Activists want a new name for Lake Calhoun claim racism (deed, bill)

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by drishmael

Why didn't Civil Rights activists March on Washington in 1962? Why not 1952? A. Phillip Randolph conceived of the idea in the 1940's. So I suppose their motivations are suspect? Here's an idea: why don't we debate the idea on its merits, and you leave my motivations to me?

You make a fair point, though I'm sorry to see the snotty tone of your answer.

On the merits: it's a waste of money. See details above.

[Dennis Schroeder]

The bike store where I buy my folding bikes is in Minneapolis, and the owner is changing the name from Calhoun Cycle for this very reason.

[AmorphicDN]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

You make some good points and I agree with some of this, especially the last two sentences. I guess where we might differ is that I don't see past frivolity on the part of government as a good justification for more of it.

As to the cost, let's look at one small part of it: street signs. There are probably two dozen street signs that say Lake Calhoun Parkway. At an estimated $250 each, that is $6,000. Then there are another half dozen large overhead signs saying the same thing that run $15,000-20,000 each. So that's another $90,000. So we're up to almost $100,000 for city street signs alone. Then there all the references to Lake Calhoun Parkway in the city's computer systems. Another $100,000 to change all that. Then there are all the maps and Grand Rounds signage that the Park Board has. Plus another half dozen of those large wooden arts and crafts style signs the Park Board put up. Those must cost a fortune as they're all custom made. So we're probably up over a quarter million dollars to be borne by Minneapolis taxpayers in support of an empty gesture.

Manual of Traffic Signs - Costs of Signs

This would be a costly endeavor with no discernible benefits, so I feel it's fair to characterize this as a waste of time and money.

Glenfield, that is a really interesting find on the cost of simple signage. I would never have guessed. Still doesn't change my mind or position in the slightest though. Lol. What it does do, however, is impress on me all the more how absurdly inefficient civilization has become. Pretty sure I could make all those signs in my garage for a few grand. Be happy to do it too, for earnings on the difference.

In any case, public expenditures on things like recreation and the arts continue to be approved and spent to further enhance the character of life we mostly all subscribe to. I simply consider memorializing in the same vein. I think it is an issue of respect tha transcends the cost in dollars.

Thinking about this a little more yesterday I looked at a couple articles on Minneapolis and St Paul arts expenditures and was intrigued by a few finds. I'll link a couple below. One describes funding to "embed" artists in city planning functions to contribute to the quality of public projects. Other article discussed $1/2 million approved for artistic water fountains in the city and then Mayor Hodges axing the arts budget altogether for 2015 while St. Paul funds art as an annual budget line commitment (Minneapolis has always spent but is discretionary). But the interesting thought that crossed my mind about all this is how perhaps this name change drive for Calhoun could be funded as a civic effort outside the city's budget. A fundraiser campaign, that is. Test the citizens' resolve on the issue's importance to the city's character.

As I have moved away from Minnesota quite some time ago, catching up on some of these current issues is interesting for me. Perhaps you and other readers here might have missed some of these as well.

https://www.minnpost.com/arts-cultur...lic-art-pickle

Public Art | Midtown Greenway Coalition

Minneapolis Mayor Moves to Cut Public Art Funding

Public Art, Events & Projects - City of Minneapolis

Originally Posted by Dennis Schroeder

The bike store where I buy my folding bikes is in Minneapolis, and the owner is changing the name from Calhoun Cycle for this very reason.

Interesting! Thanks for posting that.

[BeauCharles]

This is only slightly less extreme than the California Black Caucus in Sacramento sending a letter to the mayor of a tiny fishing town on the north coast named Ft. Bragg demanding the town be renamed. Seems it was named after Braxton Bragg who was a US Army general in 1855, but went on to become an officer in the Confederate Army. Fortunately the author of a new law forbidding naming anything in California after a Confederate said Ft. Bragg was exempt (never mind the mayor said it wasn't going to happen regardless).

Wasn't the lake named in the early 1800s long before the Civil War? One could extrapolate that anything named after Washington, Jefferson, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, John Jay and James Madison must be changed since they were all slave owners. At what point does participation in slavery negate anything else that person did? The whole issue could be carried to the complete wiping of almost every dead white guy's name from the past 150-300 years expressly because of what they did to African slaves, aboriginal peoples and Mexicans in the founding and settling of this country.

[AmorphicDN]

Originally Posted by BeauCharles

This is only slightly less extreme than the California Black Caucus in Sacramento sending a letter to the mayor of a tiny fishing town on the north coast named Ft. Bragg demanding the town be renamed. Seems it was named after Braxton Bragg who was a US Army general in 1855, but went on to become an officer in the Confederate Army. Fortunately the author of a new law forbidding naming anything in California after a Confederate said Ft. Bragg was exempt (never mind the mayor said it wasn't going to happen regardless).

