Post: #1

Quote:Calhoun College will be renamed in honor of Grace Murray Hopper GRD ’34, a United States Navy Rear Admiral who made pivotal advances in computer science, University President Peter Salovey announced Saturday.

[...]

Salovey announced the decision in an email to the campus community a day after the Yale Corporation voted to approve the recommendation of a task force charged with applying broad renaming principles to the Calhoun debate.

“The decision to change a college’s name is not one we take lightly,” Salovey wrote. “But John C. Calhoun’s legacy as a white supremacist and a national leader who passionately supported slavery as a ‘positive good’ fundamentally conflicts with Yale’s mission and values.”

More revisionist history. Another domino falls.

Many buildings of elite universities are named after white males.

The namesake of Yale itself, Elihu Yale, was a slavetrader.

What's next?

Post: #2

Well the dude did support slavery, I'm surprised it lasted this long. Why would you expect them to keep it?

Post: #3

Good news

Post: #4

Because you can't judge people from 150+ years ago solely on the morals of today.

Anyone who gets a bug up their ass about historical slavery in America simply displays their own lack of historical knowledge. Slavery was a normal practice throughout the overwhelming bulk of human history, throughout the whole world; it was not a uniquely American evil despite what many people in America think.

Also, there are no native-born Americans who were legally held as slaves still living today, and there haven't been for a long time. Let it go, for fuck's sake.

Post: #5

^^ I agree with weambulance, and my question? Why now? Why was this not a problem until now? This is just another SJW stunt, and just shows Yale is infested, and should be avoided at all costs.

Post: #6

(02-11-2017 02:46 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Because you can't judge people from 150+ years ago solely on the morals of today.

Anyone who gets a bug up their ass about historical slavery in America simply displays their own lack of historical knowledge. Slavery was a normal practice throughout the overwhelming bulk of human history, throughout the whole world; it was not a uniquely American evil despite what many people in America think.

Also, there are no native-born Americans who were legally held as slaves still living today, and there haven't been for a long time. Let it go, for fuck's sake.

Yeah, there is a lot of truth to that, but ... this particular guy wasn't just going along with the standards of the time. He was a very prominent "fire-eater" ... known as a thought leader in the years prior to the US Civil War pushing for southern secession. I mean, you could see him as primarily a patriot of sorts, but ... it's been a while since I read a lot of history from that era, but I recognized the name and my reaction was to be surprised it took this long. With all of the politically correct insanity these days, it's not the battle I would pick, personally. That would have been a tough person to defend 30 years ago, much less today, imo.

If it was a question of something like removing a statue, or not teaching about him in history classes, that would be a different story. I'm not one for revisionism ... but having an institution named after someone is a different level of endorsement, unless he was instrumental in building the place or something.

Post: #7

(02-11-2017 02:46 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Because you can't judge people from 150+ years ago solely on the morals of today.

Anyone who gets a bug up their ass about historical slavery in America simply displays their own lack of historical knowledge. Slavery was a normal practice throughout the overwhelming bulk of human history, throughout the whole world; it was not a uniquely American evil despite what many people in America think.

Also, there are no native-born Americans who were legally held as slaves still living today, and there haven't been for a long time. Let it go, for fuck's sake.

How ironic that white Christian Europeans, the only group of people that were able to end legal slavery worldwide, now are stuck with the vast majority of the opprobrium for a practice that was commonplace in every culture for millenia.

Post: #8

(02-11-2017 02:27 PM)Repo Wrote:  Well the dude did support slavery, I'm surprised it lasted this long. Why would you expect them to keep it?

Imagine that 150 years from now radical veganism has become a social norm. Almost everyone in society at that point is a vegan. Veganism has become so pervasive that people are utterly unable to even imagine that people once ate animals. The very idea of consuming animal products fills them with disgust. When they look back through history and find it filled to the brim with people who ate meat, they recoil in horror. They have no qualms about applying their ethical standards onto their ancestors, and thus regard everyone who ate meat in the past as something between a savage and a barbarian.

Do you think it's right that people who live 150 years from now would consider you a savage and feel entitled to erase you from history because you weren't a vegan? Do you think it's right in general to judge our ancestors through the lens of present social norms, rather than trying to understand their actions as being the necessary product of the times in which they lived?

Post: #9

delete

Post: #10

@weambulance

I hear you, but that is not the argument being made.

If a person in histories values do not exemplify the current values that the University wishes to promote, they are free to make change the name to someone who does. You are making a complete strawman here.

Post: #11

(02-11-2017 02:27 PM)Repo Wrote:  Well the dude did support slavery, I'm surprised it lasted this long. Why would you expect them to keep it?

