, enlightened liberators. If there's a legacy to be taken from that time is that the country had to really deal with its diverse makeup for the first time. It wasn't nearly the last time it faced that issue, but because of the Civil War, you knew the country was always going to survive it. The only reason why people even have strong feelings against the war is because of what a cluster Reconstruction was and how that pretty much guaranteed that Jim Crow was going to happen. But again, we completely ignore how the Northern Republicans sold Southern blacks down the tube. But where are the folks trying to get the name Hayes High School (the Delaware one) changed?

This is all very good information that belongs in textbooks and other historical literature. None of it explains why Lee is en led to having his name permanently attached to public schools.

You're equating scorn with not having a school named after someone. It's not like he should be placed in some kind of Hall of Shame. It's not like his ancestors should have to pay reparations. We're just saying we don't need to have schools named after Confederate generals.

Having a school named after you is an honor. Why are we obligated to continue honoring people who died hundreds of years ago unless there's a good reason for it? , even if he was an objectively moral and great man, even if we completely take slavery out of the picture, he actively fought against the Union. Why does that deserve tribute? What virtues are we celebrating by honoring him?

Leave him in the history books.

[Chinook]

Yeah, it's pretty simple.

It's not. That kind of at ude is why blacks voted Republican for years even though it was against their interests and why they vote for Clinton so much that she is insulated from most of the criticism of the other parts of the party.

[Blake]

It's not.

It really is.

Fair or not, Lee is associated with the Confederacy which is associated with slavery. There's no way around that.

And like WH mentioned, you're being disingenuous trying to say Lincoln and Lee had exactly the same views on slavery.

[Chinook]

Well that's the crux of our disagreement. I do believe things are objectively better now than they were then, particularly when it comes to racial equality and diversity, and I don't believe people who are known for fighting against racial equality are en led to permanent honor on government buildings.

Lee: I think black people will be end up being equal some day.

Lincoln: I don't believe in and do not support the idea that blacks and whites can ever be equal.

Neither one of them was a champion for equality. Lincoln wasn't the one who made black people (nominally) equal citizens. The Congress Republicans did that three-and-a-half years after Lincoln died by passing the 14th Amendment and unofficially a year afterward with the Civil Rights Act of 1866. No one knows what would have happened had he lived to serve his term, but based on his desire to be easy on the South and his stated beliefs in white superiority, it's very possible that those bills don't get the same support (enough to override Johnson's Veto).

A name on a school is not the complete historical record for someone's life. Like I said before, people will be free to read about Robert E. Lee and make their own judgments throughout the future.

That's not good enough. History isn't about picking and choosing what to believe based on popular opinion. You have folks like Blake who are clearly trying to pass of simplistic and subjective judgments as fact. It doesn't have to be changed in history books for it to matter.

This is all very good information that belongs in textbooks and other historical literature. None of it explains why Lee is en led to having his name permanently attached to public schools.

It does explain why the outrage is misplaced and why we as society shouldn't cave to it.

You're equating scorn with not having a school named after someone. It's not like he should be placed in some kind of Hall of Shame. It's not like his ancestors should have to pay reparations. We're just saying we don't need to have schools named after Confederate generals.

Why not? It's part of who we are. I think it's critical to understand and internalize that there are people on both sides of any conflict. Lee isn't Hitler; he's more like Yamamoto, who people are just fine with quoting nowadays. I honestly think that people would be more okay with naming a school after him than after Lee.

Having a school named after you is an honor. Why are we obligated to continue honoring people who died hundreds of years ago? , even if he was an objectively moral and great man, even if we completely take slavery out of the picture, he actively fought against the Union. Why does that deserve tribute? What virtues are we celebrating by honoring him?

"The Union" was not as concrete of an idea as it seems now. As I said, it wasn't obvious at all that states weren't allowed to leave the US back them. Remember, this is was 16 years after Texas, an independent nation, decided to join. If Texas alone decided to succeed, would a war still be justified? And with local governments being more involved in people's daily lives back then, did having loyalty to the national government above all else even make sense? Then you have to note that for three months after the South seceded, there wasn't any military conflict. So it wasn't like Lee and his friends dressed up like Indians and started killed Northerners.

Leave him in the history books.

Why not leave them ALL in the history books and just name things after numbers? Why get carried up on a wave of misguided fervor?

[Chinook]

It really is.

Fair or not, Lee is associated with the Confederacy which is associated with slavery. There's no way around that.

That's why it's not simple. If it's possibly not fair, it requires deeper analysis. You don't hot-button things if there's uncertainty about the justification for it.

And like WH mentioned, you're being disingenuous trying to say Lincoln and Lee had exactly the same views on slavery.

