OT: Presidential Commission on University History

[ToddFlanders]

This is a lot more than just changing a few names, it's erasing history; but also includes a lot of other future "woke" activities. Spending $11 Million on changing names and other craziness is just insane, but at least USC is fully "woke" now. Is there not a better way to spend money? I'm just tired of all of it, all the PC/Woke bull, and it is entrenched in the sports as well, mainly coming from Staley and Martin. It will only get worse and I will continue to pull away from USC and all it's activities. To each their own.

Changing names on buildings isn’t “erasing history.” Neither is taking down a statue. I would estimate that learned history from a building name or statue accounts for a minuscule portion of 1% of all history that is passed down through the generations.

Actual erasing of history has already happened by our “white washed” textbooks - as a poster previously mentioned. This is especially true for any post wwII textbooks that were written to venerate all portions of American culture in the face of the Red Scare. Make no mistake, Americans were subjected to as much propaganda as any communist country. And because of that many take it as an attack on America if you mention the parts of the story that were intentionally left out.

 

[rogue cock]

Changing names on buildings isn’t “erasing history.” Neither is taking down a statue. I would estimate that learned history from a building name or statue accounts for a minuscule portion of 1% of all history that is passed down through the generations.

Actual erasing of history has already happened by our “white washed” textbooks - as a poster previously mentioned. This is especially true for any post wwII textbooks that were written to venerate all portions of American culture in the face of the Red Scare. Make no mistake, Americans were subjected to as much propaganda as any communist country. And because of that many take it as an attack on America if you mention the parts of the story that were intentionally left out.

At least we aren't LSU, who finally in 2019 put up a plaque recognizing William Tecumseh Sherman as the University's first superintendant. Geesh, that had to be difficult.

 

[Forever Fowl]

I know several old USC grads who believe the Longstreet Theatre was named after the Civil War General from SC.

Wasn't it named for the General's uncle Augustus?

 

[rogue cock]

Wasn't it was named for the General's uncle Augustus?

Yes.

 

[dun lurkin]

The university issued its final report today and has recommended the names of the following buildings on campus be changed. This cannot happen without legislative approval pursuant to the Heritage Act, but it's still enraging to me that my alma mater wants to do this. At what point will every building on our campus named for someone who lived or died before the Civil Rights era be deemed offensive and renamed?

• Barnwell College
• Blatt Physical Education Center
• Gressette Room in Harper College
• Longstreet Theatre
• Preston College
• Robert E. Lee Memorial Tree
• Sims College
• Strom Thurmond Wellness and Fitness Center
• Thomas Cooper Library
• Thornwell College
• Wade Hampton College

Presidential Commission on University History Final Report

The commission has completed its final report including historical context and recommendations for building name changes.

sc.edu

At least Maxcy comes out on top of Thornwell again. Of course, it isn't the crucible it once was.

 

[SCGCock07]

Changing names on buildings isn’t “erasing history.” Neither is taking down a statue. I would estimate that learned history from a building name or statue accounts for a minuscule portion of 1% of all history that is passed down through the generations.

I ask the politically correct American liberal, why is this bad:

But this good:

 

[ToddFlanders]

I ask the politically correct American liberal, why is this bad:

But this good:

When you argue in memes, you can’t understand context.

 

[SCGCock07]

When you argue in memes, you can’t understand context.

What I see is two groups of people, each with a puritanical desire to rid the world of things deemed undesirable, one because of religious fundamentalism and one because of social justice fundamentalism. And acting as if the removal of statues isn't one part of a plan to disconnect people from our traditions and culture is completely naive and contrary to the reality of social justice America. Between things like the 1619 project, the implementation of critical race theory in public schools and the attempt to remove any and all public monuments of historical figures deemed undesirable by 21st century standards, there is absolutely a concerted effort to demonize the Founding Fathers and the founding documents of this country in an attempt to fundamentally transform the institutions of this country.

 

[rogue cock]

I ask the politically correct American liberal, why is this bad:

But this good:

Not a liberal, but this is a good analysis from an art historian.

What do you make of the comparisons between what protesters in the U.S. are doing and, say, what the Islamic State did in destroying monuments in Palmyra?

