Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago

[HooDat]

They did, as you state, present a fairly circumspect view of TJ.

The big turning point regarding TJ happened when the majority scholarly opinion (driven by DNA analysis) turned strongly in favor of TJ being the father of Sally Hemmings' children. After many prior decades of denial, whitewashing and gaslighting.

Once that fact was admitted, folks could then start coming to terms with TJ's tangled legacy. Rather than continuing to argue/dispute the facts. Happened very quickly.

It is somewhat of a similar process that our country is going through now. Once you see the incontrovertible cell phone video evidence, most decent folks (i.e. excluding Petey Brown) recognize and admit the problem. And start figuring out how to deal with it.

The TJ conundrum is fascinating. Before trying to erase him, one would have to admit that without him we would have no country with the ability to erase anything (perhaps still part of the empire and having tea at 4PM everyday). Like, Washington, he was a man of his times and took an ENORMOUS risk to his personal safety to fight against arguably the largest power on the planet. Had they lost, unlike the Confederates we are currently talking about, they would have been strung up one by one or together in the nearest public square as examples of what happens to those who dare to rock the boat.

That said, another tidbit is also instructional - for such a smart guy he could not make a dime farming his estate with unlimited FREE LABOR.

I think TJ's tastes far exceeded his income....

But to ggait's post - I never understood the faction of devotee's that insisted in denying Jefferson's connection to Hemmings. It was the worst kept secret in the state of Virginia, and pretty much treated as a fact by most people I knew. But once it was incontrovertible - it was like a fog was lifted and it was that much easier to move on to real discussions about the man, rather than the idol. And his accomplishments are far more impressive for the fact that a flawed man accomplished them.

[HooDat]

Not wrong think? Ain’t kneeling the wrong think? Didn’t he use his platform to silence dissent in then NFL?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-trumps ... 1527685321

have you even read 1984? seriously?

and to my point: https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice ... en-debate/

Whover controls the past controls the future. Whoever controls the present controls the past.

spot on.

and eventually, it won't matter if the winners write the history books, because they can be re-written.

I have no problem with writing new history books from a different perspective, but let's not burn the old ones ... we just might want to remember what they said.

[old salt]

They did, as you state, present a fairly circumspect view of TJ.

The big turning point regarding TJ happened when the majority scholarly opinion (driven by DNA analysis) turned strongly in favor of TJ being the father of Sally Hemmings' children. After many prior decades of denial, whitewashing and gaslighting.

Once that fact was admitted, folks could then start coming to terms with TJ's tangled legacy. Rather than continuing to argue/dispute the facts. Happened very quickly.

It is somewhat of a similar process that our country is going through now. Once you see the incontrovertible cell phone video evidence, most decent folks (i.e. excluding Petey Brown) recognize and admit the problem. And start figuring out how to deal with it.

The TJ conundrum is fascinating. Before trying to erase him, one would have to admit that without him we would have no country with the ability to erase anything (perhaps still part of the empire and having tea at 4PM everyday). Like, Washington, he was a man of his times and took an ENORMOUS risk to his personal safety to fight against arguably the largest power on the planet. Had they lost, unlike the Confederates we are currently talking about, they would have been strung up one by one or together in the nearest public square as examples of what happens to those who dare to rock the boat.

That said, another tidbit is also instructional - for such a smart guy he could not make a dime farming his estate with unlimited FREE LABOR.

Just imagine the civil war between Britian & the southern colonies which would have ensued when Parliament abolished slavery.
Who would our French & Spanish Empire colonial neighbors have sided with ? Would their colonies still have had slaves ?

[youthathletics]

Not wrong think? Ain’t kneeling the wrong think? Didn’t he use his platform to silence dissent in then NFL?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-trumps ... 1527685321

have you even read 1984? seriously?

and to my point: https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice ... en-debate/

Whover controls the past controls the future. Whoever controls the present controls the past.

spot on.

and eventually, it won't matter if the winners write the history books, because they can be re-written.

