What can I say....
 

This is where political correctness takes us. This country seems to get pinker everyday. It's sad. Though some may think that PCness is a good thing, can we at least agree that this example is a bit over the top??


Posted on Fri, Mar. 11, 2005
By Eric Kurhi

Thomas Jefferson's John Hancock could soon be a thing of the past at the Berkeley elementary school that bears his name.

About two years after a group of teachers and parents started a petition, the school community is nearing a vote that will decide whether to keep the old name or change it to something newer and potentially less offensive.

"It's an awkward position to ask African-American children and African-American teachers to celebrate a historical figure who was a slave-owner," said Marguerite Hughes, who teaches first grade at the school and was part of the original group pushing for the name change.

Hughes said that at first, a group of teachers wanted to rename the cafeteria, which is called the Cafetorium. But as they looked into it, they realized that the same steps had to be taken to change the name of one building as for renaming the whole school.

"And many people weren't comfortable with the name Jefferson," Hughes said.

That was the beginning of what Principal Betty Delaney called an "Olympic process that is just now coming to an end."

They have just completed the nomination period for a new name. A list of names will come out next week. By the end of the month, the number of potential names will be whittled down to one contender slated to run against the third president of the United States.

Parents, teachers and students will all vote, and all votes will be considered equal.

Thomas Jefferson lived from 1743 to 1826. He inherited 5,000 acres in Virginia 's Albemarle County from his father, a planter and surveyor. He was president from 1801-1809, following George Washington and John Adams.

Jefferson's name has become controversial in some circles because of the 150 slaves he owned at his estate, Monticello. Critics usually admit that this was to be expected of a man of his social and economic class --Washington and most other prominent Southerners also owned slaves -- but they argue that a forward-thinking man would not have held humans in bondage, especially not the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence.

For Mark Simmons, who has a daughter at the school, his opposition to the name change isn't so much a question of American history as his own.

"I just get nostalgic -- I love my alma mater," he said.

Simmons bought the house he grew up in from his father, and would like to see his daughter go to the same school he went to -- in name as well as place.

"I went to King Jr. High and my uncle used to ask me, 'How's Garfield?' I never had a clue what he was talking about," he said.

James Garfield Middle School was renamed to honor Martin Luther King Jr. shortly after his assassination.

More recently, Abraham Lincoln Elementary became Malcolm X, and Christopher Columbus lost more than his holiday in Berkeley -- his namesake school was rebuilt as Rosa Parks Elementary in the late '90s after some impassioned discussion. Not over whether to change the name, but whether to rename it after Rosa Parks or Cesar Chavez.

But at Jefferson, Chris Hudson, who is on an advisory committee for the name change, said things have gone fairly smoothly. He said they tried to make the process as fair and open as possible, and that what he thought was a potentially divisive process has been remarkably calm.

"Whatever happens, we'll still all be parents, teachers and students at the end of the day," Hudson said.

I really don't care, either way. If they want to change the name, let them change it.

Agreed..........pointless pondering of political PC propoganda

Pass

"Pinker"? I first read that as a red/blue state thing, but the article didn't match that interpretation. We just had a discussion in another thread about pink (Help engineer the english language (well, one word of it)), and certainly none of those meanings apply to this thread. Honestly, I don't know how pink=PC.

But back to the article, I will agree that this seems extreme. Slave holding is abhorrent now, but it was a cultural norm at the time. Also, no one is pointing out that Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence had a "free the slaves" clause in it.

1984 is here

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Double think is getting ridiculous these days. FEMA and other federal law enforcement agencies are actually teaching that the founding fathers were terrorists, and people that make numerous references to the Constitution and Bill of Rights could be terrorists.

Four replies, and not a single one addresses the issue.

Amazed at the awesome application of alliteration about above arguement.

I think nobody points that out because he still kept slaves, and did not free them during his life. And that clause didn't make his final draft. Personally, I think that makes Jefferson worse, not better. It shows he might have thought slavery wrong, but held slaves anyways. At least most slaveowners might have not personally believed themselves to be in the wrong, whereas Jefferson did something he knew wrong.

No, I believe I replied to the issue. If I didn't, please fill me in on what the issue is. I thought it was political correctness.

Anyway I'll try to elaborate on the issue further. I think it's completely disgusting that they want to change the name of institutions that make references to our founding fathers. Without their courage to stand up to tyranny we wouldn't have the great country we have today.

