Activists want a new name for Lake Calhoun claim racism (Minneapolis: cabinet, military)

[Dennis Schroeder]

Originally Posted by AmorphicDN

Calhoun and Cosby don't have to be personal equivalents for making my point. The principle is we have a man who is honored with a place-name. The man is historically reprehensible in relation to the values of the society that has the option to remove his name as a civic feature. The only objection to the name change is street sign cost. Doesn't matter if the man in question is Calhoun or Cosby or Stalin or Pontius Pilate. I didn't use Cosby because I thought there was anything in common between him and Calhoun other than Cosby's name has now been stricken from certain honors because people no longer want to be associated with him in any way.

I support changing names of stuff in general. I changed my own name. But I think if you're changing the name of something named after a bad guy the degree of badness is relevant. Maybe what's weirder is why is there a lake named after this guy in MN at all.

If you look up that article about how to change a lake name in MN from a couple days ago, it sounds like a major headache.

[AmorphicDN]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Yes, I used World War II but in my example we were looking at the future so the time elapsed between the original event and the hypothetical re-evaluation of the places would be the same as the Calhoun case.

And, no, I don't support turtle shaped drinking fountains.

We don't have to rely on the cost of signage to reject the renaming of the lake. I simply provided an estimate because somebody was complaining that no one would give them one. So they got it.

We can reject the renaming simply in the basis of it being a frivolous bow to current fashion prompted by the uproar over the Confederate flag displays, and we should not be renaming places based on the current flavor of the day.

Besides, as a couple of posters have pointed out the hurdles to renaming the lake are significant enough to probably preclude it anyway.

It's been a nice chat but I don't have anything else to say on the subject.

The timing of this is irrelevant, as I said before. The renaming isn't frivolous because of current trending. It is either frivolous because the issue is frivolous, or it is not because the issue of respect itself has meaning. Timing and trending are coincidental to meaning.

I seem to recall that the issue of cost of signage was one of your points along with "timing".

Thanks for the chat.

[AmorphicDN]

Originally Posted by Dennis Schroeder

I support changing names of stuff in general. I changed my own name. But I think if you're changing the name of something named after a bad guy the degree of badness is relevant. Maybe what's weirder is why is there a lake named after this guy in MN at all.

If you look up that article about how to change a lake name in MN from a couple days ago, it sounds like a major headache.

Agreed. This whole issue just struck a chord with me for some reason. I guess the "timing" cries across the country over whether flags and monuments and other symbols should be changed simply seems odd to me. The rightness or wrongness of issues stand on principle in my mind, not on which week or year or decade or even century the conversation arises.

Thanks for your thoughts as well.

[Dennis Schroeder]

I guess I am surprised though that people in the Twin Cities don't change the name. It seems like a place where that kind of thing would happen. There have been all sorts of other radical urban changes throughout the Twin Cities history.

[blanker]

How about we rename the lake after another famous Calhoun and call it a day.

[northsub]

Originally Posted by AmorphicDN

Calhoun and Cosby don't have to be personal equivalents for making my point. The principle is we have a man who is honored with a place-name. The man is historically reprehensible in relation to the values of the society that has the option to remove his name as a civic feature. The only objection to the name change is street sign cost. Doesn't matter if the man in question is Calhoun or Cosby or Stalin or Pontius Pilate. I didn't use Cosby because I thought there was anything in common between him and Calhoun other than Cosby's name has now been stricken from certain honors because people no longer want to be associated with him in any way.

I'm not even convinced that anyone thinks street sign cost is the main objection to a name change.

Also, the huge Cosby difference here is that information regarding views on Cosby would have come to light after the naming took place. The analogy would be much more apt if the original naming of whatever after Cosby occurred now. And then a proposed name change occurred 20 years down the road. That's even a stretch since new information about Cosby is likely to come out at some point.

[AmorphicDN]

Originally Posted by northsub

I'm not even convinced that anyone thinks street sign cost is the main objection to a name change.

