San Francisco may rename school named for Washington

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

What about my proposal?

I mean, why not just name it after George Washington Carver at that point?

For the realists in the room, it's much cheaper to change the name by adding "Carver" on the existing one, than to make a whole new name and line of merchandise.

Who is offended by Washington's name?

Literally the people living there

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.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

I mean, why not just name it after George Washington Carver at that point?

For the realists in the room, it's much cheaper to change the name by adding "Carver" on the existing one, than to make a whole new name and line of merchandise.



Literally the people living there

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.

What’s your opinion on my proposal? Just overload the namesake. Let those who like President George Washington to use the word “Washington” to refer to him. Let those who don’t use the word to refer to George Washington Carver or some other Washington. Problem solved.

[The Two Jerseys]

I mean, why not just name it after George Washington Carver at that point?

For the realists in the room, it's much cheaper to change the name by adding "Carver" on the existing one, than to make a whole new name and line of merchandise.



Literally the people living there

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.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

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.

Overload the names..

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

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.

Wait, really? Oh shit. Didn't know that. That actually makes it better, though. He literally couldn't free them. Which sucks ass, of course, but it makes any argument that he was a slave owner kind of pointless. He didn't really have a choice in the matter.

[Kowani]

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.

point of order: Washington exploited a loophole in NY State law (remember, NY was the early capitol) to prevent freeing his slaves

[The Two Jerseys]

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

Wait, really? Oh shit. Didn't know that. That actually makes it better, though. He literally couldn't free them. Which sucks ass, of course, but it makes any argument that he was a slave owner kind of pointless. He didn't really have a choice in the matter.

Well, technically he could have freed the slaves he personally owned, but most of them were married to slaves who were part of Martha's dowry and legally remained property of the Custis family, and Washington was opposed to breaking up slave families.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Just roll out the overload already. What are we even arguing about?

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Wait, really? Oh shit. Didn't know that. That actually makes it better, though. He literally couldn't free them. Which sucks ass, of course, but it makes any argument that he was a slave owner kind of pointless. He didn't really have a choice in the matter.

Well, technically he could have freed the slaves he personally owned, but most of them were married to slaves who were part of Martha's dowry and legally remained property of the Custis family, and Washington was opposed to breaking up slave families.

Does this have anything to do with whether overloading is a good idea?

[The Two Jerseys]

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

point of order: Washington exploited a loophole in NY State law (remember, NY was the early capitol) to prevent freeing his slaves

A lot of those slaves were actually property of the Custis family, so he would have had to pay them compensation if their slaves were emancipated, and he really couldn't afford that.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

point of order: Washington exploited a loophole in NY State law (remember, NY was the early capitol) to prevent freeing his slaves

A lot of those slaves were actually property of the Custis family, so he would have had to pay them compensation if their slaves were emancipated, and he really couldn't afford that.

Does this have anything to do with overloading to save peace? Could Washington have freed his slaves is irrelevant.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Wait, really? Oh shit. Didn't know that. That actually makes it better, though. He literally couldn't free them. Which sucks ass, of course, but it makes any argument that he was a slave owner kind of pointless. He didn't really have a choice in the matter.

Well, technically he could have freed the slaves he personally owned, but most of them were married to slaves who were part of Martha's dowry and legally remained property of the Custis family, and Washington was opposed to breaking up slave families.

Breaking up slave families or freeing less than half of the slaves.

Not a choice I'd like to have to make. Can't blame his decision.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Well, technically he could have freed the slaves he personally owned, but most of them were married to slaves who were part of Martha's dowry and legally remained property of the Custis family, and Washington was opposed to breaking up slave families.

Breaking up slave families or freeing less than half of the slaves.

Not a choice I'd like to have to make. Can't blame his decision.

Why don’t you address the naming issue?

[Nekostan-e Sharqi]

Everyone is discussing: “was George Washington flawless?” Nobody is discussing “Shall we overload the namesake?”

[Fahran]

...this is a debate in Spain too
it's not some "woke progressives being ironically culturally imperialist" thing

So Spaniards are weird on two fronts now.

I mean the "woke progressives being ironically culturally imperialist" argument has been made by Latinos in Latin America, but some of those ideas are pretty new, so we'll have to wait and see how everything plays out.

[Nekostan-e Sharqi]

...this is a debate in Spain too
it's not some "woke progressives being ironically culturally imperialist" thing

So Spaniards are weird on two fronts now.

I mean the "woke progressives being ironically culturally imperialist" argument has been made by Latinos in Latin America, but some of those ideas are pretty new, so we'll have to wait and see how everything plays out.

I said a long time ago that the tribe-independent and tribe-related ideologies in social liberalism are contradictory. Most LGBT activists are actually LGBT. Most feminists are women. Yet multiculturalism in social liberal West literally leads to tolerance of authoritarian, patriarchal and homophobic movements as long as they aren’t European. That is, the net effect of normal social liberalism is not more traditionalism but the effect of SJ and multiculturalism do inevitably lead to that.

This is why national liberalism as practiced by Israel is consistent and optimal. Israel protects women’s rights and LGBT rights. To protect women’s rights and LGBT rights a strong Israel with Jewish majority is necessary.