Yes some of them owned slaves which was wrong (the opression that they felt from Britain was similar to the opression they gave to the slaves), and they killed people to get their independence. Owning slaves should not outweigh their fight for independence.

Nice take.


It's a tough call to say that ignorance to soemthing is better than knowing something is worng but doing it anyways.

The only reason slavery isn't abolished in the Constitution is because the colonies still needed the Southern states for their great natural resources and crops. To abolish slavery at that time would have caused the ratification of the Constitution to become only a dream. Instead, it is a prime example of compromise made by all states in order to hold the Union together.

To quote Ben Franklin, a slave owner: and, for you alansmithee, Thomas Jefferson's actual words (not your commentary):

I think you are reading selectively, or are looking for something that you didn't ask for. You asked "Though some may think that PCness is a good thing, can we at least agree that this example is a bit over the top??" I see answers to that question in at least three of the four responses.

And you still didn't explain "pinker".

Weak, spineless, ect...

There are far more controversial phrases I coulda used, but that's not what this place is about. "Pinker" got my point across just fine.

Slavery was an integral part of the early colonial economy. Eliminate slavery and you eliminate your fledgling, infant country. It was in the best interest of everyone (well, except the slaves) that it not be abolished at that time.

Here's the original paragraph from the Declaration of Independence:
There's a lot of interesting followup discussion on that page. My favorite part is:

Also, on kind of a side note, the ratified Constitution barred the import of new slaves after 1808. Which is a major cop out on their part, but nonetheless they put it into the new colonial Constitution. So it's not that the Constitution avoids the subject of slavery all together, it just makes less of an issue out of it and puts the burden of abolition on future generations.

1. i do not know what you mean by pc---it seems to me a term that has been reduced to nothing by endless repetition.
2. i do not see what your problem is with the story
it turns on problems raised by an awareness of jefferson as human being as over against jefferson as Mythic Founding Father. the question of slave-holding comes up through this. are you advocating less awareness of history? are you assuming that, in questions where history and myth collide, that everyone should choose myth?

it seems to me that if anyone is running a pc-style line on this, it is you, ncb, in that you present this curious story about the local political consequences of a population realizing that there might be a problem with the name of that school as a function of factual information about jefferson as a human being and seem to hold it up to ridicule.

or is the problem that you oppose grassroots mobilizations that are not dominated by conservatives?

or would you prefer that the history of the united states be whitewashed?

It seems to me that if anyone is "whitewashing", it's this group.

History is what it is.

Most if not all wealthy Southern landowners held slaves, as has been pointed out numerous times.

European countries ruthlessly exploited the "new world" territories discovered even as many of the indiginous tribes exhibited their own forms of brutality, such as human sacrifice.

Do we stop admiring Jefferson or Columbus or the Native Americans because of it?

Of course not.

But many on the left insist we do (except it is ok to admire the indians because they aren't white).

Seriously, I am tired of this freudian exercise in self loathing.

speaking as a professional historian, lebel, let me tell you that this sentiment is just a sentiment: it has no relation to how histories are produced, what they do, etc.

so therefore slavery was fine.
sorry, my mistake: i foolishly thought that people in 2005 were in a position to evaluate actions undertaken in different contexts along lines particular to 2005.

this question of slavery, its ethical implications, its history and the effects of that history--all of this should not be addressed.

to do so is an exercize in "self loathing"?

what are you actually advocating, lebel?

so are you saying that this exploitation was ok because lots of people indulged it?
is this how you make evaluations of what came to be the early phases of a genocide?
is this how you think about genocide in general--everything is ok if enough people go along with it?

wait--the question involves self-loathing--genocide is carried out by other people--when the americans do it, it is manifest destiny--which is ordained by god--so therefore the repeated massacres of native americans from the 18th century through wounded knee--all ok.


no obviously not--not for you at least--because you have no interest in history--you prefer nationalist mythology. your choice, of course.

because you prefer nationalist mythology to history and its messiness, but cant really defend the position (how would you?) it follows that you would find a way to posit "your history" (of "white people"------do you really believe this?) as some kind of victim (of what?)


because confronting an often appalling history is not helpful for the mission of moral uplift that history should serve?

i do not see how this position, lebel, which often wafts from conservatives from gingrich onward--those masters of the history as national bildungsroman--behind which there hide so many conceptual and political problems that it is hard to know where to start even--is defensable at any level.

if you can run away from the past, it must be easier to run away from the present.
maybe that's it.

what matters is that conservatives can anchor their sense of being in the present by linking it to a wholly fictitious account of the past. that way they feel good about themselves--an emphasis that you hear criticized continually on conservative talk shows etc. as an element of "liberal educational philosophy"--which is presumably, following this same logic, tied to weakness of character.
how to you justify mapping this onto history? or the heroic myth of national construction undertaken by a series of decontextualized white men (which would perhaps for you be the same thing)?
how is this any different?

