San Francisco may rename school named for Washington

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Conclusion: let’s rename all Chinatowns Charlestowns!

Chinatown in every case I can think of, got that name because Chinese people lived there or opened shops there. Keeping the name is entirely justified by the mark they made on the history of that city.

Judging that mark shameful, to be forgotten or deleted, is disrespect bordering on racism towards their descendants, particularly those who still work or trade in Chinatown. If the day comes that those people want their past association with China itself deleted, I'd hear a short ordered list of names they would prefer.

In Sydney "Chinatown" is four blocks, btw, with only the main street distinctively Chinese in style. It's not even an official suburb (it's part of Haymarket) so I don't know how it would be renamed in practice. I probably shouldn't even be taking the suggestion seriously.

[Vassenor]

Conclusion: let’s rename all Chinatowns Charlestowns!

Chinatown in every case I can think of, got that name because Chinese people lived there or opened shops there. Keeping the name is entirely justified by the mark they made on the history of that city.

Judging that mark shameful, to be forgotten or deleted, is disrespect bordering on racism towards their descendants, particularly those who still work or trade in Chinatown. If the day comes that those people want their past association with China itself deleted, I'd hear a short ordered list of names they would prefer.

In Sydney "Chinatown" is four blocks, btw, with only the main street distinctively Chinese in style. It's not even an official suburb (it's part of Haymarket) so I don't know how it would be renamed in practice. I probably shouldn't even be taking the suggestion seriously.

Yeah, but... China Bad.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

If you knew how long I've waited to hear someone try to define "virtue-signalling".

Virtue-signalling, to use a bare bones definition, is "the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue."

The bare bones definition assumes the "intent" of the public speaker is only one thing: to "signal" that they are good or right.

The phrase is used to dismiss without consideration, someone else's view. With such an un-empathetic approach, it follows that no thought whatsoever has been given to the motives of the speaker. They're dismissing it as being for someone else, not them, which is so lacking in intellectual honesty it's really worse than "tl;dnr"

No-one before has tried to define "virtue-signalling" and I'm pleased to discover it's just as vacuous and nihilistic concept as I suspected. It's simply dismissing (by imputed intent) views which a judgemental individual cannot be bothered, or simply cannot, argue against.

However, stating a moral position, for whatever reason, may have an impact on the broader discourse - for better or for worse.

Stating a moral position should always be assumed to have 'affecting the broader discourse' as its motive. It can have that effect, you agree. Its apparent motive IS to affect the broader discourse; otherwise we'd be one-on-one by messenger services. So it is far simpler to see public speech as effective, or not. Rather than dismiss the overly-simple or morally-contradictory speech as having some other motive.

There are a lot of seemingly pointless judgemental statements on the boards and various media. But I feel better not ascribing a different intent to them (because that becomes personal) but rather, consider them clumsy and insufficient attempts to influence others.

Yet he was a poet. The 200 geographical locations (alone) with the same name in the US, is more like spam than poetry. I see nothing good, true or beautiful about it.

This is a different argument than the one that was originally presented.

I'm saying T.S.Eliot would not have approved the endless re-use of the same name, because there is nothing of poetry or creativity in it. Washington's name has been spammed across the land, and I'm not sure he'd have approved either.

Yes that's a serious objection. Not to Washington's name be used at all, but to it being used so much. It's a relic of an age when people didn't go far beyond the nearest city (or out of that city for that matter) and when they did, they appreciated the reminder that they were still in the US. There is nothing good, true or beautiful about parochialism.

On the contrary, there is quite a bit to admire in a local and communal outlook and a good number of thinkers far more gifted than you or I in terms of insight have often waxed poetic about the serenity one may find within the refuge of the familiar and the provincial.[/quote]

Well good for them. Being thinkers, serenity suits them. Should we build cities to suit the thinkers who have already left in search of serenity? Or should we build them the way that most people (by a century of urbanization) actually prefer?

