SF School Board Cancels Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson...and Dianne Feinstein?

[J842P]

White people were raised without any awareness of the human consequences of the conquest of the Americas by Europeans.

It's not just about "conquest"; some of the events they are trying to cover up didn't occur all that long ago in the grand scheme of things, and they know it. My great-grandmother was born on the floor of a blacksmith's shop in Ninnekah, OK, on a homestead that her grandfather had stolen from the great Chickasaw Nation not fifteen years earlier. She married a man whose grandfather had fought at the massacre of Sand Creek, and whose 2nd-great-grandfather was a slave owner. I think a lot of people are more conscious than they let on that their family history involves theft, enslavement, genocide. They either know or suspect, and it's one of the reasons they are so paranoid about poking the bear. They will screech about any hint of being made to "feel guilty" about their family history, because they know deep down that there is probably something there to be ashamed of, and do not want to have that confirmed.

Wait, how is this not about conquest?

 

[fromderinside]

School names should reflect local tradition and preferences. Current attitudes are to be respected. Nothing is gained by naming a school for 'patriotic' or 'historical' reasons. Let the kiddies play I say.

What? They're trying to rename my grade school, the one I attended for one year in Coeur d'Alene, from Roosevelt to Bezos?

rant, rant, rant, rant .....

 

[thebeave]

When this school board gets around to picking out new names for these schools, maybe there will some eye opening horror. But until then, should anyone really give a shite?

Regardless of whether renaming these schools is a good idea, the idea that changing the names is cancelling the previous honoree is idiotic since, as many posters have pointed out, the history is still there.

You and others here are taking the term "cancel" too literally, and I think you know that. Of course the school board's actions do not erase the history of the person. Its not even something that is possible.

One of the biggest things about this that bugs me is the throwing of Dianne Feinstein under the bus (by the way, be aware that I am using the slang usage of the term "throwing under the bus", not the literal interpretation) for her actions regarding the Confederate flag on display at the Civic Center. Yes, she ordered the flag to be reinstalled after a protester took it down, but then changed her mind later and had it taken down permanently. And this was back when the Confederate flag didn't have the stigma it does now. Does that not count for something? Removing her name from the school essentially brands her a racist (which she is not), and recklessly tarnishes the legacy of a generally revered public servant for the city of San Francisco and the state of California. I think it's a very uncool thing to do.

 

[Politesse]

It's not just about "conquest"; some of the events they are trying to cover up didn't occur all that long ago in the grand scheme of things, and they know it. My great-grandmother was born on the floor of a blacksmith's shop in Ninnekah, OK, on a homestead that her grandfather had stolen from the great Chickasaw Nation

Wars of conquest have existed throughout history. Why is it only that US vs. Indians is depicted as "stealing" but not say Turkey conquering Constantinople? Do you consider Turks living on stolen land or just Americans?

In the case I'm talking about, no one engaged in a land war. Oklahoma was "conquered" by squatters, not soldiers. The theft was just as illegal under US law as it was under Native jurisdiction, a fact which was recently confirmed by the Supreme Court in McGirt v Oklahoma (2020).

In any case, theft is theft. I'm not aware of Turkey having ever "conquered Constantinople", the two never having co-existed, but if you are trying to refer to the conquests of the Ottomans, I would certainly see those as invasions, and encourage such descendant communities as exist to seek remediation and reconciliation. Actually, unlike cowardly American conservatives, I'm pretty sure Turkish conservatives would not deny that those invasions happened in the first place, they are not as cringingly ashamed of their own history as you are.

 

[Politesse]

White people were raised without any awareness of the human consequences of the conquest of the Americas by Europeans.