My "commentary" is based on Thomas Jefferson's actions, not his words. If I run around saying how bad murder is, wax poetically about the sanctity of life and how evil murder is, and all the while I am a serial killer do my fancy words somehow make my deeds go away? Again, by showing how much Jefferson wrote that slavery was wrong makes it even worse that he kept slaves. You further go to say that the nation's early economy was dependant on slavery. I think that to be largely true. But was Jefferson personally dependant on slavery? Again, as I said before others might not have thought it wrong, but we have numerous examples where Jefferson does say slavery is wrong, yet he held slaves. At best he was a spineless hypocrite, at worst a blatant liar. I don't see how he could be seen any other way (at least on the issue of slavery, he unarguably was a champion of freedom in regards to rich, white, male landowners 21+ in America).
-----

And more on topic to the original post, I don't see them renaming the school as that shocking, or suprising. Honestly, they'll probably end up naming it the Trotsky School of the Proletariat or the Usama Bin Laden Freedom Fighter Facility, neither would suprise me. Nothing that happens on the left coast suprises me anymore.

There lies your difficulty. If you can't even understand my viewpoint, can you really argue against it? I fully understand your point of the view on the matter, and am really just trying to clear things up.

I think this is beyond the point I was trying to make in my earlier post. Jefferson and other founders understood that slavery was an essential part of the union, which they desired to see succeed more than anything, and they were willing to compromise their own values for the good of the union. This isn't the only example, and that's the glorious part of the Constitution.

None of us can say for certain (at least I can't) but I my opinion would be that yes he was dependent on slave labor, just like the vast majority of the country at the time. In fact I think only 3 of the smallest colonies, Delaware comes to mind, were "free" states. While Jefferson and Franklin relied on black slaves for their livelyhood (who else would take care of their estates while they were gone?) they also championed for their freedom. Hypocritical to keep slaves and speak out against slavery, sure, but there were bigger fish to fry at the time...like securing the new colonial Constitution and in doing so guaranteeing a better union.

I stand by my statement.

Certain events happened. This is not up for discussion or interpretation. What we can discuss is the meaning of certain events and how they interacted to produce subsequent events.

Even a professional historian should know that.

Please don't be offensive when making your argument. At that time, to a large portion of the populace, slavery was fine. There were many arguments that supported that position, arguments which we have ultimately rejected, but not without cost.

No, no and no. Again, I've said NONE of this. But what you just stated, has nothing IMO to do with the original article. Changing the name of Thomas Jefferson Highschool to something else is nothing short of re-writing something that was a contentious issue 200 years ago in light of what we believe today. To make such a totalistic judgement on him based on this one issue (which again, was contentious at the time) borders on a criminal disservice to the contributions he made to our history, for which he rightly deserves to be honored.

I am advocating acknowledging his weakness while admiring his greatness.

This is offensive in the extreme to me, but I am used to it from you. For one thing, I am not aware of that I have excused slavery, nor am I aware of any "genocide" regarding black people in America (as opposed to a real genocide against the indians).

As I said above, slavery was, and this isn't open to your debate. People at the time had what they thought were good and moral reasons using it, reasons we have since rejected.

While I appreciate the question, what I reject is your moral smugness (stemming I suppose from a sense of superiority) in judging the intent and character of someone who lived in a different time and different culture based on one factor.

I, on the other hand, try to look at the whole of any individual. Did they in general do more "good" than "bad" for our world? What were their motives? What were their tools?

This is why I can look at Jefferson, who owned slaves, and still admire him, while I can look at Hitler, who unified a people and salvaged a nation, and revile him.

How you, as a "professional historian" can focus on one issue and support such revisionism is astounding.

WTF are you talking about?

I would appreciate if you would stop dragging in all your assumptions about American Right-wing conservatives when you address one of my posts.

I've NEVER said I supported "manifest destiny" or what was done to the indians. Indeed, I am fairly repulsed by it. So leave this smokescreen fluff somewhere else when arguing with me.

