you opinion presented as fact - "trump supports the KKK"

its just ridiculous hyperbole.

What about Robert Byrd? Grand Kleagle in the KKK. Incredibly racist statements in his younger days. Dropping the N word in a TV interview as late as 2001. Democrat senator until 2010. I guess he gets a pass though since he was a democrat and did a great job bringing pork to his home (what used to be a solidly blue) state. Probably the #1 senator in US history in bringing home the bacon.

Something like 56 places named after him in WV. Should any of those names be changed?

Fair to say that Trump supports freedom of speech - even hate speech...i'd say Jimmy would be OK with that (despite the shame of ridiculous hatred, immoral isn't always illegal)

(08-25-2017 02:08 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  What about Robert Byrd? Grand Kleagle in the KKK. Incredibly racist statements in his younger days. Dropping the N word in a TV interview as late as 2001. Democrat senator until 2010. I guess he gets a pass though since he was a democrat and did a great job bringing pork to his home (what used to be a solidly blue) state. Probably the #1 senator in US history in bringing home the bacon.

Something like 56 places named after him in WV. Should any of those names be changed?

It's really all up to the local municipalities or whoever has ownership. They put it up, they can change it or take it down.

If true about Byrd, shame on him. I won't defend that.

(08-25-2017 02:11 PM)Potomac Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 02:08 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  What about Robert Byrd? Grand Kleagle in the KKK. Incredibly racist statements in his younger days. Dropping the N word in a TV interview as late as 2001. Democrat senator until 2010. I guess he gets a pass though since he was a democrat and did a great job bringing pork to his home (what used to be a solidly blue) state. Probably the #1 senator in US history in bringing home the bacon.

Something like 56 places named after him in WV. Should any of those names be changed?

It's really all up to the local municipalities or whoever has ownership. They put it up, they can change it or take it down.

If true about Byrd, shame on him. I won't defend that.

Oh its true. Google is your friend.

This is a JMU board, so I’m going to keep this related to JMU. I have my own personal thoughts about statues, confederate flags and other types of topics, but this isn’t the place to debate those topics.

However, we have two issues that directly relate to JMU and I don’t think it’s a bad idea to civilly discuss their relevance to the university.

First, we have the Turner Ashby monument. I personally don’t see any issue with this being on campus. I view this as merely a marker of an incident of some historical significance. It reminds me of a tombstone more than anything else. It’s definitely not a statue. I think it’s appropriate because it doesn’t seem to elevate the man to epic proportions. The inscription is somewhat subdued as well. “Gen. Turner Ashby C.S.A. was killed on this spot, June 6, 1862, gallantly leading a charge.” I would be upset if this was removed from its current location. Removing this would feel like trying to erase history.

The second topic are the three buildings named after Confederate generals, and this issue is significantly more complicated.

Let’s first realize that it’s a tremendous honor to have a JMU building named after a person. Most of our buildings are named after people who dedicated portions their lives in some manner to our great university. These are favorite educators, university leaders and administrators, and significant donors. These people have strong and obvious connections to our university. I’m sure all of these people had their flaws, but that doesn’t erase their positive contributions to the university.

Then we come to Jackson, Maury, and Ashby. None of these men have a connection to JMU. None of these men were alive when JMU was founded. All of them were born hours away from JMU. The only connection I can find to JMU is related to Ashby, who was killed nearby (and there’s obviously a monument memorializing that fact). Because these men don’t have a connection to JMU or the nearby area, I don’t see a need to continue to honor them by naming some of JMU’s most beautiful buildings after them.

I think it’s important to remember who these men were. Although I’m sure they were loving family men and did some honorable things during their lives, their most significant contribution to history is that they fought AGAINST the United States. It’s hard to view them as anything but traitors against the USA. They put their lives on the line to protect the “southern way of life” and “states’ rights”, both of which are clever current day synonyms for protecting slavery. Fighting bloody battles against the United States in order to defend slavery should disqualify you for this honor.

It’s also critical to understand when these buildings received their names and the historical context. They were named at the height of Jim Crow, in a time when buildings and monuments were erected honoring confederates in order to continue to remind former slaves and their descendants who was still in charge of the south. I recommend spending some time studying Jim Crow if you’re not intimately familiar for more context.