It's not just about "conquest"; some of the events they are trying to cover up didn't occur all that long ago in the grand scheme of things, and they know it. My great-grandmother was born on the floor of a blacksmith's shop in Ninnekah, OK, on a homestead that her grandfather had stolen from the great Chickasaw Nation not fifteen years earlier. She married a man whose grandfather had fought at the massacre of Sand Creek, and whose 2nd-great-grandfather was a slave owner. I think a lot of people are more conscious than they let on that their family history involves theft, enslavement, genocide. They either know or suspect, and it's one of the reasons they are so paranoid about poking the bear. They will screech about any hint of being made to "feel guilty" about their family history, because they know deep down that there is probably something there to be ashamed of, and do not want to have that confirmed.

Wait, how is this not about conquest?

Because the idea that most of the West was settled by "conquest" is, usually envisioned as some sort of grand pitched battle between cowboys and Indians is, in and of itself, largely a myth. And a triumphalist narrative that portrays the United States and Canada as having somehow, however evilly, nevertheless established clear and unequivocal rights to the land. While such battles occurred on a few hundred occasions in various places, the settlement of the Plains and the Boreal usually looked more like the modern violations of the Gaza Strip than a European-style symmetrical war, and Indian law is a lot more complicated than "we fought them and we won". Legally, many of the Native Nations are still independent states, in theory, and relations between themselves and the goverment are bound by treaty. But most of the European-held territories in the Americas were never formally ceded by any treaty, so any legal claim to exclusive and plenary ownership is dubious at best.

I wonder: would those who think Native peoples should have no land rights due to having "lost", agree that losing the Civil War should have extinguished all property rights of Southern landowners, since the North "conquered" the South pretty unequivocally? Or more broadly, over all White territories, since it was the Whites who lost? (If that sounds crazy, stop to consider that when people like Derec say that "The Native Americans" lost the West rather than specific conquered nations, it sounds just as absurd and racialized)

 

[Politesse]

When this school board gets around to picking out new names for these schools, maybe there will some eye opening horror. But until then, should anyone really give a shite?

Regardless of whether renaming these schools is a good idea, the idea that changing the names is cancelling the previous honoree is idiotic since, as many posters have pointed out, the history is still there.

You and others here are taking the term "cancel" too literally, and I think you know that. Of course the school board's actions do not erase the history of the person. Its not even something that is possible.

One of the biggest things about this that bugs me is the throwing of Dianne Feinstein under the bus (by the way, be aware that I am using the slang usage of the term "throwing under the bus", not the literal interpretation) for her actions regarding the Confederate flag on display at the Civic Center. Yes, she ordered the flag to be reinstalled after a protester took it down, but then changed her mind later and had it taken down permanently. And this was back when the Confederate flag didn't have the stigma it does now. Does that not count for something? Removing her name from the school essentially brands her a racist (which she is not), and recklessly tarnishes the legacy of a generally revered public servant for the city of San Francisco and the state of California. I think it's a very uncool thing to do.

I'm not a big fan of Feinstein's inclusion either, even if I don't think it's any of my business what this school district decides to do, really. I live across the Bay, where we sensibly named most of our schools after educators and local villages. Naming things after currently seated politicians is begging for trouble IMO.

But I disagree that there was some time during which the Confederate Battle Flag was ever not associated with slavery and insurrection. Maybe things are different in Virginia, but San Francisco is not in Virginia, and here it has always been a symbol of White Supremacy, from the middle of the war until the present day. This state was never a part of that rebellion, and no one here has any legitimate reason to fly it aside from racism.

If Feinstein is a liberal in truth and not just in name, she should be willing to be held accountable for the decisions she made while she was in office. I like her, I really do, but she was not the perfect saint that civic myth-making has tried to make of her. The violent events that propelled her into office made her a local legend, but they do not excuse her from the responsibility to make good decisions in every decade following.

Anyone who trusts a politician implicitly is a fool, in my opinion. Our system is not designed to award "heroes" with leadership roles, but rather those with influence, and influence always comes with obligations to some special interest or another.

 

[thebeave]

When this school board gets around to picking out new names for these schools, maybe there will some eye opening horror. But until then, should anyone really give a shite?

Regardless of whether renaming these schools is a good idea, the idea that changing the names is cancelling the previous honoree is idiotic since, as many posters have pointed out, the history is still there.