I have no problem with writing new history books from a different perspective, but let's not burn the old ones ... we just might want to remember what they said.

+1mm

[Typical Lax Dad]

Not wrong think? Ain’t kneeling the wrong think? Didn’t he use his platform to silence dissent in then NFL?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-trumps ... 1527685321

have you even read 1984? seriously?

and to my point: https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice ... en-debate/

Yes I did. Even at my bad public school. We see things as we See them. I was going to give Trump a pass on that one until I read your statement. It depends on how far along that continuum you want to travel. You can make an argument that Trump was silencing dissent. Are you suggesting that there is no basis for that “argument”?

So here were are a few weeks into this “reckoning” and now we all better be careful before it goes too far....how long have blacks people put up with nonsense? It is hypocrisy.

[HooDat]

and to my point: https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice ... en-debate/

The Harper's Letter deserves to be fully quoted:


A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

July 7, 2020
The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at [email protected]

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.
Elliot Ackerman
Saladin Ambar, Rutgers University
Martin Amis
Anne Applebaum
Marie Arana, author
Margaret Atwood
John Banville
Mia Bay, historian
Louis Begley, writer
Roger Berkowitz, Bard College
Paul Berman, writer
Sheri Berman, Barnard College
Reginald Dwayne Betts, poet
Neil Blair, agent
David W. Blight, Yale University
Jennifer Finney Boylan, author
David Bromwich
David Brooks, columnist
Ian Buruma, Bard College
Lea Carpenter
Noam Chomsky, MIT (emeritus)
Nicholas A. Christakis, Yale University
Roger Cohen, writer
Ambassador Frances D. Cook, ret.
Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project
Kamel Daoud
Meghan Daum, writer
Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis
Jeffrey Eugenides, writer
Dexter Filkins
Federico Finchelstein, The New School
Caitlin Flanagan
Richard T. Ford, Stanford Law School
Kmele Foster
David Frum, journalist
Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University
Atul Gawande, Harvard University
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University
Kim Ghattas
Malcolm Gladwell
Michelle Goldberg, columnist
Rebecca Goldstein, writer
Anthony Grafton, Princeton University
David Greenberg, Rutgers University
Linda Greenhouse
Kerri Greenidge, historian
Rinne B. Groff, playwright
Sarah Haider, activist
Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern
Roya Hakakian, writer
Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution
Jeet Heer, The Nation
Katie Herzog, podcast host
Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College
Adam Hochschild, author
Arlie Russell Hochschild, author
Eva Hoffman, writer
Coleman Hughes, writer/Manhattan Institute
Hussein Ibish, Arab Gulf States Institute
Michael Ignatieff
Zaid Jilani, journalist
Bill T. Jones, New York Live Arts
Wendy Kaminer, writer
Matthew Karp, Princeton University
Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative
Daniel Kehlmann, writer
Randall Kennedy
Khaled Khalifa, writer
Parag Khanna, author
Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University
Frances Kissling, Center for Health, Ethics, Social Policy
Enrique Krauze, historian
Anthony Kronman, Yale University
Joy Ladin, Yeshiva University
Nicholas Lemann, Columbia University
Mark Lilla, Columbia University
Susie Linfield, New York University
Damon Linker, writer
Dahlia Lithwick, Slate
Steven Lukes, New York University
John R. MacArthur, publisher, writer
Susan Madrak, writer
Phoebe Maltz Bovy, writer
Greil Marcus
Wynton Marsalis, Jazz at Lincoln Center
Kati Marton, author
Debra Maschek, scholar
Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago
John McWhorter, Columbia University
Uday Mehta, City University of New York
Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University
Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
Samuel Moyn, Yale University
Meera Nanda, writer and teacher
Cary Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine
Mark Oppenheimer, Yale University
Dael Orlandersmith, writer/performer
George Packer
Nell Irvin Painter, Princeton University (emerita)
Greg Pardlo, Rutgers University – Camden
Orlando Patterson, Harvard University
Steven Pinker, Harvard University
Letty Cottin Pogrebin
Katha Pollitt, writer
Claire Bond Potter, The New School
Taufiq Rahim, New America Foundation
Zia Haider Rahman, writer
Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin
Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institution/The Atlantic
Neil Roberts, political theorist
Melvin Rogers, Brown University
Kat Rosenfield, writer
Loretta J. Ross, Smith College
J.K. Rowling
Salman Rushdie, New York University
Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment
Daryl Michael Scott, Howard University
Diana Senechal, teacher and writer
Jennifer Senior, columnist
Judith Shulevitz, writer
Jesse Singal, journalist
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Andrew Solomon, writer
Deborah Solomon, critic and biographer
Allison Stanger, Middlebury College
Paul Starr, American Prospect/Princeton University
Wendell Steavenson, writer
Gloria Steinem, writer and activist
Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Harvard Law School
Kian Tajbakhsh, Columbia University
Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University
Cynthia Tucker, University of South Alabama
Adaner Usmani, Harvard University
Chloe Valdary
Lucía Martínez Valdivia, Reed College
Helen Vendler, Harvard University
Judy B. Walzer
Michael Walzer
Eric K. Washington, historian
Caroline Weber, historian
Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers
Bari Weiss
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Garry Wills
Thomas Chatterton Williams, writer
Robert F. Worth, journalist and author
Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Matthew Yglesias
Emily Yoffe, journalist
Cathy Young, journalist
Fareed Zakaria

