Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.....Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
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.
Why?Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
I'm sure to blacks, the name could evoke strong and painful reminders of this country's history.
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.Originally posted by Raising Heel:
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:
Why?Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
I'm sure to blacks, the name could evoke strong and painful reminders of this country's history.
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.
Originally posted by Raising Heel:
Which brings me to my second point. Why do we insist on defining people's legacy in the worst possible terms?
Not disagreeing with anything you have said and I really haven't followed this case much. But to your second point, a psychology professor of mine once made the analogy of taking a blank sheet of copy paper, putting a small dot in the center and then asking people what they see. They are going to say "a sheet of paper with a dot in it." People always look for a flaw or a difference. I'm sure I'm guilty of it myself, hopefully not too often, though.
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.Originally posted by WhatTheHeel?:
Originally posted by Raising Heel:
Which brings me to my second point. Why do we insist on defining people's legacy in the worst possible terms?
Not disagreeing with anything you have said and I really haven't followed this case much. But to your second point, a psychology professor of mine once made the analogy of taking a blank sheet of copy paper, putting a small dot in the center and then asking people what they see. They are going to say "a sheet of paper with a dot in it." People always look for a flaw or a difference. I'm sure I'm guilty of it myself, hopefully not too often, though.
Welcome to the fold, Brother!Originally posted by Raising Heel:
Just one of many reasons I don't watch the news anymore.