You and others here are taking the term "cancel" too literally, and I think you know that. Of course the school board's actions do not erase the history of the person. Its not even something that is possible.

One of the biggest things about this that bugs me is the throwing of Dianne Feinstein under the bus (by the way, be aware that I am using the slang usage of the term "throwing under the bus", not the literal interpretation) for her actions regarding the Confederate flag on display at the Civic Center. Yes, she ordered the flag to be reinstalled after a protester took it down, but then changed her mind later and had it taken down permanently. And this was back when the Confederate flag didn't have the stigma it does now. Does that not count for something? Removing her name from the school essentially brands her a racist (which she is not), and recklessly tarnishes the legacy of a generally revered public servant for the city of San Francisco and the state of California. I think it's a very uncool thing to do.

I'm not a big fan of Feinstein's inclusion either, even if I don't think it's any of my business what this school district decides to do, really. I live across the Bay, where we sensibly named most of our schools after educators and local villages. Naming things after currently seated politicians is begging for trouble IMO.

But I disagree that there was some time during which the Confederate Battle Flag was ever not associated with slavery and insurrection. Maybe things are different in Virginia, but San Francisco is not in Virginia, and here it has always been a symbol of White Supremacy, from the middle of the war until the present day. This state was never a part of that rebellion, and no one here has any legitimate reason to fly it aside from racism.

If Feinstein is a liberal in truth and not just in name, she should be willing to be held accountable for the decisions she made while she was in office. I like her, I really do, but she was not the perfect saint that civic myth-making has tried to make of her. The violent events that propelled her into office made her a local legend, but they do not excuse her from the responsibility to make good decisions in every decade following.

Anyone who trusts a politician implicitly is a fool, in my opinion. Our system is not designed to award "heroes" with leadership roles, but rather those with influence, and influence always comes with obligations to some special interest or another.

Well, I never claimed the Confederate flag was not associated with slavery and insurrection, just that the stigma was not at level then as it is now. The racist stigma of the Confederate flag most definitely has been exacerbated in recent years. At the time the Confederate flag was removed from the Civic Center in 1985, the TV show The Dukes of Hazzard was still on the air and had a car called the General Lee, with a Confederate flag painted on the roof. And a horn that played Dixie. It was a show produced and filmed in Los Angeles and was popular throughout the country. Quite obviously, a show like that wouldn't even make it past the concept stage today or be allowed to remain on the air. So times have changed a lot. As to whether SF always viewed it as a symbol of White Supremacy going all the way back to the war, I don't recall that, and I'm a lifelong Northern California resident. If that's the case, how did it ever get put up in the first place, much less remain flying during Moscone's years?

As to Feinstein, my views are similar to yours. I don't think anyone is claiming she was a perfect saint though. Who is doing that? She has been in public office for a very long time. Anyone in the same position would make judgement errors at times. No need to try to destroy them because they aren't perfect.

 

[laughing dog]

When this school board gets around to picking out new names for these schools, maybe there will some eye opening horror. But until then, should anyone really give a shite?

Regardless of whether renaming these schools is a good idea, the idea that changing the names is cancelling the previous honoree is idiotic since, as many posters have pointed out, the history is still there.

You and others here are taking the term "cancel" too literally, and I think you know that. Of course the school board's actions do not erase the history of the person. Its not even something that is possible.

You choose to introduce the biased and stupid rhetorical "cancel", not me.

 

[Politesse]

As to Feinstein, my views are similar to yours. I don't think anyone is claiming she was a perfect saint though. Who is doing that? She has been in public office for a very long time. Anyone in the same position would make judgement errors at times. No need to try to destroy them because they aren't perfect.

Again with the histrionics. Changing the name of a school is not "destroying" anyone. Do all political moderates have to go to Melodrama School before posting on a forum, these days?

 

[Politesse]

As to whether SF always viewed it as a symbol of White Supremacy going all the way back to the war, I don't recall that, and I'm a lifelong Northern California resident. If that's the case, how did it ever get put up in the first place, much less remain flying during Moscone's years?

