wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Some people do great things despite also doing things that were viewed as legitimate at the time but in hindsight are considered horrible (George Washington is a good example). These people can still be honored for the great things they did but, in my opinion, it is important to be honest about the negative things they did as well.

---

Most of the Founding Fathers had some beliefs that would be considered pretty crappy today. They were not all great people.

But they aren't "honored" for being 100% perfect humans, they are honored for founding a new kind of democratic republic and successfully fighting for self-rule over monarchy. That is absolutely a worthwhile advance in human history and an accomplishment worth celebrating, whatever else their faults may have been.

What did the Confederates accomplish that is worth celebrating?

---

That is exactly my point

---

Okay, so what I think your telling me then is the line is what the statute stands for. If the statue represents someone for what they did with the Confederacy take it down. If it's for another reason, it stays. So for example, LeConte stays because he is being remembered for his academic contributions, even thought he was an arms supplier for the Confederacy. Yes? I think we agree. Edit: clearly LeConte is a traitor and should be removed under your analysis.

But what do you tell the Furies who want everything Serra removed when he is recognized for his actions in starting California, and they believe those actions led to the extermination of the native inhabitants? Remove? It's not that easy to draw a line always. What do you do when Catholics object? It is a slippery slope.

---

I never said anything about a line. Life is too complicated for lines. I don't know anything about Serra and have no opinion. As for LeConte - I just did about 3 minutes of google research on him. Based on that, it seems he worked at a munitions plant in the South during the Civil War. He was a racist. I don't have a problem with his Cal presence based on what he did in California after the Civil War. But honestly, if his presence upset enough people, I wouldn't have a problem with his presence being removed and museum'd either. It's not like he is George Washington or something.

wifeisafurd said:

---

So the line is we only make decisions based on who is politically popular.

---

Welcome to democracy.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I don't see a straw man when activists and student governments are demanding removal of essentially everything.

---

They're not though. Sure, there is always SOMEONE who will say so, but I'm not concerned about it unless there's a significant popular movement.

There's a reason why Confederate monuments are a flashpoint in the way those other people aren't, and it's not just because people are being hypocritical and selective. It's because those monuments really are more problematic than the rest.

---

So all the Indians are dead or politically powerless. Screw them.

---

No, it's that the legacy of the missionaries who colonized California is complicated. On the one hand, they treated the Indians like s***. On the other hand, they did essentially lay the foundations for the great cities and population centers that still stand today. If you are of a Christian persuasion, they also laid the ground for spreading your religion to the West Coast.

Reasonable people can disagree on the positive vs. negative impacts of Junipero Serra. (Personally, I would be fine with taking his name off of stuff. To be clear, that is NOT the same as removing him from history books or museum exhibits.)

I see no good argument for the positive impact of the Confederates. They started a war so they could keep slaves. They committed treason against the United States. They lost the war and accomplished nothing. Seems all negative to me. What legacy are we celebrating there?

One major difference between Cal and the South is generally Californians don't care about historic figures as a prop up to a power structure, whereas in the South, confederate statues serve this purpose. Also at a state or even on the university level...statues of racists and traitors are NOT everywhere in California. Rather they are mostly an exception with limited memorials and NOT about the civil war or supporters of slavery. (again, generally). The way the South uses confederate statues is not much different from an animal marking their territory with pee...confederate statues are everywhere in the South.

I would contribute to a fund that would install a memorial in the town square of the capital of every state below the Mason Dixon line based on this painting:

Anarchistbear said:

---

Political power and will of the people is way more complicated than popularity. Most decisions in this country are "unpopular."

---

You make a good point. My wording should have been politically powerful, not popular. May the political elites forever tell us what we should look at and think (not being sarcastic, expressing a reality). But may I remind those elites, the names of the Emperors still carry on today.

The name of Trump will also go down in history, as The Worst President EVER and a warning to all future generations about the type of leader NOT to select, even if he entertains and titilates with his outlandishness.

I've got no problem at all with getting rid of this crime against art and humanity:

AunBear89 said:

---

I've got no problem at all with getting rid of this crime against art and humanity:

---

Back a few years ago more than a few titans of industry were ushered off those premises in bracelets:

"The San Mateo County rest stop is famous for the large statue of Father Junipero Serra blessing the freeway. But it fell into disrepair in the mid-1990s and became a favorite haunt of drug users and a sex pickup area." Mercury News

Interesting bio info about Serra...he ventured to the new world to stake his future, because in Spain as an ancestor of Jews, he was black-balled or banned from advancing in the churdh at home due to the Spanish Inquisition or remnants.