Making more green space, reducing noise etc in cities, I expect does make a lot of people happier day to day. It comes at a cost though (greater distances to travel for instance), and a paternalistic government would enforce that cost in the expectation it would pay off. But in a democracy that can't be taken far at all, and a government that tried to make a perfect public space for thinkers and artists would have barely any effect on how much the general public thinks or is influenced by aesthetics.

Ideally, most of these schools would be torn down and rebuilt. To better promote thinking and creativity.
During the long holiday of Covid would have been a good time to start.
Does that seem even remotely practical though, when an issue raised against renaming schools is that it costs money?

In terms of naming conventions, these are interwoven with histories and narratives about who we are and what we value. You may, of course, find a name dull, but, given our discourse thus far, I'm inclined to wonder if a love the poetic is the driving factor here.

I don't gush quite as much as you do. It's not because I don't appreciate poetry: it's because I consider use of emotive language to serve any debating purpose.

So it's reductionism. X feature "higher" in society relies on X-1 feature "below" it.

So adult society should "naturally" be built on the child's experience of family. Because that will be a good, true and beautiful society, I'm sure.

Or ... privilege and oppression defined by status at birth. This is so horrible, that Islamic theocracy might have been an improvement.

No wait. Saudi Arabia has both.

I have no idea how you could call a description of the foundational pillars of a particular society reductionism,

I'm just trying to understand the analogy of "pillars". If social pillars have no quality of the lowest layers (eg most ancient) being built on by successive layers, then it's a silly and misleading term.

I said before that a web seems a better analogy to me. A bit like "fabric of society" but in more dimensions.

especially when you then proceeded to misunderstand networks of extended kinship as inherently rooted in privilege and oppression,

I don't think I mentioned oppression, but it doesn't matter. If privilege exists, then the under-privileged are oppressed.

You can't see how being born into the richest or most powerful family in a clan or wider society ... is privilege?

Wow, you really internalized your own privilege. It's not unjust though, because someone in your family earned it ... is that about right?

which gives a lot of insight into the paradigm you've adopted, and to mischaracterize by implication the nature of the changes Islam brought to Arabian society.

I wasn't trying to engage on the learned level you professed at. I never claimed to know anything much about pre-Islamic Arabia. I was just mocking your reverence for something which, the way you described it, totally deserved to be wrecked by Islam.

I might look into it though, I might get insights into why Muslims claim their religion is not sexist, despite the gross outward sexism of all Islamic societies. Perhaps Arabian society was even worse ...

We can, of course, talk about privilege and oppression within the context of any society, but that conversation should not sit adjacent to a conversation about the institutions and values that underpin a society. It's seeing everything as a nail because you have a hammer.

Pfft. If you wanted to talk about institutions and social values which can be understood without recognizing privilege and oppression, you should have said so before. We could simply stop talking: change in institutions and changing social values has been essential to the lessening of privilege/oppression divides since the foundation of the US, and will accompany all such lessening in the future. Your precious institutions and your vaunted values should not be preserved unchanged, because that would be to freeze progress in social equity.

I will consent to not tying religion into it. Providing you consent not to resort to it to cover blemishes in public institutions.

Oh believe me I'd love to "replace" some pillars. But it's a foolishly rash thing to attempt: for instance removing the modern equivalent of "subsistence" would be an unconditional living wage for everyone (so no-one is compelled to work to survive) and while I have faith the results would be good in the long term, I would not dare to predict the work ethic of the future, productivity, family structure, consumed culture or participatory culture that ultimately must be created by people together.

That's not really what I meant by subsistence, but go off, I guess.

I was applying "pillar theory" to one of my own favorite policies. "Subsistence" is an ancient principle, now individualized and with many exceptions, but basically the "work ethic". In my opinion, that "pillar" collapsing because a radical change is made, is too high a price to pay in attempting to ease poverty and provide independence. It might take decades, yet we can start right away with small payments that aren't enough to live on.

Turns out "pillars" are something else. I never said I was an architect.

For example, the option for women to earn their own income before marriage, has changed the foundations of family. Not destroyed the concept of family, but broadened it and made the "breadwinner, housewife, children" model less substantial: it's still quite common, but it's much less apparent as the only option for young women and men. It used to be deeply disgraceful for either spouse to desert the other, leaving young children. Now it's rightly recognized as preferable in some cases, as a single parent (looking for another partner or not) is better for children than an unhappy marriage and the abuse all 'round which often follows from that.

