Washington and Lincoln are out. S.F. school board tosses 44 school names in controversial move

HughFreakingDillon said:

if we're going to continue with this renaming shit, then do them all, or don't do any of them. there are historical figures across the globe that are considered a net positive to humanity, even if they were alcoholics/drug users/adulterers/abusers/general shitheads/etc. 

all humans are flawed. either we accept that and still honour their achievements to society regardless of their personal demons, or we don't. 

We going to change all the MLK Blvds? 

Honestly, it's a tough argument for me.  I think - there are a lot of people that the good outweighed the bad...but who decides that?  

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

if we're going to continue with this renaming shit, then do them all, or don't do any of them. there are historical figures across the globe that are considered a net positive to humanity, even if they were alcoholics/drug users/adulterers/abusers/general shitheads/etc. 

all humans are flawed. either we accept that and still honour their achievements to society regardless of their personal demons, or we don't. 

We going to change all the MLK Blvds? 

Honestly, it's a tough argument for me.  I think - there are a lot of people that the good outweighed the bad...but who decides that?  

that's exactly what i mean. we're accepting of the fact that he was a serial adulterer because of the good, which i agree with. sure, those presidents were slave owners, but society needs to look at the context of the time they were living in. you cannot cast judgment on the distant past based on today's standards. 

tbergs said:

cincybearcat said:

Maybe it's time to sell the naming rights to schools to local businesses

Johnson High sponsored by PornHub...

"where our students rise to the occasion"

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

if we're going to continue with this renaming shit, then do them all, or don't do any of them. there are historical figures across the globe that are considered a net positive to humanity, even if they were alcoholics/drug users/adulterers/abusers/general shitheads/etc. 

all humans are flawed. either we accept that and still honour their achievements to society regardless of their personal demons, or we don't. 

We going to change all the MLK Blvds? 

Honestly, it's a tough argument for me.  I think - there are a lot of people that the good outweighed the bad...but who decides that?  

that's exactly what i mean. we're accepting of the fact that he was a serial adulterer because of the good, which i agree with. sure, those presidents were slave owners, but society needs to look at the context of the time they were living in. you cannot cast judgment on the distant past based on today's standards. 

But those schools exist today, not in the distant past. 

The only reason this is considered a “controversial move” at all is white privilege.

mace1229 said:

dankind said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

if we're going to continue with this renaming shit, then do them all, or don't do any of them. there are historical figures across the globe that are considered a net positive to humanity, even if they were alcoholics/drug users/adulterers/abusers/general shitheads/etc. 

all humans are flawed. either we accept that and still honour their achievements to society regardless of their personal demons, or we don't. 

We going to change all the MLK Blvds? 

Honestly, it's a tough argument for me.  I think - there are a lot of people that the good outweighed the bad...but who decides that?  

that's exactly what i mean. we're accepting of the fact that he was a serial adulterer because of the good, which i agree with. sure, those presidents were slave owners, but society needs to look at the context of the time they were living in. you cannot cast judgment on the distant past based on today's standards. 

But those schools exist today, not in the distant past. 

Name them for today.

Whatever it costs, it’s a small price to pay for helping to eliminate nearly 500 years of racial trauma, no?

I just don't get how Lincoln (or in other cases, Grant too) is offensive and helps eliminate 500 years of racial trauma. How is Lincoln, the man who freed the slaves, offensive to black culture? 

Lincoln held views that were fairly close to this character's.



He didn't free the slaves; circumstances freed the slaves. He signed a piece of paper.

mace1229 said:

dankind said:

mace1229 said:

dankind said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

if we're going to continue with this renaming shit, then do them all, or don't do any of them. there are historical figures across the globe that are considered a net positive to humanity, even if they were alcoholics/drug users/adulterers/abusers/general shitheads/etc. 

all humans are flawed. either we accept that and still honour their achievements to society regardless of their personal demons, or we don't. 

We going to change all the MLK Blvds? 

Honestly, it's a tough argument for me.  I think - there are a lot of people that the good outweighed the bad...but who decides that?  

that's exactly what i mean. we're accepting of the fact that he was a serial adulterer because of the good, which i agree with. sure, those presidents were slave owners, but society needs to look at the context of the time they were living in. you cannot cast judgment on the distant past based on today's standards. 

But those schools exist today, not in the distant past. 

Name them for today.

Whatever it costs, it’s a small price to pay for helping to eliminate nearly 500 years of racial trauma, no?

I just don't get how Lincoln (or in other cases, Grant too) is offensive and helps eliminate 500 years of racial trauma. How is Lincoln, the man who freed the slaves, offensive to black culture? 

Lincoln held views that were fairly close to this character's.



He didn't free the slaves; circumstances freed the slaves. He signed a piece of paper.

So he didn't free slaves, he just signed a piece of paper that freed the slaves, and it was the paper that actually freed them? Are we arguing over semantics? I still don't know why that would be offensive to the black community, to celebrate the person who signed the paper that freed the slaves.

Well, perhaps you need to join some racial equity Zoom chats to see what other seemingly innocuous (to white people) structures, etc. remind our Black brothers and sisters of their nearly 500 years of inherited trauma.