I don't know whether you meant this as a serious question or just a rhetorical one, but I never miss an opportunity dive into the history of my favorite American city, so:

Short answer is that the person responsible for putting it up probably wasn't thinking about the racist implications of doing so per se, but the City most certainly took umbrage, and almost immediately after it started flying. The concept of the patron, a local business magnate and conservative lobbyist was to fill some then-empty flagpoles with a historical tribute to 18 different American flags. The second they all went up, the Confederate flag was definitely noticed, and there were protests in the street by the end of the day. Racial tensions were sky high in 1964, and many of the Confederate flags lately taken down around the country were first raised that very year. By the end of 48 hours, the flag had been taken down and vandalized, a much more audacious act by early 1960s standards than it would seem today. As now, it became a fracas, with enraged citizens on both sides of the issue and embattled politicians trying to find "compromise", which they did by replacing the Battle Flag with the lesser known Stars and Bars, seemingly hoping that people would be less likely to recognize it and take umbrage. The ACLU took thew side of the flag-fliers, again as now, and they had considerable pull in 1964. But it didn't actually put the conflict to rest. People continued to complain on the regular, and caused a major uproar in 1981 when the flags were all replaced... and the Battle Flag was once again included in the set. Protests once again began that very day, and continued for the next few years, temporarily ending with the City Council taking the side of the flag-fliers. However, this was to end in 1984, on the twenty year anniversary of the original erection of the flag.

The idea that SF is a purely liberal town with only liberals in it, promoting liberal policies with liberal ideas and never any opposition is an invention of the conservative news media. The City of SF may have a liberal majority, but that doesn't mean centrist values never prevail, especially on race. No one would look at Fog City even today and go "Wow, what an exemplar of racial equity and integration!", let alone as things stood in 1984. Many neighborhoods were effectively segregated. Schools likewise. Even today, English has official status and bilingual education is banned. Affirmative action of any kind is banned. Redlining was prominent until recently, and still quietly and informally occurs under the aegis of gentrification and "urban renewal".

But the brutal murder of Moscone and Milk pushed the city much further left, calling conservatives on their bluff of feigning "unity" while also fomenting political violence, in a situation we see echoes of today. History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. When the flag was once again vandalized and dismantled, Feinstein again tried to defend the status quo and put it back up. But the political tide had changed, there was now a black woman on the city council (Doris Ward, the city's first) and Feinstein was a less experienced politician than your average San Francisco mayor. After several attempts to replace the flag, each ending in a new and more extreme act of vandalism, she caved. I don't think she would have changed her mind on this if it hadn't been for a full twenty years of citizen action trying to get the flag removed, so I do not see the concession as some sort of redemption arc. She likely still doesn't "really see the problem" with the flag, like a lot of wealthy Americans not of a background to be particularly hurt by the flying of a symbol of hate. Cetainly she did not make any real vocal concessions at the time. She was quite clear in her statement to the press:

“I want to make it very clear that my decision is based only on Supervisor Ward’s request,” Feinstein said. “I’m not impressed because some group shinnies up a flag pole and tears down a flag.”

Yeah, that's not exactly a change of heart.

 

[Swammerdami]

Emotionally I side with "progressives" but some of the "political correctness" I read about is exasperating. And it helps explain why some Americans who were once conservative but mentally healthy have turned into stark-raving crazy werewolves.

I don't know how often schools are named after living persons, but if they'd asked me I might have told them to wait until Feinstein was dead before naming a school after her. But removing the name AFTER it was already assigned? Asinine. Absolutely asinine.

"Washington" is no longer an acceptable name? The mind boggles. And "Lowell" is also to be erased. That's James Russell Lowell who, among other greatnesses was an abolitionist. I guess he's to be canceled because he was a racist abolitionist ... as were almost all the abolitionists of that era.