Single parent households don't tend to create socially desirable outcomes in all honesty.

Abusive families are worse. They're just not so easily measured, and there is no way of telling how many of the absent parents would have been abusive if social/legal forces had required them to keep them living with their partner and children.

Whether you think women should marry and never work again, or whether you think they should work just as much as their partner (also share parenting equally) I doubt you can give any good reason why it shouldn't be equally easy for a woman to earn a living, as for a man?

Or the discovery that beyond one's home town, there are innumerable memorials to Washington. And it's not a choice between One or None: one town opting out does not mean the first step on a slippery slope where they all do.

Does the existence of those towns, which may never be of consequence or import to you, alter the identity of your own town or diminish the act of honor embodied by the naming of your own town?

Yes. Your council building so grand it was named after a President doesn't seem so grand when you see the bigger council building of Bigtown. It's a suspension of disbelief thing: you always knew the President himself wasn't from your town, or knew it existed, but the name lulled you into thinking the building quite grand ... and "famous".

With the exposure that each town gets through media, I think there's a more compelling case than ever before to honor local heroes in the names of public buildings.

I would not have objections to that if those local heroes embodied virtues as manifested in the local community and no ulterior motive beyond that existed.

I thought keeping local history alive might appeal to you

Ulterior motives aren't necessarily wrong though. I gave the example before of a local industrialist leaving enough from their will to have a small hospital built. If the hospital must be named after the industrialist, does the county take the money and build the hospital? If it would be the only hospital for a hundred miles around (cooking the scenario here) it would be hard to refuse. Even if the business the money was made in was a bit shady.

Ideally the industrialist would just leave the money and specify that a hospital be built. Then assuming the industrialist had a clean-enough reputation the county would spontaneously choose that name.

In the case of a school, it might be more realistically inspiring for students too. The chances of any of them becoming President are one in a billion. The chances any of them will gain the historical place of George Washington, are zero. Why not honor the small business-person who founded the first paper mill? Or the mayor who first organized the dredging of the harbor?

You began this post by lambasting a parochial mindset and now you seem to promote a parochial mindset.

You think? I think implying the kids can grow up to be President if they just "work hard" is a false promise. "You could make a small fortune in mundane business, if you work hard" is more realistic, and thus more likely to have a positive effect on their ambition and perseverence.

"Slavery bad" seems pretty clear to me. So it used to considered acceptable? Even ten years ago, it was considered excusable? Well that's change for you: old people die and their old attitudes die with them.

I never asserted that slavery was morally acceptable. I stated that one might well deserve honors in spite of participating in slavery.

Attitudes change. Children (reacting against as well as learning from adults) realign themselves in teenage years. Then they don't so much, individually, but still the conveyor belt brings in new attitudes from youth and farewells the oldest attitudes as oldsters die.

Having participated in slavery is less acceptable now than it was 10 years ago. Personally I consider Washington to have been a great man, and his keeping of slaves only slightly detracts from that. But you know, I'm an Australian. I'm 3 degrees removed: it was long ago, it wasn't my ancestors, and it wasn't my country.

I think if white Americans were the small minority, and mostly descended from slavers, they would feel remorse and probably fear, thinking about slavery. And if black descendants of slaves were the plurality of Americans, they'd probably be doing fine and hardly ever think of slavery. A real world analogy would be South Africa, which is not peaceful, but the white minority did not ease tensions by some of them fleeing with large amounts of money, also it's relatively early in the process of "reconstruction".

Well we seem to have agreed that virtue-signalling can sometimes have real effects, good or bad. If we could just agree that good (or to other people bad) effects are the purpose and intent of the virtue-signaller, then neither of us need feel bad about getting that label.

The issue with virtue-signalling as it is defined is that it is insincere.