WH didn't even show why the two views were different. Lincoln free some slaves; Lee asked his president (Davis) to free some slaves. That Abe, as president, had the power to do what he did doesn't change anything. In fact, it makes it worse, since he had the power to free ALL slaves but refused because it would have been inconvenient for him. Again, he died with states still being allowed to enslave blacks, even though his proclamation was more than two years old.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's why it's not simple. If it's possibly not fair, it requires deeper analysis. You don't hot-button things if there's uncertainty about the justification for it.



WH didn't even show why the two views were different. Lincoln free some slaves; Lee asked his president (Davis) to free some slaves. That Abe, as president, had the power to do what he did doesn't change anything. In fact, it makes it worse, since he had the power to free ALL slaves but refused because it would have been inconvenient for him. Again, he died with states still being allowed to enslave blacks, even though his proclamation was more than two years old.

Coming from someone that likes to throw out first cause you sure fail to apply it in other instances.

Lee's family owned slaves. He fought to keep the system of slavery and only offered freedom to those who fought to support said system. Not quite the emancipation proclamation.

[Spurminator]

Who are you to decide it's misguided? You can dance around nuance all you want, but keeping a name on a public building is an active tribute, and there is no absolute right to that kind of tribute in perpetuity.

I can completely understand why a black kid would be confused as to why his school is named after a Confederate general. I can understand and support the idea that the least we can do is put aside our kneejerk opposition to change, and loyalty to arbitrary symbolic tradition, and call a school something else. We lose absolutely nothing of value in that exchange.

[Blake]

That's why it's not simple. If it's possibly not fair...

See, it's only your opinion it's not fair. I think it's perfectly fair.

And then like Spurminator asked, what has he done to deserve honor and recognition in the first place?

[Chinook]

Who are you to decide it's misguided? You can dance around nuance all you want, but keeping a name on a public building is an active tribute, and there is no absolute right to that kind of tribute in perpetuity.

It's going to cost a good deal of money to reverse that "active tribute". This isn't a case where it's just filling in a name every year.

I can completely understand why a black kid would be confused as to why his school is named after a Confederate general.

That's when you take him aside and explain that history is complicated and that if you focus on the unfairness, you won't be able to appreciate any of it. What you don't do is pretend that his skin color gives him a better moral platform to speak against the confederacy than anyone else. He was never a slave, and Lee never did anything to him.

I can understand and support the idea that the least we can do is put aside our kneejerk opposition to change, and loyalty to arbitrary symbolic tradition, and call a school something else. We lose absolutely nothing of value in that exchange.

It's okay to change for the right reasons. Like going from the Calvin to the Calvin-Benson or Benson cycle makes sense, as Calvin didn't discover . Or insisting that Rosalind Franklin be put in all the textbooks along with Watson and Crick makes sense, as she was the one who sacrificed everything to discover DNA's structure. When you find out new information or are allowed to acknowledge new information, it makes sense to modify how you remember people, because what goes into that memory is different. But nothing is different about the information in Lee's dossier. People just hate it more.

At that point, if you think Lincoln's place in history is overrated, you're free to make that case.

No. I don't think Lincoln needs to be knocked down. I don't think anyone does. That's the point. If the man people consider to be the greatest of that era was a raging supremecist, why don't we cool it with the racial witchhunt? Historical figures having character flaws is never going away.

[Chinook]

See, it's only your opinion it's not fair. I think it's perfectly fair.

And then like Spurminator asked, what has he done to deserve honor and recognition in the first place?

I think there is a ton of historical evidence out there that suggests it's not fair, either.

[Spurminator]

It's going to cost a good deal of money to reverse that "active tribute". This isn't a case where it's just filling in a name every year.

I doubt budget is a real concern of the advocates for keeping the school's name.

That's when you take him aside and explain that history is complicated and that if you focus on the unfairness, you won't be able to appreciate any of it. What you don't do is pretend that his skin color gives him a better moral platform to speak against the confederacy than anyone else. He was never a slave, and Lee never did anything to him.

Who has to focus on it? It's a fair question to ask why Robert E. Lee's name is on his school, and what motivation people have to fight so hard to keep it.

This goes back to my original post. This issue only escalates because people oppose the change for no good reason except that, in their opinion, the reason for someone else wanting to change it isn't good enough. My side would argue your reason for keeping it isn't good enough. So back and forth we go.

Meanwhile, that black kid who may have never been a slave but absolutely still lives with residual impact that slavery left would seem to have a better reason than any of us for not wanting to learn about slavery in a building named after a general who fought on the side that wanted to keep it.

But nothing is different about the information in Lee's dossier. People just hate it more.

If the man people consider to be the greatest of that era was a raging supremecist, why don't we cool it with the racial witchhunt? Historical figures having character flaws is never going away.

We're not talking about character flaws, we are talking about actual tangible efforts, and whether those efforts should be celebrated. Personal feelings about race and actual actions against racial equality are completely different. You can argue Lincoln was a supremecist, or that he didn't do "enough" to free slaves, but that's not the same thing as fighting against it.

