Activists want a new name for Lake Calhoun claim racism (Atwater: condo, movies)

[Thedosius]

Originally Posted by Atalanta

All this digging up of OLD very old items to me signifies

A group, and seemingly growing group who wish not to further themselves, but to victimize themselves.
And victims therefor can make excuses for their behaviors in life.

So many examples by posters given here how so many other names named a lot of years ago could be changed and why.
Reasonable people don't do what these groups/activists are starting to do.

This is just plain idiotic and an ad hominem attack against people who disagree with you. I agree that we shouldn't rename the lake, but I don't need to cast aspersions on people on the other side.

[MidwestRedux]

An honest question to anyone who supports changing the name of the lake:

If the name Lake Calhoun is offensive and needs to be changed, where does it end? Others have pointed out similar examples of things being named after people with questionable pasts. George Washington was a slave owner... Do we have to get rid of everything with his name on it?

This issue came up four years ago. Per Wikipedia:

"Calhoun's legacy as a pro-slavery politician has led critics to question whether he is the best person to be honored. In 2011 the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board visited the issue. Their legal counsel concluded that the board could not legally change the name, as state law gives that power to the Commissioner of Natural Resources, and then only in the first 40 years after the name was designated."

I agree with northsub. John Calhoun is a historical figure that is of limited interest to most. If it weren't for the internet, very few of the people that are up in arms about this would know or care who he was and/or what his political beliefs were.

This is only a topic of conversation now because some little gutless psychopath did something evil and terrible in South Carolina. All the name changing in the world isn't going to bring those innocent people back, nor will it do anything to prevent something similar from happening in the future. The only thing changing the name would accomplish is making a few activist/narcissist type people feel like they've gone the extra mile to right the wrongs of the world, when they've actually done nothing and helped no one

It's a pretty sad reflection on contemporary society that a sizable number of people want to waste their time and our money on such nonsense. There's nothing wrong with being a do-gooder, if you're actually doing good. This "issue" is nothing more than a far-left white guilt circle jerk.

[Thedosius]

I pretty much agree with the above. In any case the name is "Lake Calhoun" not "John Calhoun". One is a body of water in Uptown Minneapolis more associated with summer and hot, semi-naked joggers and the other is a jerk who was extremely pro-slavery even for his time.

We need to spend our time thinking less about right wing trash and more about hot joggers.

[Atalanta]

Originally Posted by Thedosius

If we are going to criticize others for what cause they feel is a good use of time, then we're all hypocrites aren't we? Or can none of you think of nothing 'better to do' than post here?

Crap argument, folks, drop it. That it isn't a worthy cause to you doesn't make it an unworthy cause...though I'm against renaming Lake Calhoun.

Because it is the bigger picture

[Thedosius]

Originally Posted by Atalanta

Because it is the bigger picture

No, it's really not. It's an argument that's pretty much DOA.

[northsub]

Originally Posted by MidwestRedux

An honest question to anyone who supports changing the name of the lake:

If the name Lake Calhoun is offensive and needs to be changed, where does it end? Others have pointed out similar examples of things being named after people with questionable pasts. George Washington was a slave owner... Do we have to get rid of everything with his name on it?

This issue came up four years ago. Per Wikipedia:

"Calhoun's legacy as a pro-slavery politician has led critics to question whether he is the best person to be honored. In 2011 the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board visited the issue. Their legal counsel concluded that the board could not legally change the name, as state law gives that power to the Commissioner of Natural Resources, and then only in the first 40 years after the name was designated."

I agree with northsub. John Calhoun is a historical figure that is of limited interest to most. If it weren't for the internet, very few of the people that are up in arms about this would know or care who he was and/or what his political beliefs were.

This is only a topic of conversation now because some little gutless psychopath did something evil and terrible in South Carolina. All the name changing in the world isn't going to bring those innocent people back, nor will it do anything to prevent something similar from happening in the future. The only thing changing the name would accomplish is making a few activist/narcissist type people feel like they've gone the extra mile to right the wrongs of the world, when they've actually done nothing and helped no one

It's a pretty sad reflection on contemporary society that a sizable number of people want to waste their time and our money on such nonsense. There's nothing wrong with being a do-gooder, if you're actually doing good. This "issue" is nothing more than a far-left white guilt circle jerk.