I don’t think we can say that destruction is always warranted or that destruction is never warranted. We have to think about who is doing the destruction for what purposes. ISIS was destroying monuments of a tolerant past in order to achieve a future of violence and hate. These protesters are attacking symbols of a hateful past as part of fighting for a peaceful future. So I think they’re exactly opposite actions.

And even practically: Look at ISIS’s destruction of monuments at Palmyra, these Roman temples. The effect of that was to destroy the tourist economy of the modern city of Tadmor, next to Palmyra, which made achieving peace and stability in the region even harder because you now have thousands of people out of a job.

ISIS also raised a lot of money: Their destruction was a propaganda act to get people to make donations to the jihadist cause. They sold antiquities that they stole from the museum of Palmyra in order to conduct war. It’s a very different context to what is happening now.

Also, I wish that what is happening now with statues being torn down didn’t have to happen this way. But there have been decades of peaceful protest against many of these statues, in many cases before the statues were even erected — which have come to nothing. So if people lose hope in the possibility of a peaceful resolution, they’re going to find other means.

What Does It Mean to Tear Down a Statue? (Published 2020)

We asked an art historian who studies the destruction of cultural heritage.

www.nytimes.com

 

[SCGCock07]

These protesters are attacking symbols of a hateful past as part of fighting for a peaceful future.

The Soviets said the exact same thing when they destroyed relics of the Romanovs. And imagine if a mob tore down an MLK monument because of the recently declassified FBI files that expanded on his #metoo allegations. There'd be riots in the streets. There is no justification whatsoever for destroying works of art in the manner the UNC mob did Silent Sam. It's absolutely disgusting that the art historian would attempt to marginalize it because he disagrees with the viewpoint of the person or entity being memorialized.

 

[ToddFlanders]

I ask the politically correct American liberal, why is this bad:

But this good:

but if you have to play the meme game - it’s good for the same reason this is good:

What I see is two groups of people, each with a puritanical desire to rid the world of things deemed undesirable, one because of religious fundamentalism and one because of social justice fundamentalism. And acting as if the removal of statues isn't one part of a plan to disconnect people from our traditions and culture is completely naive and contrary to the reality of social justice America. Between things like the 1619 project, the implementation of critical race theory in public schools and the attempt to remove any and all public monuments of historical figures deemed undesirable by 21st century standards, there is absolutely a concerted effort to demonize the Founding Fathers and the founding documents of this country in an attempt to fundamentally transform the institutions of this country.

Of course that’s all you see - because you fail to understand the context in each picture and thus fail to understand how they are remarkably different.

The picture on the bottom is more akin to the toppling of the Saddam statue - not the exact same, but a more apt comparison. Not all statue toppling is bad, but many times the erection of a statue is because of the message it’s meant to convey.

 

[SCGCock07]

The picture on the bottom is more akin to the toppling of the Saddam statue - not the exact same, but a more apt comparison.

How? Saddam tortured the very people who tore down his statue. Silent Sam represented men a century and a half ago who fought for the state where those university students attend. I'd bet the overwhelming majority of those students had no clue who or what Silent Sam was until they were told they needed to be outraged.

 

[rogue cock]

The Soviets said the exact same thing when they destroyed relics of the Romanovs. And imagine if a mob tore down an MLK monument because of the recently declassified FBI files that expanded on his #metoo allegations. There'd be riots in the streets. There is no justification whatsoever for destroying works of art in the manner the UNC mob did Silent Sam. It's absolutely disgusting that the art historian would attempt to marginalize it because he disagrees with the viewpoint of the person or entity being memorialized.

The Soviets stole the Tsar's possessions as they needed the money. I've visited the Winter Palace and the Hermitage, both still exist...as well as many other Tsarist era buildings.

MLK wasn't perfect by any stretch, but to the best of my knowledge he never took up arms against the United States.

 

[SCGCock07]

but to the best of my knowledge he never took up arms against the United States.

I won't fault poor white Southerners for taking up arms to defend the only patch of land they ever knew from an invading army made up of people from a land as alien to them as a foreign country would be to us today. IMO, the Confederacy fought the right war for the wrong reason. None of the Founding Fathers ever imagined the document they signed to form the Union would be permanent and irrevocable. Had they known, the Union would have never been formed.