(02-11-2017 03:26 PM)Repo Wrote:  @weambulance

I hear you, but that is not the argument being made.

If a person in histories values do not exemplify the current values that the University wishes to promote, they are free to make change the name to someone who does. You are making a complete strawman here.

Did you forget making that first post? I was responding directly to what you said.

Post: #12

(02-11-2017 03:26 PM)Repo Wrote:  @weambulance

I hear you, but that is not the argument being made.

If a person in histories values do not exemplify the current values that the University wishes to promote, they are free to make change the name to someone who does. You are making a complete strawman here.

These people have no values. They are just using it as an excuse to wipe a white man's name off a building.

If we are so anti-slavery, why don't we tear down the pyramids, the Great Wall of China, and the Roman Coliseum. All products of slave labor. If we are judging history, then we shouldn't allow these monuments to slavery to exist.

Why not just name a new construction after her? These colleges build new buildings all the time, even a school like Yale. They couldn't give this woman her own building? I would say she has earned her name to be on its own building. Instead she is relegated to ``sharing'' it with a man. Wonder how the feminist view that?

Post: #13

Yale administration is turning the name into an ideological issue.

Students can choose which name to use, the white male's or the woman's.

Alumni can choose which name to use too.

Intensifying the ideological divide, forcing people to reveal themselves and choose sides.

Post: #14

^^ It's because only white Christians cower to their Marxist shouts of 'racist'. Every other culture or group doesn't give a shit. Showing weakness only invites more attacks. Hell, many white Christian churches are basically giving away the country. Why not pick on them some more? They know they won't fight back.

Removing the culture is just a prelude to confiscating private property. 'If you've got a business, you didn't build that!'. 'Women are paid less!' etc.... Your paycheck is obviously the result of 150 years of oppression, so we're justified in taking 80% of that as well.

Post: #15

@weambulance

No, I said I'm not surprised it wasn't removed because he supported slavery. Then to my understanding, you basically said other people did slavery too and it wasn't uniquely an American thing, which I aree with.

But the university isn't honoring thse other non-Americans who supported slavery, so that makes this a non-issue and a strawman, since you are arguing against something the University isn't doing in the first place.

Post: #16

(02-11-2017 03:10 PM)Edmund Ironside Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 02:46 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Because you can't judge people from 150+ years ago solely on the morals of today.

Anyone who gets a bug up their ass about historical slavery in America simply displays their own lack of historical knowledge. Slavery was a normal practice throughout the overwhelming bulk of human history, throughout the whole world; it was not a uniquely American evil despite what many people in America think.

Also, there are no native-born Americans who were legally held as slaves still living today, and there haven't been for a long time. Let it go, for fuck's sake.

Yeah, there is a lot of truth to that, but ... this particular guy wasn't just going along with the standards of the time. He was a very prominent "fire-eater" ... known as a thought leader in the years prior to the US Civil War pushing for southern secession. I mean, you could see him as primarily a patriot of sorts, but ... it's been a while since I read a lot of history from that era, but I recognized the name and my reaction was to be surprised it took this long. With all of the politically correct insanity these days, it's not the battle I would pick, personally. That would have been a tough person to defend 30 years ago, much less today, imo.

If it was a question of something like removing a statue, or not teaching about him in history classes, that would be a different story. I'm not one for revisionism ... but having an institution named after someone is a different level of endorsement, unless he was instrumental in building the place or something.

Calhoun is considered one of the greatest Senators in U.S. history. He was a huge advocate of state's rights (you could see why the liberals at Yale would hate him). He was one of the founders' of the idea of a concurrent majority.

It is extremely difficult to explain the political mindset of pre-Civil War America. The Union wasnt very strong. Loyalty was to a state, not the country. Many believed that the only role of a nation was a combined defense against a foreign enemy. The idea of a state submitting to the will of another was offensive. People in Florida did not accept the idea that someone from New York had the right to tell them how to live, because, in many ways, the North and South were almost two completely different countries.

For most Southern's, the war was about state's rights, not slavery. The average soldier did not own slaves. Most only joined to protect their home, and when Lee attempted to push north into PA and Ohio, most soldiers disagreed.
It is an extremely complex era of history, dumb down by our disgrace of education system into black and white issue about slavery.

Post: #17

MFW they took his name off

Post: #18

I was gonna write an insightful post, and "get over slavery" just makes my skin crawl.

So I looked up the demographics of Yale.

https://www.yale.edu/about-yale/yale-facts

Instead of debating the stupidity behind "get over slavery" I would just like to point out that 1% of Yale students are Native Hawaiian or a pacific Islander.

And believe it or not, i know that guy!!!

Aloha!