I'm confused. Your argument claims that both this topic only came up due to recent events and that the Minneapolis Park Board was looking at the same topic in 2011. Granted, the wikipedia article on Lake Calhoun didn't mention anything about the name being controversial until yesterday.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by AmorphicDN

None of which has a fig to do with justification for or against renaming Lake Calhoun.

As you are well aware, my comment was in response to a specific post. Tangents are allowed, Mr. Forum Police Officer.

[Mason3000]

Originally Posted by Brinson

Yes, they do, when those misdeeds are so monumentally huge they damage millions of people, and that's the point to me. I personally think its a good idea because we need to send the message to current leaders-- get on the right side of history or your reputation will be tarnished and it is all you will be remembered for.

So again...Why does anyone support the Democratic Party? Their pernicious racism & support of slavery cost hundreds of thousands of lives during the civil war & slavery. Why are the activists not going after them? Why pick an arcane, pointless lake?

This isn't about Calhoun at all. It's about setting a precedent so they can continue to go after anyone they decide should be erased from the pages of history. Lindbergh, Lincoln (well not Lincoln, most are so ignorant they think Lincoln was something other than he was), the Founding Fathers, countless streets/parks/rivers/towns/schools, will all be next on the chopping block. It's the intolerance of far left, who believe they are the perfect generation & the alone are righteous, therefore they must right everyone elses's wrongs instead of contributing to society in a meaningful way. Same mentality as them trying to limit free speech on University campuses, on the internet, in the media, etc.

The problem is, as I have pointed out that their hypocrisy stinks to high heaven, as usual. They need to clean up their own yard first, but instead the tell everyone else to. Seriously, start by taking outrage with the Democratic Party and it's long history of racism. Then move onto the Progressive movement, which was also founded on racist, elitist ideals that have caused uncounted damage to people over the years they could lead by example, but of course they're not interested in living up to their own standards, they just want everyone else to.

[Mason3000]

Originally Posted by Brinson

Yes, they do, when those misdeeds are so monumentally huge they damage millions of people, and that's the point to me. I personally think its a good idea because we need to send the message to current leaders-- get on the right side of history or your reputation will be tarnished and it is all you will be remembered for.

You can't judge historical figures by today's standards. It doesn't work & it's counter-intellectual. Why are we teaching about the Roman Empire of Ancient Greece in our public schools? They were both slave states. In fact there's really not a ancient culture that we could teach our kids about because by today's standards every single one of them was terrible. So now what, no history lessons? Minneapolis is a racist, pro-slavery name by your standards. You're living on land stolen from Native Americans right now. Why not move back to Europe where your ancestors came from (presumably?) because until you do you have NO moral high ground to judge anyone else. You mention keeping our current leaders honest, but that's nonsense. Our current leaders have no idea what the social norms will be in 150 years. If you, I and our leaders of today are judged by the standards 150 years from now, why bother even trying? We literally have no idea what those standards will be, none. Democracy could be viewed as racist. The United States could be thought of as we do Nazi Germany, which makes you & I equal to Nazis by future standards. Does that mean everything we ever did is to be discounted? To pretend a person has any clue what future standards will be is folly or arrogance.

[StanleyVegas]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

As you are well aware, my comment was in response to a specific post. Tangents are allowed, Mr. Forum Police Officer.

I think that was my post, and I wasn't trying to claim there were more Republicans than Democrats opposing the Civil Rights Act. The Democrats dominated the South by tradition, and the opposition was regional. I'm also not denying that the Democrats had a long history of racism and support of slavery, but I think a distinction needs to be made between the modern party and the mostly ultra-conservative Southern Democrats who were trying to keep segregationist laws in place, as well as the members of BOTH parties who passed the act.

I don't really think renaming Lake Calhoun is warranted either, but there should be a sense of the history, if only for understanding's sake.