Finally, I think it’s important to think about how these names might affect our current students. Asking an African American student to take classes in Jackson hall is not much different than asking a Jewish student to take classes in a building named after Himmler, Eichmann, Goebbels, or Goering. Let that one sink in for a minute.

That’s my two cents. I believe that we have two choices: JMU can sit back and accept the status quo, or it can “Be The Change”.

I'll just say this because I'm shocked the distinction has not been emphasized on this thread.
Q: Why don't we take down statues of Jefferson/MLK/Madison for [insert reason here]?
A: BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT OVERT AND DELIBERATE TRAITORS TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

This is the least slippery slope imagineable.

as stated....context.

Robert Bird had despicable thoughts that are well documented in his life. He was an old man.
His denunciation of those thoughts later in life is also fairly well documented. (fwiw....It seemed to be an honest transformation and not just expedient lip service).

I really don't see where that is a relevant rebuttal to mentioning Trump's dog whistles to the far right. What's next....."emails and Benghazi"? You would have to be an extreme political neophyte not to acknowledge Trump's bromance with Neo-Nazis. It is disgusting and that is about the nicest thing I can say about it.

Excellent post chicagoduke.

A related point, some are calling for the renaming of Washington & Lee, even if there's no real momentum there. I couldn't disagree more. Robert E Lee was a former president of the then Washington College and leaders of the college decided to add his name to the college after his passing for his contributions to the college.

I second the motion to move this thread off the main board and into the Off-Topic section.

(08-25-2017 02:08 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  What about Robert Byrd? Grand Kleagle in the KKK. Incredibly racist statements in his younger days. Dropping the N word in a TV interview as late as 2001. Democrat senator until 2010. I guess he gets a pass though since he was a democrat and did a great job bringing pork to his home (what used to be a solidly blue) state. Probably the #1 senator in US history in bringing home the bacon.

Something like 56 places named after him in WV. Should any of those names be changed?

I kinda think so, for that guy. Hasn't that already started for him, losing his name from stuff?

(08-25-2017 02:46 PM)Halz87 Wrote:  as stated....context.

Robert Bird had despicable thoughts that are well documented in his life. He was an old man.
His denunciation of those thoughts later in life is also fairly well documented. (fwiw....It seemed to be an honest transformation and not just expedient lip service).

I really don't see where that is a relevant rebuttal to mentioning Trump's dog whistles to the far right. What's next....."emails and Benghazi"? You would have to be an extreme political neophyte not to acknowledge Trump's bromance with Neo-Nazis. It is disgusting and that is about the nicest thing I can say about it.

Keep drinking that blue Kool-Aid.

(08-25-2017 02:38 PM)chicagoduke Wrote:  This is a JMU board, so I’m going to keep this related to JMU. I have my own personal thoughts about statues, confederate flags and other types of topics, but this isn’t the place to debate those topics.

However, we have two issues that directly relate to JMU and I don’t think it’s a bad idea to civilly discuss their relevance to the university.

First, we have the Turner Ashby monument. I personally don’t see any issue with this being on campus. I view this as merely a marker of an incident of some historical significance. It reminds me of a tombstone more than anything else. It’s definitely not a statue. I think it’s appropriate because it doesn’t seem to elevate the man to epic proportions. The inscription is somewhat subdued as well. “Gen. Turner Ashby C.S.A. was killed on this spot, June 6, 1862, gallantly leading a charge.” I would be upset if this was removed from its current location. Removing this would feel like trying to erase history.

The second topic are the three buildings named after Confederate generals, and this issue is significantly more complicated.

Let’s first realize that it’s a tremendous honor to have a JMU building named after a person. Most of our buildings are named after people who dedicated portions their lives in some manner to our great university. These are favorite educators, university leaders and administrators, and significant donors. These people have strong and obvious connections to our university. I’m sure all of these people had their flaws, but that doesn’t erase their positive contributions to the university.

Then we come to Jackson, Maury, and Ashby. None of these men have a connection to JMU. None of these men were alive when JMU was founded. All of them were born hours away from JMU. The only connection I can find to JMU is related to Ashby, who was killed nearby (and there’s obviously a monument memorializing that fact). Because these men don’t have a connection to JMU or the nearby area, I don’t see a need to continue to honor them by naming some of JMU’s most beautiful buildings after them.