Institutions are listed for identification purposes only.

[Typical Lax Dad]

and to my point: https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice ... en-debate/

The Harper's Letter deserves to be fully quoted:


A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

July 7, 2020
The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at [email protected]

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.
Elliot Ackerman
Saladin Ambar, Rutgers University
Martin Amis
Anne Applebaum
Marie Arana, author
Margaret Atwood
John Banville
Mia Bay, historian
Louis Begley, writer
Roger Berkowitz, Bard College
Paul Berman, writer
Sheri Berman, Barnard College
Reginald Dwayne Betts, poet
Neil Blair, agent
David W. Blight, Yale University
Jennifer Finney Boylan, author
David Bromwich
David Brooks, columnist
Ian Buruma, Bard College
Lea Carpenter
Noam Chomsky, MIT (emeritus)
Nicholas A. Christakis, Yale University
Roger Cohen, writer
Ambassador Frances D. Cook, ret.
Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project
Kamel Daoud
Meghan Daum, writer
Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis
Jeffrey Eugenides, writer
Dexter Filkins
Federico Finchelstein, The New School
Caitlin Flanagan
Richard T. Ford, Stanford Law School
Kmele Foster
David Frum, journalist
Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University
Atul Gawande, Harvard University
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University
Kim Ghattas
Malcolm Gladwell
Michelle Goldberg, columnist
Rebecca Goldstein, writer
Anthony Grafton, Princeton University
David Greenberg, Rutgers University
Linda Greenhouse
Kerri Greenidge, historian
Rinne B. Groff, playwright
Sarah Haider, activist
Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern
Roya Hakakian, writer
Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution
Jeet Heer, The Nation
Katie Herzog, podcast host
Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College
Adam Hochschild, author
Arlie Russell Hochschild, author
Eva Hoffman, writer
Coleman Hughes, writer/Manhattan Institute
Hussein Ibish, Arab Gulf States Institute
Michael Ignatieff
Zaid Jilani, journalist
Bill T. Jones, New York Live Arts
Wendy Kaminer, writer
Matthew Karp, Princeton University
Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative
Daniel Kehlmann, writer
Randall Kennedy
Khaled Khalifa, writer
Parag Khanna, author
Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University
Frances Kissling, Center for Health, Ethics, Social Policy
Enrique Krauze, historian
Anthony Kronman, Yale University
Joy Ladin, Yeshiva University
Nicholas Lemann, Columbia University
Mark Lilla, Columbia University
Susie Linfield, New York University
Damon Linker, writer
Dahlia Lithwick, Slate
Steven Lukes, New York University
John R. MacArthur, publisher, writer
Susan Madrak, writer
Phoebe Maltz Bovy, writer
Greil Marcus
Wynton Marsalis, Jazz at Lincoln Center
Kati Marton, author
Debra Maschek, scholar
Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago
John McWhorter, Columbia University
Uday Mehta, City University of New York
Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University
Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
Samuel Moyn, Yale University
Meera Nanda, writer and teacher
Cary Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine
Mark Oppenheimer, Yale University
Dael Orlandersmith, writer/performer
George Packer
Nell Irvin Painter, Princeton University (emerita)
Greg Pardlo, Rutgers University – Camden
Orlando Patterson, Harvard University
Steven Pinker, Harvard University
Letty Cottin Pogrebin
Katha Pollitt, writer
Claire Bond Potter, The New School
Taufiq Rahim, New America Foundation
Zia Haider Rahman, writer
Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin
Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institution/The Atlantic
Neil Roberts, political theorist
Melvin Rogers, Brown University
Kat Rosenfield, writer
Loretta J. Ross, Smith College
J.K. Rowling
Salman Rushdie, New York University
Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment
Daryl Michael Scott, Howard University
Diana Senechal, teacher and writer
Jennifer Senior, columnist
Judith Shulevitz, writer
Jesse Singal, journalist
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Andrew Solomon, writer
Deborah Solomon, critic and biographer
Allison Stanger, Middlebury College
Paul Starr, American Prospect/Princeton University
Wendell Steavenson, writer
Gloria Steinem, writer and activist
Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Harvard Law School
Kian Tajbakhsh, Columbia University
Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University
Cynthia Tucker, University of South Alabama
Adaner Usmani, Harvard University
Chloe Valdary
Lucía Martínez Valdivia, Reed College
Helen Vendler, Harvard University
Judy B. Walzer
Michael Walzer
Eric K. Washington, historian
Caroline Weber, historian
Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers
Bari Weiss
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Garry Wills
Thomas Chatterton Williams, writer
Robert F. Worth, journalist and author
Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Matthew Yglesias
Emily Yoffe, journalist
Cathy Young, journalist
Fareed Zakaria

