San Francisco may rename school named for Washington

[Insaanistan]

Why doesn't it? It's a city, it could be named literally anything and it would make sense. That's how cities are

I don't see why the national capital shouldnt be named for the first president of the United States and who was literally the only person who had the respect and reverence he had. There was no one else who could have led the country as effectively or been able to hold it together during its early years.

^This

[Cordel One]

Why doesn't it? It's a city, it could be named literally anything and it would make sense. That's how cities are

I don't see why the national capital shouldnt be named for the first president of the United States and who was literally the only person who had the respect and reverence he had. There was no one else who could have led the country as effectively or been able to hold it together during its early years.

He was also a slaveowner and a genocidal maniac.

[Nuroblav]

By the way my Greek letters proposal earlier wasn't really in seriousness.

[Garkland]

Why doesn't it? It's a city, it could be named literally anything and it would make sense. That's how cities are

I don't see why the national capital shouldnt be named for the first president of the United States and who was literally the only person who had the respect and reverence he had. There was no one else who could have led the country as effectively or been able to hold it together during its early years.

You would be right because of the discrimination women, minorities, and African Americans received. Let me edit your answer, George Washington was the best "White, male, slave owner, and landowner" to rule America. If people gave other groups of people a try, then George Washington would not be the best candidate anymore.

[San Lumen]

I don't see why the national capital shouldnt be named for the first president of the United States and who was literally the only person who had the respect and reverence he had. There was no one else who could have led the country as effectively or been able to hold it together during its early years.

He was also a slaveowner and a genocidal maniac.

You are flat out ridiculous. Lets rename everything named after every major historical figure while we are at it because they didn't hold to today's standards or did something bad.

Only pure people have things named for them. By your logic there would be few historical figures left to name things for.

Give me some names for what you'd rename, Jefferson City, Washington DC, and Columbus (Ohio's capital) too. Should we rename New York while we're at it?

[Atheris]

I don't see why the national capital shouldnt be named for the first president of the United States and who was literally the only person who had the respect and reverence he had. There was no one else who could have led the country as effectively or been able to hold it together during its early years.

He was also a slaveowner and a genocidal maniac.

And Marx was an anti-semite, racist, an abuser, and just a straight up asshole. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't have places named after one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century.

[Kowani]

He was also a slaveowner and a genocidal maniac.

And Marx was an anti-semite, racist, an abuser, and just a straight up asshole. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't have places named after one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century.

i mean
active mass-murder and slaveholding are a bit worse than holding racist beliefs

[Cordel One]

He was also a slaveowner and a genocidal maniac.

And Marx was an anti-semite, racist, an abuser, and just a straight up asshole. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't have places named after one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century.

Karl Marx never committed genocide or owned slaves but that is a legitimate reason.

[San Lumen]

I don't see why the national capital shouldnt be named for the first president of the United States and who was literally the only person who had the respect and reverence he had. There was no one else who could have led the country as effectively or been able to hold it together during its early years.

You would be right because of the discrimination women, minorities, and African Americans received. Let me edit your answer, George Washington was the best "White, male, slave owner, and landowner" to rule America. If people gave other groups of people a try, then George Washington would not be the best candidate anymore.

The idea of a woman or non white executive was unfathomable to many back then. It is not fair to hold historical figures to modern standards.

[Atheris]

And Marx was an anti-semite, racist, an abuser, and just a straight up asshole. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't have places named after one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century.

i mean
active mass-murder and slaveholding are a bit worse than holding racist beliefs

Sure, but followers of Marx's beliefs lead to the deaths of millions and possibly even billions (although billions is kind of a stretch).

[Garkland]

He was also a slaveowner and a genocidal maniac.

And Marx was an anti-semite, racist, an abuser, and just a straight up asshole. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't have places named after one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century.

I can see what you're saying, but isn't naming a building, erecting a statute, etc honoring them in a way? Don't get me wrong no important person tat did terrible things should be wiped out of the history books, but when does it go from "knowing history" to "honoring and supporting that person"?

[San Lumen]

And Marx was an anti-semite, racist, an abuser, and just a straight up asshole. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't have places named after one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century.

I can see what you're saying, but isn't naming a building, erecting a statute, etc honoring them in a way? Don't get me wrong no important person tat did terrible things should be wiped out of the history books, but when does it go from "knowing history" to "honoring and supporting that person"?

So Washington DC and Jefferson City ought to be renamed? If so too what?

[Atheris]

And Marx was an anti-semite, racist, an abuser, and just a straight up asshole. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't have places named after one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century.

I can see what you're saying, but isn't naming a building, erecting a statute, etc honoring them in a way? Don't get me wrong no important person tat did terrible things should be wiped out of the history books, but when does it go from "knowing history" to "honoring and supporting that person"?

Veneration will always be part of remembrance.

