(12-08-2015 09:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  You could say the same things about Washington and Jefferson, who owned slaves and about Lincoln, who was a bigot. You have to evaluate people in the context of their times, not based on today's standards. They would have a pretty low opinion of many of our leaders.

Yes, but in their own times, these people were on the right side of history. In all of Washington's lifetime, all the U.S. states that had slaves continued to have slaves, so he was never forced to encounter and respond to the pressures that came up later. When Lincoln was assassinated, he had already moved things in the right direction, even if some of his views if expressed today would make even Trump blush. Then you've got this guy, who was surrounded by people who supported integration over segregation, and who used his position at the university and then his public fame to go out of his way to advocate the segregationist position. He wasn't even a reflection of contemporary sentiment, since he couldn't win his election for governor against an opponent who supported integration. Historical people can't be judged against modern standards, but they can certainly be judged by their role compared to those around them.

(12-08-2015 01:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:28 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I hate this PC nonsense. Yeah he held views that at his time were common and are considered very wrong today. So What? A lot of opinions we hold deeply will be looked at no better by future generations. You cannot judge someone strictly from modern standpoints, but have to do so within the context of the time. It is still is undeniable he did a lot for the University of Maryland and that is why the stadium is named after him. Why not simply focus on why it was named for him rather than find other parts of his life that don't hold up as well under a modern view.

Few generations are going to judge us very harshly if they hold up the same standards we do in looking at the past.

1) It's a good thing to look at the past critically and sometimes conclude, "We wouldn't do things that way today." That's just learning lessons from history, which we don't do often enough as it is.

2) Doesn't bother me whether Maryland renames their stadium or not. It's their deal. Stadiums and other buildings get renamed all over for reasons good, bad, or neutral. How many sports stadiums have had historic names wiped away and replaced with a commercial sponsor's name or a donor's name? Would anyone care at all if Maryland just renamed the place Kevin Plank Stadium, or Under Armour Stadium?

Thinly veiled excuse to kick the naming rights to a corporate donor for the cash strapped athletic department. It has nothing to do with altruism or a to have a good social conscience. They need an excuse to get rid of the Byrd name that people would recognize instead of the true reason - money.

(12-08-2015 10:11 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 01:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:28 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I hate this PC nonsense. Yeah he held views that at his time were common and are considered very wrong today. So What? A lot of opinions we hold deeply will be looked at no better by future generations. You cannot judge someone strictly from modern standpoints, but have to do so within the context of the time. It is still is undeniable he did a lot for the University of Maryland and that is why the stadium is named after him. Why not simply focus on why it was named for him rather than find other parts of his life that don't hold up as well under a modern view.

Few generations are going to judge us very harshly if they hold up the same standards we do in looking at the past.

1) It's a good thing to look at the past critically and sometimes conclude, "We wouldn't do things that way today." That's just learning lessons from history, which we don't do often enough as it is.

2) Doesn't bother me whether Maryland renames their stadium or not. It's their deal. Stadiums and other buildings get renamed all over for reasons good, bad, or neutral. How many sports stadiums have had historic names wiped away and replaced with a commercial sponsor's name or a donor's name? Would anyone care at all if Maryland just renamed the place Kevin Plank Stadium, or Under Armour Stadium?

Thinly veiled excuse to kick the naming rights to a corporate donor for the cash strapped athletic department. It has nothing to do with altruism or a to have a good social conscience. They need an excuse to get rid of the Byrd name that people would recognize instead of the true reason - money.

Well why not tell the truth? Some people are offended by this name and we could make a lot of money while eliminating the offensive name?

(12-08-2015 10:04 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 09:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  You could say the same things about Washington and Jefferson, who owned slaves and about Lincoln, who was a bigot. You have to evaluate people in the context of their times, not based on today's standards. They would have a pretty low opinion of many of our leaders.