On that note...

Spain fights to dispel legend of Inquisition and imperial atrocities

Quote:

---

Campaigners want to reclaim the country's past from 'distorted propaganda

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Political power and will of the people is way more complicated than popularity. Most decisions in this country are "unpopular."

---

You make a good point. My wording should have been politically powerful, not popular. May the political elites forever tell us what we should look at and think (not being sarcastic, expressing a reality). But may I remind those elites, the names of the Emperors still carry on today.

---

What point are you making here? You think people are only tearing down Confederate statues because "political elites" are pointing them that way?

Native American population California, 300,000 before 1769
150,000 1834
16,000 1900

From this it appears that the Padres may not have been as effective at killing as the Americans. After the US seized California the murder and slavery was sanctioned and directed by the state. At any rate winners write the history and get the monuments particularly when all the losers are dead

Anarchistbear said:

---

Native American population California, 300,000 before 1769
150,000 1834
16,000 1900

From this it appears that the Padres may not have been as effective at killing as the Americans. After the US seized California the murder and slavery was sanctioned and directed by the state. At any rate winners write the history and get the monuments particularly when all the losers are dead

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Island_massacre

One of the bigger perpetrators of genocide was Seamus Hastings as in- you guessed it - law. Time for a name change. Somebody beat me to it

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/amp/The-moral-case-for-renaming-Hastings-College-of-11275565.php

Anarchistbear said:

---

Native American population California, 300,000 before 1769
150,000 1834
16,000 1900

From this it appears that the Padres may not have been as effective at killing as the Americans. After the US seized California the murder and slavery was sanctioned and directed by the state. At any rate winners write the history and get the monuments particularly when all the losers are dead

---

That's the other thing. The missionaries were just one part of a long history of genocide precipitated by various European colonizers. A shameful history to be sure, but hard to pin on one specific group or movement, unless you want to say that there should be no statues of white people.

Confederates are another matter. Very easy to identify those.

The Californians after the missionaries were very easy to identify.

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

So the line is we only make decisions based on who is politically popular.

---

Welcome to democracy.

---

So I guess your cool if our democratically elected President decides that MLK statues have to come down. Welcome to Democracy.

wifeisafurd said:

---

It was mighty generous of you to change the name of some one else's school, but why don't we change the name Berkeley, and see if you feel the same way? Some talk about the South with contempt while walking through a Cal campus full of honors to guys like LeConte who made their blood money selling munitions to the Confederacy. Are you prepared to erase his name everywhere it exits like some activists demand? Should we erase the name of every Cal person that participated in slavery? Change the name of Memorial Stadium because it honors soldiers who killed people? Do you want to go though and remove all the Catholic art given the Church abuses and persecution of non-believers like some group of Furdies want? Do you want start going though every person who may have done many good things (at least by some people's views), and things that are not acceptable to some group today, and censor them out of existence? Let's get rid of Teddy for his sins versus various countries? The point is*** do you draw the line?


Take a good hard look at the posts above. There is a distinction between a monument to a cause no longer considered acceptable, as opposed to monument to some individual. You get into rather difficult situations where people on statues (or with names on buildings, schools, State office buildings, streets and just about everything else) offend certain people, and we don't seem to be receptive when it is our own people. Basically, we are hypocrites which also is my point. Take a look in the mirror. California ranks No. 1 in the nation for hate groups, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. In the 1850s, the state government paid bounties for Indian body parts 25 cents per scalp, up to $5 for a whole head. In his 1851 CA Gov. John McDougall declared a "war of extermination" against California Indians. There were 300,000 then. By 1900, their numbers had fallen to only 17,000. For many decades, California discriminated against Asians led primarily by the elite faculty or alums from Stanford and Cal. Japanese immigrants were barred from owning property. The Chinese couldn't legally migrate here at all. Blacks could not own property due to recorded covenants drafted by Cal professors. Yet the men who did all this have their names littered all over California campuses and when people object, we don't act. Do these smug posters realize that children in this state still go to public schools named after Robert Lee and Jefferson Davies, not to mention all the name of early Californians who some people think did horrible things. There probably is not one statue placed on the Cal campus before 1930 that you could not find some objection and knock down. For example, do you really want to remove the Hearst name all over the place for some of the things good old Willy did?

