(Potentially) Renaming Saunders Hall
- Thread starter TarHeelNation11
- Start date
My view is this:
It's a difficult issue because I'm sure to blacks, the name could evoke strong and painful reminders of this country's history. But history cannot be changed. Nor should it. Hiding facts doesn't make things go away. I think we can learn from mistakes made in the past. But we need to view these legends in relative terms. Say what you want, but at one time, every white person in this country thought slavery was acceptable. Are we going to take George Washington off the dollar bill or Thomas Jefferson off of Mt. Rushmore (I wouldn't be surprised to hear someone is lobbying for either)?
The bottom line is that we all have faults especially when judged with the luxury of seeing how our civilization has developed throughout time. No man is perfect, but some, despite their imperfections, still deserve to be recognized for the good they have done. I don't know Saunders' story well so I can't comment to whether or not he is still deserving. But I know that this is a slippery slope and if we start making changes based on societal norms now for people that lived 200 years ago, we start an endless process of having to change monuments every 100 years or so as we evolve.
It's a difficult issue because I'm sure to blacks, the name could evoke strong and painful reminders of this country's history. But history cannot be changed. Nor should it. Hiding facts doesn't make things go away. I think we can learn from mistakes made in the past. But we need to view these legends in relative terms. Say what you want, but at one time, every white person in this country thought slavery was acceptable. Are we going to take George Washington off the dollar bill or Thomas Jefferson off of Mt. Rushmore (I wouldn't be surprised to hear someone is lobbying for either)?
The bottom line is that we all have faults especially when judged with the luxury of seeing how our civilization has developed throughout time. No man is perfect, but some, despite their imperfections, still deserve to be recognized for the good they have done. I don't know Saunders' story well so I can't comment to whether or not he is still deserving. But I know that this is a slippery slope and if we start making changes based on societal norms now for people that lived 200 years ago, we start an endless process of having to change monuments every 100 years or so as we evolve.
Bravo 'Slinger. Well done. Captured everything I wanted to say. Let me just add that, in addition to wanting the name of the building changes -- and possibly other buildings on campus too -- they want to....wait for it.....
The coalition also wants UNC to provide information on its racial past at freshman orientation and to attach contextual information to the Confederate war statue erected in McCorkle Place more than a century ago.
What freaking good will that do...? Welcome incoming freshmen. Before we talk about courses you should take and cool things to do on campus, let's first tell you all about how your soon-to-be school had a history of white men who fought for the Confederacy and supported slavery.
Like, honestly, do these people think things through or do they just live in the hypothetical vacuum. All that's going to do is incite anger, sadness, resentment, and other unproductive emotions. We need to learn from history, embrace it, and better ourselves because of it. Not try to pretend it never happened.
Thanks for posting this THN. I've been following this story a bit and have some thoughts.
Great post by GSD. Here's my question:
I've mentioned this before, but my grandmother had a wise piece of advice: Don't take offense where none was intended. How many black students and faculty have passed through Chapel Hill without ever realizing that William Saunders was a one-time leader of the KKK? IMO, the people lobbying are making a choice to let themselves be antagonized by a name on a building. What kind of persecution complex must you have to feel that way? The building wasn't named for him with the intention of tormenting blacks. It was named for him because he made several other notable contributions to the university and the state.
Which brings me to my second point. Why do we insist on defining people's legacy in the worst possible terms? Look at Joe Paterno. Ignore for a moment the question of his complicity in the events that unfolded at Penn State (which I personally think is very debatable). JoePa was a great leader and role model for his players, encouraging them to become better students, better sons/husbands/friends, and better members of their communities. Despite a half century of positively impacting the lives of hundreds and hundreds of his players, people want to define Paterno as the enabler of a sexual predator. Humans are obviously complex beings, so that kind of reductionist view makes no sense to me.
I try to go back and reconsider all of the above as if the building were named Hitler Hall. He would obviously be at one end of a spectrum of horrific events, and we could probably all agree that the building should be renamed. I guess, then, that the discussion is about where Saunders falls on that same spectrum. That's obviously a matter of perspective so I'll just say I don't get it and leave it at that.
Great post by GSD. Here's my question:
Why?
I've mentioned this before, but my grandmother had a wise piece of advice: Don't take offense where none was intended. How many black students and faculty have passed through Chapel Hill without ever realizing that William Saunders was a one-time leader of the KKK? IMO, the people lobbying are making a choice to let themselves be antagonized by a name on a building. What kind of persecution complex must you have to feel that way? The building wasn't named for him with the intention of tormenting blacks. It was named for him because he made several other notable contributions to the university and the state.
Which brings me to my second point. Why do we insist on defining people's legacy in the worst possible terms? Look at Joe Paterno. Ignore for a moment the question of his complicity in the events that unfolded at Penn State (which I personally think is very debatable). JoePa was a great leader and role model for his players, encouraging them to become better students, better sons/husbands/friends, and better members of their communities. Despite a half century of positively impacting the lives of hundreds and hundreds of his players, people want to define Paterno as the enabler of a sexual predator. Humans are obviously complex beings, so that kind of reductionist view makes no sense to me.