Yes, but in their own times, these people were on the right side of history. In all of Washington's lifetime, all the U.S. states that had slaves continued to have slaves, so he was never forced to encounter and respond to the pressures that came up later. When Lincoln was assassinated, he had already moved things in the right direction, even if some of his views if expressed today would make even Trump blush. Then you've got this guy, who was surrounded by people who supported integration over segregation, and who used his position at the university and then his public fame to go out of his way to advocate the segregationist position. He wasn't even a reflection of contemporary sentiment, since he couldn't win his election for governor against an opponent who supported integration. Historical people can't be judged against modern standards, but they can certainly be judged by their role compared to those around them.

Let's be clear here for a moment. Lincoln was not some idealist who had some progressive beliefs on race relations. His primary concern was to preserve the Union. In fact, he expressed in his writings he would support slavery if it would keep the country together.

It should also be noted he had a plan to ship the slaves and their descendants into new colonies in Africa.

Miko and Bullet hit the nail on the head. Follow the money.

(12-08-2015 10:15 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 10:11 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 01:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:28 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I hate this PC nonsense. Yeah he held views that at his time were common and are considered very wrong today. So What? A lot of opinions we hold deeply will be looked at no better by future generations. You cannot judge someone strictly from modern standpoints, but have to do so within the context of the time. It is still is undeniable he did a lot for the University of Maryland and that is why the stadium is named after him. Why not simply focus on why it was named for him rather than find other parts of his life that don't hold up as well under a modern view.

Few generations are going to judge us very harshly if they hold up the same standards we do in looking at the past.

1) It's a good thing to look at the past critically and sometimes conclude, "We wouldn't do things that way today." That's just learning lessons from history, which we don't do often enough as it is.

2) Doesn't bother me whether Maryland renames their stadium or not. It's their deal. Stadiums and other buildings get renamed all over for reasons good, bad, or neutral. How many sports stadiums have had historic names wiped away and replaced with a commercial sponsor's name or a donor's name? Would anyone care at all if Maryland just renamed the place Kevin Plank Stadium, or Under Armour Stadium?

Thinly veiled excuse to kick the naming rights to a corporate donor for the cash strapped athletic department. It has nothing to do with altruism or a to have a good social conscience. They need an excuse to get rid of the Byrd name that people would recognize instead of the true reason - money.

Well why not tell the truth? Some people are offended by this name and we could make a lot of money while eliminating the offensive name?

That would be offensive to progressives who think financial incentives are so base.

(12-08-2015 09:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 06:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That's a joke.

I'd imagine the name was given to the stadium to remember the positive things the man did for the school, not the man's faults.

It's hard to name anything for any person who had no faults.

You could say the same things about Washington and Jefferson, who owned slaves and about Lincoln, who was a bigot. You have to evaluate people in the context of their times, not based on today's standards. They would have a pretty low opinion of many of our leaders.

True about the "context of the times". For instance, I would say that the Princeton debates over the use of Woodrow Wilson's name is one of those items where the protesters just need to get over it and acknowledge that Wilson was leading that school in a completely different era.

However, I think in this particular case for Maryland, Byrd's tenure wasn't in the distant past. He was Maryland's president into the 1950s and was running for office through the 1960s when the cultural landscape had already shifted drastically since the early 1900s and his viewpoints were clearly seen as perniciously bigoted even *within* the context of his times. This wasn't a period where you could pass it off as "everyone was racist" or "lots of people owned slaves". He very openly and actively fought against integration that was above and beyond what considered to be "normal" for 50 years ago.

I understand how annoying the PC crowd is at many times, but on the flip side, people shouldn't pass over legitimate gripes in a reflexive anti-PC stance, either. There are plenty of people that are still alive today that weren't allowed to attend the University of Maryland directly because of Byrd's specific separate but equal policies. This is quite different in the context of *our* times compared to saying that Lincoln was privately racist or that many of the Founding Fathers were slave owners.

(12-08-2015 10:22 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Miko and Bullet hit the nail on the head. Follow the money.

The stadium’s official name is Capital One Field at Byrd Stadium. So naming rights in part was sold a long time ago.