History is full of people acting in ways that were acceptable in their times, but not in these times. Is the genocide of Indians less troublesome that the confederacy, and should we remove names like Polk or Jackson everywhere we see them (starting with names of cities?) Or those peaceful Pilgrims who flayed alive people for land (I can show a nice monument to the battle of Stonington depicting this)? Anti-minority sentiment is a big part of the history of this country. Should we demand Harvard eliminate the names of all those who participated in anti-Jewish codes decades ago, or who today enforce policies designed to reduce the number of Asian students. If your Asian, do we remove Obama's name like a bad Roman Emperor because his Justice Department supported these policies? *** do you draw the line, and who gets to determine where the line lies? That is my point.

Edit: deleted portion is a W_F

---

You assume I'd be violently opposed to changing any name related to Cal when I had the throwaway line about Stanford being forced to change its name being funny. Wrong.

If you can make a good case for changing Berkeley's name like you were making earlier for Leland Stanford, make it. Can you? We are not talking about erasing these things from history - just putting in proper context and not glorifying. If that needs to happen with LeConte - let's do it! As a Physics major, I took many classes in LeConte Hall but if his name on the hall is as deeply offensive to some as you've tried to argue (maybe? Not sure), then let's listen and change the name if we need to. It's not that big a deal to discuss openly if LeConte's name and honoring him with a building is inappropriate and overcomes the actual good things he did at Cal. Same with the pilgrims or whoever. What good things did the confederates do again?

Sure it's a continuum. Celebrating the confederate war effort is just on the very far bad end of that continuum, not far from celebrating the Nazi German war effort. And yet, some significant percentage of the US population (not even restricted to the south really) is bitterly opposed to anything but glorification of confederate monuments/statues. This is a totally different attitude than most folks would have at Berkeley about LeConte or whoever if someone made a case. There might be discussion - maybe they'll do it, maybe they won't, but very few are going to be bent out of shape if there is a stronger movement and LeConte Hall is renamed. You're trying so hard to make a case for liberal hypocrisy here and I don't think there is one.

You are also saying look in the mirror, California is bad too. Sure maybe? The argument is not that California is awesome and every state in the south sucks. Strawman. The argument is specifically that glorifying one of the worst things in US history is deeply offensive and we need to stop. The white grievance that fuels the vehement defense of these monuments needs to gain some perspective, whether coming from some southerners or some Californians or anyone.

Meanwhile, there are definitely monuments, parks, etc. in the bay area honoring civil rights leaders, native Americans, other oppressed groups and so on. Given that starting a rebellion that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans to preserve slavery is on the far evil end of the continuum I mentioned above and yet there are so many confederate monuments in the south, where are all the myriad of similarly counter-balancing monuments to oppressed but heroic slaves in ex-confederate states so we never forget?

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

So the line is we only make decisions based on who is politically popular.

---

Welcome to democracy.

---

So I guess your cool if our democratically elected President decides that MLK statues have to come down. Welcome to Democracy.

---

I don't think that would be politically popular.

There are many more and far better museums in the South honoring civil rights and the slave experience than in the Bay Area - Jackson Ms, Memphis, Birmingham Al. Partly that's because African Americans live in the South and the experience was there and because they now do have political power.

The confederacy was the greater stain but the West including California was founded on manifest destiny, savagery and genocide. (Should the Hastings law school be named after someone who financed and promoted Indian killing hunts?). Of course all this is less obvious and talked about because it didn't tear the country apart- it united it from sea to sea except for those who lived there previously.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

So the line is we only make decisions based on who is politically popular.

---

Welcome to democracy.

---

So I guess your cool if our democratically elected President decides that MLK statues have to come down. Welcome to Democracy.

---

Our democratically elected President has no such power unless it's on federal land

Anarchistbear said:

---

The confederacy was the greater stain but the West including California was founded on manifest destiny, savagery and genocide.

---

Also literally the entire country is guilty of that. Pretty much every country in the Americas is.

Anarchistbear said:

---

There are many more and far better museums in the South honoring civil rights and the slave experience than in the Bay Area - Jackson Ms, Memphis, Birmingham Al. Partly that's because African Americans live in the South and the experience was there and because they now do have political power.