Again, I have no idea where you dig this shit up from.

I prefer "nationalist mythology"??

Please.

Leave this bs at the curb.

I prefer looking at history and people in the context of the times they lived and in what they believed. I prefer looking at the intentions of the individuals and how they held true to their beliefs. I prefer to then to look at this in the sense of how it has either furthered the human condition or degredated it before I make a final judgment.

I won't even bother with the rest of your post, as I've responded to the charges you repeat ad naseum.

(edited for tone)

Owning slaves is bad. Playing a huge part in forming America is good. The school was not named after someone for owning slaves, it was named after someone for his priceless work in the creation of a liberated country that we all love.

The Romans enslaved my Celtic and Germanic ancestors much the same as the Africans were enslaved by Americans. My ancestors were regarded as property and currency to Romans durring the rule of the Roman Empire. I know that what they did was very wrong, BUT I realize that Rome also was a center for intelectual growth. Their political and philosophical growth alone has been benificial to mankind, whether they had slaves or not. You don't see me boycotting Little Ceasers Pizza.

I don't care that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, just as I don't care that Romans had slaves. It was a more barbaric time, and we have since then learned that slavery is wrong. I don't own slaves, and I'll bet no one who reads this has slaves. So why don't we have slaves? The Constitution's ideals paved the way for the 13th Amendment. Jefferson's support of the Constitution hinged upon the condition that Madison add a Bill of Rights to the document in the form of ten amendments. He paved the way for the 13th Amendment. They should be thanking him.

I like your counter-argument Lebell. However, here's where things get tricky (in my opinion at least). The challenges in interpreting history and divining meaning is mutable and variable, especially relative to the present.

QUOTE:
I, on the other hand, try to look at the whole of any individual. Did they in
general do more "good" than "bad" for our world? What were their motives?
What were their tools?

This is why I can look at Jefferson, who owned slaves, and still admire him,
while I can look at Hitler, who unified a people and salvaged a nation, and
revile him.

It's a bit subjective. Part of the problem is tring to stay objective and unemotional in evaluating history. I really like this:

QUOTE:
I am advocating acknowledging his weakness while admiring his
greatness.

But with the caveat that it is subject to interpretation and open to spirited debate.

Sometimes I feel like there's a deconstructionist angle to history which I'm sure Roachboy can appreciate.

Will, I think we should recognize the "abhorrence of slavery" in balance to the good works of men's deeds. Jefferson (to me) was a great Founding Father but I definitely acknowledge he owned slaves etc. There's more to it in my opinion. It was transitional.

Similarly, although the Founding Father's presumably wrote the Constitution for the benefit of "white, property-owning, male over the age of forty", it is still the most amazing document produced by men. Even though it may not have been intended to include people like me, I still have greatly benefited from as have countless others. I agree, that what Jefferson wrote paved the way for evolvement such as the 13th Amendment. That's exactly what make Jefferson (et al) and the Constitution so great (to me).

I also believe, that the 13 colonies weren't very unified. Jefferson and others had to compromise on many issues such as slavery for a common goal (at the time). The US was very fragile back then and vulnerable to breaking apart. I am not justifying slavery, rather, trying to illustrate the process and difficulties of our history (as I know).

argh! a detailed response to lebell vaporized....

short version:

first, lebell, my apologies for misspelling your fictional name. nice to see you are so gracious about it too.



i am not going to post anything else to this thread.
your response, lebell, really makes me wonder why i bother to post anything here at all.

two points:

1. i am not surprised to see you reacted with anger and shock at how your words from post 17 were understood. no. 17 is a really repellent post, lebell. your response switches ground, introduces other factors that all seem to turn around you having been personally offended by the reaction to what you wrote.

rather than address the obvious problems you raise yourself in no. 17, you decide to attack me personally on the one hand and introduce a whole series of qualifications to your position that were not present in no. 17 and that it is unreasonable to expect i would have known.

in your post, no. 17, the category of "freudian self-loathing"--which you do not explain, in which the term freudian i assume means nothing---functioned to set up every conclusion i drew from it. sorry if you did not like what you read back lebell, but the problem is in your post, not with me.

maybe you could actually look at no. 17 again.
maybe you could think about how the interpretation of your words could come about. maybe you would want to retract the category of self-loathing.
maybe you would want to think it out.

as for your objections to the points pertaining to history as a field of inquiry, there is much i could say. suffice it to say that most of the terms you use are fine in a wholly superficial kinda way. your rankean moment--a function of your obvious humility--was quaint. touching even. the claim that i am smug and you allow the past to be as it really was is just funny-----you cannot know what you are talking about and make that claim. but maybe this impressive display is good: i am glad you have worked out so much about the practice of history, which i assume you do not engage in.

enough of this.

