Now kids will never know who Lincoln or Washington was! It’s like Soviet Russia erasing pictures of Trotsky from pictures!
Who was the founder of our country? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Who freed the slaves? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Who is on the dollar bill and the penny? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Who is buried in Grant’s tomb? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
“1. That wicked and irredeemable racist, George Washington.”
“2. That wicked and irredeemable racist, Abraham Lincoln.”
“3. Well, you don’t expect those to last, do you?”
Although to be fair, we should probably just abolish the penny. And the dollar bill.
“4. That wicked and irredeemable racist, Ulysses S. Grant.”
The Biden Administration is reportedly moving forward with plans to replace Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman. Why should we do that? It’s not like kids won’t know who Harriet Tubman is just because we don’t put her on the $20 bill!
I think the only non white person on a US coin or bill is Sacagawea on the dollar coins that almost nobody uses. Vending machine owners wanted a dollar coin but then they invented the way to take bills .
George Washington must be very upset about this?
Another strawman argument. Harriet Tubman must be very upset that we still haven’t put her on the $20 bill yet!
Harriet who? If she’s not a statue in my town center or the name of my school, she has been erased from history. Or so I’ve been told.
Again, this is a very silly strawman argument. By replacing Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill, we are making a moral argument about the relative worth of those two human beings, and about whether or not each of them did more harm than good or about whether their virtues outweighed their flaws.
For Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee (or some generic “Confederate soldier”) the judgement that they did more harm than good, and that their flaws outweighed any virtues they might have possessed, is pretty much a slam dunk. For Andrew Jackson, it’s a bit more complicated–“Jacksonian democracy” (equal political rights for all adult white men) was arguably progress over earlier ideas of “equal political rights for all rich adult white men”, but the glaring flaws of “Jacksonian democracy” are now apparent to us, as are the flaws of Andrew Jackson himself. I therefore don’t have a problem with replacing Jackson with Tubman on the $20 bill (even though she’s dead and can’t possibly appreciate the gesture–obviously we aren’t doing it for her.)
I strongly disagree with the notion that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ulysses S. Grant* all somehow did more harm than good as historical figures.
*I didn’t actually see Grant mentioned in that article, but I know some people do want to re-name things named after him, so we’ll just roll with it.
I’m OK as long as they don’t rename Grant’s tomb since then the joke will not be valid.
It seems to me you’re taking my jest too seriously. The argument we hear from Confederate statue supporters is that we’re somehow we’re erasing history. This is obviously false.
Personally, I don’t care what San Francisco schools are named. My elementary school was named P.S. xxx, as are almost all elementary schools in NYC. My junior high school was named J.H.S. xxx, ditto. My high school was named after the road it was on, and that road was not named after a person.
If San Francisco wants to name their school after local heroes or more recent historical figures, or minority historical figures or whatever, that’s certainly their prerogative. The Harriet Tubman question seems really off-topic; that said, Andrew Jackson is certainly much more controversial of a president than Washington or Lincoln.
And if someplace down South decides to re-name Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive after one of their “local heroes”–like, say, Nathan Bedford Forrest–why, gosh, that’s their prerogative, then? Who are we to judge?
As someone who defended the previous discussions as just the work of an overzealous committee and believed that the cooler heads of the elected school board would prevail, I guess this is when I say “I was wrong”.
I think some of the 44 names are likely problematic, but the board should have rejected the overly broad criteria the committee came up with and attempted to find a more rational approach. Or just punted on the grounds of “COVID; we have more important things to spend our money on than new school signs”.
What’s more important than demonstrations of wokeness?
Looking down on people who demonstrate wokeness?
I’m happy to judge people who want to name a road after literal traitors.
Please, all the knowingly inaccurate folks who loudly proclaimed SLIPPERY SLOPE SLIPPERY SLOPE when this sort of kookery was predicted as a consequence of capitulation to vandals and other criminals ought to feel some shame in being consistently wrong. Instead, it’s no big deal.
It really is no big deal. If Washington Elementary in some section of SF wants to call themselves Schooly McSchoolface, it’s just not that big of a deal. Seriously, why do you care?
Sure, if a new school wants a name like that, or even better octopus High, I don’t care. I do care that folks like Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, etc. are being cancelled by the nutty woke. It’s downright nonsensical how people are dealing with language, statues, street names etc. It’s not based on reason. It’s based on placating the crazies and that does nothing but motivates the crazies to push for more and more craziness.
If you don’t care about a new school getting a name like one of those, then what’s the difference when it’s an old school getting a rename like one of those?
I told you. It’s the reasoning behind it. It’s placating nuts and mobs. Which only leads to more nuts and mobs making more demands. It’s a positive feedback cycle in the negative direction.
@MEBuckner, this right here is what I was spoofing.