San Francisco may rename school named for Washington

[Fahran]

I'll admit, it's hard work finding a worse sort of society than an ethnostate. The sort of vapid mindlessness that must pervade a society for it to base what one's ancestors look like be the most important factor of if someone is welcomed or shunned, is mind boggling.

Ethnicity is not the same thing as race.

This is also tangential to the topic of the thread at best.

[Karlopetrus]

No it is not a legitimate position. Lets not forgot you proposed blowing up Mount Rushmore and taking down the Washington Monument .

What would be a good alternative? You cannot suggest someone be renamed without an alternative or how about we rename Washington DC, The Capitol? That would offend no one.

Removing the faces from Mount Rushmore and respected the land as sacred land of the Lakota Sioux is based AF.

The Lakota were not the first humans to settle in the Black Hills.

"Some bands of Lakotas became the first Indians to help the United States Army in an Indian war west of the Missouri during the Arikara War in 1823.[17] In 1843, the southern Lakotas attacked Pawnee Chief Blue Coat's village near the Loup in Nebraska, killing many and burning half of the earth lodges.[18] Next time the Lakotas inflicted a blow so severe on the Pawnee would be in 1873, during the Massacre Canyon battle near Republican River.[19]"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakota_people]

There were Crow or Arikara scouts fighting alongside Custer at Little Big Horn. Perhaps the following bit of history helps explain this?

"The Tongue River massacre was an attack by Cheyenne and Lakota on a camp of Crow people in 1820. According to some accounts, it was one of the most significant losses of the Crow tribe.[1]:p. 190"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue_Ri ... %281820%29

Does land always belong by right to the people who settled it first?

"The Arikara arrived by AD 1500, followed by the Cheyenne, Crow, Kiowa and Arapaho . The Lakota (also known as Sioux) arrived from Minnesota in the 18th century and drove out the other tribes, who moved west.[7][8] They claimed the land, which they called Ȟe Sápa (Black Mountains). The mountains commonly became known as the Black Hills."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hil ... settlement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arikara

The Lakota are in the Black Hills through conquest, not because they were the first inhabitants. Such is the history of planet Earth. Historically, land belongs to those who occupy it by force. If the land was not occupied by force, someone else would take it.

At least the Lakota have increased their numbers over the years. There were about 8500 in 1805. There were about 170,000 in 2010. Also they have been able to preserve their language to the extent there are about 2000 native speakers. I think these ancient languages should be protected. Every people has a right to preserve their identity, and that includes their language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakota_people

Actually I don't like the Mt. Rushmore monument. I think it disturbs the natural beauty of the place, and those huge stone faces are simply bizarre. I won't say it's religious idolatry, but it is a type of secular idolatry. It seems wrong. If it had been up to me, the monument would never have been made. Just make normal statues.

[Kowani]

Back on Topic, and Gabriela López, head of the San Francisco Board of Education (interviewer's questions in italics)

I read that you stated, “This in no way erases our history. It cannot, and we will not forget the past. But we can honor the work that has been done to dismantle racism and white-supremacy culture.” Can you explain what you meant by that?

There’s this idea that because we’re removing the names we’re somehow removing the stories in what we’re learning, and that in fact is not the case. It’s really just sharing in our schools what is and isn’t uplifted. And that’s part of my work as a school-board member. That’s been my work as a teacher. What are we highlighting in our classes? And what are we teaching our students? And what isn’t being uplifted in our time and our public-school system that we’ve seen throughout history?

Is what you’re saying that in practice we don’t necessarily want to uplift, say, Lincoln, but that doesn’t mean we won’t teach the Civil War or the Emancipation Proclamation?

Absolutely. But, even with that, it’s talking about the brutality and the truth that is often not discussed in our classrooms. And I’m thinking even to my own experience and my own learning, all that I got through my college experiences, that we gain through ethnic studies, is not a process that we normally see in our school career. And so it is discussing the history. Of course, that’s not going anywhere.

You’re talking about the learning of history and its importance. Did the committee want historians to testify? And why or why not?

So, it’s hard for me to answer that question without just pointing to [committee statements that] “they did not want to include historians.” I think that that’s not the process that they created. They included a diverse set of community members, people with a set of experiences that contribute to these discussions, people from different backgrounds who are also educated in their own rights. So I think that was the makeup of the committee.

One member of the committee said, about talking to historians, “What would be the point? History is written and documented pretty well across the board. And so we don’t need to belabor history in that regard. We’re not debating that. There’s no point in debating history in that regard. Either it happened or it didn’t.” What do you think of that?

I think I’m trying to understand your question, then. Are you thinking then there’s no allowing for there to be that process?