Also, the huge Cosby difference here is that information regarding views on Cosby would have come to light after the naming took place. The analogy would be much more apt if the original naming of whatever after Cosby occurred now. And then a proposed name change occurred 20 years down the road. That's even a stretch since new information about Cosby is likely to come out at some point.

Accusations against Cosby date back 15 years to the year 2000. Lawsuits were settled as much as 10 years ago. Yet his fame and accolades continued. Now his entire legacy has been torn down at great cost and expense to both those who could have continued to profit financially, and those who benefited from association. But the hypothetical timeline can be anything you want. It doesn't matter. The point can be illustrated any number of ways.

Financial costs to change were probably the most cited objections in this thread. The other objections were frivolousness of timing, pointlessness of responding to things far past, and the future financial costs of sliding down a "slippery slope" that could be used as justification for changing other symbols

My position remains that character corrections are a critical part of an ongoing civic process. As failures of civic character come to the public consciousness it is healthy to become involved in corrective dialogue and action.

[Dennis Schroeder]

What Cosby did was much worse than this Calhoun guy. Calhoun spoke about the benefits of slavery but he didn't drug and rape 30 women and there's nothing that suggests he personally owned slaves.

Thomas Jefferson did own hundreds of slaves, but kinda felt bad about it... is that really better? If you think about it, it's worse, because not only was he a hypocrite but also, he literally was a slave owner with all the negative actions that come along with it.

And yet, calls to change a lake named after Jefferson would never be taken seriously at all.

Now, I actually support a name change. Who cares about this guy Calhoun? Not only was he a racist but he also is a person of little historical interest who has nothing to do with Minneapolis. However, I don't think the reasoning that the reason the lake name must be changed because he's equivalent to some rapist is valid.

My position would be, why not? This guy is nothing special and a racist to boot. But I can see why that would be a tough sell to a midwestern city , most cultures of which are primarily driven by inertia.

[northsub]

Originally Posted by AmorphicDN

Accusations against Cosby date back 15 years to the year 2000. Lawsuits were settled as much as 10 years ago. Yet his fame and accolades continued. Now his entire legacy has been torn down at great cost and expense to both those who could have continued to profit financially, and those who benefited from association. But the hypothetical timeline can be anything you want. It doesn't matter. The point can be illustrated any number of ways.

Financial costs to change were probably the most cited objections in this thread. The other objections were frivolousness of timing, pointlessness of responding to things far past, and the future financial costs of sliding down a "slippery slope" that could be used as justification for changing other symbols

My position remains that character corrections are a critical part of an ongoing civic process. As failures of civic character come to the public consciousness it is healthy to become involved in corrective dialogue and action.

Why keep refusing to even acknowledge the primary arguments against a name change?

Judging people from 150 years ago by current standards is ridiculous. You'll end up getting rid of basically every name from that long ago. Maybe that's the actual goal.

[Mason3000]

Originally Posted by northsub

Why keep refusing to even acknowledge the primary arguments against a name change?

Judging people from 150 years ago by current standards is ridiculous. You'll end up getting rid of basically every name from that long ago. Maybe that's the actual goal.

It's a Pandora's box. Lindbergh, Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S Grant, Aldrich, Dupont, Fremont, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, anything with the word Progressive in it, the name Minneapolis ('Polis' from the Greeks, a slave state). Those are off the top of my head & without really researching much. Every school, street, lake, river, park, rec center, town, etc. Will all have to change if we start down this path. We'll have to start sandblasting Lincoln, Washington & Jefferson's faces off Mt Rushmore (probably Teddy Roosevelt's too). Tearing down their statues. (Isn't this exactly what ISIL's doing?) etc etc. If we're going to do all of that, then the logical progression is to change the way history is taught in public schools even more than we already have. Egypt, Rome, Greece, all slave states. Founding fathers, slave owners. Basically everyone up until about 1965 will have to be edited out.

imo, the best solution outside of leaving it alone, is to change the name from John C Calhoun, to John B Calhoun after the famous poet. No one has to spend a penny on renaming things & Calhoun loses his lake. Everyone wins.