[Kowani]

...this is a debate in Spain too
it's not some "woke progressives being ironically culturally imperialist" thing

So Spaniards are weird on two fronts now.

I mean the "woke progressives being ironically culturally imperialist" argument has been made by Latinos in Latin America, but some of those ideas are pretty new, so we'll have to wait and see how everything plays out.

I take pride in being weird, you goofball

eh
my knowledge of the latino communities is
bad
so i'm inclined to be more reserved on that front

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

So Spaniards are weird on two fronts now.

I mean the "woke progressives being ironically culturally imperialist" argument has been made by Latinos in Latin America, but some of those ideas are pretty new, so we'll have to wait and see how everything plays out.

I take pride in being weird, you goofball

eh
my knowledge of the latino communities is
bad
so i'm inclined to be more reserved on that front

I don’t want to sound like a broken record but the idea of overloading the name “Washington” is optimal. Here is why:
1. No name change is required, saving taxpayers’ money.
2. Allows inclusive interpretation of the word to satisfy maximal amount of people.
3. Defuses the naming war.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Different ethnic groups often have different names for the same location. For example in Polish Lviv is known as Lwów. In Russian it is known as Lvov. In German and Yiddish it is known as Lemberg. In Hungarian it is known as Ilyvó. There is no reason why Lemberg and Lviv can not represent the same city. Lemberg is Lviv and Lviv is Lemberg.

In this context there is nothing wrong with Washington State being named after President George Washington for white Americans and named after George Washington Carver for African Americans. We can even create dual namesakes for all places named after humans in US and it’s not that hard since black and white Americans generally share surnames.

What’s particularly funny is that my solution which is one of the most sensible and unbiased in the thread is entirely ignored.

[Fahran]

Different ethnic groups often have different names for the same location. For example in Polish Lviv is known as Lwów. In Russian it is known as Lvov. In German and Yiddish it is known as Lemberg. In Hungarian it is known as Ilyvó. There is no reason why Lemberg and Lviv can not represent the same city. Lemberg is Lviv and Lviv is Lemberg.

In this context there is nothing wrong with Washington State being named after President George Washington for white Americans and named after George Washington Carver for African Americans. We can even create dual namesakes for all places named after humans in US and it’s not that hard since black and white Americans generally share surnames.

What’s particularly funny is that my solution which is one of the most sensible and unbiased in the thread is entirely ignored.

These ethnic groups all speak different languages notably. Anglo-Americans and African Americans both predominantly speak English. I'd argue this also runs counter to the emphasis that was historically placed on integration, though integration tends to entail some degree of cultural erasure and assimilation in the long-term as cultural mixing occurs, largely favoring the culture of the majority or most powerful population.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Different ethnic groups often have different names for the same location. For example in Polish Lviv is known as Lwów. In Russian it is known as Lvov. In German and Yiddish it is known as Lemberg. In Hungarian it is known as Ilyvó. There is no reason why Lemberg and Lviv can not represent the same city. Lemberg is Lviv and Lviv is Lemberg.

In this context there is nothing wrong with Washington State being named after President George Washington for white Americans and named after George Washington Carver for African Americans. We can even create dual namesakes for all places named after humans in US and it’s not that hard since black and white Americans generally share surnames.

What’s particularly funny is that my solution which is one of the most sensible and unbiased in the thread is entirely ignored.

These ethnic groups all speak different languages notably. Anglo-Americans and African Americans both predominantly speak English. I'd argue this also runs counter to the emphasis that was historically placed on integration, though integration tends to entail some degree of cultural erasure and assimilation in the long-term as cultural mixing occurs, largely favoring the culture of the majority or most powerful population.

Germanic cultures are traditionally segregationist just like the culture of Japan. White-black integration is something neither the SJ community nor the WN community can stomach. In fact people are so segregated to the point that a race-blind concept of American nationalism doesn’t actually exist.

Considering that agitators on both sides do not actually want white-black integration no matter what they claim I think separate namesakes are pretty appropriate here.

[Kowani]

What’s particularly funny is that my solution which is one of the most sensible and unbiased in the thread is entirely ignored.

no
it's getting ignored because it's dumb
it's not really that complicated

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

What’s particularly funny is that my solution which is one of the most sensible and unbiased in the thread is entirely ignored.

no
it's getting ignored because it's dumb
it's not really that complicated

It’s not dumb. You guys are just way too authoritarian to know what compromise is any more. There is really nothing wrong with Warszawa and Varshe coexisting.

[Atheris]

no
it's getting ignored because it's dumb
it's not really that complicated

It’s not dumb. You guys are just way too authoritarian to know what compromise is any more.

No, it's just really dumb.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

It’s not dumb. You guys are just way too authoritarian to know what compromise is any more.

No, it's just really dumb.

Nope. Do you want to explain your reasoning or are you so authoritarian that you don’t want to explain your real reasoning? Lol.

I know very well that both of you just enjoy harming and imposing your will on each other. When I (pretend to) take your nominal claims seriously both sides freak out lol. Humans are indeed evil and hypocritical. Fuck humans.