You were talking earlier about how, no matter whom we uplift, history needs to be taught. Since you’re highlighting the importance of history, I was curious if historians had testified. And it seems like they hadn’t.

Right. My work is in sharing with students this understanding of our history. I think that for me, it’s important to uplift. This does not cancel history. It’s a moment and an opportunity to uplift things that we normally aren’t uplifting in our public-school system, in our society. And that means other voices, other experiences of diverse community members that would bring pride to our student body, and that would allow for students to learn more about themselves. It’s really moving away from this idea that somehow in the taking away of these names, we’re also taking away the stories, and we’re taking away what happened. We can’t move on without that understanding. We can’t heal as a society without that understanding.

The reason I bring this up is that some of the historical reasoning behind these decisions has been contested—not so much how we should view the fact that George Washington was a founder of the country and a slave holder but, rather, factual things like Paul Revere’s name being removed for the Penobscot Expedition, which was not actually about the colonization of Native American lands. And so there were questions about whether historians should have been involved to check these things.

I see what you’re saying. So, for me, I guess it’s just the criteria was created to show if there were ties to these specific themes, right? White supremacy, racism, colonization, ties to slavery, the killing of indigenous people, or any symbols that embodied that. And the committee shared that these are the names that have these ties. And so, for me, at this moment, I have the understanding we have to do the teaching, but also I do agree that we shouldn’t have these ties, and this is a way of showing it.

I guess part of the problem is that the ties may not be what the committee said they were. That’s why I brought it up.

So then you go into discrediting the work that they’re doing, and the process that they put together in order to create this list. So when we begin to have these conversations, and we’re pointing to that, and we’re given the reasoning and they’re sharing why they made this choice and why they’re putting it out there, I don’t want to get into a process where we then discredit the work that this group has done.

But it seems like we should have some sense of whether what they did was historically correct or not. No?

I’m open for that conversation.

O.K. Well, I just mentioned the Paul Revere thing. I know there was a question about James Russell Lowell and whether he wanted Black people to vote, which he was actually in favor of. The name of this businessman, James Lick, was ordered removed because his foundation funded an installation that didn’t go up until almost two decades after he died.

Right, I see what you mean.

But that’s not something you’re concerned about?

No. I mean, I wouldn’t phrase it that way, either. I think it would just require more dialogue. I know the committee is still meeting, and they’re still open to that. So it’s not that it’s not a concern. I think it’s something that’s missing without a dialogue.

But the committee member said, essentially, “things are true or false.” And so it seems like if they’re false, then that doesn’t necessarily call for more dialogue; it calls for more accurate history.

I think anyone can agree with that.

Yeah.

So here’s my piece. The real issue is how we are challenged when we talk about racism. And how then the masses come out in order to combat this, when it’s an idea that harms what we’re used to. My current situation is sharing with people very simply that I don’t think it’s appropriate to have symbols of racism and white-supremacy culture. And we’re trying to have this discussion, and what I’ve seen throughout my time on the board, whenever issues like this come out or arise, people need to combat it and try to find any problems around what we’re discussing, because it’s not something that we should be open to having a discussion about. It’s something that people have a lot of issues with.

I agree that discussions about racism and white supremacy in America tend to be very fraught. And hopefully it’s in the process of changing somewhat. I guess the question is also about how to view human beings. Just to take this Dianne Feinstein example—I don’t think there are a lot of historical figures who don’t have one incident as bad as the incident with the Confederate flag, thirty-plus years ago.

I think that we really should be seeing this as an opportunity to uplift other people, other movements, other names that were normally not seen. So I understand humans are flawed, and here is one attempt where we’re moving in a direction to really help broaden how the community sees itself and their school without needing to continue to keep names, because that’s what we’re known for, or that’s what we’re used to, or that’s what we’re accustomed to.

But, in the case of someone like Lincoln, I think we keep his name not just because we’re used to it but because of his importance to American history and the over-all contribution that he made. No?

Right. But we see Lincoln, and we acknowledge it, but we can also open up to providing other names in these spaces. I think that for me, it’s been hard to see why that is the issue. Lincoln isn’t going away, but our school district is taking this opportunity to highlight someone else, highlight someone who normally isn’t acknowledged but has contributed to the progress of people of color, or the progress of the community that we’re serving in San Francisco.

A previous mayor [George Moscone] is keeping his name on a school even though the Confederate flag was there when he was mayor. Would standards be helpful?

I think that points to the criteria that they created and who they felt fell under that criteria. I mean, do we want to go through this process further? I’m open to that. Do we want to have discussions about other sites? We said we’re committed to this, so I think the dialogue is important for everyone. That’s what I’m hearing.