 

[ruffledfeathers]

MIT names their buildings after numbers and letters, so we could just do that until somebody with $25M decides they want a building named after them. Also, nothing wrong with just “Library” or “Place With Books and Microfiche”.

That said, I would make two exceptions. I’d rename the Strom for Essie Mae Washington-Williams just because no human ought to keep their own flesh and blood a secret, especially when that secret happens to be African American and you are a hypocrite segregationist. Also, I’d name something after Robert Smalls, the Beaufort slave that captured a confederate ship, turned it over to the USA, convinced Lincoln to have an African American regiment, bought his former master’s house after the war, and served in Congress.

We are all products of our time, so I’d be more sympathetic to the people whose actions were before the war, and less so to the people afterword that tried to live in the past.

The Robert Smalls House in Beaufort is named for him, and he has a memorial on the waterfront in Beaufort. He also has a bust at Tabernacle Baptist Church. He has a memorial in Charleston, as well as being recognized in the U S National Park system. All earned by his daring escape and future Union battles he participated in, as well as becoming a Senator.

However, be aware that he was conscripted as a Confederate under the command of Brigadier General Ripley, as the pilot of the CSS Planter (same ship he piloted out to the blockade). He was in the Conferderate service for a full year before switching sides.

Before stating that it was against his will, realize about half (last two years of the war) of the Confederate Army (and Union for that matter) were conscripted "drafted", they didn't volunteer. Are you going to forgive them, as well, for being forced to fight? Many will not and prove the hypocrisy of the anti-Confederate anything. Hopefully, Robert Smalls bust survives anti-Confederate anything crowd and is not torn down, The ignorance of the statue destroyers is palatable. Even Pres. Abraham Lincoln was torn down!

Lord knows if, hypothetically, a doctor in the future found a cure for cancer. Would we honor him in naming a hospital, or erect a statue, for him if his name was Dr. Strom Thurmond, VI. Where does it end?

 

[ruffledfeathers]

At least we aren't LSU, who finally in 2019 put up a plaque recognizing William Tecumseh Sherman as the University's first superintendant. Geesh, that had to be difficult.

In their defense, He hadn't committed any war crimes, yet, while at Red Stick. That was later while under the command of Lincoln, and later Grant.

 

[rogue cock]

I won't fault poor white Southerners for taking up arms to defend the only patch of land they ever knew from an invading army made up of people from a land as alien to them as a foreign country would be to us today. IMO, the Confederacy fought the right war for the wrong reason. None of the di Founding Fathers ever imagined the document they signed to form the Union would be permanent and irrevocable. Had they known, the Union would have never been formed.

You may want to review the history leading up to the war. The poor white farmers, especially those away from the plantation areas of the state, did not like slavery as it made their earning money from their crops more difficult. Same as in the Revolution, this state was not unified over the civil war.....many, if not most against it, were the small family farmers as the war nor its purpose benefitted them. The Charleston Mercury and political protagonists did a good job of stirring them up to an extent. I disagree with your last sentence completely, they saw the founding documents as living breathing documents that could change over time.....much as they have. We fought an unnecessary war simply to perpetuate a horrendous institution that benefitted a few.

 

[rogue cock]

In their defense, He hadn't committed any war crimes, yet, while at Red Stick. That was later while under the command of Lincoln, and later Grant.

Wasn't it Patton who followed Sherman's philosophy of total war?

 

[SCGCock07]

many, if not most against it, were the small family farmers as the war nor its purpose benefitted them.

And yet they fought anyway to defend their homes, their farms and their families. The Silent Sam monument in Chapel Hill was erected specifically to memorialize the Confederate soldier, not the fire-eater politicians or planters who led the South into the war. These men deserve to be honored for their sacrifice.

 

[rogue cock]

And yet they fought anyway to defend their homes, their farms and their families. The Silent Sam monument in Chapel Hill was erected specifically to memorialize the Confederate soldier, not the fire-eater politicians or planters who led the South into the war. These men deserve to be honored for their sacrifice.

I don't mind the preservation of battlefield's and cemetaries to honor those poor souls who pretty much had no choice but to fight as the South started conscripting large numbers of soldiers. What I do not care too much about is the statues of those who were to benefit from the reason the war was fought, especially those statues and memorials that were erected about 100 years after the war.....those belong in a museum.