I think it’s important to remember who these men were. Although I’m sure they were loving family men and did some honorable things during their lives, their most significant contribution to history is that they fought AGAINST the United States. It’s hard to view them as anything but traitors against the USA. They put their lives on the line to protect the “southern way of life” and “states’ rights”, both of which are clever current day synonyms for protecting slavery. Fighting bloody battles against the United States in order to defend slavery should disqualify you for this honor.

It’s also critical to understand when these buildings received their names and the historical context. They were named at the height of Jim Crow, in a time when buildings and monuments were erected honoring confederates in order to continue to remind former slaves and their descendants who was still in charge of the south. I recommend spending some time studying Jim Crow if you’re not intimately familiar for more context.

Finally, I think it’s important to think about how these names might affect our current students. Asking an African American student to take classes in Jackson hall is not much different than asking a Jewish student to take classes in a building named after Himmler, Eichmann, Goebbels, or Goering. Let that one sink in for a minute.

That’s my two cents. I believe that we have two choices: JMU can sit back and accept the status quo, or it can “Be The Change”.

Well said, and I agree with 100% of it.

Thanks for providing reasonable, nuanced thought. That's pretty refreshing!

(08-25-2017 03:10 PM)madizoned-level2004 Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 02:38 PM)chicagoduke Wrote:  This is a JMU board, so I’m going to keep this related to JMU. I have my own personal thoughts about statues, confederate flags and other types of topics, but this isn’t the place to debate those topics.

However, we have two issues that directly relate to JMU and I don’t think it’s a bad idea to civilly discuss their relevance to the university.

First, we have the Turner Ashby monument. I personally don’t see any issue with this being on campus. I view this as merely a marker of an incident of some historical significance. It reminds me of a tombstone more than anything else. It’s definitely not a statue. I think it’s appropriate because it doesn’t seem to elevate the man to epic proportions. The inscription is somewhat subdued as well. “Gen. Turner Ashby C.S.A. was killed on this spot, June 6, 1862, gallantly leading a charge.” I would be upset if this was removed from its current location. Removing this would feel like trying to erase history.

The second topic are the three buildings named after Confederate generals, and this issue is significantly more complicated.

Let’s first realize that it’s a tremendous honor to have a JMU building named after a person. Most of our buildings are named after people who dedicated portions their lives in some manner to our great university. These are favorite educators, university leaders and administrators, and significant donors. These people have strong and obvious connections to our university. I’m sure all of these people had their flaws, but that doesn’t erase their positive contributions to the university.

Then we come to Jackson, Maury, and Ashby. None of these men have a connection to JMU. None of these men were alive when JMU was founded. All of them were born hours away from JMU. The only connection I can find to JMU is related to Ashby, who was killed nearby (and there’s obviously a monument memorializing that fact). Because these men don’t have a connection to JMU or the nearby area, I don’t see a need to continue to honor them by naming some of JMU’s most beautiful buildings after them.

I think it’s important to remember who these men were. Although I’m sure they were loving family men and did some honorable things during their lives, their most significant contribution to history is that they fought AGAINST the United States. It’s hard to view them as anything but traitors against the USA. They put their lives on the line to protect the “southern way of life” and “states’ rights”, both of which are clever current day synonyms for protecting slavery. Fighting bloody battles against the United States in order to defend slavery should disqualify you for this honor.

It’s also critical to understand when these buildings received their names and the historical context. They were named at the height of Jim Crow, in a time when buildings and monuments were erected honoring confederates in order to continue to remind former slaves and their descendants who was still in charge of the south. I recommend spending some time studying Jim Crow if you’re not intimately familiar for more context.

Finally, I think it’s important to think about how these names might affect our current students. Asking an African American student to take classes in Jackson hall is not much different than asking a Jewish student to take classes in a building named after Himmler, Eichmann, Goebbels, or Goering. Let that one sink in for a minute.

That’s my two cents. I believe that we have two choices: JMU can sit back and accept the status quo, or it can “Be The Change”.

Well said, and I agree with 100% of it.

Agree.

So much for stopping this train wreck.

Should we prepare for a another COA type letter form Jon Alger arguing for the removal of all statues that could offend someone?

Well, it's my fault that this is a thread, so I guess I'll make some sort of substantive comment. Look, we can keep it civil, and it does concern our school.

