And then you implied -- not subtly -- that removing this guy's name from the dorm was just the first step in that process.
“No. Go back and re-read what I said. The first part was a general comment about the destruction of our history.
And then you implied — not subtly — that removing this guy’s name from the dorm was just the first step in that process.”
That’s exactly what was mentioned in the article - a first step. Actually, it’s not the first step. PC has infected every major Academic Institution in the South (and the rest of the country as well). So it’s just the first step in a continued campaign to erase any type of Southern Heritage from the “hallowed” halls of academia. Like I said in a previous post. Simkins is not the real target here. It’s the Confederate Statues, monuments, and names commemerating the Confederacy they’re after. IOW, Southern Heritage.
Of course, I’m sure you agree with that as well though.
Where in the Hell are you from anyway? I figure you for a PC Yankee. If so, mind your own friggin’ business (then you won’t be mindin’ ours).
Now, here is what I said, with pertinent words emphasized to assist your comprehension.
If the man was honored by having a campus building named after him, either it was for something beneficial and non-nefarious, or the entire institution should be held to account for having so honored him.
You could say I implied the Campus should be dissolved, too, but implications are in the mind of the beholder.
Where does the "process" lead? The removal of statues of generals, the banishment of a battle flag, the wholesale villification of a culture--good and bad, for what? Renaming streets after 'latter day heroes' who come closer to harm's way by their diet or a jealous husband than peril of shot or shell?
While I am neither defending this individual's history, nor his honor, I must point out the incremental villification of those who have stood in the ranks of our history (which has, in the mind of grade schoolers taken George Washington from 'the father of our country' to another slaveowning 'cracker', decrying a man who refused to be King--to the shock of some of the European aristocracy--and painting him as evil).
It is that incrementalism which I decry, which paints a subtly different picture of those in our past with each successive generation, distorted by the lens of contemporary thought, and I caution against capriciously ripping down the nameplates of the past.
It is our darkest hours by which we measure progress. Eliminate the record of them and all after becomes moot.
If at one time the University saw fit to honor a man we would revile today, does not this stand as a clear indicator of the progress made since?
Either way, though, to sanitize the past to protect the feelings of those who recall nothing of it does great disservice to us all, if for no other reason than obscuring the measure of progress made since then.