Institutions are listed for identification purposes only.

I read it. Are you suggestion Trump wasn’t stiffly dissent or it was a different type of stifling?

[Peter Brown]

and to my point: https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice ... en-debate/

The Harper's Letter deserves to be fully quoted:


A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

July 7, 2020
The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at [email protected]

I posted that Harper's link elsewhere here today, but I hope you actually understand what it means. The message is an in-house leftist warning against the slippery slope of leftism, and it is deadly and sadly accurate.

[HooDat]

I read it. Are you suggestion Trump wasn’t stiffly dissent or it was a different type of stifling?

You put me in the uncomfortable position of defending Trump. Before I do, I need to say that I think Trump's spat with Kaep was stupid showmanship, that in the end only benefited the two of them by giving each a podium. I believe in Kaep's right to kneel, just like I believe in people's rights to burn the flag and conduct any kind of peaceful protest.

With that out of the way, Trump did not silence Kaep, Trump vehemently (and boorishly) disagreed with his actions and spouted off a lot of very insensitive (at best) and more likely bigoted nonsense in a way that (as usual) was beneath the office of POTUS. While I wish that IF Trump had to say anything it should have been nothing more than "I disagree with his position, but will defend his right to say it", -- disagreeing with someone is very different than stifling them.

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

they say BLM wants change... next sentence says:

These changes must be seen in how we recruit students, faculty, staff and administrators––in how we signal to them the need to embrace our community values as a bottom line, non-negotiable condition of enrollment and employment.

then the next sentence says:

As part of the CU community, we must set expectations for living these values as a core set of guidelines for what it means to be anti-racist in all that we do at the university.