Or "virtue-signalling" is a dumb insult, only used to dismiss content because of an assumed intent. We may as well go back to the three-letter dismissal "lol"

I can't tell you even vaguely, let alone exactly. The intention is more-equal opportunity, fewer crimes against the person, plenty of education and healthcare for everyone, a supportive and understanding environment for immigrants, and maximum scope for pursuit of happiness by those who can achieve it without infringing anyone else's rights. If even one of those progresses without other problems arising, I will be happily surprised!

Depending on your precise policy suggestions, pursuit of any one of these goals may well lead to other problems.

Definitely. Knowing how good you are at imagining problems with any policy, I don't propose to offer any.

I will say though, that you're one of the most reasonable conservatives I've ever met, and it's probably because you understand that change will happen whether government tries to guide it or not.

Thank you.

"Visual art" in the old sense is a tiny fraction of the produced and consumed art nowadays. I frankly don't care what they're doing in the niche of still pictures. Even sculpture is crippled by seeing the two-dimensional representations before seeing the real thing, so public sculpture I just find sitting there is the only kind which ever impresses me.

Movies half-obsoleted visual arts, and television finished the job. "Artists" work mainly in off-screen roles of producing moving-pictures now and it really does not matter how much money changes hands over "fine art" because the art of an era is measured by the eyeballs it attracts.

Arguably music is a significant sector of art, but personally I've never put it in that category.

I think public apathy does quite a bit to explain the problems of modern art and in modern aesthetics, but the issue is that art does matter a lot. It can be the voice of a generation and it can sway the discourse, often in more substantial ways than moral utterances or virtue-signalling.

Writing used to be the most influential, I think. But it relied on a few very very good writers (the thinkers that now are more attracted to science) and not that many serious readers. As such it was top-down: serious writers only directly influenced a few people, who then somehow influenced everyone else. From positions in government most potently.

It's possible that visual artists influence only a few people, but those people are film-makers or game designers and spread the influence much more widely.

I don't find either side of politics (or ethics) beautiful. Ugly or beautiful seem like emotional reactions which, if I even felt them, I would try to avoid.

You're making me want to quote Lewis on aesthetics and language. This sort of outlook is one of the problems I'm hinting at in all honesty, and I don't say that as a dig at you.

I simply cannot think of politics only as principle. A principle for which I can't imagine a policy, is very likely external to politics, or actually unsound. And I can't formulate a policy without considering how to get it implemented.

If I was attracted to beauty and repelled by the ugly, I'd be up the abstract end all the time, weighing principles of human happiness like a metaphysician. Maybe I could make a contribution at that "end" of the theory-to-practice scale, but I'd have to start studying and not stop for ten years. I don't learn things that easily now.

What a lot of people seem to do is carry principles as far as policy ... then just demand the policy. "Just ram it through" a Senate with lurking moderates, who kill the only Reconciliation bill you can bring this year. No, you have to consider what's possible, go back to policy and come up with something second-best that might actually pass.

Maybe they have an emotional reaction to "how the sausage is made" but it leads them to have unreasonable expectations and you just know that come 2024 they'll be campaigning for Bernie AGAIN.

Yeah. Point against him IMO. The President is supposed to be chosen by the People. Adams must have run "against" Washington, to get VP, but he didn't get any recorded votes. Washington (the first time) was appointed by the "political class" and his historical stature has no doubt biased the People towards voting for rich and famous men endorsed by the political class.

I mean... I don't really perceive direct democracy as an intrinsic good. To me, it's more of an extrinsic good, but I would assert that Washington had enough popular assent to rule and that he largely ruled well enough to leave us with a lot of good precedents and principles. They were not perfect, but we are where we are now in large part because he didn't pull a Simon Bolivar.

OK. It reflects well on him personally that he declined a third term. And it doesn't reflect anything on him that he was elected unopposed. But it detracts from that part of his reputation which comes from being the First. Some of the others probably should have campaigned in earnest, to give the voters a proper 'road-test' of their new system.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Conclusion: let’s rename all Chinatowns Charlestowns!

Chinatown in every case I can think of, got that name because Chinese people lived there or opened shops there. Keeping the name is entirely justified by the mark they made on the history of that city.

