I'd wager that depends which flavor of American you ask.Should we rename all governmental buildings, schools, bridges, etc. that feature names of politicians and soldiers instrumental in westward expansion at the expense of Native Americans?
Hey, we didn't start the fire! It's been on and on since the world was young.So it talked about Sally Ride...
Did it make mention of heavy metal? Suicide? Foreign debts? Homeless vets? AIDS? Crack? Bernie Goetz? Hypodermics on the shore? China under martial law? Rock & roller cola wars?
Man, I can't take it anymore.
Thank you!Hey, we didn't start the fire! It's been on and on since the world was young.
"What is "Obscure references to 80's pop songs", Alex?"
What a false dilemma. Teaching the history of the Confederacy is important. But it needs to be taught correctly, i.e. that the right of the South to keep slaves was the central cause of secession (as evidenced in numerous declarations of secession). But more to the point, there is no requirement to name American Army bases after general officers who attacked that same Army in order to teach the history of the Confederacy.
Should we rename all governmental buildings, schools, bridges, etc. that feature names of politicians and soldiers instrumental in westward expansion at the expense of Native Americans?
So it talked about Sally Ride...
Did it make mention of heavy metal? Suicide? Foreign debts? Homeless vets? AIDS? Crack? Bernie Goetz? Hypodermics on the shore? China under martial law? Rock & roller cola wars?
Man, I can't take it anymore.
Should we rename all governmental buildings, schools, bridges, etc. that feature names of politicians and soldiers instrumental in westward expansion at the expense of Native Americans?
This argument is even worse. Is there a Bundeswehr base named Herman Goerring Kassern? Did they name a ship the Adolf Hitler? By your logic, they should really not have renamed the Reichstag. We wouldn't want to "whitewash" things, now would we?Changing the names of Army posts named after Confederate generals is like covering our past to pretend we were politically correct. I am pretty sure those posts weren't named after Confederate generals to teach the history. My guess is it's reflection of that time period where folks didn't think too much about naming an Army post after a general with good military accomplishments. I guess Germans don't need to keep Nazi concentration camps to teach the history to Nazi Germany.
You've hit on the real heart of the issue, where folks who cling to such bad ideas for the sake of "tradition" always fall flat. Why not? Well....because! Tradition for the sake of...keeping things the same.Sure. Well, not ALL, but why not?
I kind of thought that the economic crisis was an important factor. Also, not just slavery, but the power the federal government had over the states rights (in this case, the states were wrong. But it was an important part of the political culture).What a false dilemma. Teaching the history of the Confederacy is important. But it needs to be taught correctly, i.e. that the right of the South to keep slaves was the central cause of secession (as evidenced in numerous declarations of secession). But more to the point, there is no requirement to name American Army bases after general officers who attacked that same Army in order to teach the history of the Confederacy.
I kind of thought that the economic crisis was an important factor. Also, not just slavery, but the power the federal government had over the states rights (in this case, the states were wrong. But it was an important part of the political culture).
Eli Whitney and the cotton gin also increased the "need" for cheap labor in order for the plantations to survive. Before that, some say that slavery had almost died out on its own.
Changing the names of Army posts named after Confederate generals is like covering our past to pretend we were politically correct. I am pretty sure those posts weren't named after Confederate generals to teach the history. My guess is it's reflection of that time period where folks didn't think too much about naming an Army post after a general with good military accomplishments. I guess Germans don't need to keep Nazi concentration camps to teach the history to Nazi Germany.
From the SC declaration of seccession...I kind of thought that the economic crisis was an important factor. Also, not just slavery, but the power the federal government had over the states rights (in this case, the states were wrong. But it was an important part of the political culture).
Eli Whitney and the cotton gin also increased the "need" for cheap labor in order for the plantations to survive. Before that, some say that slavery had almost died out on its own.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that there should be a wholesale changing of names of military installations, schools, etc. (Maybe Scout is suggesting otherwise.) I'm neither an historian nor a museum curator, so I can't suggest how to teach history. I do think that erasing the names would only hasten the loss of historical memory.
To that end, a 100 years from now Americans should know that the Civil War was an open bloody rebellion over the institution of slavery. Also, those Confederate Generals and civilian leaders, for whom we've named everything from West Point barracks to Bubba Watson's car, led that rebellion. In that sense, LG, I believe we should keep the names so these facts are never forgotten.
Giving the names in the first place is only consistent with the sentiments and the directives of the Commander-in-Chief of the winning side. Lincoln's determination to end the rebellion, by any means possible, was only matched by his determination to bind the wounds. This is a good time to check out Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address. We all remember the quote at the end, "With malice towards none, with charity for all...", but the first 80% of it was a cataloguing of why the rebellion needed to be crushed.
So let's remember it all.
Excellent points...to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who has borne the battle, and for his widow, and for his orphan, etc.I don't think anyone is suggesting that there should be a wholesale changing of names of military installations, schools, etc. (Maybe Scout is suggesting otherwise.) I'm neither an historian nor a museum curator, so I can't suggest how to teach history. I do think that erasing the names would only hasten the loss of historical memory.
To that end, a 100 years from now Americans should know that the Civil War was an open bloody rebellion over the institution of slavery. Also, those Confederate Generals and civilian leaders, for whom we've named everything from West Point barracks to Bubba Watson's car, led that rebellion. In that sense, LG, I believe we should keep the names so these facts are never forgotten.
Giving the names in the first place is only consistent with the sentiments and the directives of the Commander-in-Chief of the winning side. Lincoln's determination to end the rebellion, by any means possible, was only matched by his determination to bind the wounds. This is a good time to check out Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address. We all remember the quote at the end, "With malice towards none, with charity for all...", but the first 80% of it was a cataloguing of why the rebellion needed to be crushed.
So let's remember it all.
...And slavery existed in MANY other countries other than "in the colonies and in the US." It was WRONG, but it wasn't just a US problem.Let's not forget that slavery existed long before the mid 1800s in the colonies and in the US.
And?Let's not forget that slavery existed long before the mid 1800s in the colonies and in the US.