Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting on an answer: why was Lee a target but not Washington?? Can no one come up with an answer?

Seems like it's been answered, you just don't like the answer. The school naming policy is that the "primary legacy" of the person should be consider in choosing to name a school for a person. Lee's primary legacy is that he led the Confederate army in a rebellion based on the Confederacy's desire to maintain slavery. Washington's primary legacy is that he was the father of our country. It actually has nothing to do with whether or not either of them owned slaves personally.

There are many SJWs who want to get rid of all schools named after anyone who owned slaves or, using your framework, assert that their slave ownership should be their defining characteristic and primary legacy.

When that happens, and it will, are you going to push back or just roll over?

Anyone who says anything that doesn't maintain the framework of white supremacy is a social justice warrior.

Didn't answer the question. Do you want to eliminate all names that honor any slaveholder? Yes or no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting on an answer: why was Lee a target but not Washington?? Can no one come up with an answer?

Seems like it's been answered, you just don't like the answer. The school naming policy is that the "primary legacy" of the person should be consider in choosing to name a school for a person. Lee's primary legacy is that he led the Confederate army in a rebellion based on the Confederacy's desire to maintain slavery. Washington's primary legacy is that he was the father of our country. It actually has nothing to do with whether or not either of them owned slaves personally.

There are many SJWs who want to get rid of all schools named after anyone who owned slaves or, using your framework, assert that their slave ownership should be their defining characteristic and primary legacy.

When that happens, and it will, are you going to push back or just roll over?

Anyone who says anything that doesn't maintain the framework of white supremacy is a social justice warrior.

^^ If you ask

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Their words were silly and easily rebuttable, so it wasn’t what they said that was scary. What was scary was their demeanor and how angry and on edge most of the old white speakers were. You could just tell that much of their self-worth was wrapped up in the old name and how easily they would have fit in with the tiki torch crowd. Yuck.

Oh, please. Old people wanting to see their alma mater keep its name and their memories is far from a "tiki torch" crowd. Have a little compassion.

+1
My mom attended Washington-Lee back in the late 50s and she rolled her eyes regarding the name change. I guess that makes her a racist.

Certainly sounds that way.

Maybe racist. Maybe not. I don't know the mother. But, she is most certainly tone deaf and lacking in empathy. It's reasonable that minority students would not want to attend a school named after a Confederate, slave-owning, general.

So then, you're all saying Washington *wasn't* a slave owner?? This is the most bizarre "controversy." You're against the name Lee, but not Washington?

Yes, the school is still named after a slave-owning general.

One step at a time. I you ask for too much at one time, you likely get nothing. There is no way there would have been any change if the push was to get rid of Washington too. Half of a loaf is better than none.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Their words were silly and easily rebuttable, so it wasn’t what they said that was scary. What was scary was their demeanor and how angry and on edge most of the old white speakers were. You could just tell that much of their self-worth was wrapped up in the old name and how easily they would have fit in with the tiki torch crowd. Yuck.

Oh, please. Old people wanting to see their alma mater keep its name and their memories is far from a "tiki torch" crowd. Have a little compassion.

+1
My mom attended Washington-Lee back in the late 50s and she rolled her eyes regarding the name change. I guess that makes her a racist.

Certainly sounds that way.

You, and people like you, are the reason the word "racist" is losing any meaning. Get a grip.

Actually, the word racist "is losing any meaning" because most whites don't ever want to she the validity of any claim of racism. The pp's mom rolling her eyes definitely shows intolerance and lack of empathy. God forbid people don't want to continue celebrating a confederate general. God forbid football players choose a nonviolent way to make a point. The football players are called unpatriotic, military hating thugs by the same people who fully support a president who completely trashed John McCain. Racism is alive and well in Arlington and the rest of the country, whites have just decided to deem any mention of it invalid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting on an answer: why was Lee a target but not Washington?? Can no one come up with an answer?

Seems like it's been answered, you just don't like the answer. The school naming policy is that the "primary legacy" of the person should be consider in choosing to name a school for a person. Lee's primary legacy is that he led the Confederate army in a rebellion based on the Confederacy's desire to maintain slavery. Washington's primary legacy is that he was the father of our country. It actually has nothing to do with whether or not either of them owned slaves personally.

There are many SJWs who want to get rid of all schools named after anyone who owned slaves or, using your framework, assert that their slave ownership should be their defining characteristic and primary legacy.

When that happens, and it will, are you going to push back or just roll over?

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting on an answer: why was Lee a target but not Washington?? Can no one come up with an answer?

Seems like it's been answered, you just don't like the answer. The school naming policy is that the "primary legacy" of the person should be consider in choosing to name a school for a person. Lee's primary legacy is that he led the Confederate army in a rebellion based on the Confederacy's desire to maintain slavery. Washington's primary legacy is that he was the father of our country. It actually has nothing to do with whether or not either of them owned slaves personally.

Still waiting on an answer: why was Lee a target but not Washington?? Can no one come up with an answer?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Their words were silly and easily rebuttable, so it wasn’t what they said that was scary. What was scary was their demeanor and how angry and on edge most of the old white speakers were. You could just tell that much of their self-worth was wrapped up in the old name and how easily they would have fit in with the tiki torch crowd. Yuck.

Oh, please. Old people wanting to see their alma mater keep its name and their memories is far from a "tiki torch" crowd. Have a little compassion.

+1
My mom attended Washington-Lee back in the late 50s and she rolled her eyes regarding the name change. I guess that makes her a racist.

Certainly sounds that way.

Maybe racist. Maybe not. I don't know the mother. But, she is most certainly tone deaf and lacking in empathy. It's reasonable that minority students would not want to attend a school named after a Confederate, slave-owning, general.

So then, you're all saying Washington *wasn't* a slave owner?? This is the most bizarre "controversy." You're against the name Lee, but not Washington?

Yes, the school is still named after a slave-owning general.

So then why all the outcry about Lee, but not about Washington? Selective virtue signaling. I guess if they had also targeted Washington, then the city of DC would have to be renamed, along with hundreds of other Washington namesakes.

Washington-Liberty seems like an excellent outcome. Keeps W-L and stops honoring a man whose principal legacy was to fight against the Union in order to preserve slavery.

It's a done deal now so there is no point whining about it. Move on.