I just re-read post 18.

You're right.

I can't see how anyone would be offended by what you wrote and the assumptions you made. :rolleyes:

---------------------------------------------------------


"so therefore slavery was fine."

"because you prefer nationalist mythology to history and its messiness, but cant really defend the position (how would you?) it follows that you would find a way to posit "your history" (of "white people"------do you really believe this?) as some kind of victim (of what?)"

"is this how you think about genocide in general--everything is ok if enough people go along with it?"

"wait--the question involves self-loathing--genocide is carried out by other people--when the americans do it, it is manifest destiny--which is ordained by god--so therefore the repeated massacres of native americans from the 18th century through wounded knee--all ok."

etc.

People really need to let the Indian issue go. Nations are conquered at the edge of a sword or a barrel of a gun. Our ancestors came, they saw, they conquered, it doesn't make it right, but that's the history of the world, deal with it.

I see a lot of speculating about Jefferson in this thread. Let me, as a historian, recommend "American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson" by Joseph J. Ellis. It's about 350 pages, but extremely accessible for non-historian types without over-simplifying a very complex man and history. If you're looking for blind hero-worship or non-stop scathing scandal, this book isn't for you. However, it is a balanced book that takes look at the most influential periods of his life and attempts to analyze him in a fashion that fits in-between two covers in a very manageable way.

Just some points of interest that I think some of the posters in this thread would like to know about Jefferson:

He was (some would say) hopelessly idealistic. He had a very difficult time reconciling his ideals he created in the abstract world with the troubles of reality. However, he was very good at "fooling himself" into ignoring these things. Yes he was contradictory. Ellis puts forth the argument that he wasn't a hypocrite so much as a man who had the "intellectual agility" to believe one thing at the same time as he lives in a world where he does another.

This is a big factor with the issue of slavery. Basically his stances were abhorrence of an unfortunate system that America was forced to inherit. He always claimed that slavery was inconsistent with republican ideals, but he was at a complete loss with what to do with a huge population of newly emancipated blacks which would have been in a real bind considering the prevalent attitudes concerning their inferiority.

As for the poster who questioned whether Jefferson "needed" his slaves... Well the answer is "yes", while he did have a large estate with a large slave population, he was consistently in debt for various reasons and felt forced to keep them for purely pragmatic reasons.

At any rate, I encourage people to take the time to learn about Jefferson, or any historical figure, before feeling at liberty to trash or praise him for such and such reasons. And digging through editorials for convenient quotes does not equate to any kind of useful historical analysis because, as I'm sure all of you know, quotes are extremely easy to take out of context. One could probably dig up enough quotes from any widely documented personage and paint them to be saints or devils.

On one last note, as everyone is very quick to judge history from the smug vantage point of the present, I urge you all to take a step back from your emotions and try to grapple with history on its own terms. Nobody here thinks slavery is a good idea now, but realize that this is a peculiar phenomenon which is basically unique to the last couple centuries of human history. Just because people in the past believed in things we now deem abhorrent doesn't mean we should take the knowledge we know now and romp through history condemning everyone that wasn't forward-thinking enough to think as we do now. Should we judge them by what they knew and how they acted on that, or what they didn't know? Nobody looks at pre-Copernican or Aristotelian astronomers and say, "Fucking dumbass and his geocentrism!" Yet when it comes to matters of morality, this is exactly what people do. Just something to think about.

As for staying on topic, I really don't care if a community wants to change the name of the school. I personally think it's a little silly to always be angry about things in the past, but if a sizable group is offended and are taking appropriate means to change this aspect, how does it affect the rest of us? It's none of our concern... Unless you have a fanatical obsession with Jefferson and your life's work is to make as many things named after him as possible.

At any rate, getting enraged over PCness and accusing the country of becoming "pinker" is just as reactionary as anything... not sure if you're trying to insinuate that PCness is the road to communism or if it's some other reference that went over my head.

As usual I have become more longwinded than I anticipated. Hopefully I said something useful and not a lot of nothing. Read the book!