The notion of changing long-named buildings, or demolishing markers, simply because they offend our modern sensibilities, irritates me. The fact of the matter is that with some rare exceptions most historical figures, just like modern day ones, are generally not all good or all bad. There is nuance in the world, and our historical predecessors made choices that we wouldn't necessarily make today. These buildings have had those names for decades. They shouldn't be renamed. For many reasons I detest Woodrow Wilson, but I would also detest the idea of changing the name of Wilson Hall. Why? Because our historical predecessors gave the building that name - that's its name. I'm not triggered, and do not break down in tears, every time I have to pass by the Woodrow Wilson birthplace here in Staunton, nor when I enter Wilson Hall. We should leave the names in place and yet have intelligent discussions about the merits or demerits of these men.

As for the Confederate soldiers being "traitors to the United States," one doesn't have to admire the Confederacy (I don't) to understand that Ashby, Jackson and Maury were military men defending what they understood to be their country from what they believed was a foreign invasion. They weren't saints, but they weren't demons, either.

So there's my two cents. Go Dukes.

(08-25-2017 02:38 PM)chicagoduke Wrote:  This is a JMU board, so I’m going to keep this related to JMU. I have my own personal thoughts about statues, confederate flags and other types of topics, but this isn’t the place to debate those topics.

However, we have two issues that directly relate to JMU and I don’t think it’s a bad idea to civilly discuss their relevance to the university.

First, we have the Turner Ashby monument. I personally don’t see any issue with this being on campus. I view this as merely a marker of an incident of some historical significance. It reminds me of a tombstone more than anything else. It’s definitely not a statue. I think it’s appropriate because it doesn’t seem to elevate the man to epic proportions. The inscription is somewhat subdued as well. “Gen. Turner Ashby C.S.A. was killed on this spot, June 6, 1862, gallantly leading a charge.” I would be upset if this was removed from its current location. Removing this would feel like trying to erase history.

The second topic are the three buildings named after Confederate generals, and this issue is significantly more complicated.

Let’s first realize that it’s a tremendous honor to have a JMU building named after a person. Most of our buildings are named after people who dedicated portions their lives in some manner to our great university. These are favorite educators, university leaders and administrators, and significant donors. These people have strong and obvious connections to our university. I’m sure all of these people had their flaws, but that doesn’t erase their positive contributions to the university.

Then we come to Jackson, Maury, and Ashby. None of these men have a connection to JMU. None of these men were alive when JMU was founded. All of them were born hours away from JMU. The only connection I can find to JMU is related to Ashby, who was killed nearby (and there’s obviously a monument memorializing that fact). Because these men don’t have a connection to JMU or the nearby area, I don’t see a need to continue to honor them by naming some of JMU’s most beautiful buildings after them.

I think it’s important to remember who these men were. Although I’m sure they were loving family men and did some honorable things during their lives, their most significant contribution to history is that they fought AGAINST the United States. It’s hard to view them as anything but traitors against the USA. They put their lives on the line to protect the “southern way of life” and “states’ rights”, both of which are clever current day synonyms for protecting slavery. Fighting bloody battles against the United States in order to defend slavery should disqualify you for this honor.

It’s also critical to understand when these buildings received their names and the historical context. They were named at the height of Jim Crow, in a time when buildings and monuments were erected honoring confederates in order to continue to remind former slaves and their descendants who was still in charge of the south. I recommend spending some time studying Jim Crow if you’re not intimately familiar for more context.

Finally, I think it’s important to think about how these names might affect our current students. Asking an African American student to take classes in Jackson hall is not much different than asking a Jewish student to take classes in a building named after Himmler, Eichmann, Goebbels, or Goering. Let that one sink in for a minute.

That’s my two cents. I believe that we have two choices: JMU can sit back and accept the status quo, or it can “Be The Change”.

+1000 Perfectly stated.

Bunch of pansy arsed thin skinned Snowflakes. I lived in Jackson when it was a Dorm and slept well. I attended Madison College and had many classes in Wilson Hall. They are names of buildings. Get over it. Change the name of Washington D.C. and take down the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial and then take down the statue of Jimmy Mad. Remove all references to Thomas Jefferson, U.S. Grant. Change our history. This country has gone to hell in a hand basket. Get rid of this pathetic thread and let's talk some football. All it will do is cause heartburn and division among everyone on here. A waste of energy. The day they start changing the names of our buildings for political correctness is the day they get the last dime from me.