Cancel culture strikes again
-
wrote on 21 Jun 2020, 01:59 last edited by
I’m surprised the Andrew Jackson statue in Lafayette Park wasn’t torn down earlier this month.
-
@Klaus said in Cancel culture strikes again:
This is interesting.
It appears Elihu Yale may have only lived in the US from birth to 3. Near the end of his life someone asked him for money and someone named Dummer gave more but they didn’t want it named Dummer College.
Sounds like Yale could definitely be vulnerable to a name change. Someone could easily go after his statue at the University.
Not sure how many progressive lefties admire Yale except for maybe the well heeled ones.
Interesting indeed.
wrote on 22 Jun 2020, 18:12 last edited by@Loki said in Cancel culture strikes again:
Not sure how many progressive lefties admire Yale except for maybe the well heeled ones.
Interesting indeed.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/cancelyale-elihu-yale-slave-trader/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ann Coulter is pushing a brilliant campaign to compel Yale University to change its name:How about a bill withholding all federal funds from Yale University until it changes its name? The school’s namesake, Elihu Yale, was not only a slave owner, but a slave trader.
Quite a dilemma for the little snots who attend and teach there! It will be tremendously damaging to their brand. After all, true sublimity for a Social Justice Warrior is virtue signaling and advertising their high SAT scores at the same time.
Elihu Yale was certainly that: a slave trader, and a cruel man. Yale University bears his name because he was an early benefactor of the school.Yale changed the name of Calhoun College in 2017, because its namesake, 19th century Yale alumnus John C. Calhoun, was pro-slavery. So why is Yale not jettisoning its name? Why the hypocrisy?
The answer, of course, is that “Yale” is a global brand of almost matchless prestige. In terms of branding — which is not the same as quality — Harvard, Oxford, and Cambridge are among its only competitors. To surrender “Yale” would be a severe blow to the value of a Yale diploma, precisely because of the sense of elite identity Yale has accrued over the centuries.
So, how serious do the leftist Yalies — alumni, faculty, administrators, and students — take their moral commitment? They are very happy to strip other people of their problematic historical identities, in the name of moral purity. How do they justify not applying the same standards to themselves?
Surely it cannot be the case that they want other people to pay a price for historical identity, but don’t want to pay it themselves. Yale was founded as the “Collegiate School,” before changing its name to Yale in honor of a major donor. Why not switch back to Collegiate School? The answer is that to do that would be like Marilyn Monroe at the height of her fame choosing to revert to her birth name, Norma Jeane Baker. Not quite the same thing, is it?
It would mean a tremendous sacrifice for Yale University and its alumni, and a meaningful loss of identity and prestige. But how could they do otherwise, given their moral commitments, and given that Elihu Yale was a slave trader? So what if there might not be a Yale University if not for Elihu Yale? We must be morally perfect.
Of course I don’t believe at all that Yale should do this — but nor do I believe other places should jettison their history because of this contemporary moral panic. Yale lefties, of whom there are many, do not share this view. So what’s their excuse? A Yale by any other name is just as good, right? Right?
Yale’s leftists should put up or shut up. Ann Coulter is right to troll them hard. My guess is that all those campus crusaders would not at all be willing to surrender their identity as Yalies. These culture-war controversies are not about morality, but about power.
-
wrote on 22 Jun 2020, 18:22 last edited by
All history is tainted. Erase it all.
-
wrote on 22 Jun 2020, 20:32 last edited by Larry
Trying to find the pearl buried in this shit pile, once they have erased all record of slavery, when they start kissing and moaning about slavery we can say "what slavery? Prove it or it didn't happen...."
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2020, 11:34 last edited by George K
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2020, 11:36 last edited by
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2020, 14:54 last edited by
Christ
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2020, 14:55 last edited by
Shaun King is reliable.
-
I’m surprised the Andrew Jackson statue in Lafayette Park wasn’t torn down earlier this month.
wrote on 23 Jun 2020, 16:25 last edited by@89th said in Cancel culture strikes again:
I’m surprised the Andrew Jackson statue in Lafayette Park wasn’t torn down earlier this month.
https://news.yahoo.com/protesters-try-pull-down-andrew-022526909.html
They tried last night.
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2020, 16:37 last edited by
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2020, 16:37 last edited by
Absolutely LOVE this move by Trump.
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2020, 16:42 last edited by
Do it
Lock 'em up
Retroactively would be great, get them all, every single one
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2020, 17:08 last edited by
So when are the mosques going to start coming down? I mean, Islam does have a history tied up with slavery, doesn’t it?
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2020, 17:18 last edited by
Indeed Islam does and in some places continues to do so. But that is an inconvenient truth best left alone.
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2020, 17:24 last edited by Catseye3
From Connecting Vets.Radio.com:
"The Veterans' Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act of
2003 
establishes criminal penalties for anyone who "willfully injures or destroys, or attempts to injure or destroy ...veterans' memorials" including "any structure, plaque, statue or other monument on public property commemorating the service of any person or persons in the armed forces of the United States."Under that statute, anyone convicted of those acts could be fined and/or imprisoned for
no more than 10 years, or both."Oh, well. His heart's in the right place.
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2020, 18:14 last edited by
Robert Downey Jr remains untouchable... good.
-
From Connecting Vets.Radio.com:
"The Veterans' Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act of
2003 establishes criminal penalties for anyone who "willfully injures or destroys, or attempts to injure or destroy ...veterans' memorials" including "any structure, plaque, statue or other monument on public property commemorating the service of any person or persons in the armed forces of the United States."Under that statute, anyone convicted of those acts could be fined and/or imprisoned for
no more than 10 years, or both."Oh, well. His heart's in the right place.
wrote on 23 Jun 2020, 18:20 last edited by@Catseye3 said in Cancel culture strikes again:
From Connecting Vets.Radio.com:
"The Veterans' Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act of
2003 establishes criminal penalties for anyone who "willfully injures or destroys, or attempts to injure or destroy ...veterans' memorials" including "any structure, plaque, statue or other monument on public property commemorating the service of any person or persons in the armed forces of the United States."Under that statute, anyone convicted of those acts could be fined and/or imprisoned for
no more than 10 years, or both."Oh, well. His heart's in the right place.
Cats, I don’t get your point. Trump says they can be sentenced up to 10 years, which is what the law states as well...Your post reads like you believe the law expired in 10 years. It didn’t, that was just the sentencing limit.
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2020, 18:49 last edited by
@LuFins: No, that's not it. His tweet reads "I have authorized the Federal Government . . . " His authorization isn't needed. The authorization was in force at the moment the VMPA passed into law. He makes it sound like he reintroduced it somehow. He had nothing to do with it.
The vandals committed criminal acts, and have not been apprehended. Unless they are identified and caught, his tweet is doubly pointless -- as is the threat of 10 years imprisonment.
Sure sounds presidential, though!
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2020, 19:07 last edited by
I think his tweet says he authorizes the ARREST, and then from there the charges would follow the Act's punishment guidelines.
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2020, 19:08 last edited by
His authorization for the arrest isn't needed; it's already in the law.