No limit on stupid
I briefly acquired the nickname Clark Chang the summer I spent at UNC. Somebody said I looked more like a Chang than a Lee in response to some odd comment. In some time proximity, another student called me "Clark" because he had confused me with my future DU classmate Clark Sugg. So someone put the names together. I had forgotten that until the Ching Lee story. There were at least three future members of my class in the program that summer, but none of us knew that we would wind up in college together at the time.
Μεγάλη ἡμέρα εἶναι Λύγξ
I was a high school kid enjoying my first real time on my own away from home. It was pretty neat. Chapel Hill was a much more interesting place then. I learned about Fibonacci numbers for the first time and learned about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, basic skills for this fan board.JCDC wrote:Does anyone else see the irony in "summer I spent at UNC" with the title of the thread?
Μεγάλη ἡμέρα εἶναι Λύγξ
-
Steve Rodgers
- Posts: 5293
- Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:00 pm
- Location: Columbus, Ohio
-
MakeIt-TakeIt Cat
- Posts: 2562
- Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:31 pm
Expand their hopes to the names of Union generals. De Blasio has been confronted with demands to close the tomb of Ulysses S. Grant due to his infamous General Order 11. I doubt there are any announcers named "Ulysses", but you never know.
More evidence ...
More evidence ...
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo
Lots of people are bad. Let's stop naming stuff for any of them. Remove all references to people. No Stonewall. No MLK. No Washington. No Davidson. Hell, I might get rid of my own name. That David dude in the Bible was a murderer.
"Here’s what is the elephant in the room. Travis had a bag before. Now everyone has a bag. The Travis Ford recruiting prowess was greatly exaggerated."---SLU fan explaining how NIL took away Ford's recruiting edge
It seems to be there's a pretty important difference between celebrating a historical figure despite their flaws and mistakes and celebrating one because of their flaws and mistakes. Washington is primarily known for things other than slaveholding. Davis's, Lee's, and Jackson's relevance to history is based on their voluntary choices to be leaders in a rebellion fought to preserve slavery.
+++1Acorn wrote:It seems to be there's a pretty important difference between celebrating a historical figure despite their flaws and mistakes and celebrating one because of their flaws and mistakes. Washington is primarily known for things other than slaveholding. Davis's, Lee's, and Jackson's relevance to history is based on their voluntary choices to be leaders in a rebellion fought to preserve slavery.
-
MakeIt-TakeIt Cat
- Posts: 2562
- Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:31 pm
Give Mayor De Blasio a call. He and his council members seem to be having trouble seeing the differences. Grant, Columbus, and FDR have been suggested for possible targets as they scour New York for hate symbols. They won't have to look too far. New York was named for the House of York and the Duke of York at the time ... he was one of the biggest slave traders in colonial America through his Royal African Company. Tens of thousands of slaves were branded 'DY' for Duke of York. Oh my! What to do?Acorn wrote:It seems to be there's a pretty important difference between celebrating a historical figure despite their flaws and mistakes and celebrating one because of their flaws and mistakes. Washington is primarily known for things other than slaveholding. Davis's, Lee's, and Jackson's relevance to history is based on their voluntary choices to be leaders in a rebellion fought to preserve slavery.
A can of worms!
More evidence ...
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo
Definitely a can of worms in cases where the thing the figure is known for is arguably wrong (I guess Columbus for some) or there's a debate about what the figure is known for (blanking on an example). Might I propose the flashcard test: what's the one-line description of a figure? If it's for something widely seen as morally repugnant (e.g., Hitler), then I'm not going to protest the removal of monuments to them.MakeIt-TakeIt Cat wrote:Give Mayor De Blasio a call. He and his council members seem to be having trouble seeing the differences. Grant, Columbus, and FDR have been suggested for possible targets as they scour New York for hate symbols. They won't have to look too far. New York was named for the House of York and the Duke of York at the time ... he was one of the biggest slave traders in colonial America through his Royal African Company. Tens of thousands of slaves were branded 'DY' for Duke of York. Oh my! What to do?Acorn wrote:It seems to be there's a pretty important difference between celebrating a historical figure despite their flaws and mistakes and celebrating one because of their flaws and mistakes. Washington is primarily known for things other than slaveholding. Davis's, Lee's, and Jackson's relevance to history is based on their voluntary choices to be leaders in a rebellion fought to preserve slavery.
A can of worms!
More evidence ...
MONUMENTS
I'm not sure I would describe Lee's decision as one based primarily on considerations of slavery but rather a certain, if unfortunate, loyalty to his native state. It seems to me that the historical argument revolves around why the particular monuments were erected in the first place (rebellion against Reconstruction? An attempt to perpetuate Jim Crow laws?) Being neither a historian nor having more than a passing historical affiliation with the Confederacy, I am not in a position to pass definitive judgement on the respective motivations for establishment or destruction of any particular monument.