Education, politics, and anything else that catches my attention.
San Francisco Chronicle op-ed: The Case For Renaming Boalt Hall, by Charles Reichmann (Adjunct Professor, UC-Berkeley)
You suggested that Castro Street be renamed because of your dislike of Fidel Castro even though the street is actually named after another person. Now I don't like Fidel Castro any more than you do, but I don't get it. Why is renaming right in one case and wrong in the other? I'm not trying to do a "gotcha" here. I am just curious.
I'm playing by Saul Alinsky rules, suggesting the left live up to its own standards. I can see why they do it, it's kinda fun :)San Francisco was named after a CATHOLIC PRIEST--and we know what the Catholics think of homosexuality. Gotta rename San Francisco! In fact, we have to rename every San and Santa--San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Cruz, San Pedro, San Clemente, San Fernando, San Jose....The left doesn't much like religion, even though some of the left's most reliable voting blocs are (e.g. Catholics, Jews, Blacks) are religious. Gotta change Los Angeles and Sacramento, too--gotta separate that church and state!Fort Bragg, CA, is named after a Confederate general. Let's rename that, too. In fact, since the left doesn't much like the military, let's rename anyplace named after a military person!What do we do with John Sutter? He was an immigrant who didn't speak English as his first language, but he treated the natives doubleplusungood. Oh, but he was white, so let's rename anything named after John Sutter.My point in all this is to show that whitewashing (a racist, derogatory term against white people?) history by changing names (and removing monuments) would be silly if it weren't dangerous.
By the way, what is Army Street in San Francisco called now?And I appreciate your question. I hope you don't think I was attacking you or your question in my response. I'm attacking the silliness of changing names because someone in history wasn't the kind of perfect we want them to be today.
Post a Comment