Wasn't the lake named in the early 1800s long before the Civil War? One could extrapolate that anything named after Washington, Jefferson, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, John Jay and James Madison must be changed since they were all slave owners. At what point does participation in slavery negate anything else that person did? The whole issue could be carried to the complete wiping of almost every dead white guy's name from the past 150-300 years expressly because of what they did to African slaves, aboriginal peoples and Mexicans in the founding and settling of this country.

Not really. Perhaps you haven't read all of this thread. THe point has been made multiple times that the difference between Calhoun and all the other white slave owners you cite of the day is that alone among them Calhoun was an avowed proponent of racism. He preached it was a "moral good." And he did so without apology until his death. Calhoun was not merely living the culture of his time. He was creating and perpetuating it even in the face of change around him.

[AmorphicDN]

Reading the other day about the remains of 40 WWII KIA/Mia being returned to the U.S. from the Tarawa Atoll in the Pacific got me thinking about the cost of social respect and character and how it relates to the issue of renaming places now honoring historical figures of character we consider inconsistent with our cultural values of today.

Wonder if any of you readers are aware of The Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO) in Washington, DC which

serves within the Department of Defense as the central agency for Prisoner Of War/Missing Personnel (POW/MP) affairs. Their mission is to find and/or account for every missing American, dead or alive, from any conflict.

The DPMO has an annual budget of $24 million. Named after an uncle MIA from WWII, I have an association with one of their departments called JPAC (Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command) which has facilities in Hawaii identifying the remains of recovered servicemen.

The Pentagon employs more than 500 joint military and civilian personnel, deploying teams throughout the world to recover missing Americans.

These deceased are long long gone. Their recovery has no economic value. It is pure respect. Do those of you who oppose the renaming of landmarks honoring the less than honorable of our past feel the money spent on DPMO / JPAC also a waste?

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by AmorphicDN

Reading the other day about the remains of 40 WWII KIA/Mia being returned to the U.S. from the Tarawa Atoll in the Pacific got me thinking about the cost of social respect and character and how it relates to the issue of renaming places now honoring historical figures of character we consider inconsistent with our cultural values of today.

Wonder if any of you readers are aware of The Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO) in Washington, DC whichThe DPMO has an annual budget of $24 million. Named after an uncle MIA from WWII, I have an association with one of their departments called JPAC (Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command) which has facilities in Hawaii identifying the remains of recovered servicemen. These deceased are long long gone. Their recovery has no economic value. It is pure respect. Do those of you who oppose the renaming of landmarks honoring the less than honorable of our past feel the money spent on DPMO / JPAC also a waste?

It's an interesting point but I don't see it as a direct parallel. No, I do not oppose honoring the veterans, but if at some point people got the idea that what happened in WWII was dishonorable (because of internment, Hiroshima, or some yet to be made judgment) I would oppose renaming landmarks named after WWII veterans.

[AmorphicDN]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

It's an interesting point but I don't see it as a direct parallel. No, I do not oppose honoring the veterans, but if at some point people got the idea that what happened in WWII was dishonorable (because of internment, Hiroshima, or some yet to be made judgment) I would oppose renaming landmarks named after WWII veterans.

I see a parallel in the issue of cost of conferring respect where due - and its inverse of denying respect where not due.

Are the black eyes of internment and Hiroshima given honor anywhere? Can you think of any other crimes of the Allies in WWII? What could be considered questionable in the future? I think there is a lack of parallel in your examples.

[Dennis Schroeder]

Originally Posted by AmorphicDN

Can you think of any other crimes of the Allies in WWII? .

The firebombing of Tokyo was the other most egregious US action that could be considered a war crime. McNamara himself admitted as much. The other most most obvious was Dresden. There is a long list of more minor allied war crimes.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by AmorphicDN

I see a parallel in the issue of cost of conferring respect where due - and its inverse of denying respect where not due.

Are the black eyes of internment and Hiroshima given honor anywhere? Can you think of any other crimes of the Allies in WWII? What could be considered questionable in the future? I think there is a lack of parallel in your examples.

Many (though not I) already view the internment of the Japanese, dropping the atomic bombs, the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden as war crimes. I'm not trying to play guess the future here, and it's not a question of whether those specific acts are now honored but whether individuals who participated in those acts are now honored, and whether it is at all conceivable that they may later fall into disrepute.

After all, the lake is called Lake Calhoun not Lake Slavery; it is named for the person. And if you don't think that John C Calhoun was widely admired at one time, you are very mistaken. He was one of the most influential Senators of his time, and along with Webster and Clay, formed the Immortal Trio. In 1957, the Senate named him one of the five greatest Senators of all time. And look how you feel about him now. History gets revised all the time.

But I don't see your point and if you don't see mine then I'd say we're both pretty well entrenched in our positions.