Mojo,

I really think it's a delicate balancing act.

In otherwords, letting go while still remembering.

Back to the point of the post: Slavery.

Those alive today are roughly two to four generations removed from slavery, yet the way some get worked up over it (especially with reparations), you would think that massa sold their baby last week.

We should remember so that we don't repeat the mistakes, but we should not embrace the hurt of long past generations as our own.

That is what is happening in the middle east and the major reason IMO why they cannot seem to find lasting peace.

cheap sophomoric move there, lebell.
i would have expected better.
this is clearly going nowhere, is no longer interesting and really is pushing at the many many reasons i have been becoming alienated from this forum.

all this and you refuse to admit that the source of all of this is your repellent, unthought-out post from earlier, the one that equates critique of the Heroic Founders with self-loathing.

in case you really do have trouble distinguishing 17 from 18, i'll quote it here for you:




i am done with you.

Well said Roachboy.

This idea of 'letting the past go' and 'getting over it' that some members continue to spout is dangerous. Issues of race and descrimination still plague us today, and we cannot move foward and progress with these issues until we address the past. History isnt a simple narrative, its a field of contesting ideas and theories.
Also, I didnt know people still used the term 'Pink'. I thought it died out in 1964 with MacArthur.

Well said meepa. However, I have a strange feeling it will be lost in the noise. A shame, really, as that is one of the more insightful posts I have read here.

Roach, don't think you don't have people here who admire you (and don't think that I am above using a double negative). Despite the fact that we are taking a seperate stand on this particular topic, I respect you very much and give great weight to everything you have to say. Do not feel alienated just because a few people are more likely to dismiss you than listen, as that is their mistake.

Lebell, I understand roachboy being angry with you if you choose to treat him like this. I can't tell you how many people call me Willtravel instead of Willravel. It's an honest mistake. It is obvious that roachboy did not intend disrespect when he misspelled your screen name. Sorry if it seems like I'm lecturing you, but I am only moderatly political and have no problem questioning those who are my authority. Please don't take this to be anything but my clairifying a small part of why roachboy was angry with you.

NCB, maybe if you could explain how "pinker" connotes weakness or spinelessness we could begin to have a discussion here. As it stands we're left to believe you're either profoundly ignorant of what political correctness actually is or you're only interested in exchanging hostilities. The latter is not allowed in this forum. Also articles without a cited source tend to be nonstarters.

Because, if I read into NCB's slightly covert reference correctly, "pinker" is pinko, communist, leftist and whatever other archaic term those to the right of reactionary want to use to describe those who are free thinkers, and to the left of them politically. It's really no way to start a thread, in any case. IMHO this thread began quite close trolling and has degraded since. Lebell, I am surprised at your juvenile attack on a roachboy, because he slightly misspelled your name. While I may occasionally disagree with your politics, I wouldn't expect something akin to narcissistic rage.
At any rate, I don't think that examining the past is a bad thing, and since we are a democratic country,if enough people believe strongly enough in something, then their beliefs should at least be considered. Yes Jefferson kept slaves, and yes it was typical for someone in his class and era to do so, but according to several sources, he was also screwing several of them, which may or may not be a furthur consideration for those advocating a name change. For the record, I am not a big fan of name changes all over the place, for instance, I think Malcolm X school may be taking the whole thing a bit too far, but i guess it is fairly impossible to please everyone all the time (although I would think that perhaps rewarding past exemplary teachers at the school might be nice).

I think Jefferson deserves to have school named in his honor.

Like any historical figure, tragic human flaws will be discovered in his character. Communities hold different standards to personal behavior and legacy, and while I disagree with Berkeley's decision, I think local governments in the US ought to exercise their discretion this way. Let a "pink" community think "pink", and don't move there -- or better yet, move there and raise your voice.

I'm curious why you would draw the line at Malcolm X.

I would have been very proud to go to a Malcom X named high school.

What about Thomas Jefferson?

I also would have been very proud to attend a Thomas Jefferson named school. I see him as a great American, and a great human being. Human being are flawed, but you have to keep in mind that we may not be living in the same America as we are today had it not been for him.

Well there you have it, thanks!

I don't have a personal issue with it, but as he was a more radical influence I could see there being even more issues with Malcolm X than TJ. Truthfully though it really does beg the question what makes a person appropriate for school naming, should they be a pacifist, a gadfly, a dreamer, an inventor, what? I do appreciate you calling me to task on it though, as I don't have some great reason for singling him out, it just struck me as a more polarizing influence for some reason.