And I use the words "erase" and "cancel" deliberately. Despite the protests I read in this thread over those words, I have to side with the deranged right-wing in this case: Those words are descriptive and appropriate here. (Are the words 100% literally sound? Of course not. But literal speech went out of fashion in America even before Trump. Even among liberals.)

... but if you are trying to refer to the conquests of the Ottomans, I would certainly see those as invasions, and encourage such descendant communities as exist to seek remediation and reconciliation. Actually, unlike cowardly American conservatives, I'm pretty sure Turkish conservatives would not deny that those invasions happened in the first place, they are not as cringingly ashamed of their own history as you are.

Turks DO deny their massacre of Armenians in the 20th century, but you're right: They're probably proud of their conquest of Constantinople in 1453 A.D. And you want reparations for the descendants of the Greek-speaking Constantinopoleans? :laughter:

I have ancestors from Northern Ireland who were persecuted by Catholics, and ancestors from southern Ireland who were persecuted by Presbyterians and Anglicans. Do I deserve double compensation? And that's without going back to 1453 A.D.

And what about my Pictish gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt- gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt- gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt- grandmother who was gang-raped by the soldiers of Ciniod mac Ailpin in 846 A.D.? What's a fair price to compensate me for her anguish? As an absolute minimum, shouldn't Scotland change its name back to Pictland?

 

[Politesse]

Turks DO deny their massacre of Armenians in the 20th century, but you're right: They're probably proud of their conquest of Constantinople in 1453 A.D. And you want reparations for the descendants of the Greek-speaking Constantinopoleans? :laughter:

I do? No, I don't. But I don't believe in erasing history altogether.

I also support Armenian efforts for redress and recognition.

And if reading about a local school changing it's name "turns you into a werewolf", you were already mentally unstable.

 

[Swammerdami]

And if reading about a local school changing it's name "turns you into a werewolf", you were already mentally unstable.

There are tens of millions of Americans who are bat-shit crazy; hadn't you noticed?

In that context, to cancel George Washington, et al, is like picking pointlessly at a scab until it bleeds.

 

[Politesse]

And if reading about a local school changing it's name "turns you into a werewolf", you were already mentally unstable.

There are tens of millions of Americans who are bat-shit crazy; hadn't you noticed?

In that context, to cancel George Washington, et al, is like picking pointlessly at a scab until it bleeds.

Well, first of all, you can't "cancel" someone who is dead; the whole point of "cancellation" is to deny a public figure opportunities to profit from their negative actions, which a dead person cannot do anyway. Renaming a school also wouldn't count unless it were a for-profit school owned by the person in question, such as Trump University. To cancel Diane Feinstein would require actions such as boycotting her books, or refusing to vote for her in the upcoming election.

Second of all, yes I have noticed that a lot of Americans have lost their collective minds and thrown in with a fascist lately, but I do not believe that catering to them will do anything to change their minds.

 

[blastula]

This is beyond stupid. Nobody is pure. Nobody named their school Washington because he owned slaves, it's done for the positive aspects deserving honor. If they did name it to honor slavery, then change it, but otherwise this is lunacy. All of these idiots who decided this will run afoul future purity tests, if not already. And I'm sure any of whomever they deem better names all fail in some way as well.

I'm an MLK scholar – and I'll never be able to view King in the same light

Cesar Chavez's Complex History on Immigration - ABC News

 

[Derec]

So now acronyms are sign of a "white supremacy culture" ...

Are acronyms a symptom of 'white supremacy culture?' SFUSD makes another disputable decision

 

[Trausti]

Are acronyms a symptom of 'white supremacy culture?' SFUSD makes another disputable decision

BLM is White supremacism. Interesting.

 

[blastula]

Opinion | Trump’s 1776 Commission and the San Francisco Board of Education have a lot in common - The Washington Post

The school board relied on a spreadsheet, apparently compiled by someone who spent 10 minutes on the Internet, to list the offenses against contemporary mores that justified the renamings. The result is many howlers. Paul Revere was erased for commanding the “disastrous Penobscot Expedition of 1779,” which the spreadsheet asserts “was directly connected to the colonization of the Penobscot.” This was actually an expedition to reclaim Maine from the British, not to colonize the Penobscot people, who sided with the patriots.