 

[ruffledfeathers]

I won't fault poor white Southerners for taking up arms to defend the only patch of land they ever knew from an invading army made up of people from a land as alien to them as a foreign country would be to us today. IMO, the Confederacy fought the right war for the wrong reason. None of the Founding Fathers ever imagined the document they signed to form the Union would be permanent and irrevocable. Had they known, the Union would have never been formed.

Four of the Confederate States, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina specifically voted to NOT secede over issues of slavery. They remained in the union with their slaves, protected by the U S Constitution. Still in the Union, Virginia's Robert E. Lee was hand picked and requested to lead the Union army in the invasion of states that had seceeded. It was Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops to invade that caused those four states to secede. The commonwealth of Virginia and Kentucky specifically seceded over the right to secede (not slavery, Virginia reserved the right to secede when they joined). Robert E. Lee refused to attack his home state and family and declined the offer, and chose to defend his home instead. And soon after, those states joined the Confederacy.

 

[duckcock2.0.0]

... they saw the founding documents as living breathing documents that could change over time.....much as they have.

Via the amendment process.

 

[ruffledfeathers]

Wasn't it Patton who followed Sherman's philosophy of total war?

Yeah, but Patton didn't give orders to kill civilians (women, children, including free blacks, slaves, and Native Americans) under the authority and command of Lincoln and Grant. Usually it was his bummers, of which Sherman turned a blind eye.

One specific order by him did kill a lot of released slaves that were following his 60,000 troops. When he left Savannah, crossing the river into South Carolina, a large number of the following slaves drowned trying to cross the river. He ordered his troops to continue. He didn't stop to assist.

 

[redrogers]

but if you have to play the meme game - it’s good for the same reason this is good:


Of course that’s all you see - because you fail to understand the context in each picture and thus fail to understand how they are remarkably different.

The picture on the bottom is more akin to the toppling of the Saddam statue - not the exact same, but a more apt comparison. Not all statue toppling is bad, but many times the erection of a statue is because of the message it’s meant to convey.

“The message conveyed” is different to different groups. Whichever side the national evening news chooses, people nowadays will side with . Woke= what people are programmed to think.

 

[ToddFlanders]

And yet they fought anyway to defend their homes, their farms and their families. The Silent Sam monument in Chapel Hill was erected specifically to memorialize the Confederate soldier, not the fire-eater politicians or planters who led the South into the war. These men deserve to be honored for their sacrifice.

Why? Is this where the present day "everyone gets a trophy" ideal comes from? Losers in a war don't get trophies. And they don't get places of honor on the soil of the country that defeated them. Did we erect statues of King George and Cornwallis after the Revolution? That was many people's "heritage" and many were still loyal to the crown. But losers of wars don't get trophies.

These statues should have never been erected in the first place, and should be placed in museums. They are vestiges of a failed society. Though I actually think a huge park with statues of old would be pretty awesome.

 

[Lurker123]

Losers in a war don't get trophies. And they don't get places of honor on the soil of the country that defeated them.

I agree with the second part, but we put up statues to "losers", including the Vietnam memorial. But that's on our own soil, which is the same for the southern states in this case.

 

[CockySC01]

I am on the fence on wether or not Storm Thurmond was a racist. He had an African American mistress whom he had a child with. He was praised by the NAACP for using his influence to have the perpetrators sought in reference to a lynching case. The mainstream Democrat party (who he split from) frowned on him for this abs considered him to progressive.

Anyway, IDGAF if they rename the Strom Thurmond Wellness center. I always thought it would be better off with a catchy Gamecock inspired name. Something like Cocky’s Gym, or Garnet & Black Fitness Center. Anything besides a guys name. When I’m trying to get myself pumped up to lift the last thing I wanna think about is a career politician.

 

[Neanderthal]

JFK = big time adulterer.
MLK = big time adulterer.
Sherman and Sheridan and many more - look what they did to the Indians.

 

[ToddFlanders]

I agree with the second part, but we put up statues to "losers", including the Vietnam memorial. But that's on our own soil, which is the same for the southern states in this case.

But it's not on Confederate soil. Just like it isn't still English soil. We allowed rebels to put up monuments to themselves on American soil years after they were summarily crushed. It should have never been allowed.