So none of the errors that I read to you about previous entries made you worried that maybe this was done in a slightly haphazard way?

No, because I’ve already shared with you that the people who have contributed to this process are also part of a community that is taking it as seriously as we would want them to. And they’re contributing through diverse perspectives and experiences that are often not included, and that we need to acknowledge.

I’m not quite sure what that means when we are talking about things that did or didn’t happen.

I think what you’re pointing to and what I keep hearing is you’re trying to undermine the work that has been done through this process. And I’m moving away from the idea that it was haphazard.

The mayor of the city, London Breed, released a statement saying, “What I cannot understand is why the school board is advancing a plan of all these schools renamed by April when there isn’t a plan to have our kids back in the classroom by then.” What’s your response to that?

I know that when it comes to schools, any opportunity to cause further division is what the mayor has contributed to. And it’s unfortunate because we need to be clear about where we are in this process. What she’s talking about as far as reopening schools, that is what we’re working on every single day. The fact that people are pointing to “We don’t have a plan”—that’s completely false.

I read that you said, “They are learning more about their families and their culture spending more time with each other. They’re just having different learning experiences than the ones we currently measure. And the loss is a comparison to a time when we were in a different space.” Do you want to expand on that?

I do, because that’s directly connected to work that I’ve done in my own classroom. I understand that distance learning is not at all where we want to be. I think everybody can agree with that. The work that I do in my own classroom directly connects with family involvement. When I was a teacher, I visited every single student’s home. We collaborated, we worked together, we brought in each other’s cultures in this work, because I have the understanding that part of a student’s growth is the incorporation of their broader outside community. And that includes their family. So what I was trying to point to was this opportunity that we have right now, that students are learning more about their own cultures, spending time with their families, but it’s not to diminish that it’s during a time where there’s a lot of struggle. And it’s also to show that the school district has provided so many resources to really contribute to the parent-as-teacher model, so that they’re not feeling like they’re alone during this time. So that’s why, in a broader sense, our biggest priority is reopening schools and distance learning, because we have the understanding that not everybody wants to go back to in-person learning. And so we need to hold the learning that’s happening at home just as much as we’re holding the learning that’s happening in our school places.

What do you mean by holding?

Holding is supporting, providing resources, professional development for our families, sending home materials, hands-on kits. When this all started, part of my work had been in actual workshops for our families to navigate the platform.

I think a lot of the commentary about the school names is focussed specifically on Lincoln. It seems to be the thing that a lot of people are the most upset about. Do you have any thoughts about Lincoln and how we should view him?

I think that the killing of indigenous peoples and that record is something that is not acknowledged. It’s something that people are now learning about, and due to this process. And so we just have to do the work of that extra learning when we’re having these discussions.

But, beyond that, anything else?

What do you mean?

I’m curious how you view him generally.

I think Lincoln gets more praise than the . . . how can I say this? Yeah. I don’t know. I don’t think that . . . Lincoln is not someone that I typically tend to admire or see as a hero, because of these specific instances where he has contributed to the pain of the decimation of people—that’s not something that I want to ignore. It’s something that I’m learning about and that I know it’s not often spoken about.

Given that what you’re hoping for is a different kind of conversation, I wonder if the conversation in the last week and the way people have responded to these name changes has made anyone on the board or yourself think that maybe this isn’t actually the best way to start conversations about these subjects.

No matter what—how broad we are, how long we take, how much we connect—people will always have a problem with the discussion of racism. That is what I know. That is why I’m getting death threats. That is why people aren’t open to other possibilities. Because when we have this discussion, that’s the outcomes no matter how good it’s set up, no matter how open we are. Some of the things that we’re challenging right now have been worked on for years with boards prior—we’re just holding it, and it’s our time to acknowledge it and make sure that we see it through. But, no matter what, people are going to have an issue with that. That is what I know, given my experience. Of course, I’m hearing what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s going to change the outcome. People are still going to be up in arms when we’re doing this.

It seems to me there’s some chance that comments like “What would be the point of bringing in a historian?” go some way to making people’s reactions less positive. Or having incorrect facts about Paul Revere.

Right.

It seems to me that if this is the result of a process that’s been going on years, that’s maybe slightly problematic.

Yeah. I don’t disagree.

[The Two Jerseys]

Back on Topic, an Gabriela López head of the San Francisco Board of Education (interviewer's questions in italics)

snip

Take a shot every time she says "uplift"...

[Kowani]

Back on Topic, an Gabriela López head of the San Francisco Board of Education (interviewer's questions in italics)

snip

Take a shot every time she says "uplift"...