It's interesting to consider Thomas Jefferson and Malcom X.

As some have stated in this thread, Jefferson should be considered less of an ideal than he is based on his stated, but not personally implemented opposition to slavery. In essence, the concept that Jefferson was weak willed.

In contrast, Malcolm X progressed from near-militancy, major polarization in race relations to full on openness. The man, a major figure, humbled himself by truly learning a lesson and fully following through with his new understanding. As a result, he faced major consequences that he did not shy away from. Such a rare feat in humanity.

There are not enough schools named for Malcolm X.

I actually thought "pink" was a reference to effeminate.

So pinkier would be ==gayer or something

maybe it's leftist, but I thought that was red

red == commie
pink == effeminate

or the two are equated somehow as in commie == effeminate

Well the left does largely support gay rights... effeminate commies?

I also see no problem with changing the name of the school, if that's what the teachers, parents, and students want.

But this does raise some interesting political questions. For example: what sort of names are we as a society obligated to change as we change our perceptions of historical figures and events? Do we include place names as well? There are a lot of cities and counties named "Jefferson" in the U.S. Why is it that this issue divides liberals and conservatives? Liberals tend to have no problem with recognizing and acknowledging slave ownership, while conservatives seem to perceive this as anti-American.

And do we restrict ourselves to American/European figures? Take for example Seattle. Chief Seattle, as a leader and warrior, (1) was a slave owner; (2) almost certainly did not believe there was anything wrong with having slaves; (3) actually led slave-capturing raids; (4) was polygamous; (5) killed a lot of innocent people, including massacring an entire village for the sole reason to maintain his status and honor; and (6) did all this pretty much as a contemporary of Jefferson, or even more recently. What if the relatives of Seattle's victims put together a petition to change the name of Seattle, because they felt degraded by living in a city that honored this murderer? Not very many of these people have survived, so this petition might not have very many names on it. But it might have the names of virtually 100% of the surviving relatives. Should the name then be changed?

You could argue that all these relatives' ancestors also had slaves and were just as murderous as Seattle. But then you could also argue that the African ancestors of those black teachers who want to do away with "Jefferson" were also barbaric slave owners. History is full of ironies, it seems pointless to hold people accountable who were not alive at the time.

So if all it takes to obligate us to change a name is that descendents of victims want it changed, then I would argue that we should be doing a lot of name changing in this country.

Personally, I think its retarted to change the name. Why stop there. What about the thousands of other schools named "Jefferson"? What about the hundreds of counties and towns across the country? Should they change their name as well.

This didn't come about because someone was offended by the name Jefferson. It came about because someone was scarred someone would be offended. Thats the whole problem with PC.

You guys live in a democracy, a democracy that the founding Fathers created.

Democracy allows people to make decisions based on majority concensus. Jefferson himself would have supported the notion of allowing people to vote democratically on what to name thier local school, wouldn't he?

Or should we somehow restrict democracy sometimes?

I have already addressed this.

There is a difference between learning lessons from history (presumably in order not to repeat them) and holding on to the hurt of the past.

Some examples of the latter include:

Southerners and the civil war: Cries of "The South will Rise Again!" still ring out, almost 150 years after they lost and in some parts of the south you will still get the **it kicked out of you for being a yankee.

Slavery: Closely related to the above, people who are 4 generations or more removed from slavery are still incensed about it and hold it against those who are also 4 or more generations removed from it (whether their ancestors held slaves or not).

Columbus and the American Indians: This is one of my personal favorites as the American Indian Movement regularly clashes with the Sons of Italy in Denver during the latter's attempt to hold their annual Columbus Day parade. Over 500 years since the man crossed the Atlantic and they want to put all the sins of medieval Europe on him.

And finally the oldest (that I know of) and perhaps the most deadly: The Crusades and the Middle east: They are still pissed off about what happened approximately 800 years ago. It is important to acknowledge that the region has undergone huge political turmoil (especially in the last 200 years or so), but this is the start and OBL still cites in order to get followers. This tradition of holding onto a grudge has kept the blood flowing in the region even when it is in the best interest of all parties to stop the killing.

(There is of course much I have left out which I acknowledge here.)

Lebell... I agree with you on this.

We have lessons to learn from the past BUT dwelling on the past means you cannot move on.

Moving on and building something new is essential.

