APS: What's in a name? (Washington-Lee)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I really don't understand is why a name change has to be attached to one side of the civil war being the righteous side. It was a war from a long time ago and it was a war where many people killed each other. If we want to change the names of schools or whatever to a new name we can do so by just focusing on the name we don't want anymore and the new name we'd like. It really does not have to be about who was right and wrong over the course of an entire war.

The analogy that we were in WWII and somehow were righteous because we stopped the holocaust is simply not a factual statement. We went to war because we were attacked and because we didn't want the Germans to gain so much power. And we had our own internment camps, turned away jews, etc. The bottom line was that stopping the holocaust was a benefit of winning the war, but not its purpose. Similarly the north went to war to regain the south because it wanted the land security and money from the south. Plain and simple.

If we don't like a confederate general or don't want to honor him anymore, etc. than just stick to those facts about that person. Make the argument about one person over another. Stop trying to bring up an entire state or group of states as being morally inferior. It just simply isn't necessary and does not help the cause.

Except that by seceding to maintain legalized slavery, the Confederacy (as an institution) was moral inferior. Plenty of "good" people fought for the Confederacy (and in my view that did not in an of itself make them bad people). but the underlying issue for the Confederacy was undeniably wrong (or evil, if you like). Was it arguably somewhat less evil than Holocaust because it didn't involve deliberate mass murder of millions? Perhaps, but it was still horribly wrong.

The problem with that argument is that we're looking back into history forming a huge judgment like we are God able to determine moral superiority on a large issue that affected millions of people who picked sides or even lived in states that picked sides for a variety of reasons. There are so many racial issues in the north since the war (not just about blacks, but about Native Americans and other immigrants/races), that you can't really say there were two different species of people - one good and one bad. And then there were other things during the war that the North did that many would consider acting morally inferior to an ideal people and government. I'm sure you're aware that the north did allow slavery on their side during the war, printed Greenbacks to keep the govt afloat, killed Native Americans for their land, traded for cotton to keep their businesses going during the war, etc. etc.

It's just too simplistic and it doesn't really further the discussion about the actual person the building is named after. Was everyone in Germany for the holocaust? Should we never honor a German again who was related to a Nazi? It's better and more correct to focus on not honoring Nazi leaders and replace names of people we now want to honor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I really don't understand is why a name change has to be attached to one side of the civil war being the righteous side. It was a war from a long time ago and it was a war where many people killed each other. If we want to change the names of schools or whatever to a new name we can do so by just focusing on the name we don't want anymore and the new name we'd like. It really does not have to be about who was right and wrong over the course of an entire war.

The analogy that we were in WWII and somehow were righteous because we stopped the holocaust is simply not a factual statement. We went to war because we were attacked and because we didn't want the Germans to gain so much power. And we had our own internment camps, turned away jews, etc. The bottom line was that stopping the holocaust was a benefit of winning the war, but not its purpose. Similarly the north went to war to regain the south because it wanted the land security and money from the south. Plain and simple.

If we don't like a confederate general or don't want to honor him anymore, etc. than just stick to those facts about that person. Make the argument about one person over another. Stop trying to bring up an entire state or group of states as being morally inferior. It just simply isn't necessary and does not help the cause.

Except that by seceding to maintain legalized slavery, the Confederacy (as an institution) was moral inferior. Plenty of "good" people fought for the Confederacy (and in my view that did not in an of itself make them bad people). but the underlying issue for the Confederacy was undeniably wrong (or evil, if you like). Was it arguably somewhat less evil than Holocaust because it didn't involve deliberate mass murder of millions? Perhaps, but it was still horribly wrong.

The naming of places for Confederates mostly happened years after the war. It was done to codify Jim Crow. Just like Confederate memorials being built in areas where middle class blacks used to live at the turn of the 20th century, schools and public buildings named for those men served as reminders that people of color were not welcome in larger society. It's not about marking the South as morally inferior now. It's about creating an America that respects all people. We've got a long way to go and this is just a small step - it's no truth and reconciliation tribunal, but it's a step.

[Anonymous]

13:10 I agree with you. Stop playing the moral superiority card for the civil war and focus on the Jim Crow Era that put these names on and the people themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:13:10 I agree with you. Stop playing the moral superiority card for the civil war and focus on the Jim Crow Era that put these names on and the people themselves.

Yep, those pesky racist republicans and their support for the Jim Crow laws and against civil rights legislation! Damn all those awful people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:10 I agree with you. Stop playing the moral superiority card for the civil war and focus on the Jim Crow Era that put these names on and the people themselves.

Yep, those pesky racist republicans and their support for the Jim Crow laws and against civil rights legislation! Damn all those awful people.

If you recall your history, it was Democrats that put the Jim Crow laws in. But regardless, if you make it all about shaming someone who is alive and propping yourself up as more righteous, you will be in for a fight just because of the imbalance you are trying to create.

These buildings are all named after people who are dead. Why not capitalize on that instead of trying to shame people now living?

[Anonymous]

pesky republicans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a pretty name and reflects the first and second most major events in the country and ties them to Virginia.

It is also the name of a school that didn't let black kids onto the grounds for a substantial chunk of its history.