The spreadsheet originally called out the 19th-century abolitionist poet and diplomat James Russell Lowell on the grounds that “he did not want Black people to vote.” When this was pointed out as false, the spreadsheet was adjusted to read: “He advocated suffrage for blacks, yet he noted that their ability to vote could be troublesome.” The “facts” change, but the verdict remains the same: Off with his name!

 

[thebeave]

This is beyond stupid. Nobody is pure. Nobody named their school Washington because he owned slaves, it's done for the positive aspects deserving honor. If they did name it to honor slavery, then change it, but otherwise this is lunacy. All of these idiots who decided this will run afoul future purity tests, if not already. And I'm sure any of whomever they deem better names all fail in some way as well.

I'm an MLK scholar – and I'll never be able to view King in the same light

Cesar Chavez's Complex History on Immigration - ABC News

Yup. Its happening now:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/S-F-school-board-approves-no-confidence-vote-on-16054193.php

San Francisco school board members, in a vote of no confidence, stripped their colleague Alison Collins of her role as vice president over racist tweets against Asian Americans.

The board also removed Collins from a role on any committees. Board members Jenny Lam and Faauuga Moliga, who authored the measure for the action, called for Collins to resign, saying she has failed to accept responsibility for her words.

The vote came less than a week after Collins’ critics unearthed a thread of tweets from 2016 in which she used a racial slur and said Asian Americans had used “white supremacist thinking to assimilate and ‘get ahead.’” Nearly 5,000 people have since signed a petition calling for Collins’ resignation, joining public officials, including the mayor and 10 supervisors.

Supporters say Collins was unfairly targeted by right-wing activists and should be forgiven.

I'm starting to see a trend whereby those who are the most vocally "anti-racist" seem to have racist tendencies themselves. Much like how Republicans and preachers who have publicly railed against homosexuals often get busted themselves in some secret gay encounter. Or promoting family values, when they themselves have mistresses. Or vocal male feminists who get caught harrassing or abusing women. Is there a name or diagnosis for this sort of phenomena?

 

[Trausti]

This is beyond stupid. Nobody is pure. Nobody named their school Washington because he owned slaves, it's done for the positive aspects deserving honor. If they did name it to honor slavery, then change it, but otherwise this is lunacy. All of these idiots who decided this will run afoul future purity tests, if not already. And I'm sure any of whomever they deem better names all fail in some way as well.

I'm an MLK scholar – and I'll never be able to view King in the same light

Cesar Chavez's Complex History on Immigration - ABC News

Yup. Its happening now:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/S-F-school-board-approves-no-confidence-vote-on-16054193.php

San Francisco school board members, in a vote of no confidence, stripped their colleague Alison Collins of her role as vice president over racist tweets against Asian Americans.

The board also removed Collins from a role on any committees. Board members Jenny Lam and Faauuga Moliga, who authored the measure for the action, called for Collins to resign, saying she has failed to accept responsibility for her words.

The vote came less than a week after Collins’ critics unearthed a thread of tweets from 2016 in which she used a racial slur and said Asian Americans had used “white supremacist thinking to assimilate and ‘get ahead.’” Nearly 5,000 people have since signed a petition calling for Collins’ resignation, joining public officials, including the mayor and 10 supervisors.

Supporters say Collins was unfairly targeted by right-wing activists and should be forgiven.

I'm starting to see a trend whereby those who are the most vocally "anti-racist" seem to have racist tendencies themselves. Much like how Republicans and preachers who have publicly railed against homosexuals often get busted themselves in some secret gay encounter. Or promoting family values, when they themselves have mistresses. Or vocal male feminists who get caught harrassing or abusing women. Is there a name or diagnosis for this sort of phenomena?

We definitely need a word for this.