[Garkland]

You would be right because of the discrimination women, minorities, and African Americans received. Let me edit your answer, George Washington was the best "White, male, slave owner, and landowner" to rule America. If people gave other groups of people a try, then George Washington would not be the best candidate anymore.

The idea of a woman or non white executive was unfathomable to many back then. It is not fair to hold historical figures to modern standards.

So therefore you are wrong in the sense that he was the only capable person. I do have to say he was probably the only person that would probably get accepted as president. Those are two separate things, however.

[Cordel One]

He was also a slaveowner and a genocidal maniac.

You are flat out ridiculous. Lets rename everything named after every major historical figure while we are at it because they didn't hold to today's standards or did something bad.

Only pure people have things named for them. By your logic there would be few historical figures left to name things for.

Give me some names for what you'd rename, Jefferson City, Washington DC, and Columbus (Ohio's capital) too. Should we rename New York while we're at it?

New York can stay, and alternate names are irrelevant.

[San Lumen]

You are flat out ridiculous. Lets rename everything named after every major historical figure while we are at it because they didn't hold to today's standards or did something bad.

Only pure people have things named for them. By your logic there would be few historical figures left to name things for.

Give me some names for what you'd rename, Jefferson City, Washington DC, and Columbus (Ohio's capital) too. Should we rename New York while we're at it?

New York can stay, and alternate names are irrelevant.

If the Duke of York held racist beliefs by your standard why not? How are they irrelevant? Your the one who wants them renamed therefore give alternative ones?

[Insaanistan]

I don't see why the national capital shouldnt be named for the first president of the United States and who was literally the only person who had the respect and reverence he had. There was no one else who could have led the country as effectively or been able to hold it together during its early years.

He was also a slaveowner and a genocidal maniac.

Don’t think we should we rename DC, but to be fair, he did start a 9 year old conflict.

[Cordel One]

New York can stay, and alternate names are irrelevant.

If the Duke of York held racist beliefs by your standard why not? How are they irrelevant? Your the one who wants them renamed therefore gives alternative ones?

York wasn't named after the duke, but if you wanna rename it to New Eboracum or something that's cool

[Garkland]

I can see what you're saying, but isn't naming a building, erecting a statute, etc honoring them in a way? Don't get me wrong no important person tat did terrible things should be wiped out of the history books, but when does it go from "knowing history" to "honoring and supporting that person"?

So Washington DC and Jefferson City ought to be renamed? If so too what?

I think this is an issue that should get voted on, I am not the people, only a person.

I can see what you're saying, but isn't naming a building, erecting a statute, etc honoring them in a way? Don't get me wrong no important person tat did terrible things should be wiped out of the history books, but when does it go from "knowing history" to "honoring and supporting that person"?

Veneration will always be part of remembrance.

Ok, I'm ok with having a statue of say Columbus, however, the statue should be non-bias and show that this person was not a hero and in some ways was quite bad.

[San Lumen]

If the Duke of York held racist beliefs by your standard why not? How are they irrelevant? Your the one who wants them renamed therefore gives alternative ones?

York wasn't named after the duke.

New York city was and specifically this Duke of York: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_II_of_England

Still waiting for your alternatives.

[Atheris]

Veneration will always be part of remembrance.

Ok, I'm ok with having a statue of say Columbus, however, the statue should be non-bias and show that this person was not a hero and in some ways was quite bad.

I'd be fine with that. It'd be hard to do that with a whole city, though.

[Cordel One]

York wasn't named after the duke.

New York city was and specifically this Duke of York: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_II_of_England

New Amsterdam would be cool

Still waiting for your alternatives.

Stop asking for alternate names, they're irrelevant.

[The Black Forrest]

Even then. SF has more important issues to solve then OMFG THEY NAMED THIS SCHOOL AFTER!!!!!

how many of those issues are within the jurisdiction of the school board?

There are many things. Remote learning and it’s effects. A plan for future pandemics. Quality of eduction. Proper food for students. Updating the classrooms for more Net use. Multilingual situations. Uniforms versus free dress. Vaccinating teachers (the argument of “just open the schools!!!!”), a new science initiative......

There are many more beneficial things then school renames. Their argument of “oh this will increase students interest in history” needs to be proven. I doubt many will go “oh hey let’s all run to the library.....hit the Net and learn all we can about this person.

[Atheris]

York wasn't named after the duke.

New York city was and specifically this Duke of York: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_II_of_England

Still waiting for your alternatives.

Before anyone says it wasn't:

In 1664, the city was named in honor of the Duke of York, who would become King James II of England. James's older brother, King Charles II, appointed the Duke proprietor of the former territory of New Netherland, including the city of New Amsterdam, when England seized it from the Dutch.

[San Lumen]

New York city was and specifically this Duke of York: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_II_of_England

New Amsterdam would be cool

Still waiting for your alternatives.

Stop asking for alternate names, they're irrelevant.

Or how about just leave the current name and that of DC and Jefferson City.

Its not irrelevant your the one who proposed the renamed therefore id' like some proposals.