I agree that lebell is whitewashing history.

I'll choose just one of his examples, a personal favorite no less:

Columbus came to America by accident and ended up enslaving and killing untold numbers of human beings. Italians celebrate Columbus for "discovering" America. Neo-nazi's celebrate Hitler for discovering racial superiority. Now, you could justify the celebration of Columbus by stating that back in the 1400's, it was normal and acceptable to enslave and murder human beings if they didn't look and act like you. But if we start using that method of justification, ANYTHING in history can be justified, excused and finally dismissed as irrelevent.

It is for the express reason that there continue to be people who believe it is acceptable to whitewash history by claiming that their personal judgement of normality in the scope of history is the best means of judging history, as you have done (Columbus = worthy of celebration, Hitler = unworthy of celebration, so speaketh lebell), that there will and should continue to be people who bring up the reality of history.

For years and years, schools did not teach the reality that Columbus was an asshole. Progressively, that information has been brought into schooling. Now, by claiming the American Indian Movement needs to "let go of the hurt from the past", you are suggesting that this information about Columbus should no longer be provided while the information worthy of celebration should.

it seems to me that one should be able to accomodate both those elements of the past that are problematic and those that are less so--in the instance of jefferson, i see no problem with including a number of angles in constructing a view of the guy--after all, given that this is allegedly a democracy (in form only, but tant pis) it seems not a problem to understand jefferson and all the others involved with enframing the system as human beings not Great Prophets who Bring Important Stuff Down From the Mount--the founders were human beings operating in a complex, constridictory situation like any of us does--they set up a system that in very basic ways assumed cuh was the case fro not only themselves but for every generation--if there is a problem with accomodating ugly facts with the Heroic Myth, the problem lay with the nature, function and content of the myth, not with the complexity of the past.

such myths are worthless in a democracy. they amount to an attempt to deny effective history, that it continues--instead there is an Originary Moment that reframes history--the people who operated in that situation grappled with the complexity of being in history so that you, subsequently--dont have to. nothing could be further from the notion of democracy than that--nothing could be more directly contradictory with the notion of democracy than that.

does this mean that there is nothing anywhere to be admired? of course not: but it does mean that admiration canot be confused with worship.

as for the massive, inescapable problems that lurk for a hero-worshipping notion of american history--like the genocide of the native americans, like teh slave trade, like the brutalities visited upon massees of people by the variant of capitalism the americans have developed--i say too bad for the heroes--better than people look, and carefully, and critically, at these problems in order to figure out such basic things as how were they possible, how was consent for them engineered in order to maybe be in a better position to prevent such atrocities from being repeated--with parallel types of consent.

of the two basic possibilities presented here: the preference for Heros and a more distanced, critical view i would think the second more useful, more open to taking in complexity and not simply to talking about complexity. the same could be said about those aspects of being in the states that one might enjoy, might endorse.

what makes this general question operational to me is that you have a whitewshed, myopic version of history being floated from aspects of the american right--its function in this context is clear--effective history began and ende with the founders--now you live in a hierarchical society about which you can do and say nothing. for the most part, what folk on the gingrich and lynne cheney lines are advocating is a flight from history, a flight from self-criticism--and with that a flight from anything apporaching informed, meaingful participation in a democratic process--toward a more authoritarian form of rule within which everyone talks about democracy by divine mandate, engages in debates reduced to matters of opinion--behind which the holders of economic and political power can do as they like.

this is why the question of conservative ideology in general comes into to discussions about the nature and role of history, even as it plays out across the question of the name of this berkeley school.

one other point: the attempt to reduce the understanding of fascism to the workings of a single evil individual is of a piece with the attempt undertaken largely by the americans since world war 2 to dissociate nationalism from fascism. it reduces the questions about the nature, causes and functions of fascism to a singel case--germany--the problems to those caused by a single individual--hitler--and with that evacuates the entire question--which was in fact central to fascism in all its variants--of the use of nationalism as a fundamental mobilizing signifier and the manipulation of this signifier through mass media (in germany, the primary--though not exclusive--medium was radio)

Manx,

I would be very interested in reading a new thread in which you outline what you believe to be the sins of Columbus :)

If you want a discussion, you go ahead and read what I posted and then start a new thread with your response.

I've said my part.

The lock, the warning, the accusation that I flamed Christopher Columbus - I consider those to be absurd. But rest assured - I'll be sure to toe your personal line from now on lebell.