Judging that mark shameful, to be forgotten or deleted, is disrespect bordering on racism towards their descendants, particularly those who still work or trade in Chinatown. If the day comes that those people want their past association with China itself deleted, I'd hear a short ordered list of names they would prefer.

In Sydney "Chinatown" is four blocks, btw, with only the main street distinctively Chinese in style. It's not even an official suburb (it's part of Haymarket) so I don't know how it would be renamed in practice. I probably shouldn't even be taking the suggestion seriously.

You are very naive and completely don’t understand my POV lol.

First of all the word “China” is becoming as dirty as the word “Germany” in 1930s. It is a pretty bad idea for anyone on this planet to be associated with that name.

Secondly the last thing merchant tribes need is visibility. The Jewish community knows that very well which is why stupid antisemites accuse them of “crypsis”. Why is attempting to determine whether someone is Jewish sometimes considered antisemitic? Since attention itself is inherently hostile.

These places should not be called Chinatowns precisely because most people there are not agents of China and should not be unfairly associated with that nuclear term which is likely to be associated with a lot of horrors in the next 50 years.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Chinatown in every case I can think of, got that name because Chinese people lived there or opened shops there. Keeping the name is entirely justified by the mark they made on the history of that city.

Judging that mark shameful, to be forgotten or deleted, is disrespect bordering on racism towards their descendants, particularly those who still work or trade in Chinatown. If the day comes that those people want their past association with China itself deleted, I'd hear a short ordered list of names they would prefer.

In Sydney "Chinatown" is four blocks, btw, with only the main street distinctively Chinese in style. It's not even an official suburb (it's part of Haymarket) so I don't know how it would be renamed in practice. I probably shouldn't even be taking the suggestion seriously.

You are very naive and completely don’t understand my POV lol.

First of all the word “China” is becoming as dirty as the word “Germany” in 1930s. It is a pretty bad idea for anyone on this planet to be associated with that name.

Secondly the last thing merchant tribes need is visibility. The Jewish community knows that very well which is why stupid antisemites accuse them of “crypsis”. Why is attempting to determine whether someone is Jewish sometimes considered antisemitic? Since attention itself is inherently hostile.

These places should not be called Chinatowns precisely because most people there are not agents of China and should not be unfairly associated with that nuclear term which is likely to be associated with a lot of horrors in the next 50 years.

You pretend to care whether ethnic Chinese like to be associated with the country China.

So after all, you support my position. If the people in modern Chinatown want to change the name, they can. Are we done?

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

You are very naive and completely don’t understand my POV lol.

First of all the word “China” is becoming as dirty as the word “Germany” in 1930s. It is a pretty bad idea for anyone on this planet to be associated with that name.

Secondly the last thing merchant tribes need is visibility. The Jewish community knows that very well which is why stupid antisemites accuse them of “crypsis”. Why is attempting to determine whether someone is Jewish sometimes considered antisemitic? Since attention itself is inherently hostile.

These places should not be called Chinatowns precisely because most people there are not agents of China and should not be unfairly associated with that nuclear term which is likely to be associated with a lot of horrors in the next 50 years.

You pretend to care whether ethnic Chinese like to be associated with the country China.

So after all, you support my position. If the people in modern Chinatown want to change the name, they can. Are we done?

If you know where I was born you will realize it is not pretending. It’s just not a majority view yet. Yup we are done with this topic.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

You pretend to care whether ethnic Chinese like to be associated with the country China.

So after all, you support my position. If the people in modern Chinatown want to change the name, they can. Are we done?

If you know where I was born you will realize it is not pretending. It’s just not a majority view yet.

1. If the people in modern Chinatown want to change the name, they can.
2. They probably don't.
3. Therefore, NO we shouldn't change the name.

[Boyu]

if thats the case, then they should rename the school to

888888888
8
8
888888888
8
8
888888888 school

[Ifreann]

indeed, blocking bad ideas is just good policy

School choice isn't bad policy, why shouldn’t parents be able to choose where their kids go to school instead of it being confined to where they live? Those that can’t afford private school, but the public school in the area is dangerous (as many American schools are)?