6 shots, and an added 2 from the interviewer

[Wallenburg]

I love seeing people get offended that a community is deciding to rename their own public buildings. Honey, this isn't about you. They can name their schools after whatever person they please.

[Salus Maior]

Back on Topic, an Gabriela López head of the San Francisco Board of Education (interviewer's questions in italics)

*snip*

Sounds like a load of bs coming from people who get their history off of twitter.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I love seeing people get offended that a community is deciding to rename their own public buildings. Honey, this isn't about you. They can name their schools after whatever person they please.

We can disagree with a stupid culture war decision sweetheart. The world doesn't revolve around you people either.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Back on Topic, an Gabriela López head of the San Francisco Board of Education (interviewer's questions in italics)

snip

Take a shot every time she says "uplift"...

It's annoying, but such fashionable jargon is common in the professions. Once it gets a clear accepted meaning, they change to something else. It seems to mean "make into a part of the narrative" and it's not unjustified.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I love seeing people get offended that a community is deciding to rename their own public buildings. Honey, this isn't about you. They can name their schools after whatever person they please.

We can disagree with a stupid culture war decision sweetheart. The world doesn't revolve around you people either.

I somewhat agree with their decision. But I know it's none of my business.

I live in Australia, not San Francisco. If this was happening in another city (say Melbourne) I would somewhat agree, only a bit more strongly. I still wouldn't be using pejoratives, because it would still be none of my business.

[Vassenor]

I love seeing people get offended that a community is deciding to rename their own public buildings. Honey, this isn't about you. They can name their schools after whatever person they please.

Yeah, but it means not showing enough due reverence to America's one true god, and some conservatives don't like that.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I love seeing people get offended that a community is deciding to rename their own public buildings. Honey, this isn't about you. They can name their schools after whatever person they please.

Yeah, but it means not showing enough due reverence to America's one true god, and some conservatives don't like that.

Seriously, they think it's the thin end of the wedge. They think all the history of settlement will be driven out of public sight (and probably not taught in school) unless they fight every step of the way.

Residents of a street near where I live got the name of their street changed. They wrote up why the guy it was named after was a Bad Man, proposed another name more locally acceptable, and sent a petition to Council. There was no fuss. It was covered with approval in our normally conservative local paper, and that's the first I knew of it.

[San Lumen]

Back on Topic, an Gabriela López head of the San Francisco Board of Education (interviewer's questions in italics)

*snip*

Sounds like a load of bs coming from people who get their history off of twitter.

and that person has no business being on a school board. She should be voted out next election

[Adamede]

I love seeing people get offended that a community is deciding to rename their own public buildings. Honey, this isn't about you. They can name their schools after whatever person they please.

Guess what, that doesn’t make it immune from criticism “honey”.

[Wallenburg]

I love seeing people get offended that a community is deciding to rename their own public buildings. Honey, this isn't about you. They can name their schools after whatever person they please.

Guess what, that doesn’t make it immune from criticism “honey”.

I simply don't see why anyone should give a damn about your criticism. More likely than not you live thousands of miles away from these schools. Your opinion means absolutely nothing against the wishes of the communities these schools belong to.

[Fahran]

I simply don't see why anyone should give a damn about your criticism. More likely than not you live thousands of miles away from these schools. Your opinion means absolutely nothing against the wishes of the communities these schools belong to.

I mean... I belong to the same broad political community as the people living in San Francisco. This is a manifestation of the overarching culture war that has been waged since around 2015, or perhaps just a bit earlier, in the United States. They may well do as they please so long as it falls within the purview of their responsibilities and powers, but that doesn't mean that it will go without comment or that the discourse around it is unimportant. Ideas, especially ideologically spicy ones like "Washington bad", have a penchant for spreading. It behooves us to take that into consideration.

Also, if y'all keep calling each other honey, I'm going to have to start blessing hearts.

[Fahran]

Yeah, but it means not showing enough due reverence to America's one true god, and some conservatives don't like that.

Reverence is not something afforded exclusively to deities despite the rather irksome narrative we have of late about how all people are or deserve to be perceived as social and moral equals, which more often than not lends itself to somewhat silly assertions, mediocrity, and the destruction of the vestiges, heroes, and symbols that tend to inculcate civic virtue. I feel I've laid out a rather compelling case for why we tend to honor Washington and why he deserves that reverence in spite of his flaws.

[Kowani]

Yeah, but it means not showing enough due reverence to America's one true god, and some conservatives don't like that.