---

Museums yes. That is where the confederate statues belong too. Not in glorified in places of honor, angrily defended.

I don't know that I have too insightful a comment to add to the discussion, but one thing that jumps out at me is that (like a lot of social issues) it is all about intent. If we investigated every human's life we would uncover the good and the bad, and if we despise the bad we'd never build a statue to anyone. But if that statue is placeholder for an ideal or symbol then it is not about the biographical content of that person's life necessarily. It is aspirational.

So then the question is what does the symbol in question aspire to? In the case of these Confederate statues they were often built with clear intent to enshrine counter-values (the old South ain't dead yet buddy). In the case of other controversial figures, or people we later learn to not be such great role models, I think it is fair to ask if the statue is set in place to worship their worst nature or perpetuate negative values? I don't think so most often. A statue to Columbus is not about enshrining colonization or crimes against humanity/indigenous people. Rather, a statue to Columbus is about man's curiosity and bravery to explore and frontiers, etc. The Confederate symbols are not that. They were built as statements against changing demographics and as reminders to "uppity" blacks to know their place and to remind good old boys that they still have a place of respect in the culture of the Deep South. It's a threat and the perpetuation of oppression. Very different intent and meaning and context, and it's pretty plain to see and those who argue the opposite are throwing up a smoke screen and ignoring just simple truth that is a wink to the statue's constituency.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

So the line is we only make decisions based on who is politically popular.

---

Welcome to democracy.

---

So I guess your cool if our democratically elected President decides that MLK statues have to come down. Welcome to Democracy.

---

Our President was not democratically elected. Our Constitution gave us the electoral college which is not a democratic process. Our constitution also gave us checks and balances so it is not entirely up to our Electoral College elected President.

Changing the Hastings College of the Law name is appealing to me and some other graduates of the school. Our reason is not moral though. The school has fallen off the cliff academically since we went there. If the name changed, I could honestly say I will not donate again because I never went to that school. It's desire to be everything to everyone has left it as an unimpressive degree conferrer. So change the name.

All this talk of native Americans reminded me of some travels earlier this summer. A few months ago I was driving through New England for a work related trip. I decided to stop for lunch in "historic Mystic, CT". It's always called historic Mystic, CT. The local signs and everything. So while I was having lunch I decided to find out what made Mystic historic.

There is a hill next to a natural harbor so, naturally, it became a compound for the local Indians. During the Pequot War in 1637 there was a battle there. Only, it wasn't really a battle - it was more of a massacre. Approximately 500 natives were attacked and killed, including women and children.

This was a big step in the advancement of the American colonies and historic Mystic, CT has been celebrated ever since (at least in the area). So I drove up the hill to the site of the massacre. Nothing but nice, middle class homes up and down the hill. There used to be a statue of Captain John Mason, who led the massacre at the site but that was relocated in the 1990s.

I thought about the idea of living on the site of a genocidal massacre that was famous for the expansion of America. I don't think I could do it if I had a choice. I thought it's strange to have a "history" but one that you don't want to physically represent with a monument or anything. It would be nice if they could put up a small museum on that hill that would tell the story - but that probably wouldn't be good for home values.

Anarchistbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

So the line is we only make decisions based on who is politically popular.

---

Welcome to democracy.

---

So I guess your cool if our democratically elected President decides that MLK statues have to come down. Welcome to Democracy.

---

Our democratically elected President has no such power unless it's on federal land

---

You mean like the monument off the National Mall on National Park land for one of many examples?

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

So the line is we only make decisions based on who is politically popular.

---

Welcome to democracy.

---

So I guess your cool if our democratically elected President decides that MLK statues have to come down. Welcome to Democracy.

---

Our President was not democratically elected. Our Constitution gave us the electoral college which is not a democratic process. Our constitution also gave us checks and balances so it is not entirely up to our Electoral College elected President.

---

So if the 3 branches controlled by the GOP say it's okay that is democracy? BTW, I don't think your definition of the democratic process comports with that of the "Welcome to Democracy" poster. Most decisions about what we can see or not see are not made by elected officials, constitutional or otherwise. Going down the slippery slope, I believe he was referring to some type of popular will. And Anti and I think it is some type of elitist will, and in my case, I notice that people only want it to apply to people they personally dislike. I might remind the usual posters, that I initially made a comment about distinguishing something that stands for a principle, versus a person with all their strengths and faults.