Post: #19

(02-11-2017 04:04 PM)Repo Wrote:  @weambulance

No, I said I'm not surprised it wasn't removed because he supported slavery. Then to my understanding, you basically said other people did slavery too and it wasn't uniquely an American thing, which I aree with.

But the university isn't honoring thse other non-Americans who supported slavery, so that makes this a non-issue and a strawman, since you are arguing against something the University isn't doing in the first place.

I was responding to what you said. To your argument that it was justifiable to remove Calhoun's name based on his support of slavery in the 19th century. You do not then get to shift the focus of my argument to another target, and claim it was a straw man. You are, in fact, making your own straw man here!

It's not my problem if you don't understand what I say, when it seems to have been well understood by everyone else.

You can feel free to stop derailing and actually address the substance of the thread at any time. Tell us why you think it's justifiable to decide hundreds of years later to scrub history clean of people you disagree with.

Did you know George Washington owned a bunch of slaves?

Post: #20

(02-11-2017 04:26 PM)Kona Wrote:  I was gonna write an insightful post, and "get over slavery" just makes my skin crawl.

So I looked up the demographics of Yale.

https://www.yale.edu/about-yale/yale-facts

Instead of debating the stupidity behind "get over slavery" I would just like to point out that 1% of Yale students are Native Hawaiian or a pacific Islander.

And believe it or not, i know that guy!!!

Aloha!

Have you, or anyone you've known, ever been legally enslaved in the United States? Of course, I know you haven't, and nobody you know has been. Slavery has been illegal for 152 years. No former US slaves are alive, and no former US slaveholders are either. So who are you going to bitch at about it?

Everyone has ancestors who were slaves somewhere, at some time. I do. Yes, get over it. Jesus Christ.

And Pacific Islanders are about 0.5% of the US population including those with partial ancestry. So what's your point?

Post: #21

My point was only that is was justifiable to remove him because his support of slavery, which is precisely the topic of the thread. YOU then starting talking about how it was a different time and other people did it, not me. So if you think that is not relevant, you shouldn't have brought it up.

To your other point which I already addressed, the University is free to name things after people who represent the current values which they wish to promote. Hell, if they want to they can name things after people who supported prior values which they used to promote, which is what he was. Its not "scrubbing" history, its actually acknowledging history. "Scrubbing" history would be if they kept his name up and claimed he didn't own slaves, which I don't believe they did even when his name was up. So there is no "scrubbing" going on.

Post: #22

Instead of telling Blacks to get over slavery, I tell them that, without slavery, they would probably be living in Africa.

Post: #23

I hate slavery but I mean, this is John C. Calhoun, one of the most influential Senators who ever lived. What next, remove him from the Great Triumvirate and add Al Franken instead?

I admit though, Yale made a great case for their decision. It's easy to accept why they did it.

Post: #24

Blah blah blah. This is just cost-effective pandering. Why build a whole new building to actually honor whoever this woman was, when you can just change the name on the plaque?

Heck, even ISIS is doing it, destroying all the old Babylonian architecture and statues and shit.

Maybe we can get a petition to get Yale to change their name as well, since they are named after a slave owner, not for SJW appeasement, but to spite the Yale admin.

Post: #25

(02-11-2017 04:37 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 04:26 PM)Kona Wrote:  I was gonna write an insightful post, and "get over slavery" just makes my skin crawl.

So I looked up the demographics of Yale.

https://www.yale.edu/about-yale/yale-facts

Instead of debating the stupidity behind "get over slavery" I would just like to point out that 1% of Yale students are Native Hawaiian or a pacific Islander.

And believe it or not, i know that guy!!!

Aloha!

Have you, or anyone you've known, ever been legally enslaved in the United States? Of course, I know you haven't, and nobody you know has been. Slavery has been illegal for 152 years. No former US slaves are alive, and no former US slaveholders are either. So who are you going to bitch at about it?

Everyone has ancestors who were slaves somewhere, at some time. I do. Yes, get over it. Jesus Christ.

And Pacific Islanders are about 0.5% of the US population including those with partial ancestry. So what's your point?

Oh you're making it too easy....

White people are the ones that need to get over slavery.

Do you think that the 10% of black kids at Yale were the ones that made them change the name of the building, or the 72% white people?

A black kid at Yale knows better than anyone that shit is harder in America for black people. They don't need slavery rammed down their throat at every given opportunity.

Whit guilt caused them to forget about all the good things John C. Calhoun did, and change the buildings name.

When someone makes the "get over slavery" comment, they are now blaming black people for their own guilt over slavery. Or, they are some white supremecists/racist that just wants to stupidly spew hatred every chance they get.

So get over slavery.

Aloha!