There's nothing wrong with evaluating and re-evaluating historical figures on a case by case basis.

[Blake]

I think there is a ton of historical evidence out there that suggests it's not fair, either.

Meh, I think you're talking out of your ass.

I think it's pretty clear he wanted and kept slaves.

[spurraider21]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/04/politi...inkId=23035655

[vy65]

Quoting the special committee's report, the board wrote, "Princeton must openly and candidly recognize that Wilson, like other historical figures, leaves behind a complex legacy of both positive and negative repercussions, and that the use of his name implies no endorsement of views and actions that conflict with the values and aspirations of our times. We have said that in this report, and the University must say it in the settings that bear his name."

[Chinook]

Meh, I think you're talking out of your ass.

I've actually shown that evidence. Again, I don't care that he had slaves, and I don't think his rationale made him a better person. But he clearly wasn't worse than the guys with him or before him in that regard. How is it fair to single out one person for something so many other people did while championing someone else who was almost as bad?

[Chinook]

I doubt budget is a real concern of the advocates for keeping the school's name.

It actually is something I've heard mentioned. Again, this isn't a question of it being all the same to everyone if the name is gone. It's whether Lee's name is hurting people to the extent that the city should go through the effort to fix it. I don't believe a single person has a legit claim to that the name is harming them, so the change isn't neutral or advantageous.

This goes back to my original post. This issue only escalates because people oppose the change for no good reason except that, in their opinion, the reason for someone else wanting to change it isn't good enough. My side would argue your reason for keeping it isn't good enough. So back and forth we go.

It doesn't work that way. The side asking for the change has the burden of proof. If you don't have a good enough reason to change it, it stays the way it is. That's just common sense.

Meanwhile, that black kid who may have never been a slave but absolutely still lives with residual impact that slavery left would seem to have a better reason than any of us for not wanting to learn about slavery in a building named after a general who fought on the side that wanted to keep it.

Let's just be clear: The kid was NEVER a slave (at least a legal one). There's not "may have never been" in there. He wasn't a slave, his parents weren't slaves, his great-grandparents weren't slaves. Slavery is the nation's cross to bear, not black people and certainly not black individuals. No one gets to use slavery as a platform for credibility.

The problems black people face now are not the residual effects of the Civil War. They are the very immediate effects of a nation that doesn't not guarantee basic living and education standards for its citizens and a culture that on its public face is apathetic to internalizing and overcoming its shortcomings. That kid is going one of the best schools in the city (according to that site at least). He's already on the right track to doing his part in bridging the racial gap. All he needs to do is focus on getting the most out of that rather than being upset that the guy his school was named after wasn't perfect.

We're not talking about character flaws, we are talking about actual tangible efforts, and whether those efforts should be celebrated. Personal feelings about race and actual actions against racial equality are completely different. You can argue Lincoln was a supremecist, or that he didn't do "enough" to free slaves, but that's not the same thing as fighting against it.

There's nothing wrong with evaluating and re-evaluating historical figures on a case by case basis.

I'm perfectly fine with saying that the Civil War was about slavery primarily. I am not okay with people saying that if you fought for the Confederacy, you wanted to keep slavery. That completely ignores that people's homes and families were part of the seceding territory and that once again, the government that made the most impact in their lives wasn't the national government. It's like thinking that Americans would all start flocking to other countries if the US left the UN.

Lee may well have wanted slavery to continue despite his written words to the controversy, but it's doing a disservice to anyone trying to "question" things to let them make these types of generations. They teach history in schools precisely so you don't go around ignoring it.

[Chinook]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/04/politi...inkId=23035655

Princeton with the grown-man moves. Puck 'em, but props.

[vy65]

Does this photo warrant an apology for being racist?

[Blake]

I've actually shown that evidence. Again, I don't care that he had slaves, and I don't think his rationale made him a better person. But he clearly wasn't worse than the guys with him or before him in that regard. How is it fair to single out one person for something so many other people did while championing someone else who was almost as bad?

Your twisting this around. This isn't about "Lee really wasn't that bad a guy".

This is "why does his name deserve to stay up there?" What exactly did he do that was so great?

Financial reason aside, you haven't provided for justifying his name to stay.

[Blake]

Does this photo warrant an apology for being racist?

No but if they want to give one, why do you give a

[SpursforSix]

Does this photo warrant an apology for being racist?

why would it?

[vy65]

No but if they want to give one, why do you give a

Only in your tranny-loving, white-knighting mind would you equate that post with giving a .

[vy65]

why would it?

http://fortune.com/2016/04/05/gap-pu...sial-ad-image/

[SpursforSix]

http://fortune.com/2016/04/05/gap-pu...sial-ad-image/

that's ridiculous