Re: Effort to rename Johnson Hagood Stadium
PostPosted:Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:54 pm
Just a little bit...
The Unofficial Furman Football Page
https://gopaladins.com/
If you are against those particular acts of vandalism (which are happening) then how can you say there is no slippery slope sliding going on? That was my point.Mr. Taggart wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:43 amIt's fine if you disagree with me, but you really look foolish when you accuse me of things I have never said. Shockingly, comrade, I am not a Communist. And I didn't advocate removal of statues of Washington, Grant, Roosevelt or Lincoln ... in fact, advocating the opposite on this thread. To the extent you question the sincerity of my faith... I am going to assume that is not what you meant, and turn the other cheek on that one. I don't know you, and you don't know me. I'll avoid assumptions if you do.Furmanoid wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:50 pmThere is no slippery slope because Mr. Taggart imagines that the movement looks to him for guidance and will heed his sage advice as to which historical figures achieved acceptable levels of ideological purity. Apparently Washington, U. S. Grant, TR and Lincoln didn’t cut the mustard with Mr. Taggart, but we can hope that he will grant a reprieve to marble Jesuses.
I am acquainted with FUBear, and I like him. I am fine with his jokes, at my expense or otherwise. It is part of the site. As I said to him, it is clear that every statute removed or remaining has been done on my personal authority. As to Social Entropy, I am no sociologist, but it seems a valid theory. The election of 2016 is proof of it -- we do not need a Peruvian study.
You really haven't challenged my history, because it isn't wrong. In addition to being a good defender, Dr. O'Neill is a heckuva teacher.
Your contention that public display of monuments to the Lost Cause is some sort of necessity to understand history is simply not credible. How does the name of a football stadium teach us history? The monuments are, plainly stated, fiction -- the do not accurately reflect what happened, and they were put up in part to show black people under Jim Crow that they were subjugated. They were put up in the 1890s and 1900s, as Jim Crow laws were established to repress black people. In the same time, Thomas Dixon wrote a novel and play, which was adapted to The Birth of a Nation. The monuments and the movie serve the same purpose -- to create a new fictional history. To anyone who wanted to see it, it has long been obvious -- C. Vann Woodward wrote about it in 1955. The Lost Cause honors people like Hampton as "freedom fighters." The freedom they sought was the "freedom" not to be treated equally under law with black citizens, in blatant violation of the 14th Amendment. I don't think that should be honored, and I think we learn the truth better from reading it than from looking at statues.
Tell the truth about Wade Hampton. He was one of the largest slaveholders in the South, and he bought his rank. He coordinated with the Red Shirts in 1876, meeting with them in a brothel in Charleston. He pushed the Lost Cause myth. He is no hero, and the hagiography is misplaced, but Hagood was worse -- he executed prisoners of war who were black, considering them to be engaged in servile insurrection. And yet, he has a public building named for him.
As to Hampton, the park next to the Citadel is named for him. The park that was earlier named the Washington Race Course, in honor of the Father of Our Country. The park where the Confederates allowed more than 250 Union POWs to die of exposure during captivity. The park that freedmen repaired after the war, properly burying the dead, and building an archway saying "Martyrs of the Race Course." On May 1, 1865, 10,000 freedmen marched in the Park, including veterans of the 54th Massachusetts, to celebrate Decoration Day. This is an early inspiration for Memorial Day. Charleston allowed the cemetery to fall into disrepair, and the bodies had to be moved.
That park, that sacred ground, was named after Wade Hampton in the 1900s, because of the myth of the Lost Cause. He didn't do anything there. So, how are we making sure people know history? It appears we do so by avoiding mention of the actual events and naming the park, the final resting place for actual heroes, after someone who repressed voters and allowed his supporters to kill citizens to win an election by 1100 votes. That park should be Grant Park, or Lincoln Park, or Union Park, or even Denmark Vesey Park. At least then it would honor people who fought for freedom.
Comrade, if I lived in Russia, I would advocate taking down the statues honoring Lenin and Stalin. Because neither are worthy of public reverence.
There is always going to be a viewpoint on everything. This is not going to happen. No way.youwouldno wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:13 pmOne of the NY Times leading columnists calls for George Washington to be cancelled also:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/opin ... e=Homepage
I guess this viewpoint continues to only exist in the imagination, huh.
Well in 1776 the rebels weren't "patriots" as the US didn't previously exist. The historical case in favor of the that rebellion is far from being air-tight. By the standards of that era, the American colonists were treated reasonably well, and it's not as if there was no alternative - Canada, for instance, achieved independence in a more gradual and less violent fashion (though there were some small armed rebellions, complicated by the rivalry between British and French colonists).
Hold on there Roundball. You’re oversteppin’ here. The TSSS4RR is the final arbiter on such matters. Now you may own your version of this algorithm, or perhaps, have in your possession some type of mechanical cipherin’ device,Roundball wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:36 pmThere is always going to be a viewpoint on everything. This is not going to happen. No way.youwouldno wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:13 pmOne of the NY Times leading columnists calls for George Washington to be cancelled also:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/opin ... e=Homepage
I guess this viewpoint continues to only exist in the imagination, huh.
Mr. Taggart wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:56 amInteresting how I said directly that none of those people should be cancelled, and you need the slide rule. You can handle that calculation on your fingers and toes.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
From the above-stated concern, it appears that Charles Blow's column is the final arbiter of what stays and goes. Because the country always follows Charles Blow's recommendations verbatim.
To your first point, that's an interesting argument you bring up. My senior seminar at Furman was on the Revolutionary War and was taught by a British gentleman. He argued for something similar saying that the colonies would have gotten independence eventually anyway, and would have actually led to the end of slavery much earlier as England outlawed slavery several decades before the U.S. did.youwouldno wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:37 pmWell in 1776 the rebels weren't "patriots" as the US didn't previously exist. The historical case in favor of the that rebellion is far from being air-tight. By the standards of that era, the American colonists were treated reasonably well, and it's not as if there was no alternative - Canada, for instance, achieved independence in a more gradual and less violent fashion (though there were some small armed rebellions, complicated by the rivalry between British and French colonists).
Reducing to the Civil War to being about slavery alone is to likewise remove all context. Slavery was intricately linked to political and economic factors - the balance of power in Congress, trade policy, etc. The northern states pushed through policies harmful to the South's export economy and gave the southern states legitimate reason to suspect that the anti-slavery movement was more about further harming the south economically than it was about rectifying a moral evil.
Due to the invention of the cotton gin, by 1860 slavery was quickly becoming economically dubious, and was certain to ultimately end for that reason alone. However, in the short-term, the use of slaves allowed for southern planters to expand into the western territories in a way that would have been slower and less politically advantageous than the use free labor. This was one of the key political issues that gave rise to the Republican Party - Lincoln's philosophy was that the territories should be used to provide opportunity to the white working class (Lincoln was extremely clear and adamant about the racial aspect of his policy) rather than for wealthy landowners to dominate agriculture through slave labor.
There's no question that the south's use of slavery utterly compromised its legitimate grievances. The reality nonetheless is that the northern states *could* have chosen a different path, treating the south fairly and creating a political situation where slavery could end without the loss of 5% of the country's population, an infinitesimal number of whom owned any slaves.
Welp, Thom’s ancestors want it renamed, actually, razed/reconstructed as The Harriet Tubman Memorial.Paladonian wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 3:40 pmKinda makes you wonder what they are going to rename the Jefferson Memorial...