(12-08-2015 11:18 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 10:22 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Miko and Bullet hit the nail on the head. Follow the money.

The stadium’s official name is Capital One Field at Byrd Stadium. So naming rights in part was sold a long time ago.

OK. Now they're going to monetize the other - and probably bigger - part of the naming rights. Maybe if the Byrd family can compete in the bidding proposal for the naming rights...

I have a feeling this will be headed to a different forum.

I was surprised and disappointed when I first heard earlier this year of the proposal to remove Curley Byrd’s name from the stadium. I thought it amounted to cultural desecration of a monument to a person who played a significant role in the development of the University of Maryland, which started as a small agricultural and military cadet college (the “Aggies”) and became a large academic and athletic institution (the “Terps”) under Curley Byrd.

Otoh, I also recognize that the university has had a historically antagonistic relationship with the Black community in Maryland. For example, just about every Black kid in Maryland is reminded that Thurgood Marshall was denied admission into Maryland’s law school and that, after becoming a lawyer, had to sue the university to admit Black students into its law program. Even today there are unresolved issues. In 2013, the federal courts found the university system guilty of perpetuating a segregated higher education system by permitting program duplication that discourages enrollments at HBCUs.

And then there's the perception in the Black community of the mistreatment and exploitation of Black athletes. Since the death of Len Bias, it seems like the Washington Post scrutinizes the athletic program, targeting issues such as low GPAs; off-field legal troubles, the failure to graduate; and the failure to graduate with a meaningful degree. In the past, Black athletes have been advised to boycott Maryland. The Baltimore boycott has been in place for nearly 40 years. Although the boycott is not as hard core today, Maryland still can't recruit the best athletes out of Baltimore.

So I understand both sides of the issue.

(12-08-2015 10:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 09:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 06:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That's a joke.

I'd imagine the name was given to the stadium to remember the positive things the man did for the school, not the man's faults.

It's hard to name anything for any person who had no faults.

You could say the same things about Washington and Jefferson, who owned slaves and about Lincoln, who was a bigot. You have to evaluate people in the context of their times, not based on today's standards. They would have a pretty low opinion of many of our leaders.

True about the "context of the times". For instance, I would say that the Princeton debates over the use of Woodrow Wilson's name is one of those items where the protesters just need to get over it and acknowledge that Wilson was leading that school in a completely different era.

However, I think in this particular case for Maryland, Byrd's tenure wasn't in the distant past. He was Maryland's president into the 1950s and was running for office through the 1960s when the cultural landscape had already shifted drastically since the early 1900s and his viewpoints were clearly seen as perniciously bigoted even *within* the context of his times. This wasn't a period where you could pass it off as "everyone was racist" or "lots of people owned slaves". He very openly and actively fought against integration that was above and beyond what considered to be "normal" for 50 years ago.

I understand how annoying the PC crowd is at many times, but on the flip side, people shouldn't pass over legitimate gripes in a reflexive anti-PC stance, either. There are plenty of people that are still alive today that weren't allowed to attend the University of Maryland directly because of Byrd's specific separate but equal policies. This is quite different in the context of *our* times compared to saying that Lincoln was privately racist or that many of the Founding Fathers were slave owners.

1936-1954 when he was president of Maryland still was a very different era. Every public institution in the south was fighting integration. The US Army had just been integrated. And if trustees and presidents didn't fight it, they would have been replaced. And Maryland used to be a very southern state.

I don't know enough about what he did after that era, but 1936-1954 certainly needs to be taken in context.

(12-08-2015 11:28 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 11:18 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 10:22 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Miko and Bullet hit the nail on the head. Follow the money.

The stadium’s official name is Capital One Field at Byrd Stadium. So naming rights in part was sold a long time ago.

OK. Now they're going to monetize the other - and probably bigger - part of the naming rights. Maybe if the Byrd family can compete in the bidding proposal for the naming rights...