Only in America could people's plan for dealing with a school that isn't safe for children to attend be to let some students attend a different school and leave the rest in danger.

---

Look bro, I'm gonna be real with you.

Slavery is evil and those who fought and died to defend it should be reviled. Washington, however, was not one of those people. He had slaves because it was the norm and went most of his life without even thinking about it. During his time as president he started questioning the morality it, and eventually determined that it was an evil practice which sickened him. He could've just freed all his slaves then and there and started champion abolition, but he didn't do that because we knew that because it would've created controversy that could've torn the young nation apart before it's system had even been fully tested. I don't agree with what he did; but I understand why he did it. He ultimately tried to make up for his wrongs by freeing his slaves in his will--something his family refused to comply with--and if we're going to remember Washington as a slave owner (which we should) then we should also remember that at the end of his life he realized that it was wrong and tried to right his wrongs without stirring up trouble in the process.

Washington's importance to our country, culture, and history is indisputable. We cannot logically condemn the man to oblivion because he wasn't a saint. Heroes aren't always flawless, and he is an American hero; a Founding Father. He will be honored, his name and image will live on immortalized on buildings and in monuments - including schools. If you're going to throw a fit about a school named after the Father of our country when the school is located in that very country then it's probably best if you leave for a country that was founded by someone who didn't enslave your ancestors. I understand why they're upset, but Washington is by and large a wholly American figure. He will be honored. We can't not honor him for his deeds, even if by modern standards he isn't a saint. If that upsets them they need to either leave or move on because like it or not Washington represents America. He is important to our history. I understand if that leaves the descendants of former slaves disgruntled, I do, but unfortunately the Founders were not the progressive visionaries we often make them out to be. They were men and men are flawed.

Washington is not Jefferson Davis. He did not fight to defend slavery. He never even defended slavery at all. He was simply so accustomed to it's existence as a result of his privileged upbringing that he never thought about it, and when he finally did he acknowledged it was wrong. He never beat his slaves, he never told them they deserved to be slaves, he never treated them as anything less than workers. That isn't enough to make up for his continued owning of slaves even when he knew it was wrong or for his silence on the issue of abolition (which he did quietly support) but, IMO, it is enough that we can still honor him without having to feel guilty about it. We shouldn't feel guilty about it. Washington was like most people a flawed man, but he wasn't a villain. He was not Attila, or Genghis Khan, or Qin Shi Huang - who were all brutal even by the standards of their time(s). We cannot vilify him for not being perfect according to our modern standards. That would be inane.

If the school wants to change the name then that's fine, I understand why. I don't agree with it; but I understand why. But we can't condemned the legacy of our very first president--the man who led our fight for independence--just because he held slaves. If every nation were to condemn it's national figures just because they didn't have a spotless record, then there would be a severe shortage of national heroes. Believe me I wish all our Founders had been as cool and progressive as Lafayette was (not a Founder, I know, but he was still a pretty great guy and definitely an honorary American hero) but they simply weren't. That's history. Good people weren't always good.

Actually he couldn't have freed his slaves, it was against Virginia state law to do so.

Actually he could have freed his slaves. When Washington lived in Pennsylvania the state had a gradual abolition law that automatically freed any slave that entered the state and remained there for six months. Washington, however, regularly sent his slaves back to Mount Vernon or on trips across state lines with his wife, thus effectively resetting the clock. If he wanted his slaves freed then all he needed to do was nothing. Instead he made an effort to keep people enslaved in his service.

[Picairn]

Humans enjoy harming each other. Hence anyone who actually tries to demarcate between Serbia and Croatia are attacked by both Chetniks and Ustase. It’s not even a question of where to draw the border. The very fact that the border exists hampers further expansion by both sides and hence is attacked.

Fuck humans.

Ok dude, call me when you have decided to leave human civilization and live in the jungle with the big cats.