Or you could continue not to see why certain things would offend Black folks. Nice that you have that privilege.

mace1229 said:

dankind said:

mace1229 said:

dankind said:

mace1229 said:

dankind said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

if we're going to continue with this renaming shit, then do them all, or don't do any of them. there are historical figures across the globe that are considered a net positive to humanity, even if they were alcoholics/drug users/adulterers/abusers/general shitheads/etc. 

all humans are flawed. either we accept that and still honour their achievements to society regardless of their personal demons, or we don't. 

We going to change all the MLK Blvds? 

Honestly, it's a tough argument for me.  I think - there are a lot of people that the good outweighed the bad...but who decides that?  

that's exactly what i mean. we're accepting of the fact that he was a serial adulterer because of the good, which i agree with. sure, those presidents were slave owners, but society needs to look at the context of the time they were living in. you cannot cast judgment on the distant past based on today's standards. 

But those schools exist today, not in the distant past. 

Name them for today.

Whatever it costs, it’s a small price to pay for helping to eliminate nearly 500 years of racial trauma, no?

I just don't get how Lincoln (or in other cases, Grant too) is offensive and helps eliminate 500 years of racial trauma. How is Lincoln, the man who freed the slaves, offensive to black culture? 

Lincoln held views that were fairly close to this character's.



He didn't free the slaves; circumstances freed the slaves. He signed a piece of paper.

So he didn't free slaves, he just signed a piece of paper that freed the slaves, and it was the paper that actually freed them? Are we arguing over semantics? I still don't know why that would be offensive to the black community, to celebrate the person who signed the paper that freed the slaves.

Well, perhaps you need to join some racial equity Zoom chats to see what other seemingly innocuous (to white people) structures, etc. remind our Black brothers and sisters of their nearly 500 years of inherited trauma.

Or you could continue not to see why certain things would offend Black folks. Nice that you have that privilege.

We attend regular racial equity meetings, about once a month. Still doesn't answer my question about honoring the name of the man who freed the slaves, or in your words, signed a paper. He is generally accepted as the man who freed the slaves. He should be honored.
And Grant too. He was against slavery, fought to end it. I believe the only slave he owned was a gift that he freed.

Lincoln sure didn’t do any favors for native Americans...

PJPOWER said:

mace1229 said:

dankind said:

mace1229 said:

dankind said:

mace1229 said:

dankind said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

if we're going to continue with this renaming shit, then do them all, or don't do any of them. there are historical figures across the globe that are considered a net positive to humanity, even if they were alcoholics/drug users/adulterers/abusers/general shitheads/etc. 

all humans are flawed. either we accept that and still honour their achievements to society regardless of their personal demons, or we don't. 

We going to change all the MLK Blvds? 

Honestly, it's a tough argument for me.  I think - there are a lot of people that the good outweighed the bad...but who decides that?  

that's exactly what i mean. we're accepting of the fact that he was a serial adulterer because of the good, which i agree with. sure, those presidents were slave owners, but society needs to look at the context of the time they were living in. you cannot cast judgment on the distant past based on today's standards. 

But those schools exist today, not in the distant past. 

Name them for today.

Whatever it costs, it’s a small price to pay for helping to eliminate nearly 500 years of racial trauma, no?

I just don't get how Lincoln (or in other cases, Grant too) is offensive and helps eliminate 500 years of racial trauma. How is Lincoln, the man who freed the slaves, offensive to black culture? 

Lincoln held views that were fairly close to this character's.



He didn't free the slaves; circumstances freed the slaves. He signed a piece of paper.

So he didn't free slaves, he just signed a piece of paper that freed the slaves, and it was the paper that actually freed them? Are we arguing over semantics? I still don't know why that would be offensive to the black community, to celebrate the person who signed the paper that freed the slaves.

Well, perhaps you need to join some racial equity Zoom chats to see what other seemingly innocuous (to white people) structures, etc. remind our Black brothers and sisters of their nearly 500 years of inherited trauma.

Or you could continue not to see why certain things would offend Black folks. Nice that you have that privilege.

We attend regular racial equity meetings, about once a month. Still doesn't answer my question about honoring the name of the man who freed the slaves, or in your words, signed a paper. He is generally accepted as the man who freed the slaves. He should be honored.
And Grant too. He was against slavery, fought to end it. I believe the only slave he owned was a gift that he freed.

Lincoln sure didn’t do any favors for native Americans...

True. But I think HFD said it well, we should look at the context of the time and if what they did for the country outweighs the bad, we should still honor them. 
But its only US political leaders that seem to be targeted. No one has a problem with the thousands of cities named after people, many of them saints and Jesuits, many would consider MLK a womanizer but there's no one from the #metoo movement wanting to rename his streets. 
Washington was the first president of our country, there should be schools named after him, even if he was flawed. Same goes for MLK, Lincoln and many others who had a big positive impact.

Unfortunately the masshole , uh I mean Dan is kind of right.  Just a quick read about Lincoln:
https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation