https://www.yahoo.com/politics/don-39-t-erase-woodrow-wilson-1307774047436854.html
QuoteSeveral years ago now, a book editor suggested I write a biography of Woodrow Wilson. I declined, because, for one thing, I'm not really a historian, unless you go by the Twitter standard, in which anything that happened during the last presidency is considered obscure. And after watching "Cast Away" 100 times, I knew I could never take on a Wilson project without drawing a face on a volleyball and propping it up on my desk, and from there it would be a short leap to madness.
What I did not think at the time was that Wilson, having been a racist, a bad husband and a demonstrably unpleasant guy in general, did not deserve to have his legacy as a statesman remembered or celebrated. Which is pretty much the case that's now gaining ground at Princeton, where students are agitating to have Wilson's name and image expunged from campus.
This, amid a rash of similar protests around the country, is what university educators everywhere might call a "teachable moment" — if only they can summon the courage to actually teach.
Wilson, as you may know from your history classes (or from one of the exhaustive biographies that actual historians have written), was both a Princeton alum and the university's president before he went on to become the governor of New Jersey and, in 1912, only the second Democrat since Reconstruction to win the White House. He led the country through the First World War, founded the League of Nations and established the Federal Reserve system as we know it, among other things.
Wilson can fairly be credited, along with Theodore Roosevelt, with having pioneered the modern concepts of American internationalism and progressive government. For this, in 1948, Princeton named its renowned school of public policy and international affairs in his honor.
(Also, the state of New Jersey awarded Wilson its equivalent of British knighthood, putting his name on a drab rest stop along the turnpike. Dare to dream, Chris Christie, dare to dream.)
What you might not have known about Wilson — and I admit, this was hazy in my memory as well — is just how execrable a human being he seems to have been. Wilson was a fervent segregationist who apparently went to some effort to separate the races in federal buildings. As president, he screened "Birth of a Nation," the infamous film glorifying the Ku Klux Klan and its philosophy, at the White House.
As the New York Times' Andy Newman noted in a very good overview this week, Princeton did not admit a single black student during Wilson's tenure, setting it decades behind other Ivy League schools that took a more enlightened approach. This was not a coincidence.
Thus the reason that a group of students calling themselves the "Black Justice League" has recently demanded that Princeton remove Wilson's name from both the public policy school and a residential college that features a large mural of the man in its dining room. The students, about 15 of whom occupied the current president's office in protest, are also insisting that the university impose a course on "the history of marginalized peoples," which, if you haven't spent much time on an elite campus lately, is also known as the entire humanities curriculum.
Truth be told, I probably would have gotten behind this kind of protest when I was running my college paper. Every generation of students struggles anew with the ideals of social justice and identity; in my day, it was breaking the back of apartheid in South Africa. Holding the collegiate institution accountable for its past is a way of serving notice on all the larger institutions in the society.
And those of us who are white can only imagine what it's like to be the African-American student who has to walk through the doors of the Wilson school every day, or eat dinner beneath his mural every night and stare into the exalted image of a man who didn't believe you should be treated as an American, or even as a person.
But there's a bigger picture here, and at least a couple of reasons to defend Wilson's place on campus.
First and most obviously, you're going down a perilous road when you start judging historical figures by modern standards, separating morality from its context. Wilson, a Virginian, was born into the heart of the Confederacy five years before it seceded and a full century before the civil rights movement gained momentum. As a segregationist, he may not have been typical of his Ivy League peers, but he was hardly an outlier among white Southerners.
If you're going to indict Wilson for the crimes of another century, then where do you stop? How about Amerigo Vespucci, who loaded his ship with "savages" to be sold at market? Or the slave-owning George Washington? How many names and monuments are we supposed to erase from the record?
More to the point, though, is that today's students have grown up in a society that increasingly eschews moral complexity. They've never known a time when you can't choose your own media, your own history, your own truth. Theirs is a binary world where everyone is either all good or all bad, where the only reality worth hearing online or on cable TV is the one that reaffirms your preconceptions.
But history is complicated, and so are the people who make it. The messy reality is that great people sometimes do terrible things, and terrible people sometimes do great things. To discard all the actors we find abhorrent, along with all the things they might have accomplished, is to deny the vexing contradictions of humanity — which is exactly what real knowledge is about.
And this is where a lot of these university administrators are failing their students spectacularly right now. Their job isn't to root out "microaggressions" or "trigger words," to sterilize campus life in an effort to stave off discomfort.
Their job is to make students understand that truth is often confounding and uncomfortable — that, as F. Scott Fitzgerald put it, "the test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." (I've quoted this before, but in the current climate, it bears repeating.)
Here's a solution to the Wilson conundrum. If I were the president of Princeton, instead of cowering before protesters and empowering some commission to decide Wilson's fate, I'd leave his name right where it is.
But I'd put a plaque in the lobby of the public policy school explaining that Wilson was a visionary statesman and, at the same time, an avowed racist with repugnant ideas. I'd add the same context, incidentally, to the video tribute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, where I've been a resident scholar.
Exposing Wilson publicly would send the right message to this and future generations, which is that times change, legacies are complicated and leaders are flawed.
I'd let the rest stop speak for itself.
Hell I have heard Ralph Waldo Emerson be attacked as a monster and a racist and should not be read or celebrated. If an abolitionist who did nothing but write and give speeches is not pure enough the rest of the white guys from the 19th century are in trouble.
Anyway way too much importance is being assigned to how people feel these days. The overwhelming majority of my feelings are irrational and reactionary and should probably be ignored. Now maybe I am unique in that but my experience on the internet suggests probably not.
I like New Model Army's Take:
Quote
They started work this morning down at city square
They're pulling down the statues of our great grandfather's hero
The new books said he wasn't such a great man after all
And anyway remember that the times they are a-changing
Ch: Pull it down, drag it down
Till there's nothing to look up to
But the brand names on the posters all around
They proved on television last night that God was just a lie
He never made the world at all
It was just some sweet old fashioned rite
So melt down all the ornaments, move out all the graves
And let us build the disco that we need for our young braves
Ch: Pull it down, drag it down
Till the hopes and dreams of all the ages
Past are shattered on the ground
We think we are so clever killing heroes, killing magic,
Until everything that's sacred is brought down to our level
for Mammon is a jealous master, - leaves no room for any other
All the questions left unanswered, all the answers gone forever
So bow to the woman in the finest fur
Bow to the man with the ace street cool
Bow to the woman with all the power
Bow to the man with all the money
In whose sight are we equal now?
Now that we've killed God
:D
I am happy to abandon works of all those pre-war era racist white writers, politicians and philosophers as long as you can give me something written by all those black writers, politicians and philosophers of the same era and intellectual calibre. Until this can be accomplished, get lost.
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2015, 03:20:48 PM
I am happy to abandon works of all those pre-war era racist white writers, politicians and philosophers as long as you can give me something written by all those black writers, politicians and philosophers of the same era and intellectual calibre. Until this can be accomplished, get lost.
That might be one of the most offensive things you've said.
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2015, 04:12:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2015, 03:20:48 PM
I am happy to abandon works of all those pre-war era racist white writers, politicians and philosophers as long as you can give me something written by all those black writers, politicians and philosophers of the same era and intellectual calibre. Until this can be accomplished, get lost.
That might be one of the most offensive things you've said.
Good. I just said the same thing few days ago when some idiot complained about The Economist quoting Voltaire, because Voltaire was "racist". Until mid-20th century the civilization was built by racist white men. Deal with it.
I like non-progressive Marty better. :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 26, 2015, 04:35:05 PM
I like non-progressive Marty better. :)
I'm getting old. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 26, 2015, 04:35:05 PM
I like non-progressive Marty better. :)
You're welcome to him. I'm glad he's on your side now too :hug:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 26, 2015, 04:35:05 PM
I like non-progressive Marty better. :)
Hopefully progressiveness can disentangle itself from political correctness.
I think I'm still progressive, just I don't tolerate nonsense.
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2015, 04:12:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2015, 03:20:48 PM
I am happy to abandon works of all those pre-war era racist white writers, politicians and philosophers as long as you can give me something written by all those black writers, politicians and philosophers of the same era and intellectual calibre. Until this can be accomplished, get lost.
That might be one of the most offensive things you've said.
Nah, he's said more offensive things.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2015, 05:15:04 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 26, 2015, 04:35:05 PM
I like non-progressive Marty better. :)
Hopefully progressiveness can disentangle itself from political correctness.
People who don't care about that shit just call themselves "liberals".
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 26, 2015, 06:10:12 PM
People who don't care about that shit just call themselves "liberals".
Betcha a good chunk, if not the majority, of self described liberals subscribe to political correctness.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2015, 06:50:12 PM
Betcha a good chunk, if not the majority, of self described liberals subscribe to political correctness.
Luckily political correctness is amorphous enough of a concept that you can apply it pretty much however you want.
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2015, 07:08:52 PM
Luckily political correctness is amorphous enough of a concept that you can apply it pretty much however you want.
Disagree. It has an irreducible essence.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2015, 07:20:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2015, 07:08:52 PM
Luckily political correctness is amorphous enough of a concept that you can apply it pretty much however you want.
Disagree. It has an irreducible essence.
Yup, and that essence is "legitimate opinions that are being suppressed, voluntarily or involuntarily, that I happen to think should not be suppressed".
Of course, people will add a particular political slant that they find anathema to that definition, which is what makes the concept so wonderfully amorphous.
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2015, 07:24:31 PM
Yup, and that essence is "legitimate opinions that are being suppressed, voluntarily or involuntarily, that I happen to think should not be suppressed".
Of course, people will add a particular political slant that they find anathema to that definition, which is what makes the concept so wonderfully amorphous.
I think you have it backwards. PC is all about not giving offense. Free expression is the first principle that is sacrificed at the altar.
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2015, 07:24:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2015, 07:20:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2015, 07:08:52 PM
Luckily political correctness is amorphous enough of a concept that you can apply it pretty much however you want.
Disagree. It has an irreducible essence.
Yup, and that essence is "legitimate opinions that are being suppressed, voluntarily or involuntarily, that I happen to think should not be suppressed".
Of course, people will add a particular political slant that they find anathema to that definition, which is what makes the concept so wonderfully amorphous.
Um. No. That's not political correctness at all. The essence of PC is more like the opposite of your definition; PC is about suppressing speech that is deemed hurtful.
EDIT: Damn your nimble fingers, Yi!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2015, 07:48:31 PMI think you have it backwards. PC is all about not giving offense. Free expression is the first principle that is sacrificed at the altar.
"not giving offense" is a rule of society. "political correctness" is kind of a meaningless term that really just describes a societal shift. you had "not giving offense" rules that "sacrificed free expression" back in the 1950s. like you couldn't promote feminism without getting censured.
(edit) what i'm saying is everyone has always subscribed to political correctness. i don't see how you could form a society without political correctness. "political correctness," the term, is a modern political term created by people who want to express ideas modern society now considers vulgar/offensive.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 26, 2015, 09:17:01 PM
"not giving offense" is a rule of society. "political correctness" is kind of a meaningless term that really just describes a societal shift. you had "not giving offense" rules that "sacrificed free expression" back in the 1950s. like you couldn't promote feminism without getting censured.
(edit) what i'm saying is everyone has always subscribed to political correctness. i don't see how you could form a society without political correctness. "political correctness," the term, is a modern political term created by people who want to express ideas modern society now considers vulgar/offensive.
Unless you have a very strange definition of modern society, modern society does not consider non-Indians doing or teaching yoga vulgar.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2015, 09:56:54 PMUnless you have a very strange definition of modern society, modern society does not consider non-Indians doing or teaching yoga vulgar.
so, you think this one organization's response to an incident falls under "political correctness"? this same political correctness to which "a good chunk, if not the majority, of self described liberals subscribe"? we seem to have different definitions of "political correctness," and i'm not sure how you're defining yours.
does PC occur
(1) when an organization censures when
one (or a few) people get offended? this isn't the same "political correctness" that i've seen get thrown around. of course "political correctness" is ridiculous if you define it this way, but i've seen people use the term re: an employee getting fired for saying women jokes during a public presentation. this offends more than "one (or a few)."
(2) any time an organization censures
after any group, no matter how large or small, gets offended? this happened in the past just as much as it happens today. organizations respond in all sorts of ways. some organizations submit under a minor complaints while others roll their eyes. this isn't a new concept.
or some other?
Western. Imperialism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2015, 07:48:31 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2015, 07:24:31 PM
Yup, and that essence is "legitimate opinions that are being suppressed, voluntarily or involuntarily, that I happen to think should not be suppressed".
Of course, people will add a particular political slant that they find anathema to that definition, which is what makes the concept so wonderfully amorphous.
I think you have it backwards. PC is all about not giving offense. Free expression is the first principle that is sacrificed at the altar.
No, he's got it right. PC is mostly a strawman, If it had real currency then it wouldn't be used almost entirely as a pejorative and "politically incorrect" wouldn't be worn as a badge of honor. But let's look closer as to what "politically incorrect" thought is. Regency publishing has produced a lot of books under the "politically incorrect label", seen'em at the book store. Let's see what they have to offer.
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Darwinism-Intelligent-Design/dp/1596980133/
Quote
Why Darwinism—like Marxism and Freudianism before it—is headed for extinction
In the 1925 Scopes trial, the American Civil Liberties Union sued to allow the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in public schools. Seventy-five years later, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the ACLU sued to prevent the teaching of an alternative to Darwin's theory known as "Intelligent Design"—and won. Why did the ACLU turn from defending the free-speech rights of Darwinists to silencing their opponents? Jonathan Wells reveals that, for today's Darwinists, there may be no other choice: unable to fend off growing challenges from scientists, or to compete with rival theories better adapted to the latest evidence, Darwinism—like Marxism and Freudianism before it—is simply unfit to survive.
Wells begins by explaining the basic tenets of Darwinism, and the evidence both for and against it. He reveals, for instance, that the fossil record, which according to Darwin should be teeming with "transitional" fossils showing the development of one species to the next, so far hasn't produced a single incontestable example. On the other hand, certain well-documented aspects of the fossil record—such as the Cambrian explosion, in which innumerable new species suddenly appeared fully formed—directly contradict Darwin's theory. Wells also shows how most of the other "evidence" for evolution— including textbook "icons" such as peppered moths, Darwin's finches, Haeckel's embryos, and the Tree of Life—has been exaggerated, distorted . . . and even faked.
Wells then turns to the theory of intelligent design (ID), the idea that some features of the natural world, such as the internal machinery of cells, are too "irreducibly complex" to have resulted from unguided natural processes alone. In clear-cut layman's language, he reveals the growing evidence for ID coming out of scientific specialties from microbiology to astrophysics. As Wells explains, religion does play a role in the debate over Darwin—though not in the way evolutionists claim. Wells shows how Darwin reasoned that evolution is true because divine creation "must" be false—a theological assumption oddly out of place in a scientific debate. In other words, Darwinists' materialistic, atheistic assumptions rule out any theories but their own, and account for their willingness to explain away the evidence—or lack of it.
Darwin is an emperor who has no clothes— but it takes a brave man to say so. Jonathan Wells, a microbiologist with two Ph.D.s (from Berkeley and Yale), is that brave man. Most textbooks on evolution are written by Darwinists with an ideological ax to grind. Brave dissidents—qualified scientists—who try to teach or write about intelligent design are silenced and sent to the academic gulag. But fear not: Jonathan Wells is a liberator. He unmasks the truth about Darwinism— why it is wrong and what the real evidence is. He also supplies a revealing list of "Books You're Not Supposed to Read" (as far as the Darwinists are concerned) and puts at your fingertips all the evidence you need to challenge the most closed-minded Darwinist.
http://www.regnery.com/books/the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-science/
QuoteOf course it's reliable, based on fact, unprejudiced, and trustworthy, isn't it? Well, guess again. A lot of what passes for science these days is pseudo-science, and a lot of scientific fact is hidden from public view because it's not politically correct.
Science has been politicized–not by the Right, but by the Left, which sees global warming, Darwinism, stem cell research, and innumerable other issues as tools to advance its agenda (and in many cases expand the reach of government).
When liberals trot out scientists with white coats, debate is supposed to be silenced. But many of the high priests of science have something to hide–from blind intolerance of religion to jealous guarding of their federally financed research budgets.
Luckily, science journalist Tom Bethell is here with the necessary and bracing antidote: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science.
Here's a handy one-volume guide to some of the most contentious issues of our day, including:
Why fears of nuclear power aren't science, but unscientific scaremongering
Why species are increasing, not disappearing
Why global warming (and other temperature changes) are not caused by humans (remember the Ice Age?)
Why embryonic stem cell research is snake oil medicine (which is why it needs government subsidies)
Why Darwinism is crumbling
Why the story line of the brave scientist Galileo versus an ignorant Church is wrong
And much, much more
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Civil-Guides/dp/1596985496/
QuoteThink you know the Civil War?
You don't know the full story until you read The Politically Incorrect GuideTM to the Civil War
Bestselling author and former Conservative Book Club editor H. W. Crocker III offers a quick and lively study of America's own Iliad--the Civil War--in this provocative and entertaining addition to The Politically Incorrect GuideTM series.
In The Politically Incorrect GuideTM to the Civil War Crocker profiles eminent--and colorful--military generals including the noble Lee, the controversial Sherman, the indefatigable Grant, the legendary Stonewall Jackson, and the notorious Nathan Bedford Forrest. He also includes thought-provoking chapters such as "The Civil War in Sixteen Battles You Should Know" and the most devastatingly politically incorrect chapter of all, "What If the South Had Won?" Along the way, he reveals a huge number of little-known truths, including why Robert E. Lee had a higher regard for African Americans than Lincoln did; how, if there had been no Civil War, the South would have abolished slavery peaceably (as every other country in the Western Hemisphere did in the nineteenth century); and how the Confederate States of America might have helped the Allies win World War I sooner. Bet your history professor never told you:
* Leading Northern generals--like McClellan and Sherman--hated abolitionists
* Bombing people "back to the Stone Age" got its start with the Federal siege of Vicksburg
* General Sherman professed not to know which was "the greater evil": slavery or democracy
* Stonewall Jackson founded a Sunday school for slaves where he taught them how to read
* General James Longstreet fought the Battle of Sharpsburg in his carpet slippers
This is the Politically Incorrect GuideTM that every Civil War buff and Southern partisan--and everyone who is tired of liberal self-hatred that vilifies America's greatest heroes--must have on his bookshelf.
Hmmm.
Quote from: The Brain on November 26, 2015, 11:50:24 PM
Western. Imperialism.
i don't think people use "political correctness" to refer to western imperialism
Quote from: LaCroix on November 26, 2015, 10:29:13 PM
so, you think this one organization's response to an incident falls under "political correctness"? this same political correctness to which "a good chunk, if not the majority, of self described liberals subscribe"? we seem to have different definitions of "political correctness," and i'm not sure how you're defining yours.
does PC occur
(1) when an organization censures when one (or a few) people get offended? this isn't the same "political correctness" that i've seen get thrown around. of course "political correctness" is ridiculous if you define it this way, but i've seen people use the term re: an employee getting fired for saying women jokes during a public presentation. this offends more than "one (or a few)."
(2) any time an organization censures after any group, no matter how large or small, gets offended? this happened in the past just as much as it happens today. organizations respond in all sorts of ways. some organizations submit under a minor complaints while others roll their eyes. this isn't a new concept.
or some other?
Yes, I think Yogagate is a perfect example of the excesses of political correctness. Self-appointed spokespeople for a quote unquote oppressed minority (generally self-selected on the basis of a mutual love of taking offense) say that something offends them. Well-intentioned people try to accomodate this expression of offense and attempt to limit or eliminate the quote unquote offending behavior.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2015, 01:51:56 AMYes, I think Yogagate is a perfect example of the excesses of political correctness. Self-appointed spokespeople for a quote unquote oppressed minority (generally self-selected on the basis of a mutual love of taking offense) say that something offends them. Well-intentioned people try to accomodate this expression of offense and attempt to limit or eliminate the quote unquote offending behavior.
okay, but "spokespeople" doesn't narrow things down any further than your original statement. the point is very few people would agree that one person (or very few people) should be able to limit/eliminate offending behavior. at the end of the day, you can't please everyone. there's always going to be a translizard who gets offended over something.
i don't think yogagate was "political correctness" as the term is commonly used. i think it was a stupid decision by the university, just like any other stupid decision that organizations sometimes make. whether you want to call this an outlier (your stance) or simply not meeting the definition (my stance), either way it's pretty silly to lump it with other PC situations and say liberals subscribe to all of it.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 27, 2015, 02:06:56 AM
okay, but "spokespeople" doesn't narrow things down any further than your original statement. the point is very few people would agree that one person (or very few people) should be able to limit/eliminate offending behavior. at the end of the day, you can't please everyone. there's always going to be a translizard who gets offended over something.
i don't think yogagate was "political correctness" as the term is commonly used. i think it was a stupid decision by the university, just like any other stupid decision that organizations sometimes make. whether you want to call this an outlier (your stance) or simply not meeting the definition (my stance), either way it's pretty silly to lump it with other PC situations and say liberals subscribe to all of it.