[Thermodolia]

“engaged in the subjugation and enslavement of human beings; or who oppressed women, inhibiting societal progress; or whose actions led to genocide; or who otherwise significantly diminished the opportunities of those amongst us to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Ya know I definitely agree that Feinstein significantly diminished the opportunities for life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Thermodolia]

Please. While some people do engage in that, the main focus is trying to not have places named after racists.

Dianne Feinstein is on their list for not removing a Confederate flag from a historical flag display fast enough from their liking.

Sounds more like they want to unperson anyone who doesn't toe their line.

Damn and here I thought it was because she was against people’s happiness, especially to own guns

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Humans enjoy harming each other. Hence anyone who actually tries to demarcate between Serbia and Croatia are attacked by both Chetniks and Ustase. It’s not even a question of where to draw the border. The very fact that the border exists hampers further expansion by both sides and hence is attacked.

Fuck humans.

Ok dude, call me when you have decided to leave human civilization and live in the jungle with the big cats.

I live with a small cat. Fuck humans.

[Senkaku]

Shitty comparison. That'd be like a discussion about making tattoos illegal and comparing it to legalizing murder.

Regardless of your opinion of whether or not the schools should be renamed, they're not nearly the same level as revoking human rights.

Oh, that’s a bloody terrible comparison. Human rights vs a school’s name change to someone who DIDN’T own slaves. I don’t support the name change, but I certainly don’t support removing immigrant or trans rights.

If it was literally about a school name then you'd be correct, but I suspect that they have a deeper agenda here; that being the villification and/or un-personing of historical figures and white/european heritage; removing anyone who doesn't fellow the party line. Washington actively rebelled against Britain yet we (British) still have the respect to give him a statue in London. Yet ironically, London is trying to remove him from California. If someone has such scant disregard for one's heritage then how are they fit to lead?

I know that "unperson" is fun to say, but taking someone's name off a building or their statue out of a public square is in no way similar to "unpersoning," and the hysterical equation of the two is why it's so hard to take reactionaries seriously on these issues. If you have an argument for keeping the name on its own merits, make it, but this sort of nonsense just isn't credible. No one is "unpersoning" the father of the nation, they're just reflecting on his legacy and renaming a public building.

[Vassenor]

Shitty comparison. That'd be like a discussion about making tattoos illegal and comparing it to legalizing murder.

Regardless of your opinion of whether or not the schools should be renamed, they're not nearly the same level as revoking human rights.

Oh, that’s a bloody terrible comparison. Human rights vs a school’s name change to someone who DIDN’T own slaves. I don’t support the name change, but I certainly don’t support removing immigrant or trans rights.

If it was literally about a school name then you'd be correct, but I suspect that they have a deeper agenda here; that being the villification and/or un-personing of historical figures and white/european heritage; removing anyone who doesn't fellow the party line. Washington actively rebelled against Britain yet we (British) still have the respect to give him a statue in London. Yet ironically, London is trying to remove him from California. If someone has such scant disregard for one's heritage then how are they fit to lead?

And Gandhi’s racist past has led to many African countries and institutions in African countries removing statues of him.

Isn't he still revered in left-wing circles? More importantly, by the very people who want to remove washington statues?

So how exactly is Washington being erased from history and human knowledge by this name change?

Also that statue in London is in an art gallery (suggesting it is on display as art not commemoration), not out in public.

[Salus Maior]

So how exactly is Washington being erased from history and human knowledge by this name change?

Also that statue in London is in an art gallery (suggesting it is on display as art not commemoration), not out in public.

I don't see any real reason to change the names, at least not where Washington is concerned.

Sure, he didn't live a squeaky clean life but I think he represents a lot of what's good in American culture and identity.

[Caurus]

The debate between Fahran and A-Series-Of-Tubes regarding aesthetics and poetry got me thinking. Why not name schools after poetry, particularly American poetry? I would hope that we could find a happy compromise in something like "Purple Mountain High" (America the Beautiful) or "Free Skies Elementary" (Walt Whitman's To a Locomotive). Surely a name like "Still I Rise" (Maya Angelou) or "Hold Fast To Dreams" (Langston Hughes' Dreams) would not only satisfy a certain aesthetic desire, but also give appropriate respect to America and its most influential figures.

[The Two Jerseys]

Dianne Feinstein is on their list for not removing a Confederate flag from a historical flag display fast enough from their liking.

Sounds more like they want to unperson anyone who doesn't toe their line.

Damn and here I thought it was because she was against people’s happiness, especially to own guns

But gun owners Don't Think Like Us_TM, so it's okay to oppress them.

[Adamede]

The debate between Fahran and A-Series-Of-Tubes regarding aesthetics and poetry got me thinking. Why not name schools after poetry, particularly American poetry? I would hope that we could find a happy compromise in something like "Purple Mountain High" (America the Beautiful) or "Free Skies Elementary" (Walt Whitman's To a Locomotive). Surely a name like "Still I Rise" (Maya Angelou) or "Hold Fast To Dreams" (Langston Hughes' Dreams) would not only satisfy a certain aesthetic desire, but also give appropriate respect to America and its most influential figures.

Why not just name them for where they are or what county they’re in?

[Caurus]

Why not just name them for where they are or what county they’re in?

We could, but I was merely making a suggestion based on the debate over the poetic and cultural value of the current names. In addition, I fear that we'd likely end up in the same situation where there are a dozen Springfield Elementaries, just as there are dozens of schools named for Washington, not that I have a problem with either.

[Atheris]

Why not just name them for where they are or what county they’re in?

We could, but I was merely making a suggestion based on the debate over the poetic and cultural value of the current names. In addition, I fear that we'd likely end up in the same situation where there are a dozen Springfield Elementaries, just as there are dozens of schools named for Washington, not that I have a problem with either.

There's like ten high schools in my county.

[Kowani]

Why not just name them for where they are or what county they’re in?

We could, but I was merely making a suggestion based on the debate over the poetic and cultural value of the current names. In addition, I fear that we'd likely end up in the same situation where there are a dozen Springfield Elementaries, just as there are dozens of schools named for Washington, not that I have a problem with either.

North Springfield High, West Springfield High, Northnorthwestwest Springfield High

[Fahran]

I know that "unperson" is fun to say, but taking someone's name off a building or their statue out of a public square is in no way similar to "unpersoning," and the hysterical equation of the two is why it's so hard to take reactionaries seriously on these issues. If you have an argument for keeping the name on its own merits, make it, but this sort of nonsense just isn't credible. No one is "unpersoning" the father of the nation, they're just reflecting on his legacy and renaming a public building.

It is, and very consciously so, a way of denying them honors that were previously afforded to them and removing them from the pantheon of national and local heroes. I laid out an argument at present, namely that these persons performed some act of public service or extolled some high ideal that led to them becoming an exemplar of the value system in place in the United States or in that particular institution. That's not really something the critique that they did x bad thing addresses. Kowani's argument is perhaps a bit more effective, but I'll point out that San Francisco USD's resolution seems to single out anyone who was not a progressive in the modern sense on every issue or apolitical for such treatment with no other rationalizations offered.

[Fahran]

North Springfield High, West Springfield High, Northnorthwestwest Springfield High

Ew.

[The Two Jerseys]

You are very naive and completely don’t understand my POV lol.

First of all the word “China” is becoming as dirty as the word “Germany” in 1930s. It is a pretty bad idea for anyone on this planet to be associated with that name.

Secondly the last thing merchant tribes need is visibility. The Jewish community knows that very well which is why stupid antisemites accuse them of “crypsis”. Why is attempting to determine whether someone is Jewish sometimes considered antisemitic? Since attention itself is inherently hostile.

These places should not be called Chinatowns precisely because most people there are not agents of China and should not be unfairly associated with that nuclear term which is likely to be associated with a lot of horrors in the next 50 years.

You pretend to care whether ethnic Chinese like to be associated with the country China.

So after all, you support my position. If the people in modern Chinatown want to change the name, they can. Are we done?

Worth noting, a lot of older immigrants and multi-generation Chinese Americans still consider Taiwan to be the legitimate China, to them all the stuff happening on the mainland is the work of an illegitimate occupying government.