 

[Carolina Doc]

Why? Is this where the present day "everyone gets a trophy" ideal comes from? Losers in a war don't get trophies. And they don't get places of honor on the soil of the country that defeated them. Did we erect statues of King George and Cornwallis after the Revolution? That was many people's "heritage" and many were still loyal to the crown. But losers of wars don't get trophies.

These statues should have never been erected in the first place, and should be placed in museums. They are vestiges of a failed society. Though I actually think a huge park with statues of old would be pretty awesome.

George Rogers played for a "loser". Lets take his statue down.

Jocularity aside, it was 110 years after the civil war that Lee's family finally had his US citizenship restored.

 

[Lurker123]

But it's not on Confederate soil. Just like it isn't still English soil. We allowed rebels to put up monuments to themselves on American soil years after they were summarily crushed. It should have never been allowed.

But it's still those states' soil. Or the city's.

The statues weren't put up by the confederate govt, but by the state or city govt.

 

[Dizzy01]

But it's still those states' soil. Or the city's.

The statues weren't put up by the confederate govt, but by the state or city govt.

Typically they are privately funded. Many by the Daughters of the Confederacy and sometimes not until the 1960s when the claim to “honor” the individuals becomes slightly questionable.

 

[ToddFlanders]

But it's still those states' soil. Or the city's.

The statues weren't put up by the confederate govt, but by the state or city govt.

Well of course - the leaders of the state and city governments after the Civil War were the same city and state leaders during the War. And old habits die hard.

 

[Lurker123]

Well of course - the leaders of the state and city governments after the Civil War were the same city and state leaders during the War. And old habits die hard.

Agreed. But it explains why someone would put up a statue to one of their "heroes", even if they lost the war. Especially on their own land.

 

[Lurker123]

Typically they are privately funded. Many by the Daughters of the Confederacy and sometimes not until the 1960s when the claim to “honor” the individuals becomes slightly questionable.

Meh. Say some of them were put up out of spite, it doesn't mean all were.

It's not a hard sell to say some of these guys defended those cities and states from some pretty horrific consequences of northern troops coming through.

 

[sickoftryingtothinkofausername]

I think it’s idiotic to try to hold people from the 19th century to 21st century morality standards. The people who played major roles in making the schools what they are should hold places of honor within those schools, no matter what their opinions or actions may have been 160+ years ago. You really think ALL schools of a certain age weren’t built by racists? You think Harvard in Massachusetts wasn’t built by racists? They existed 230+ years before they had their first black graduate, which was longer than the entire existence of USC. So you telling me they weren’t founded by racists?

as far as Strom Thurmond, I think a lot of people want to focus more n his racism as a younger man without having a good understanding of his full legacy. So here’s a story I can tell you for a fact…. In the early 80s, my mother was working in a manufacturing plant and the owner and managers started giving the workers- who were almost entirely women, and close to half were black- a lot of shit, wanting to underpay them, changing things around so they couldn’t meet “production” goals so they couldn’t get bonuses, etc. so a complaint about this somehow made its way to Strom Thurmond and he SHOWED UP at the plant one day unannounced and told the bosses in no uncertain terms that they better get their shit together or else. The workers never had any other complaints on those bosses. And stories like this about Strom, even as an old man, were not uncommon. So you can harp on what an “evil racist” he was all you want, but you don’t serve as long as he did without being somewhat of a man of the people, which he was. And those kinds of stories ALWAYS stood out to me, even though all you ever hear now is the racism stuff. But I assure you if you made such a complaint to Lindsey Graham or Tim Scott, you wouldn’t get anything more than a Dear John template letter.

 

[paladin181]

This country just elected a president who has had a past rife with racism and corruption. What makes anyone think that these things really matter?

 

[GamecockJL]

They should change the name of the state while they’re at it. After all King Charles owned slaves.

Oh and change the name of Greenville because it’s named after General Nathanial Greene who owned slaves.

Oh and change the name of Columbia because it’s named after Christopher Columbus who raped and pillaged the native Americans.

Oh and change the name of Charleston because it was named after King Charles II who owned slaves.

Oh and change the name of Greenwood because it was named after John McGehee who owned slaves.

Oh and change the name of Anderson because it was named after Robert Anderson who owned slaves.

Oh and change the name of Clemson University because Thomas Clemson owned slaves.

etc. etc. etc.