I try to go back and reconsider all of the above as if the building were named Hitler Hall. He would obviously be at one end of a spectrum of horrific events, and we could probably all agree that the building should be renamed. I guess, then, that the discussion is about where Saunders falls on that same spectrum. That's obviously a matter of perspective so I'll just say I don't get it and leave it at that.
Another excellent post, IMO. I especially agree with your grandmother's advice. If people could truly take that advice to heart, we'd have a lot less of these time-wasting problems.
And let me just add that these manufactured problems are very, very divisive. You've taken a non-issue and now you have people, on both sides of the "issue," getting emotional, when it all could've been avoided by just letting a non-issue stay a non-issue. And like I mentioned before, wanting to make every incoming freshman aware of every single historical UNC figure who may or may not been a racist and may or may not have done racist things......what the heck kind of effect do you think that's going to have? You think it's going to make everyone bond together and create some sense of present-day camaraderie? No, it's going to be extremely divisive and is going to needlessly incite anger/sadness/feelings of oppression/etc.
Don't make something offensive where it wasn't intended should be added to the 10 Commandments!
People looking for and insisting on being offended will spend their entire lives being offended. To me, this is just like being offended by Washington Redskins. It's not the words that are offensive by themselves, it is how they are used. C-O-N-T-E-X-T! It may seem in poor taste to someone, but it's not meant to offend anyone, so if you are offended then you're doing it by your own volition. The same holds true for these "names" of buildings!
The same is happening at Clemson University and Tillman Hall.
People need to try to understand that you cannot hold people of the past to today's social standards. If you do that, then remove the Jefferson Memorial, the Washington Monument, and a million others. And, stop naming buildings altogether, especially if you're naming them after a person. Sure as the sun rises, in 5 years, or 500, that person won't live up to some standard that some perpetually-offended person/group and they will want that changed, too. Every person ever born has good things about them and bad things about them. If you choose to focus on, or be offended by, their shortcomings, especially after they're dead, then that is also a choice to be offended. Choosing to be offended (or in many cases forcing yourself to be offended) is a very bad habit to encourage in a society.
People looking for and insisting on being offended will spend their entire lives being offended. To me, this is just like being offended by Washington Redskins. It's not the words that are offensive by themselves, it is how they are used. C-O-N-T-E-X-T! It may seem in poor taste to someone, but it's not meant to offend anyone, so if you are offended then you're doing it by your own volition. The same holds true for these "names" of buildings!
The same is happening at Clemson University and Tillman Hall.
People need to try to understand that you cannot hold people of the past to today's social standards. If you do that, then remove the Jefferson Memorial, the Washington Monument, and a million others. And, stop naming buildings altogether, especially if you're naming them after a person. Sure as the sun rises, in 5 years, or 500, that person won't live up to some standard that some perpetually-offended person/group and they will want that changed, too. Every person ever born has good things about them and bad things about them. If you choose to focus on, or be offended by, their shortcomings, especially after they're dead, then that is also a choice to be offended. Choosing to be offended (or in many cases forcing yourself to be offended) is a very bad habit to encourage in a society.
And, just so I don't sound completely shut-off and cold to those who WANT it changed:
I totally understand WHY these peoples' past offends you. I completely agree that these individuals participated in and encouraged some very bad social behaviors, decisions, and activities in their time, especially by today's measures. But, you know what? So are YOU! Holding people of the past to a standard they cannot possibly maintain is a crime. Stop doing it. At the time they were alive, their actions were not considered to be a threat to society. Understand that they did have some good in them. Cherish that and focus on that and maybe you can find some peace with it. It is something to consider about one's self in a present day context.
Always ask yourself "Am I being prejudiced now?" "Am I being empathetic
enough toward those who are in question today?" It's impossible to know what the future holds.
I totally understand WHY these peoples' past offends you. I completely agree that these individuals participated in and encouraged some very bad social behaviors, decisions, and activities in their time, especially by today's measures. But, you know what? So are YOU! Holding people of the past to a standard they cannot possibly maintain is a crime. Stop doing it. At the time they were alive, their actions were not considered to be a threat to society. Understand that they did have some good in them. Cherish that and focus on that and maybe you can find some peace with it. It is something to consider about one's self in a present day context.
Always ask yourself "Am I being prejudiced now?" "Am I being empathetic
enough toward those who are in question today?" It's impossible to know what the future holds.
Seems like a terrible example by your form psych professor. Of course people are going to see the dot, it's the only thing on the paper.
His point remains, and of course my question was rhetorical anyway. It's human nature to be drawn to the worst of every situation. I struggle with it every day. Just one of many reasons I don't watch the news anymore.
If the prevailing political climate at UNC prevails, this is a forgone conclusion. Saunders Hall will be renamed...