But I like your radical Republican everyone complicit with confederacy is a traitor spill. Let's condemn millions pf people. Forget that those people went on to join the regular US Army (and let the army in subsequent wars (image that, are Army was full of traitors!), found universities, were placed on the supreme court (traitors on SCOTUS!) They served on Congress, founded major Univeristes, became Presidents of schools like Cal, . Because someone at a very young age fought in a war of provided comfort you label them traitors for life. The ravages of reconstruction sent many west to Texas,California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado to start fresh an become internal parts of the development of those states.You really do see everything rigidly and never ackowledge anything can be nuanced.

BTW, that Lee guy you so disliked actively opposed confederate monuments, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The confederacy was the greater stain but the West including California was founded on manifest destiny, savagery and genocide.

---

Also literally the entire country is guilty of that. Pretty much every country in the Americas is.

---

Slavery as well.

kjkbear said:

---

Changing the Hastings College of the Law name is appealing to me and some other graduates of the school. Our reason is not moral though. The school has fallen off the cliff academically since we went there. If the name changed, I could honestly say I will not donate again because I never went to that school. It's desire to be everything to everyone has left it as an unimpressive degree conferrer. So change the name.

---

Yes, let's put this in perspective. It's really about ratings not murder

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

So the line is we only make decisions based on who is politically popular.

---

Welcome to democracy.

---

So I guess your cool if our democratically elected President decides that MLK statues have to come down. Welcome to Democracy.

---

Our President was not democratically elected. Our Constitution gave us the electoral college which is not a democratic process. Our constitution also gave us checks and balances so it is not entirely up to our Electoral College elected President.

---

So if the 3 branches controlled by the GOP say it's okay that is democracy? BTW, I don't think your definition of the democratic process comports with that of the "Welcome to Democracy" poster. Most decisions about what we can see or not see are not made by elected officials, constitutional or otherwise. Going down the slippery slope, I believe he was referring to some type of popular will. And Anti and I think it is some type of elitist will, and in my case, I notice that people only want it to apply to people they personally dislike. I might remind the usual posters, that I initially made a comment about distinguishing something that stands for a principle, versus a person with all their strengths and faults.

But I like your radical Republican everyone complicit with confederacy is a traitor spill. Let's condemn millions pf people. Forget that those people went on to join the regular US Army (and let the army in subsequent wars (image that, are Army was full of traitors!), found universities, were placed on the supreme court (traitors on SCOTUS!) They served on Congress, founded major Univeristes, became Presidents of schools like Cal, . Because someone at a very young age fought in a war of provided comfort you label them traitors for life. The ravages of reconstruction sent many west to Texas,California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado to start fresh an become internal parts of the development of those states.You really do see everything rigidly and never ackowledge anything can be nuanced.

BTW, that Lee guy you so disliked actively opposed confederate monuments, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments

---

You are such a fool and a blowhard.

You call me rigid and say I never ackowledge (sic) anything can be nuanced and yet literally two posts up I said, "I never said anything about a line. Life is too complicated for lines."

You say I "condemn" when I said the Army and government shouldn't be "honoring". Is there any difference in your mind between condemnation and honor? For most of us there is. Is it the word traitor you object to? If you are an American and you take up arms against the US you are a traitor - sorry but words have meaning. A felon can do their time but they are still a felon, at least to most people.

The "ravages of reconstruction". Please. . . The ones who were ravaged are the black people of the South who dared try to achieve real freedom and liberty. But I don't think they are the ones you are talking about moving west. LeConte was no victim.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The confederacy was the greater stain but the West including California was founded on manifest destiny, savagery and genocide.

---

Also literally the entire country is guilty of that. Pretty much every country in the Americas is.

---

Slavery as well.

---

True to an extent, though I'm not sure how many countries had a secessionist movement and a literal war over the right to keep slaves. My historical knowledge is hardly comprehensive here though.

wifeisafurd said:

---

BTW, that Lee guy you so disliked actively opposed confederate monuments, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments

---

That's an interesting rhetorical gambit. Using Lee's own argument that there should not be confederate statues to criticize those who support the removal of said statues.



Personally, I'm with Robert E. Lee on this point: no monuments to the confederacy.

I tend to think that Mich Landrieu's comments about New Orleans' Confederate statues are applicable to just about all of them in the South