Ideally, the Redskins will build a new stadium in DC (which is in the works), leaving FedEx Field to Maryland. The school can then tear down Byrd Stadium and do whatever it wants with the land.

Conservatives tend to win the in-the-moment cultural battles but, thanks to changing demographics and the pervasive influence of Warren-era legal doctrine at the Supreme Court, inevitably lose the wars.

So it's probably also inevitable that sometime in the not so distant future, Washington and Jefferson will be removed from our currency and their monuments in DC re-named because they owned slaves.

IOW's, it won't just be the "Redskins" aspect of "Washington Redskins" that will be re-named.

(12-08-2015 11:18 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 10:22 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Miko and Bullet hit the nail on the head. Follow the money.

The stadium’s official name is Capital One Field at Byrd Stadium. So naming rights in part was sold a long time ago.

U dont think they would do Capital One Field at Under Armour Stadium? All in the name of racism of course....

SJWs can't be reasoned with because in their hearts, they just want to watch the world burn

Personally, I don't see this as a big deal either way. Whatever Maryland decides is fine with me and is really none of my business.

That said, comparing a staunch segregationist to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson isn't exactly apples to apples. It would be more like comparing Byrd to Jeff Davis - two men who were clearly on the wrong side of history and defiant when challenged over it during their own time.

I'm sorry but the stone cold reality is there is a consequence to being on the wrong side of history. It would be like being openly homophobic today. I mean you can do that if you like but history is not going to be terribly kind to your legacy if you do choose that tact. That's just reality.

The cynic in me suspects that this sudden conscience driven decision has less to do with any particular ideology and more to do with greed. I think this is really about cash-strapped Maryland clearing the way for Under Armour to hand them a bucketful of money to re-brand their football stadium. That's the most distasteful part of this whole deal, IMHO.

However, to the extent that it is ideologically driven, it's not the worst crusade in the world. The man was a flat out and open racist. It's not political correctness run amok to question the wisdom of celebrating such a person, it's common sense. You can't just white-wash history and pretend that the ugly stuff never happened, especially when the ugly stuff is so well documented.

That doesn't mean they should strip the stadium of its current name. As I said, that is Maryland's decision, not mine. Whatever they choose to do is fine. However, better venues have been stripped of their names for far less legitimate reasons.

(12-08-2015 01:39 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Personally, I don't see this as a big deal either way. Whatever Maryland decides is fine with me and is really none of my business.

That said, comparing a staunch segregationist to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson isn't exactly apples to apples. It would be more like comparing Byrd to Jeff Davis - two men who were clearly on the wrong side of history and defiant when challenged over it during their own time.

There was an anti-slavery movement while Jefferson and Washington were alive and the morality of slavery was a political issue of which both men were well aware of. Both Washington and Jefferson spoke and wrote about the morality of personally owning slaves and the institution of slavery.

I have a question: Do you like to eat steak and fried chicken? Are you aware that there are animal rights activists who argue that "meat is murder"?

If 50 years from now, the eating of meat has been outlawed because the morality of that time is that eating meat is indeed murder, would you think it reasonable that monuments to people like yourself who ate meat be taken down because in the vernacular of 2065 America, you were a "murderous meat eater"?

(12-08-2015 10:11 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Thinly veiled excuse to kick the naming rights to a corporate donor for the cash strapped athletic department. It has nothing to do with altruism or a to have a good social conscience. They need an excuse to get rid of the Byrd name that people would recognize instead of the true reason - money.

Not necessarily, the field could still be named after a person, as is the case with many corporate named stadiums and arenas.

(12-07-2015 10:12 PM)justin_sane15 Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 06:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That's a joke.

I'd imagine the name was given to the stadium to remember the positive things the man did for the school, not the man's faults.

It's hard to name anything for any person who had no faults.

Well, Hitler did a lot of good stuff too. Pulled a country out of a deep depression into one of the best and most efficient economies in the world, and spurred great scientific and technological advancement. But I don't see any stadiums named after him.

He also started a huge youth group.