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.
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.
Nope, she didn’t. Americans did. So sorry, my British friend.
I think the possible ambiguity of your remark may have taken us down two roads. I now gather that you are referring to a personal opinion as to whether or not you (yourself and not anyone else) may or may not hold somebody in esteem FOR a significant contribution to humanity EVEN THOUGH there may be some skeletons in their closet.
But the subject is public recognition or withdrawal of same for a famous person who has done something worthy but is now shown to be morally objectionable to a significant segment of society (whether numeric or specifically local - e.g. citizens of a city considering holding a Benito Mussolini Admiration Day or putting a statue of Robert E Lee back on display on Main Street). In that context, the slogan "did good things" is often rightly invalidated by "did awful things too" when the issue is public ceremonial endorsement of the name or likeness.
My point about Trump is not whether he and his MAGAt lynch mob are racist but that their defence of their racism is exactly that a person who did something "good" deserves celebration even if he/she was what ignorant people call "a racist" or "devil incarnate". The bad should be overlooked because we ain't celebrating the person but their good achievement. Welcome back R E Lee, Columbus, and Nathan Bedford Forrrest, all is forgiven because you were really good at . . . . Hence my confusion.
And I don't believe you should concede even the slightest equivalence but the above is the best I can do to separate a personal opinion from a prescription for public standards.
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
Welcome back R E Lee, Columbus, and Nathan Bedford Forrrest, all is forgiven because you were really good at . . . . Hence my confusion.
See that's my point; it is not up to me (or anyone else for that matter) to "forgive" someone for acts that occurred decades or centuries ago (or a few minutes ago as well unless the act was directed at them). Recognizing that Lee did some "good" things does not mean that he is automatically forgiven for the "bad" things he did, only that he is being recognized for the good he did. Now some may say the "bad" outweighs the "good" and the recognition is not warranted, but that does not erase the "good" anymore than celebrating the "good" erases the bad. Human beings are complex individuals and I venture to guess there are not many (if any) individuals (especially those in the public eye) who have no"'bad" acts in their past--a view of most of the individuals in even American history demonstrates this. Who is worthy of "honor"? Washington? Jefferson? Lincoln? Hamilton? Grant? Franklin? FDR? JFK? (the guys on out currency and coins, which is major public honor) I don't see it and a quick google search can reveal the "bad" acts of each. So how do we choose to honor them? By employingthe same calculus I have suggested.
Maybe we should just not honor real people and only honor mythical people and creatures who have no past?
Recognizing that Lee did some "good" things does not mean that he is automatically forgiven for the "bad" things he did, only that he is being recognized for the good he did.
Surely that argument provides support for statues of Lee being put back on their pedestals no matter how many black people find it reprehensible? The authorities in Richmond and Charleston should argue that it's nothing to do with forgiveness, nor are they endorsing his treachery against the United States of America, they are merely recognizing a very particular set of skills he acquired over a very long career*? As long as they make that argument (yours), then objections of a minority can be set aside on grounds of their non-understanding of such subtlety?
*perhaps his bravery and skill during the unpleasantness between the Federal Government and that of Mexico? His selfless contribution to education in Virginia and the decisive positive effect of his preaching peaceful acceptance of defeat and strong opposition to ex-Confederate guerilla warfare after Appomattox.
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
As for setting aside the objections of a minority because of not understanding sublety or anything else, I never said that. They are entitled to their views as others are, but in the end a decision must be made to "honor" any given individual or not and one side will have to prevail while the other does not; unless you have an alternative to this.
Mine is perhaps to honor only mythical and nonexistent beings. I recall Mercury dimes and Liberty half dollar and dollar coins, maybe all statues and coins (and streets, squares, buildings, ...) should be of or named after such mythical or symbolic creatures; it would make things easier. Or do you have another alternative?
Aaargh! The argument "we're not celebrating their (bad things) we are merely recognizing something they did that we think was jolly good" is equally valid to justify a statue of Columbus or Lee. Doesn't matter that Trump and his cronies are racists and you most certainly are not - it's the same logic. Isn't it?
Perhaps mythological critters is the answer. I could get behind that.
Though Dory would never have endorsed a statue of Andre
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
