I guess you're saying "there's good people on both sides"
Quite the opposite; I am saying "bad" people can do good things. And celebrating those things is not celebrating the individual. So no, there are not "good" people on both sides, but there may be good deeds.
So, I don't follow that you are somehow not endorsing the naming of public places/events after people who have done the most appalling things - as long as they did something nice at some point. Columbus discovered "America" (cough) thereby opening up the New World to . . . all sorts of good things, including the United States eventually. Objecting to Columbus Day is therefore out of order? And Confederate statues should all be replaced by government authorities where relevant? That sort of thing.
And everyone should stop objecting to Cesar Chavez' name being publicly boosted? Because he did some good union work back in the day and we can brush the crap under the carpet.
I fully understand that you don't endorse such things, but you make an argument which says that you do. IMO
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
People can object as they see fit, seek name changes, etc.; when did I ever say otherwise? All I a saying is that I think that it is not problem to celebrate the achievements of someone who has also done bad things. And IMHO, that should be balanced against the complaints. One side will win, the other will lose, and someone will always be unhappy with the decision, but then where does it say you have a right to always be free from unhappiness?
Is it your opinions that only perfect people should be publicly honored (or even that there are perfect people)?
Our wannabe dictator installed a statue of Columbus on the grounds of the White House in defiance of the removal of said statues in Philly (and maybe some other places) during the BLM protests of 2020, when lots of nasty exploiters and murderers of innocent humans were being dishonored by such removals around the nation - and in other nations too.
Funny (not ha ha) that the Spanish recognized his crimes and held him somewhat accountable for them 500 years ago, but USA can’t get all on board with that even now.
We don’t need to honor rapists, no matter their other good deeds. It’s called progress.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
As as far as I can tell, the great sailor, Chris Columbus, never visited any place that is now part of the Nation/state of USofA. Not any of the 50 states, not a territory, not a protectorate. So just what is the reason our stable genius leader wants the stature on his front porch? Did Columbus perhaps have something to do with the Airplanes Trump said were used in the American Revolution?
As as far as I can tell, the great sailor, Chris Columbus, never visited any place that is now part of the Nation/state of USofA. Not any of the 50 states, not a territory, not a protectorate. So just what is the reason our stable genius leader wants the stature on his front porch? Did Columbus perhaps have something to do with the Airplanes Trump said were used in the American Revolution?
snailgate
He landed on Puerto Rico on his second voyage.
Contrary to our MAGA brethren (who think Bad Bunny is a foreigner), Puerto Rico is in fact a part of the U.S.
Death is Nature's way of telling you to slow down.
All I am saying is that I think that it is not a problem to celebrate the achievements of someone who has also done bad things.
You (seem) not to understand that this places you firmly alongside Trump and in opposition to minorities and others objecting to the celebration of racists (to name just one example). Your statement appears to endorse the argument that there is no "problem" with public recognition of the name of Cesar Chavez and that abused women (and subsequently their supporters and the organizations acting upon their testimony) should just shut up.
I know that's not you at all . . . but you're the one that's defending honoring events and objects depicting/naming accused rapists, racists and rats because they "did something good despite all the nasty things they did". How you are separating "achievements" from "crimes" baffles me because it has all the hallmarks of rightist opposition to "wokeness".
I would always (nevertheless) support naming a street BIG RR, for your achievements outweigh the offending sentence
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
The Sacklers gave millions and millions to various philanthropic causes, primarily arts and education. Lovely.
They also killed at least a half million Americans with their lies about the alleged safety of their opiods and their greedy pursuit of profits by purposely addicting their victims.
No more Sackler name on any of the major institutions they once funded and were honored by.
Someday we should blast the Carnegie name off of all those libraries, too. His crimes are further in the past but no less heinous for it - his business practices are responsible for thousands of American deaths and the immiseration of tens of thousands more Americans. At very least, any library or other educational institution that still bears his name carved in stone should have a prominent display of educational materials that reveal the full ugly scope of his life’s work.
I’m not sure why this is controversial- it is the best of human progress to engage in truth and reconciliation.
But then of course it’s controversial, because there are so many humans who prefer to turn a blind eye to atrocities and instead perpetuate the myths they’ve built up around historic and contemporary individuals - see cult of Trump.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
Why do I love Picasso's art, while acknowledging that he was an asshole / monster to the women in his life, even (and especially) towards those he considered his muses? Hitler was a much better artist than I am, but I can't get past the rest of what he was up to.
Is it simple arithmetic? Does Picasso get a +75 for his art but 'only' a -50 for his sexual toxicity making him a +25 overall? While Hitler gets a +50 for his art but a -99 otherwise leaving him with a -49 lifetime. Staying with artists, we have Caravaggio at +80 -40 = +40. Or Margaret Thatcher who invented soft scoop ice cream +50 (I approve) but failed miserably in politics -80 = -30 lifetime.
[You (seem) not to understand that this places you firmly alongside Trump and in opposition to minorities and others objecting to the celebration of racists (to name just one example). /quote]
perhaps, but I see that as different--they are celebrating the racists and I doubt many even have an idea of the achievements of any of them (other than epitomizing racism).
I would always (nevertheless) support naming a street BIG RR, for your achievements outweigh the offending sentence
But...but I am unworthy.
Andy--I guess we each have to determine our own weighting and calculus when these questions come up. And I would venture to guess most people being proposed for such honors have pasts that contain some bad acts that should disqualify them. For example, we do know that Albert Einstein was abusive to many women in his life (mentally, not physically AFAIK), but his achievements peak for themselves. How we weigh both is pretty much going to be up to the individual.