Reverence is not something afforded exclusively to deities despite the rather irksome narrative we have of late about how all people are or deserve to be perceived as social and moral equals, which more often than not lends itself to somewhat silly assertions, mediocrity, and the destruction of the vestiges, heroes, and symbols that tend to inculcate civic virtue. I feel I've laid out a rather compelling case for why we tend to honor Washington and why he deserves that reverence in spite of his flaws.

I…don’t think civic virtue comes from the idea of holding Washington or the other FF as a symbol
Seems like a rather idealized conception of how we relate to those symbols as a point around which certain communities can rally and what they may or may not embody.

[Wallenburg]

Yeah, but it means not showing enough due reverence to America's one true god, and some conservatives don't like that.

Reverence is not something afforded exclusively to deities despite the rather irksome narrative we have of late about how all people are or deserve to be perceived as social and moral equals,

A little mask-off there, aren't we?

which more often than not lends itself to somewhat silly assertions, mediocrity, and the destruction of the vestiges, heroes, and symbols that tend to inculcate civic virtue. I feel I've laid out a rather compelling case for why we tend to honor Washington and why he deserves that reverence in spite of his flaws.

If you need a hero to worship, go read a fantasy novel. The American mythology deserves to be destroyed and replaced with actual history.

[Kowani]

Reverence is not something afforded exclusively to deities despite the rather irksome narrative we have of late about how all people are or deserve to be perceived as social and moral equals,

A little mask-off there, aren't we?

which more often than not lends itself to somewhat silly assertions, mediocrity, and the destruction of the vestiges, heroes, and symbols that tend to inculcate civic virtue. I feel I've laid out a rather compelling case for why we tend to honor Washington and why he deserves that reverence in spite of his flaws.

If you need a hero to worship, go read a fantasy novel. The American mythology deserves to be destroyed and replaced with actual history.

I mean
Tbf, the people running this weren’t-by their own admission- exactly interested in historical accuracy

[Salus Maior]

Reverence is not something afforded exclusively to deities despite the rather irksome narrative we have of late about how all people are or deserve to be perceived as social and moral equals,

A little mask-off there, aren't we?

which more often than not lends itself to somewhat silly assertions, mediocrity, and the destruction of the vestiges, heroes, and symbols that tend to inculcate civic virtue. I feel I've laid out a rather compelling case for why we tend to honor Washington and why he deserves that reverence in spite of his flaws.

If you need a hero to worship, go read a fantasy novel. The American mythology deserves to be destroyed and replaced with actual history.

I'd say that Washington is worth admiring for a lot of reasons, keeping accurate history and his flaws in mind. Same for Lincoln.

And I'm a monarchist sympathetic to George III.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

Reverence is not something afforded exclusively to deities despite the rather irksome narrative we have of late about how all people are or deserve to be perceived as social and moral equals,

A little mask-off there, aren't we?

which more often than not lends itself to somewhat silly assertions, mediocrity, and the destruction of the vestiges, heroes, and symbols that tend to inculcate civic virtue. I feel I've laid out a rather compelling case for why we tend to honor Washington and why he deserves that reverence in spite of his flaws.

If you need a hero to worship, go read a fantasy novel. The American mythology deserves to be destroyed and replaced with actual history.

Um...it is actual history. And I don't seek to destroy the history of other nations, yours included, so why does my country's history deserve to be destroyed? Aren't those who forget the past doomed to repeat it?
Why do people think we worship our national heroes like a religion? We don't.

A little mask-off there, aren't we?

If you need a hero to worship, go read a fantasy novel. The American mythology deserves to be destroyed and replaced with actual history.

I'd say that Washington is worth admiring for a lot of reasons, keeping accurate history and his flaws in mind. Same for Lincoln.

And I'm a monarchist sympathetic to George III.

This (Minus the George III part, but I won't hate on you for being sympathetic toward him. Parliament did have a role in ticking off the colonists, too). You can't just entirely ignore the good side of historical figures and besmirch them, nor can you ignore their flaws and idolize them.

[Kexholm Karelia]

I love seeing people get offended that a community is deciding to rename their own public buildings. Honey, this isn't about you. They can name their schools after whatever person they please.

Lol "honey"

[Vassenor]

I love seeing people get offended that a community is deciding to rename their own public buildings. Honey, this isn't about you. They can name their schools after whatever person they please.

Lol "honey"

That's your only response to someone pointing out the lunacy of people getting apoplectic over this? Huh.

[Salus Maior]

This (Minus the George III part, but I won't hate on you for being sympathetic toward him. Parliament did have a role in ticking off the colonists, too). You can't just entirely ignore the good side of historical figures and besmirch them, nor can you ignore their flaws and idolize them.

Literally all of it up until the Boston Tea Party was all Parliament.