There is a LOT packed into that second quote. The prerequisite that one be "anti-racist" in order to be a student at a public university is dangerous, because of how the term "anti-racist" is used. It is one thing to not be racist, the term anti-racist has come to mean a whole lot more. You are naive if you think this is anything other than setting the stage for thought crime as a tool for limiting debate and enforcing a codified viewpoint. The parallels to 1984 are so poignant that it hurts.

yep. it's the usage- no consistent standard. agreed with all.

forget anti-racism for a moment, in today's america we can't even agree on what racist is. for example- white people have virus (thanks van jones)

racist, no? some disagree.

(also agree with 72's comment about moderation)

[Typical Lax Dad]

I read it. Are you suggestion Trump wasn’t stiffly dissent or it was a different type of stifling?

You put me in the uncomfortable position of defending Trump. Before I do, I need to say that I think Trump's spat with Kaep was stupid showmanship, that in the end only benefited the two of them by giving each a podium. I believe in Kaep's right to kneel, just like I believe in people's rights to burn the flag and conduct any kind of peaceful protest.

With that out of the way, Trump did not silence Kaep, Trump vehemently (and boorishly) disagreed with his actions and spouted off a lot of very insensitive (at best) and more likely bigoted nonsense in a way that (as usual) was beneath the office of POTUS. While I wish that IF Trump had to say anything it should have been nothing more than "I disagree with his position, but will defend his right to say it", -- disagreeing with someone is very different than stifling them.

So are you saying Trump did not use his platform to stifle dissent? That’s what you are signing up for?

https://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-own ... 2018-5?amp

[old salt]

W&L Faculty voted to express support to remove Lee from school name.
Faculty later voted to remove Washington, but the measure failed.

Wise choice. Who'd attend a school named &.

[youthathletics]

W&L Faculty voted to express support to remove Lee from school name.
Faculty later voted to remove Washington, but the measure failed.

Wise choice. Who'd attend a school named &.

And they probably did not realize that until after the vote was on the floor.

[tech37]

W&L Faculty voted to express support to remove Lee from school name.
Faculty later voted to remove Washington, but the measure failed.

Wise choice. Who'd attend a school named &.

Ampersand U

[Typical Lax Dad]

W&L Faculty voted to express support to remove Lee from school name.
Faculty later voted to remove Washington, but the measure failed.

Wise choice. Who'd attend a school named &.

Ampersand U

The School Formerly Known as Washington & Lee

[CU77]

I'd like to attend a school named *&^%$#@!

[tech37]

I'd like to attend a school named *&^%$#@!

The Fighting Expletives

[Kismet]

I think TJ's tastes far exceeded his income....

But to ggait's post - I never understood the faction of devotee's that insisted in denying Jefferson's connection to Hemmings. It was the worst kept secret in the state of Virginia, and pretty much treated as a fact by most people I knew. But once it was incontrovertible - it was like a fog was lifted and it was that much easier to move on to real discussions about the man, rather than the idol. And his accomplishments are far more impressive for the fact that a flawed man accomplished them.

Your last sentence sums it up perfectly. His travails should be explored, perpetuated and discussed but despite those significant shortcomings he remains an integral part of the most significant series of events in human history. His personal behavior was not unlike many of his contemporaries - in same sense he should be judged by his times as well as individually. Franklin was also a brilliant inventor/scientist/thinker/printer/publisher but also participated in much debauchery and other funny business with the ladies especially when he was in France. He could be accurately described as a dirty old man.. While this should inform us of the total picture it should not define him.

Without him, Washington and many of the others who all had imperfections of character and means, there would be no United States of America...nobody can erase that

[Peter Brown]

W&L Faculty voted to express support to remove Lee from school name.
Faculty later voted to remove Washington, but the measure failed.

Wise choice. Who'd attend a school named &.

W&L must change its name because Lee was a Confederate 160 years ago, Washington was a slave owner 240 years ago; but the same state where W&L resides has a governor who wore blackface and a KKK hood only 30 years ago. The most recent racist is safe though....almost like this isn't about racism.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I guess someone else is crazy for equating Trump with 1984. Didn’t know that issue just came up with this “reckoning”...

https://www.thenation.com/article/archi ... 984/tnamp/