An outlier of what?
Wilson was scum, and not a good president. I'd be more in favor of taking his name off of things for the second reason, rather than the first. If we started denouncing all the great men who were scum, we'd have no more great men.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2015, 02:19:24 AMAn outlier of what?
misinterpreted your post, thought you were saying the decision was an egregious example of PC. i.e., an outlier but still PC. if you're not saying this, then how would you reconcile yogagate with a lecturer who makes women jokes and gets fired? both are "PC" under your definition. are they equal instances of PC?
Quote from: LaCroix on November 27, 2015, 02:51:24 AM
misinterpreted your post, thought you were saying the decision was an egregious example of PC. i.e., an outlier but still PC. if you're not saying this, then how would you reconcile yogagate with a lecturer who makes women jokes and gets fired? both are "PC" under your definition. are they equal instances of PC?
Equal on what scale?
To try to answer your question, I think there are cases in which spokespeople for protected minorities claim offense which are reasonable, and some that are not.
What went so horribly wrong in the upbringing of these millenials that they're now demanding that university campuses be turned into giant open-air preschools? :hmm:
Quote from: Legbiter on November 27, 2015, 06:09:17 AM
What went so horribly wrong in the upbringing of these millenials that they're now demanding that university campuses be turned into giant open-air preschools? :hmm:
Well there is a long tradition of people wanting monuments, honors, etc. removed for individuals they think are undeserving. Just in this case, I think they are woefully misguided in those calls.
Quote from: Legbiter on November 27, 2015, 06:09:17 AM
What went so horribly wrong in the upbringing of these millenials that they're now demanding that university campuses be turned into giant open-air preschools? :hmm:
First of all, I want to make it clear that Wilson was a shit president, over rated more than any other with exception of Jefferson.
Secondly, the problem starts in High School.
Quote
The Yale Problem Begins in High School
by Jonathan Haidt | Nov 24, 2015 | campus turmoil, free speech | 218 comments
A month before the Yale Halloween meltdown, I had a bizarre and illuminating experience at an elite private high school on the West Coast. I'll call it Centerville High. I gave a version of a talk that you can see here, on Coddle U. vs. Strengthen U. (In an amazing coincidence, I first gave that talk at Yale a few weeks earlier). The entire student body — around 450 students, from grades 9-12 — were in the auditorium. There was plenty of laughter at all the right spots, and a lot of applause at the end, so I thought the talk was well received.
But then the discussion began, and it was the most unremittingly hostile questioning I've ever had. I don't mind when people ask hard or critical questions, but I was surprised that I had misread the audience so thoroughly. My talk had little to do with gender, but the second question was "So you think rape is OK?" Like most of the questions, it was backed up by a sea of finger snaps — the sort you can hear in the infamous Yale video, where a student screams at Prof. Christakis to "be quiet" and tells him that he is "disgusting." I had never heard the snapping before. When it happens in a large auditorium it is disconcerting. It makes you feel that you are facing an angry and unified mob — a feeling I have never had in 25 years of teaching and public speaking.
After the first dozen questions I noticed that not a single questioner was male. I began to search the sea of hands asking to be called on and I did find one boy, who asked a question that indicated that he too was critical of my talk. But other than him, the 200 or so boys in the audience sat silently.
After the Q&A, I got a half-standing ovation: almost all of the boys in the room stood up to cheer. And after the crowd broke up, a line of boys came up to me to thank me and shake my hand. Not a single girl came up to me afterward.
After my main lecture, the next session involved 60 students who had signed up for further discussion with me. We moved to a large classroom. The last thing I wanted to do was to continue the same fruitless arguing for another 75 minutes, so I decided to take control of the session and reframe the discussion. Here is what happened next:
Quote
Me: What kind of intellectual climate do you want here at Centerville? Would you rather have option A: a school where people with views you find offensive keep their mouths shut, or B: a school where everyone feels that they can speak up in class discussions?
Audience: All hands go up for B.
Me: OK, let's see if you have that. When there is a class discussion about gender issues, do you feel free to speak up and say what you are thinking? Or do you feel that you are walking on eggshells and you must heavily censor yourself? Just the girls in the class, raise your hand if you feel you can speak up? [about 70% said they feel free, vs about 10% who said eggshells ]. Now just the boys? [about 80% said eggshells, nobody said they feel free].
Me: Now let's try it for race. When a topic related to race comes up in class, do you feel free to speak up and say what you are thinking, or do you feel that you are walking on eggshells and you must heavily censor yourself? Just the non-white students? [the group was around 30% non-white, mostly South and East Asians, and some African Americans. A majority said they felt free to speak, although a large minority said eggshells] Now just the white students? [A large majority said eggshells]
Me: Now lets try it for politics. How many of you would say you are on the right politically, or that you are conservative or Republican? [6 hands went up, out of 60 students]. Just you folks, when politically charged topics come up, can you speak freely? [Only one hand went up, but that student clarified that everyone gets mad at him when he speaks up, but he does it anyway. The other 5 said eggshells.] How many of you are on the left, liberal, or democrat? [Most hands go up] Can you speak freely, or is it eggshells? [Almost all said they can speak freely.]
Me: So let me get this straight. You were unanimous in saying that you want your school to be a place where people feel free to speak up, even if you strongly dislike their views. But you don't have such a school. In fact, you have exactly the sort of "tolerance" that Herbert Marcuse advocated [which I had discussed in my lecture, and which you can read about here]. You have a school in which only people in the preferred groups get to speak, and everyone else is afraid. What are you going to do about this? Let's talk.
After that, the conversation was extremely civil and constructive. The boys took part just as much as the girls. We talked about what Centerville could do to improve its climate, and I said that the most important single step would be to make viewpoint diversity a priority. On the entire faculty, there was not a single teacher that was known to be conservative or Republican. So if these teenagers are coming into political consciousness inside of a "moral matrix" that is uniformly leftist, there will always be anger directed at those who disrupt that consensus.
That night, after I gave a different talk to an adult audience, there was a reception at which I spoke with some of the parents. Several came up to me to tell me that their sons had told them about the day's events. The boys finally had a way to express and explain their feelings of discouragement. Their parents were angry to learn about how their sons were being treated and... there's no other word for it, bullied into submission by the girls.*
And Centerville High is not alone. Last summer I had a conversation with some boys who attend one of the nation's top prep schools, in New England. They reported the same thing: as white males, they are constantly on eggshells, afraid to speak up on any remotely controversial topic lest they be sent to the "equality police" (that was their term for the multicultural center). I probed to see if their fear extended beyond the classroom. I asked them what they would do if there was a new student at their school, from, say Yemen. Would they feel free to ask the student questions about his or her country? No, they said, it's too risky, a question could be perceived as offensive.
You might think that this is some sort of justice — white males have enjoyed positions of privilege for centuries, and now they are getting a taste of their own medicine. But these are children. And remember that most students who are in a victim group for one topic are in the "oppressor" group for another. So everyone is on eggshells sometimes; all students at Centerville High learn to engage with books, ideas, and people using the twin habits of defensive self-censorship and vindictive protectiveness.
And then... they go off to college and learn new ways to gain status by expressing collective anger at those who disagree. They curse professors and spit on visiting speakers at Yale. They shut down newspapers at Wesleyan. They torment a dean who was trying to help them at Claremont McKenna. They threaten and torment fellow students at Dartmouth. And in all cases, they demand that adults in power DO SOMETHING to punish those whose words and views offend them. Their high schools have thoroughly socialized them into what sociologists call victimhood culture, which weakens students by turning them into "moral dependents" who cannot deal with problems on their own. They must get adult authorities to validate their victim status.
So they issue ultimatums to college presidents, and, as we saw at Yale, the college presidents meet their deadlines, give them much of what they demanded, commit their schools to an ever tighter embrace of victimhood culture, and say nothing to criticize the bullying, threats, and intimidation tactics that have created a culture of intense fear for anyone who might even consider questioning the prevailing moral matrix. What do you suppose a conversation about race or gender will look like in any Yale classroom ten years from now? Who will dare to challenge the orthodox narrative imposed by victimhood culture? The "Next Yale" that activists are demanding will make today's Centerville High look like Plato's Academy by comparison.
The only hope for Centerville High — and for Yale — is to disrupt their repressively uniform moral matrices to make room for dissenting views. High schools and colleges that lack viewpoint diversity should make it their top priority. Race and gender diversity matter too, but if those goals are pursued in the ways that student activists are currently demanding, then political orthodoxy is likely to intensify. Schools that value freedom of thought should therefore actively seek out non-leftist faculty, and they should explicitly include viewpoint diversity and political diversity in all statements about diversity and discrimination.** Parents and students who value freedom of thought should take viewpoint diversity into account when applying to colleges. Alumni should take it into account before writing any more checks.
The Yale problem refers to an unfortunate feedback loop: Once you allow victimhood culture to spread on your campus, you can expect ever more anger from students representing victim groups, coupled with demands for a deeper institutional commitment to victimhood culture, which leads inexorably to more anger, more demands, and more commitment. But the Yale problem didn't start at Yale. It started in high school. As long as many of our elite prep schools are turning out students who have only known eggshells and anger, whose social cognition is limited to a single dimension of victims and victimizers, and who demand safe spaces and trigger warnings, it's hard to imagine how any university can open students' minds and prepare them to converse respectfully with people who don't share their values. Especially when there are no adults around who don't share their values.
* * * * *
Post Scripts:
*My original draft of this post included the phrase "with the blessing of the teachers" at this point. But this was unfair and I regret it. The Centerville teachers I met were all very friendly to me, even after my talk. I think they could do more to counter the intimidation felt by students with minority viewpoints, but I have no reason to think that the teachers at Centerville are anything other than caring professionals who try to curate class discussions without inserting their own views. Indeed, the comments from "Centerville" students below, in the comment threads, indicate that the intimidation comes primarily from other students, not from the teachers. This is a pattern I have seen at universities as well.
**To help high schools and colleges measure the scale of their problem, we at HeterodoxAcademy will develop an "Eggshellometer" – a simple anonymous survey that can be distributed to all students, or to all faculty for that matter – that can be used to quantify the degree to which members of an academic community live in fear. In the meantime, if you are a teacher, you can use the simple "show of hands" method that I described above, or you can easily turn it into an anonymous paper and pencil survey.
Of course, I'm not sure how helpful it was in my 'open' high school and university to have white people talking about how they didn't really think racism was much of a problem anymore / they didn't really know much about racism but still would be damned if they were going to be silent during discussion section...
Probably about as helpful as having all those cisgendered shitlords mouthing off constantly and being all oppressively gendernormative and shit.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ingeniouspress.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F05%2Fmale-privilege.jpg&hash=c0a9b6abaa0e94a44616fde99dd877d7dedca460)
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2015, 09:27:19 AM
Of course, I'm not sure how helpful it was in my 'open' high school and university to have white people talking about how they didn't really think racism was much of a problem anymore / they didn't really know much about racism but still would be damned if they were going to be silent during discussion section...
If you don't find the views of others "helpful" in understanding the world and its people (even when you disagree with it), then you should probably seek a refund from that high school and university.
Quote from: grumbler on November 27, 2015, 09:44:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2015, 09:27:19 AM
Of course, I'm not sure how helpful it was in my 'open' high school and university to have white people talking about how they didn't really think racism was much of a problem anymore / they didn't really know much about racism but still would be damned if they were going to be silent during discussion section...
If you don't find the views of others "helpful" in understanding the world and its people (even when you disagree with it), then you should probably seek a refund from that high school and university.
Yeah, even if they're wrong, understanding the views that a great many other people have is important.
Yes, I needed high school and university to teach me that most people are mostly indifferent to issues of race. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Legbiter on November 27, 2015, 09:38:56 AM
Probably about as helpful as having all those cisgendered shitlords mouthing off constantly and being all oppressively gendernormative and shit.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ingeniouspress.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F05%2Fmale-privilege.jpg&hash=c0a9b6abaa0e94a44616fde99dd877d7dedca460)
Well yes, it was actually a negative in my life to have straight people pushing their gender role behaviors / telling me that homosexuality is wrong. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2015, 09:56:54 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 26, 2015, 09:17:01 PM
"not giving offense" is a rule of society. "political correctness" is kind of a meaningless term that really just describes a societal shift. you had "not giving offense" rules that "sacrificed free expression" back in the 1950s. like you couldn't promote feminism without getting censured.
(edit) what i'm saying is everyone has always subscribed to political correctness. i don't see how you could form a society without political correctness. "political correctness," the term, is a modern political term created by people who want to express ideas modern society now considers vulgar/offensive.
Unless you have a very strange definition of modern society, modern society does not consider non-Indians doing or teaching yoga vulgar.
How very imperialist of you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 27, 2015, 11:36:53 AM
How very imperialist of you.
Aren't you the guy always bragging about all then foreign culture stuff he does? How well does that jackboot fit? Huh?
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2015, 11:29:57 AM
Yes, I needed high school and university to teach me that most people are mostly indifferent to issues of race. :rolleyes:
This is why I always hated 'discussion sections'
I don't need to be reminded that most of my peers are idiots prof.
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2015, 11:49:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2015, 11:29:57 AM
Yes, I needed high school and university to teach me that most people are mostly indifferent to issues of race. :rolleyes:
This is why I always hated 'discussion sections'
I don't need to be reminded that most of my peers are idiots prof.
Indeed. Really discussion sections were the worst. I'm there to learn from the prof, not my peers who best case know just about as much as me on the given subject. :D
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2015, 11:35:40 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on November 27, 2015, 09:38:56 AM
Probably about as helpful as having all those cisgendered shitlords mouthing off constantly and being all oppressively gendernormative and shit.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ingeniouspress.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F05%2Fmale-privilege.jpg&hash=c0a9b6abaa0e94a44616fde99dd877d7dedca460)
Well yes, it was actually a negative in my life to have straight people pushing their gender role behaviors / telling me that homosexuality is wrong. :hmm:
How dare you impose your views on their beautiful culture and religion like that. :mad:
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2015, 04:24:30 PM
Good. I just said the same thing few days ago when some idiot complained about The Economist quoting Voltaire, because Voltaire was "racist".
Whoever said that was not only a bigot, but an extremely ignorant person.
If you read Voltaire's works - and I will point out lettres philosophiques (original: 'Lettres ecrites de Londres sur les Anglois et autres sujets', 1734) as an example - you will see that he often points to China as the 'most civilized nation in the world', with an exemplary culture.
He did say, in (in Essai sur les moeurs and Lettres d'Amabed), that Blacks seemed to lack the same ability of understanding than other races because they 'could not understand philosophy' and that they had 'a simian appearence', but that would be something that an XVIIIth century person would immediately notice about Black people.
Voltaire was very progressive, even for our standards. His letter defending that chamber maids should not be punished for having lesbian relations with their mistresses are an example of something that went totally against the morality of the day.
(in fact, he was progressive a lot even for today; he defended freedom of the individual so much that he said that romance between a brother and sister should not be banned, if both parties are consenting adults. Something that is often not mentioned today, because it goes even against our modern morality... for now).
That said, I am totally against judging someone with modern standards. He should be judged as people of his time saw him/her, otherwise all context is lost.
For example, I dislike religion, am a fierce anti-monarchist and hate the aristocracy. But that doesn't mean I will think that a medieval King like, for example, Edward III, should be despised and forgotten as 'classist', 'oppressive', 'obscurantist' and so on. I will judge him on his merits and based on how the world was in his days.
(this approach, btw, makes studying men like the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II quite amazing - people totally out of the patterns of his age, and with views and behaviours that were held only quite a few centuries after their deaths).
As a result, I cannot approve of this fashion of attacking ancient models. They may be dated, but should not be rejected because they do not match modern feelings.
Um okay.
I can't get a date with even ancient models.
Quote from: The Brain on November 27, 2015, 03:07:02 PM
I can't get a date with even ancient models.
What, you don't own a shovel?
Quote from: The Brain on November 27, 2015, 03:28:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 27, 2015, 03:10:29 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 27, 2015, 03:07:02 PM
I can't get a date with even ancient models.
What, you don't own a shovel?
No I don't, Mr. Moneybags.
Yeah, but I heard you got a new car, so you can't be that poor.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2015, 03:33:30 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 27, 2015, 03:28:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 27, 2015, 03:10:29 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 27, 2015, 03:07:02 PM
I can't get a date with even ancient models.
What, you don't own a shovel?
No I don't, Mr. Moneybags.
Yeah, but I heard you got a new car, so you can't be that poor.
Hell, he could probably afford a backhoe.
Which would be a suitably named item for his purpose. :P
Quote from: Malthus on November 27, 2015, 03:36:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2015, 03:33:30 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 27, 2015, 03:28:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 27, 2015, 03:10:29 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 27, 2015, 03:07:02 PM
I can't get a date with even ancient models.
What, you don't own a shovel?
No I don't, Mr. Moneybags.
Yeah, but I heard you got a new car, so you can't be that poor.
Hell, he could probably afford a backhoe.
Which would be a suitably named item for his purpose. :P
The shovel wouldn't get him much anyway...better to acquire one of those sexy classical marble statues and just try to simulate it. :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 27, 2015, 04:39:01 PM
The shovel wouldn't get him much anyway...better to acquire one of those sexy classical marble statues and just try to simulate it. :P
Simulate or stimulate?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 27, 2015, 06:08:07 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 27, 2015, 04:39:01 PM
The shovel wouldn't get him much anyway...better to acquire one of those sexy classical marble statues and just try to simulate it. :P
Simulate or stimulate?
What, do you think I am Timmah? :mad:
I am against the exposure of dead men.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 27, 2015, 02:26:32 AM
If we started denouncing all the great men who were scum, we'd have no more great men.
And that would be bad?
Hmm, I guess along the same lines...if the fact that someone was a "scumbag" invalidate their historical legacy, does that go the the same for great historical artists and their works (perhaps call it the "Roman Polanski" rule)? Should said art/masterpieces be removed from public display and/or destroyed?
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 28, 2015, 12:39:17 AM
Hmm, I guess along the same lines...if the fact that someone was a "scumbag" invalidate their historical legacy, does that go the the same for great historical artists and their works (perhaps call it the "Roman Polanski" rule)? Should said art/masterpieces be removed from public display and/or destroyed?
In that case we should tear down pretty much all works of great art and architecture. Michaelangelo was an abusive jerk and possibly a rapist and really most of great pre-modern monuments were built using slave labour or other forms of oppression and exploitation.
I identify the process of erasing the past with the Nazis, Stalinism, the first Qin Emperor, the papal index and the ISIS knobsters. Just on that basis I'm fairly sure it is a bad idea.
Well I think that is a little dramatic and certainly far removed from these protests at Princeton regarding Wilson.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 28, 2015, 02:19:59 AM
I identify the process of erasing the past with the Nazis, Stalinism, the first Qin Emperor, the papal index and the ISIS knobsters. Just on that basis I'm fairly sure it is a bad idea.
Cool, yuk, cool, yuk, yuk. A narrow win for bad.
Quote from: garbon on November 28, 2015, 04:06:32 AM
Well I think that is a little dramatic and certainly far removed from these protests at Princeton regarding Wilson.
The sentiment is the same - the only difference is power.
I don't think so. I don't think most, even a meaningful amount, are saying we should obliterate the past.
Also, I know it was a long time ago for you, but college students say and think stupid things. Oh noes!
Don't much care for the idea of trying to erase the past, but I'm always happy to see Wilson called out as the racist shithead he was.
I think that we can all agree (and the Princeton protesters would agree) that trying to "erase" Woodrow Wilson is a bad idea. People would notice that there apparently was no POTUS from 1912-1920, and would get suspicious.
I think it is entirely reasonable to debate whether the egotistical, racist loser should get buildings, dining halls, and graduate schools named after him. Wilson was pretty much the epitome of failure; he lied about his nature to get elected, lied about his intentions to get re-elected, and lied about his physical health in order to circumvent the law and the constitution. Killing the League of Nations in a fit of pique was probably the most Wilsonian act ever. Princeton should dump him. He's an anchor they don't need.
I wasn't aware that Wilson was such a twit. You learn something every day I guess.
I take issue about "Birth of a Nation" being projected in the White House as "proof" of his racist inclinations though; for better of worse (probably worse), that film was a huge blockbuster of the era, so it's natural that the president saw it.
Grumbler has very high standards. Get elected President: LOSER! Maybe he has a thing against the Federal reserve. Now Wilson was a racist, even more racist then most people, but nobody really cared since few people weren't racist. He did appoint McReynolds to the Supreme Court, who was probably biggest asshole to ever serve on the bench and at the same time appointed Brandeis. So you have to take the bad with the good.
Quote from: celedhring on November 29, 2015, 08:01:40 PM
I wasn't aware that Wilson was such a twit. You learn something every day I guess.
He was essentially thrown out of the Versailles Peace Treaty negotiations for being an ass. He then sat in on the Treaty of St Germaine negotiations and those in Trianon (with negative effect, since he insisted on supporting the Slavs against the Magyars in almost every dispute).
Few remember that the US would have joined the League of Nations had Wilson not blocked the Senate vote for ratification (because of an amendment that disallowed US participation in a League-declared war without an act of Congress). The British and French, naturally, added that codicil to their ratification. Wilson rejected any amendments, even good ones, as an affront to his person. He was egotistical enough to say of his efforts in the peace negotiations that "at last the world knows America as the savior of the world!"
Then, of course, there are his attempts to hide the fact that he was incapacitated by his stroke and that his wife, not the Vice President, was the acting president.
And, of course, his egotistical attempt to force the Democrats to nominate him for a third term, despite his inability to serve as a result of his stroke.
Of course the guy whose thunder is always stolen on the League of nations was its author, Jan Smuts; he was even more racist than Wilson, though, so maybe that's justice at work!
QuoteI take issue about "Birth of a Nation" being projected in the White House as "proof" of his racist inclinations though; for better of worse (probably worse), that film was a huge blockbuster of the era, so it's natural that the president saw it.
Agree. No need to reach so hard when there's plenty of better and less ambiguous evidence.
Quote from: celedhring on November 29, 2015, 08:01:40 PM
I wasn't aware that Wilson was such a twit. You learn something every day I guess.
I take issue about "Birth of a Nation" being projected in the White House as "proof" of his racist inclinations though; for better of worse (probably worse), that film was a huge blockbuster of the era, so it's natural that the president saw it.
I don't have a problem with him screening it; it was his praise of the movie that's problematic. Now, if it was just praise for the technical accomplishments of the movie, I don't have any problem with that, either, but there's the whole issue of the plot of the movie as well. But I do agree with grumbler that we don't really have to worry about there being plenty of better and less ambiguous evidence as to Wilson's faults.
I did think it was weird one of the big villains was a radical republican who looked just like Thaddeus Stevens but was not named Thaddeus Stevens. That was strange.
Quote from: garbon on November 28, 2015, 05:39:00 AM
I don't think so. I don't think most, even a meaningful amount, are saying we should obliterate the past.
Also, I know it was a long time ago for you, but college students say and think stupid things. Oh noes!
I was responding to thread topic title rather than your posts, I don't think we are in substantive disagreement.
Lately I have been doing a little bit of reading, mere memory-jogging really, about how awful (some) students were back in the 1960s and 70s. It has helped put some of the current nonsense in perspective.
As for Wilson I have never liked the fellow, in HoI terms he would be the "sanctimonious schoolmaster" (I daresay we have all met at least one of these back in our school days). With a better man I'm sure that Versailles could have been a far better treaty.
Wilson's purported "Birth of a Nation" quote is disputed, and was likely fabricated to promote the film. I don't know that much about Wilson, but I do about the film. But yeah, a cursory google search reveals a bunch of pretty factual racist moves by him, so I'm not arguing the larger point here.
It's so uncomfortable having such a violently racist film as one of the landmarks in American cinema, incidentally; when it got projected during my film class most black people quietly left the room.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Birth_of_a_nation_Aryan_quote.jpg)
Wilson is worshipped in Poland. There are only two other US Presidents who have a major square/street named after them.
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2015, 04:31:33 AM
Wilson is worshipped in Poland. There are only two other US Presidents who have a major square/street named after them.
The others probably FDR and Kennedy?
Quote from: Syt on November 30, 2015, 04:37:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2015, 04:31:33 AM
Wilson is worshipped in Poland. There are only two other US Presidents who have a major square/street named after them.
The others probably FDR and Kennedy?
FDR sure. Absolutely no reason to revere Kennedy. The third one is Reagan.
Same in the Czech Republic, btw, my perception of Wilson stems from the times I spent there, and how idolized he was by the locals.
Wilsonová is also a major street in Prague.
He is seen as the father of the post-Versailles order. I bet he is liked in Hungary. :D
There's an FDR hospital in Bratislava. I once asked a Slovak why it's named for him and she said because he did so much for Slovakia. When pressed she was unable to give any specifics, though.
I guess we like US Presidents who were in power when a major world war ended (give or take a few months).
So that's Wilson for WWI, FDR for WWII, and Reagan for the Cold War. :P
There's stuff named for Kennedy in Germany (and Vienna), but I couldn't think of anything named after Reagan. :hmm:
On googling, there seems to have been some controversy about naming a street/square in Berlin after him.
Sorry, I was wrong. There is no Reagan street but we have a major Washington Roundabout.
Wilson is relatively popular in the streets of Catalan towns, due to his stance on self-determination. He doesn't have a street in Barcelona though (Washington, Kennedy, Lincoln and a few others have, but very unimportant ones).
I can't think of many US presidents which have been influential in Spanish history, anyway, so we aren't likely to name large streets after them. There's one president that was pretty influential, but I haven't been able to find a single "Roosevelt" street in a major Spanish town :P
One of the public housing projects from the 1920s/30s in Vienna is named after George Washington. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/George-Washington-Hof
It puts him in the company of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Karl Liebknecht and other socialists. :lol:
Quote from: celedhring on November 30, 2015, 05:00:57 AM
I can't think of many US presidents which have been influential in Spanish history, anyway, so we aren't likely to name large streets after them. There's one president that was pretty influential, but I haven't been able to find a single "Roosevelt" street in a major Spanish town :P
McKinley was fairly influential. :whistle:
Quote from: Syt on November 30, 2015, 05:05:39 AM
One of the public housing projects from the 1920s/30s in Vienna is named after George Washington. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/George-Washington-Hof
It puts him in the company of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Karl Liebknecht and other socialists. :lol:
American volunteers during the Spanish Civil War named their units the George Washington battalion and the Abraham Lincoln battalion. Maybe there's some weird socialist significance to these guys we're not aware of.
Well, if I'm guessing that from their point of view Washington fought against the oppression of an autocratic regime, and Lincoln fought for the equality of all men.
Lincoln was a big socialist icon until the height of the Cold War. He was seen as a man that fought for equality, so nothing surprising about that.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.printmag.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F08%2Famerika_lenin_lincoln_0728x.jpg&hash=85761af1ca323d28c632d35451105b58786fa036)
I think it's important to remember that Grumbler knew Wilson and Wilson owed him one hundred and twenty bucks that was never paid back.
I like the original article, will try to use that in one of my history classes.
Del! :)
Quote from: Delirium on December 02, 2015, 02:52:25 PM
I like the original article, will try to use that in one of my history classes.
:hug:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/racism-peace-prize-woodrow-wilsons-legacy-display-062350641.html?nhp=1
QuotePrinceton to keep Wilson's name despite his racist views
Woodrow Wilson's name will remain on Princeton University's public policy school, despite calls to remove it because the former U.S. president was a segregationist, the Ivy League university announced Monday.
Princeton was challenged to take a deeper look into Wilson's life in the fall, when a group of students raised questions about his racist views and their impact on his policy. The Black Justice League held a 32-hour sit-in inside the Princeton president's office, demanding Wilson's name be removed from programs and buildings, including the Woodrow Wilson School of Public Policy and International Affairs, and for other changes to be made on campus to make the university more diverse and inclusive.
The school has borne Wilson's name for more than eight decades. It will remain, but Princeton pledged to adopt other changes, including establishing a pipeline program to encourage more minority students to pursue doctoral degrees and diversifying campus symbols and art.
Wilson was president of Princeton from 1902 to 1910, and the country's 28th president from 1913 until 1921. Wilson won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919 for being the architect of the League of Nations.
But he also supported segregation — including in the federal government — rolling back progress for the emerging black middle class in the nation's capital.
The debate over Wilson's name was part of a wave of racially motivated activism on college campuses across the country this school year that began with protests at the University of Missouri. There, black students — including members of the school's football team — successfully protested for the ouster of Missouri's president.
In recent months, college leaders have moved to change mascots, building names, mottos and other symbols some have deemed offensive or outdated. Most recently, Harvard University has taken steps to remove university references tied to slavery.
Princeton created a website that included input from nine Wilson scholars and biographers, and received more than 600 submissions from Princeton alumni, faculty and the public. The program changes were recommended by a 10-member committee that met about a dozen times between December and March.
The board of trustees' decision comes on the same day that the school launches an interactive exhibit putting Wilson in context for his era while emphasizing that he was a man apart from it — for better and worse. "In the Nation's Service? Wilson Revisited" will run through Oct. 28. An interactive version is also available online, inviting viewers to tweet their reactions.
"What we were trying to do here is take the line that separates 'Wilson good' and 'Wilson bad' and expand it," said Daniel Linke, archivist at the Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library at Princeton and curator of the exhibit. "There's a nuanced debate to be had. He's still affecting us today."
Kristen Coke and Jameil Brown enrolled at the Wilson school not knowing much about the school's namesake aside from his oft-touted positive accomplishments, from his record during his two terms as a U.S. president to the changes he made as the university's president to elevate the school's stature.
It wasn't until their junior year that they began to learn more about his views toward African-Americans and women. Now seniors, both students were among the first to see a new exhibit Princeton launched Monday that will more fully explore who Wilson was — openly and publicly acknowledging his bigotry alongside the progressivism for which he is so revered.
"When we were freshmen here, there definitely was not really any conversation about what Woodrow Wilson's legacy was as a whole," said Coke, 21, who is black. "There's lots of things that we do here on campus to exalt his name. ... When I started critically looking at his legacy, it made me start to think, 'Who are we celebrating?'"
Cecilia Rouse, dean of the Wilson School, said the students have opened a helpful dialogue that is part of a national conversation.
"It's important for students to understand great people are complicated," said Rouse. "Rarely is someone black or white. We have to learn to live with that complexity. It's what we're grappling with on campuses across the country. We can sandblast a name from the building, but to actually change how we operate, and what our community is like is much harder."
Wilson is credited with creating the Federal Reserve system, led the U.S. into World War I and tried to preserve a lasting peace.
But his faults are laid bare from the beginning of the exhibit. One states plainly: "Among Wilson's most serious failings was his racism and the damage it did to individual lives at home and abroad." Another quotes him in his own words: "Segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen."
Particularly illuminating is a panel of quotes from his contemporaries, who single him out for his prejudices during his lifetime. Pioneering black journalist Ida B. Wells said of Wilson that segregation "has been given a new meaning and impetus under President Wilson, and members of the (black race) have been snubbed, degraded and humiliated during this administration as never before since freedom."
There's a street named after George W. Bush in Tbilisi.
Quote"It's important for students to understand great people are complicated," said Rouse. "Rarely is someone black or white. We have to learn to live with that complexity. It's what we're grappling with on campuses across the country. We can sandblast a name from the building, but to actually change how we operate, and what our community is like is much harder."
Uhm, I'm pretty sure Wilson was white. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on April 04, 2016, 11:17:50 AM
There's a street named after George W. Bush in Tbilisi.
The Russians will change it eventually.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 11:19:20 AM
Uhm, I'm pretty sure Wilson was white. :rolleyes:
Uhm, I'm pretty sure he was brown. Albinos are more rare than you seem to think. :rolleyes:
I applaud this decision Princeton. The proper use of people like Wilson should be to educate and generate discussion. It is the same reason I like Columbus Day so much despite not thinking much of Columbus the man.
Quote from: celedhring on November 30, 2015, 04:26:27 AM
It's so uncomfortable having such a violently racist film as one of the landmarks in American cinema, incidentally; when it got projected during my film class most black people quietly left the room.
It is an amazing film in so many ways. Shocking in how um...cinematic and well done it is. Shocking for its entire storyline and message.
As you might imagine it generated a pretty strong reaction from the Black people at the time as well and led to the creation of an entire Black film industry to give more positive films for black Americans.
But yeah that scene where the Carpetbaggers join forces with the Southerners to beat down the black rioters was unbelievable. 'Let us all bury our differences, north and south, and focus on the common enemy'.
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2015, 04:40:01 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 30, 2015, 04:37:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2015, 04:31:33 AM
Wilson is worshipped in Poland. There are only two other US Presidents who have a major square/street named after them.
The others probably FDR and Kennedy?
FDR sure. Absolutely no reason to revere Kennedy. The third one is Reagan.
FDR has a statue near Akershus fortress, the Royal Guards' fortress.
I, like many other Norwegians, know FDR was the business and the best president the US has ever had.
JFK isn't exactly hated, but rather viewed with suspicion. RFK was more of a guy Norwegians could get behind. My mum is still raving about him.
Reagan is only loved by morons. Which seems fitting.
I love the internet. Just found a Belgian Who counted all presidents and made a site about it :lol:
FYI total count per president
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flvb.net%2Fsites%2Flvb.net%2Ffiles%2Fmedia%2F1%2F20080411-straten-presidenten.gif&hash=93920c3e353d227782a964e38b0a1686c0703211)
You can see a map over here
http://lvb.net/item/6195 (http://lvb.net/item/6195)
-We do love the Kennedy ;)
-Eisenhower has his 9 remarks most probably not for being an US president, but for being a general.
-Herbert Hoover is most probably also not for his presidentship, but for his leadership in the helpcommitee for Belgium in WWI.
Trump's gonna make Mexico build an access road along the wall and call it the James Knox Polk Highway.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 07, 2016, 06:03:08 AM
Trump's gonna make Mexico build an access road along the wall and call it the James Knox Polk Highway.
:lol:
Oh James K Polk you magnificent bastard.
you read his book? :hmm:
Life isn't a booze commercial. :rolleyes: