QuoteThe Duval County School Board will launch the process to consider renaming three additional schools, the namesakes of which are tied to the marginalization of Native Americans.
At Tuesday's School Board meeting, Ashley Smith-Juarez introduced a bill to consider renaming Andrew Jackson High School, Jean Ribault High School and Jean Ribault Middle School.
"We began with six schools named for Confederate officers. We should continue with schools that are named for people responsible for systematically marginalizing and killing Indigenous people," Smith-Juarez said.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/education/2020/08/04/duval-school-board-consider-renaming-additional-schools/3295027001/
Admittedly, I'm having a hard time with this one.....if we decide that Andrew Jackson needs to be renamed, I do feel like there isn't much difference between the High School and the city.
Quote from: Steve on August 05, 2020, 08:20:06 AM
Admittedly, I'm having a hard time with this one.....if we decide that Andrew Jackson needs to be renamed, I do feel like there isn't much difference between the High School and the city.
Keep in mind the school board and the city council are different entities. Just because the school board decides schools should change their names, doesn't mean that the city will be forced to change its name. Also, this particular motion doesn't mean the names will even change; just that a process will begin to look into it. Jackson (and many Americans) and Ribault (and many European explorers) who helped shaped our nation into what it is today; often come with questionable actions framed in modern context. This is definitely a discussion worth having.
The above though, should not be mixed with the Confederates. They chose to rebel against the US for the purpose of continuing slavery and shouldn't be honored at all in the country they rebelled against, especially in a county that is 30% African American. Their legacy should be relegated to museums and the history books.
Side note; below is where you can donate to help offset the cost of changing the confederate-named schools:
https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/WebLink.aspx?name=E344655&id=28 (https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/WebLink.aspx?name=E344655&id=28)
Quote from: itsfantastic1 on August 05, 2020, 09:55:43 AM
Keep in mind the school board and the city council are different entities. Just because the school board decides schools should change their names, doesn't mean that the city will be forced to change its name. Also, this particular motion doesn't mean the names will even change; just that a process will begin to look into it. Jackson (and many Americans) and Ribault (and many European explorers) who helped shaped our nation into what it is today; often come with questionable actions framed in modern context. This is definitely a discussion worth having.
I mean, their actions were questionable in the context of their own time. Jackson effectively ignored the Supreme Court's ruling in Worcester v. Georgia.
Quote from: itsfantastic1 on August 05, 2020, 09:55:43 AM
The above though, should not be mixed with the Confederates. They chose to rebel against the US for the purpose of continuing slavery and shouldn't be honored at all in the country they rebelled against, especially in a county that is 30% African American. Their legacy should be relegated to museums and the history books.
I think this take makes sense.
I mean literally anyone in history is on record doing things openly that today we'd consider deplorable. I mean, in the 1990's Congress passed and Clinton signed Don't Ask Don't Tell. Could anyone imagine any elected official even proposing to put that back into place?
I just think that overall if we're looking for the perfect person we're going to struggle to find anyone. All four Presidents on Mount Rushmore would be forced to resign from office (if not jailed) for things they did that were perfectly legal at the time. Under this logic where does removal and renaming end? Renaming of the Capital?
I do agree that the Confederacy is very different in that they sought to split our country over slavery. Add to that the reasons many of the monuments were erected (Jim Crow), and I'm on board with the removal of the monuments (NOTE: NOT Civil War markers that denote things that happened in a neutral and factual manner. I'm not on board with this)
Slippery, slippery, slippery slope.
Still waiting for this city to get past the superficial name changing stuff and put its money and policies where its mouth has been the last few months, when it comes to addressing systemic racism and public investment. One could also argue that its a dishonor to both JWJ and veterans to have their names associated with this dated looking, dead public space. Don't just name it....put some money into these things.
QuoteI mean literally anyone in history is on record doing things openly that today we'd consider deplorable. I mean, in the 1990's Congress passed and Clinton signed Don't Ask Don't Tell. Could anyone imagine any elected official even proposing to put that back into place?
Actually, the policy BEFORE 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was 1) no gays allowed in the military 2) actively try to ferret out any gays that were already in 3) coerce said victims of #2 to expose others 4) give dishonorable discharges to those caught by #2 & #3. The results of the later often destroying lives in the process. DADT was quite unpopular. Clinton had just been elected and paid a heavy political price in the process as Democrats took a massive beating in the next midterm.
Quote from: vicupstate on August 05, 2020, 05:01:11 PM
QuoteI mean literally anyone in history is on record doing things openly that today we'd consider deplorable. I mean, in the 1990's Congress passed and Clinton signed Don't Ask Don't Tell. Could anyone imagine any elected official even proposing to put that back into place?
Actually, the policy BEFORE 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was 1) no gays allowed in the military 2) actively try to ferret out any gays that were already in 3) coerce said victims of #2 to expose others 4) give dishonorable discharges to those caught by #2 & #3. The results of the later often destroying lives in the process. DADT was quite unpopular. Clinton had just been elected and paid a heavy political price in the process as Democrats took a massive beating in the next midterm.
Not to mention lying under oath about affairs with interns... and not offering to pay a dry cleaning bill...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 05, 2020, 05:16:11 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 05, 2020, 05:01:11 PM
QuoteI mean literally anyone in history is on record doing things openly that today we'd consider deplorable. I mean, in the 1990's Congress passed and Clinton signed Don't Ask Don't Tell. Could anyone imagine any elected official even proposing to put that back into place?
Actually, the policy BEFORE 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was 1) no gays allowed in the military 2) actively try to ferret out any gays that were already in 3) coerce said victims of #2 to expose others 4) give dishonorable discharges to those caught by #2 & #3. The results of the later often destroying lives in the process. DADT was quite unpopular. Clinton had just been elected and paid a heavy political price in the process as Democrats took a massive beating in the next midterm.
Not to mention lying under oath about affairs with interns... and not offering to pay a dry cleaning bill...
That was AFTER the 1994 midterms. The hypocrites that prosecuted that hit-job bullshit were having affairs themselves.
Quote from: vicupstate on August 05, 2020, 05:22:44 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 05, 2020, 05:16:11 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 05, 2020, 05:01:11 PM
QuoteI mean literally anyone in history is on record doing things openly that today we'd consider deplorable. I mean, in the 1990's Congress passed and Clinton signed Don't Ask Don't Tell. Could anyone imagine any elected official even proposing to put that back into place?
Actually, the policy BEFORE 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was 1) no gays allowed in the military 2) actively try to ferret out any gays that were already in 3) coerce said victims of #2 to expose others 4) give dishonorable discharges to those caught by #2 & #3. The results of the later often destroying lives in the process. DADT was quite unpopular. Clinton had just been elected and paid a heavy political price in the process as Democrats took a massive beating in the next midterm.
Not to mention lying under oath about affairs with interns... and not offering to pay a dry cleaning bill...
That was AFTER the 1994 midterms. The hypocrites that prosecuted that hit-job bullshit were having affairs themselves.
After the midterms?? So what?? We are talking about why there will not likely be a Bill Clinton middle school or high school... I suppose in his defense that all happened before what we all now know would be a completely unacceptable office relationship between CEO and an intern...lol
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 05, 2020, 05:35:35 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 05, 2020, 05:22:44 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 05, 2020, 05:16:11 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 05, 2020, 05:01:11 PM
QuoteI mean literally anyone in history is on record doing things openly that today we'd consider deplorable. I mean, in the 1990's Congress passed and Clinton signed Don't Ask Don't Tell. Could anyone imagine any elected official even proposing to put that back into place?
Actually, the policy BEFORE 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was 1) no gays allowed in the military 2) actively try to ferret out any gays that were already in 3) coerce said victims of #2 to expose others 4) give dishonorable discharges to those caught by #2 & #3. The results of the later often destroying lives in the process. DADT was quite unpopular. Clinton had just been elected and paid a heavy political price in the process as Democrats took a massive beating in the next midterm.
Not to mention lying under oath about affairs with interns... and not offering to pay a dry cleaning bill...
That was AFTER the 1994 midterms. The hypocrites that prosecuted that hit-job bullshit were having affairs themselves.
After the midterms?? So what?? ... I suppose in his defense that all happened before what we all now know would be a completely unacceptable office relationship between CEO and an intern...lol
You missed my point
entirely. I was commenting on the POLICY of Don't Ask. Don't Tell. I was not in any way commenting on the idea of naming or renaming anything for anyone.
Steve's comment implied that DADT was bad, even immoral policy. He made no other reference to anything associated with Clinton. He implied it was a mark against Clinton.
I proceeded to comment that DADT was, in fact, a very substantial improvement over the prior policy. I further stated Clinton paid dearly for doing so. In other words, DADT was a significant accomplishment for Clinton, not something he should be criticized for.
You then made reference to the Lewisky affair. I took that to mean that YOU were saying that the political price Clinton paid in '94 was related to THAT, as opposed to pushback from DADT. Ergo, I stated that was not possible as the midterms occurred before the Lewisky affair was known of.
As to your point, if Clinton is to be held to account for the affair, so should the hypocrites who were running a hatchet job about things they themselves were doing.
Quote from: vicupstate on August 05, 2020, 06:11:11 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 05, 2020, 05:35:35 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 05, 2020, 05:22:44 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 05, 2020, 05:16:11 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 05, 2020, 05:01:11 PM
QuoteI mean literally anyone in history is on record doing things openly that today we'd consider deplorable. I mean, in the 1990's Congress passed and Clinton signed Don't Ask Don't Tell. Could anyone imagine any elected official even proposing to put that back into place?
Actually, the policy BEFORE 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was 1) no gays allowed in the military 2) actively try to ferret out any gays that were already in 3) coerce said victims of #2 to expose others 4) give dishonorable discharges to those caught by #2 & #3. The results of the later often destroying lives in the process. DADT was quite unpopular. Clinton had just been elected and paid a heavy political price in the process as Democrats took a massive beating in the next midterm.
Not to mention lying under oath about affairs with interns... and not offering to pay a dry cleaning bill...
That was AFTER the 1994 midterms. The hypocrites that prosecuted that hit-job bullshit were having affairs themselves.
After the midterms?? So what?? ... I suppose in his defense that all happened before what we all now know would be a completely unacceptable office relationship between CEO and an intern...lol
You missed my point entirely.
I was commenting on the POLICY of Don't Ask. Don't Tell. I was not in any way commenting on the idea of naming or renaming anything for anyone.
Steve's comment implied that DADT was bad, even immoral policy. He made no other reference to anything associated with Clinton. He implied it was a mark against Clinton.
I proceeded to comment that DADT was, in fact, a very substantial improvement over the prior policy. I further stated Clinton paid dearly for doing so. In other words, DADT was a significant accomplishment for Clinton, not something he should be criticized for.
You then made reference to the Lewisky affair. I took that to mean that YOU were saying that the political price Clinton paid in '94 was related to THAT, as opposed to pushback from DADT. Ergo, I stated that was not possible as the midterms occurred before the Lewisky affair was known of.
As to your point, if Clinton is to be held to account for the affair, so should the hypocrites who were running a hatchet job about things they themselves were doing.
Ok Vic... back to the topic of holding people of long past era's to today's standards of morality. Apparently you are ok with many things as long as other people are doing it too... got it...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 05, 2020, 06:57:54 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 05, 2020, 06:11:11 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 05, 2020, 05:35:35 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 05, 2020, 05:22:44 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 05, 2020, 05:16:11 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 05, 2020, 05:01:11 PM
QuoteI mean literally anyone in history is on record doing things openly that today we'd consider deplorable. I mean, in the 1990's Congress passed and Clinton signed Don't Ask Don't Tell. Could anyone imagine any elected official even proposing to put that back into place?
Actually, the policy BEFORE 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was 1) no gays allowed in the military 2) actively try to ferret out any gays that were already in 3) coerce said victims of #2 to expose others 4) give dishonorable discharges to those caught by #2 & #3. The results of the later often destroying lives in the process. DADT was quite unpopular. Clinton had just been elected and paid a heavy political price in the process as Democrats took a massive beating in the next midterm.
Not to mention lying under oath about affairs with interns... and not offering to pay a dry cleaning bill...
That was AFTER the 1994 midterms. The hypocrites that prosecuted that hit-job bullshit were having affairs themselves.
After the midterms?? So what?? ... I suppose in his defense that all happened before what we all now know would be a completely unacceptable office relationship between CEO and an intern...lol
You missed my point entirely.
I was commenting on the POLICY of Don't Ask. Don't Tell. I was not in any way commenting on the idea of naming or renaming anything for anyone.
Steve's comment implied that DADT was bad, even immoral policy. He made no other reference to anything associated with Clinton. He implied it was a mark against Clinton.
I proceeded to comment that DADT was, in fact, a very substantial improvement over the prior policy. I further stated Clinton paid dearly for doing so. In other words, DADT was a significant accomplishment for Clinton, not something he should be criticized for.
You then made reference to the Lewisky affair. I took that to mean that YOU were saying that the political price Clinton paid in '94 was related to THAT, as opposed to pushback from DADT. Ergo, I stated that was not possible as the midterms occurred before the Lewisky affair was known of.
As to your point, if Clinton is to be held to account for the affair, so should the hypocrites who were running a hatchet job about things they themselves were doing.
Ok Vic... back to the topic of holding people of long past era's to today's standards of morality. Apparently you are ok with many things as long as other people are doing it too... got it...
Sorry that I didn't let you get your totally off-topic Breibart hit go unanswered.
I never even brought up Clinton's affair. That was your doing. Nor did I condone what he did. I added critical context to another poster's version of events involving a Clinton policy initiative, that they raised into the thread.
Take your Clinton hate over to Red State.
Enough.
Well....THAT escalated quickly.
The whole point of the comparison is that Bill Clinton, who I feel did a solid job as president put his name on a policy that would be unheard of 30 years later. I'm well aware it was an improvement over the previous.
My sole point was just that if we look back at historic leaders were likely to find things with all of them that would be considered abhorrent today-obviously some worse than others.
To lakelander's point (and moving the hell on from whatever political dispute I unintentially caused), I think things like finding the $1.8M now to actually build out Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing Park is an example of actually honoring our past and the folks behind it.
And MY point... Vic, Steve, and Taca was we should clearly stop naming things after flawed humans and groups of humans... City park...Central park... Public school 1,2,3. Let me add stop using mascots like rebels, Seminoles, redskins, chiefs, vikings, ect. Hell... even veterans for that matter.
Quote from: Steve on August 05, 2020, 11:20:46 PM
To lakelander's point (and moving the hell on from whatever political dispute I unintentially caused), I think things like finding the $1.8M now to actually build out Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing Park is an example of actually honoring our past and the folks behind it.
I was told the other day that this project was funded. I wonder what the overall price is? I always assumed it would cost more than $1.8 million. If it only costs $1.8 million, council and the mayor's office should find a way to get that in this upcoming budget instead of next year.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 06, 2020, 07:39:17 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 05, 2020, 11:20:46 PM
To lakelander's point (and moving the hell on from whatever political dispute I unintentially caused), I think things like finding the $1.8M now to actually build out Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing Park is an example of actually honoring our past and the folks behind it.
I was told the other day that this project was funded. I wonder what the overall price is? I always assumed it would cost more than $1.8 million. If it only costs $1.8 million, council and the mayor's office should find a way to get that in this upcoming budget instead of next year.
I recently heard it was funded for FY21-22 (next year). And I agree....you'd think they should be able to find $1.8M without moving too many rocks.
Here's one thing that happened following the name change to Westside High. Changing names may not be the cure-all.
https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/violent-fight-caught-on-camera-at-westside-high/716481912/
Another thing happened too. Nothing else in Jax is named after the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan who had nothing to do with the city's story. I'm the first to agree that changing names won't change the ultimate outcome of systemic challenges this city faces. We'll need to put real money and dedicate longterm committment in order to become a more inclusive city. However, there was no logical reason to name that particular school after a KKK figure unrelated to Jax or keep it it as the name of a school with a majority black student body.
As a young man, Mr. Byrd was an 'exalted cyclops' of the Ku Klux Klan. Although he apologized numerous times for what he considered a youthful indiscretion, his early votes in Congress--notably a filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act--reflected racially separatist views.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 06, 2020, 06:48:58 AM
And MY point... Vic, Steve, and Taca was we should clearly stop naming things after flawed humans and groups of humans... City park...Central park... Public school 1,2,3. Let me add stop using mascots like rebels, Seminoles, redskins, chiefs, vikings, ect. Hell... even veterans for that matter.
I agree with you on that 100% BT.
Quote from: Adam White on August 09, 2020, 04:07:04 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 06, 2020, 06:48:58 AM
And MY point... Vic, Steve, and Taca was we should clearly stop naming things after flawed humans and groups of humans... City park...Central park... Public school 1,2,3. Let me add stop using mascots like rebels, Seminoles, redskins, chiefs, vikings, ect. Hell... even veterans for that matter.
I agree with you on that 100% BT.
Me too. I think they should call Jackson P.S. 35.
Quote from: Adam White on August 09, 2020, 04:07:04 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 06, 2020, 06:48:58 AM
And MY point... Vic, Steve, and Taca was we should clearly stop naming things after flawed humans and groups of humans... City park...Central park... Public school 1,2,3. Let me add stop using mascots like rebels, Seminoles, redskins, chiefs, vikings, ect. Hell... even veterans for that matter.
I agree with you on that 100% BT.
To what end though? While I agree with you in concept about things going forward, trying to identify who is a "flawed" individual in the eyes of the year 2150 is impossible. What's to say that we don't pick a mascot that universally seems fine now and won't be fine in 150 years?
Where I differ on the confederate monuments is the intent behind them. Clearly there was ill intent when they were erected. Same with the naming of schools for the Confederate leadership (Jefferson Davis, etc.).
I really don't think that intent existed when it came to Jean Ribault or Andrew Jackson, despite their past (Jackson's in particular). I don't think anyone was actually thinking about trying to put down Native Americans when they did it. Again, the 1950's south when they named things for confederates was different.
Quote from: Steve on August 10, 2020, 09:42:00 AM
Quote from: Adam White on August 09, 2020, 04:07:04 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 06, 2020, 06:48:58 AM
And MY point... Vic, Steve, and Taca was we should clearly stop naming things after flawed humans and groups of humans... City park...Central park... Public school 1,2,3. Let me add stop using mascots like rebels, Seminoles, redskins, chiefs, vikings, ect. Hell... even veterans for that matter.
I agree with you on that 100% BT.
To what end though? While I agree with you in concept about things going forward, trying to identify who is a "flawed" individual in the eyes of the year 2150 is impossible. What's to say that we don't pick a mascot that universally seems fine now and won't be fine in 150 years?
Where I differ on the confederate monuments is the intent behind them. Clearly there was ill intent when they were erected. Same with the naming of schools for the Confederate leadership (Jefferson Davis, etc.).
I really don't think that intent existed when it came to Jean Ribault or Andrew Jackson, despite their past (Jackson's in particular). I don't think anyone was actually thinking about trying to put down Native Americans when they did it. Again, the 1950's south when they named things for confederates was different.
Huh? Just don't name schools after people. Sorted. Teams don't need to be named after people or groups of people. There are plenty of sports teams named after animals or other things. (Not sure if the Buffalo Bills are named after Buffalo Bill, though - that's just a weird name).
And no team needs a mascot. I don't think too many tears will be shed if those are phased out. That said, Mr Met and Phillie Phanatic seem harmless enough.
I do love this guy, though:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/The_Oriole_Bird_2014.jpg)
Quote from: Adam White on August 10, 2020, 09:55:34 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 10, 2020, 09:42:00 AM
Quote from: Adam White on August 09, 2020, 04:07:04 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 06, 2020, 06:48:58 AM
And MY point... Vic, Steve, and Taca was we should clearly stop naming things after flawed humans and groups of humans... City park...Central park... Public school 1,2,3. Let me add stop using mascots like rebels, Seminoles, redskins, chiefs, vikings, ect. Hell... even veterans for that matter.
I agree with you on that 100% BT.
To what end though? While I agree with you in concept about things going forward, trying to identify who is a "flawed" individual in the eyes of the year 2150 is impossible. What's to say that we don't pick a mascot that universally seems fine now and won't be fine in 150 years?
Where I differ on the confederate monuments is the intent behind them. Clearly there was ill intent when they were erected. Same with the naming of schools for the Confederate leadership (Jefferson Davis, etc.).
I really don't think that intent existed when it came to Jean Ribault or Andrew Jackson, despite their past (Jackson's in particular). I don't think anyone was actually thinking about trying to put down Native Americans when they did it. Again, the 1950's south when they named things for confederates was different.
Huh? Just don't name schools after people. Sorted. Teams don't need to be named after people or groups of people. There are plenty of sports teams named after animals or other things. (Not sure if the Buffalo Bills are named after Buffalo Bill, though - that's just a weird name).
And no team needs a mascot. I don't think too many tears will be shed if those are phased out. That said, Mr Met and Phillie Phanatic seem harmless enough.
I do love this guy, though:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/The_Oriole_Bird_2014.jpg)
Sigh....I understand what you're saying but I am having a hard time with it.
Also, this could solve the issue of go-forward, but it doesn't solve the issue of the past and renaming. For example, if you rename Andrew Jackson high school then the next call would be the city. That's not something I'm in favor of for many reasons, one of which is the astronomical amount of money it would cost. So every business needs to spend this money just because a group of people decide the city name should change?
I have a hard time with it too... however it seems in this day and age we probably need to remove as many triggers of this sort. I agree that no offence may be intended with many names... but apparently there are people or groups of people who can be offended to the point of violence and it just isn't worth it... including veterans. This pains me because as a veteran myself I know vets have committed war crimes and atrocities. Veterans are an example of a group of flawed humans that we should stop naming things after...
I find this entire thing sad... but it's where we are...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 10, 2020, 12:28:23 PM
I have a hard time with it too... however it seems in this day and age we probably need to remove as many triggers of this sort. I agree that no offence may be intended with many names... but apparently there are people or groups of people who can be offended to the point of violence and it just isn't worth it... including veterans. This pains me because as a veteran myself I know vets have committed war crimes and atrocities. Veterans are an example of a group of flawed humans that we should stop naming things after...
I find this entire thing sad... but it's where we are...
This is where I disagree. Just because an angry mob defaces something or tries to burn something down doesn't mean what they're defacing or burning down is wrong.
Again I use the example: the confederacy was a group set on keeping black people as slaves....to the point that they'd fight to the death to break the country up. That is very different than some people like U.S. Grant that kept slaves at one point but then gave them up.
To me under that same logic, there were plenty of people that fought to keep the lunch counters all white in Downtown Jacksonville. They didn't deface buildings or burn things down....they beat blacks in order to do it. If you asked those white people that engaged in the violence they would probably say they were triggered by the blacks sitting down at the lunch counter. Clearly this is a view that 99.9% of America would view today as bull crap and racist. But at the time that's what certain people felt.
Quote from: Steve on August 10, 2020, 12:40:01 PM
To me under that same logic, there were plenty of people that fought to keep the lunch counters all white in Downtown Jacksonville. They didn't deface buildings or burn things down....they beat blacks in order to do it. If you asked those white people that engaged in the violence they would probably say they were triggered by the blacks sitting down at the lunch counter. Clearly this is a view that 99.9% of America would view today as bull crap and racist. But at the time that's what certain people felt.
I think your percentage is quite a bit too high. After all, the current POTUS enjoys an approval rating of around 40%.
Quote from: Steve on August 10, 2020, 12:40:01 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 10, 2020, 12:28:23 PM
I have a hard time with it too... however it seems in this day and age we probably need to remove as many triggers of this sort. I agree that no offence may be intended with many names... but apparently there are people or groups of people who can be offended to the point of violence and it just isn't worth it... including veterans. This pains me because as a veteran myself I know vets have committed war crimes and atrocities. Veterans are an example of a group of flawed humans that we should stop naming things after...
I find this entire thing sad... but it's where we are...
This is where I disagree. Just because an angry mob defaces something or tries to burn something down doesn't mean what they're defacing or burning down is wrong.
Again I use the example: the confederacy was a group set on keeping black people as slaves....to the point that they'd fight to the death to break the country up. That is very different than some people like U.S. Grant that kept slaves at one point but then gave them up.
To me under that same logic, there were plenty of people that fought to keep the lunch counters all white in Downtown Jacksonville. They didn't deface buildings or burn things down....they beat blacks in order to do it. If you asked those white people that engaged in the violence they would probably say they were triggered by the blacks sitting down at the lunch counter. Clearly this is a view that 99.9% of America would view today as bull crap and racist. But at the time that's what certain people felt.
If I understand... The gist of your argument is that there is a line... or a limit to renaming or not naming things after flawed humans. I myself agree... but there is a large contingent who want Jefferson, Washington, Jackson, Grant, and others removed from their current status and "redesignated". They are vandalizing and defacing monuments nearly daily with almost no outcry or resistance...
Quote from: Adam White on August 10, 2020, 09:55:34 AM
(Not sure if the Buffalo Bills are named after Buffalo Bill, though - that's just a weird name).
Factoid of the day. The NFL's Bills were named after the AAFC's Buffalo Bills who were originally named the Buffalo Bisons, but were renamed after a short time after, yes, Buffalo Bill.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 10, 2020, 01:48:10 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 10, 2020, 12:40:01 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 10, 2020, 12:28:23 PM
I have a hard time with it too... however it seems in this day and age we probably need to remove as many triggers of this sort. I agree that no offence may be intended with many names... but apparently there are people or groups of people who can be offended to the point of violence and it just isn't worth it... including veterans. This pains me because as a veteran myself I know vets have committed war crimes and atrocities. Veterans are an example of a group of flawed humans that we should stop naming things after...
I find this entire thing sad... but it's where we are...
This is where I disagree. Just because an angry mob defaces something or tries to burn something down doesn't mean what they're defacing or burning down is wrong.
Again I use the example: the confederacy was a group set on keeping black people as slaves....to the point that they'd fight to the death to break the country up. That is very different than some people like U.S. Grant that kept slaves at one point but then gave them up.
To me under that same logic, there were plenty of people that fought to keep the lunch counters all white in Downtown Jacksonville. They didn't deface buildings or burn things down....they beat blacks in order to do it. If you asked those white people that engaged in the violence they would probably say they were triggered by the blacks sitting down at the lunch counter. Clearly this is a view that 99.9% of America would view today as bull crap and racist. But at the time that's what certain people felt.
If I understand... The gist of your argument is that there is a line... or a limit to renaming or not naming things after flawed humans. I myself agree... but there is a large contingent who want Jefferson, Washington, Jackson, Grant, and others removed from their current status and "redesignated". They are vandalizing and defacing monuments nearly daily with almost no outcry or resistance...
I definitely oppose those people. But I'm not sure how I'm supposed to resist defacing monuments. I'm certainly not going to get into defacing things or violence. And I'm really not in the mood to stand guard all night myself on these things.
Quote from: Steve on August 10, 2020, 03:07:26 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 10, 2020, 01:48:10 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 10, 2020, 12:40:01 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 10, 2020, 12:28:23 PM
I have a hard time with it too... however it seems in this day and age we probably need to remove as many triggers of this sort. I agree that no offence may be intended with many names... but apparently there are people or groups of people who can be offended to the point of violence and it just isn't worth it... including veterans. This pains me because as a veteran myself I know vets have committed war crimes and atrocities. Veterans are an example of a group of flawed humans that we should stop naming things after...
I find this entire thing sad... but it's where we are...
This is where I disagree. Just because an angry mob defaces something or tries to burn something down doesn't mean what they're defacing or burning down is wrong.
Again I use the example: the confederacy was a group set on keeping black people as slaves....to the point that they'd fight to the death to break the country up. That is very different than some people like U.S. Grant that kept slaves at one point but then gave them up.
To me under that same logic, there were plenty of people that fought to keep the lunch counters all white in Downtown Jacksonville. They didn't deface buildings or burn things down....they beat blacks in order to do it. If you asked those white people that engaged in the violence they would probably say they were triggered by the blacks sitting down at the lunch counter. Clearly this is a view that 99.9% of America would view today as bull crap and racist. But at the time that's what certain people felt.
If I understand... The gist of your argument is that there is a line... or a limit to renaming or not naming things after flawed humans. I myself agree... but there is a large contingent who want Jefferson, Washington, Jackson, Grant, and others removed from their current status and "redesignated". They are vandalizing and defacing monuments nearly daily with almost no outcry or resistance...
I definitely oppose those people. But I'm not sure how I'm supposed to resist defacing monuments. I'm certainly not going to get into defacing things or violence. And I'm really not in the mood to stand guard all night myself on these things.
In the cities where the violence and vandalism is occurring local governments have shown a high level of either impotence or tacit approval... most citizens are silent to avoid being "cancelled"...
I wouldn't be surprised if the pendulum swung the other way at some point, and there was pushback on these name changes. Not only because of the fact that most don't truly find things named "Ribault", "Jefferson," or "Washington" offensive, but because it's a focus on a mostly symbolic change rather than one that really improves anyone's life.
I'm mostly interested to see if the current students will get a voice in this change. Forest High went through after genuine community engagement. Will that happen here? Do we even have a sense of what the students want?
If DCPS follows its own rules, there will be community engagement. Current students are just one of several constituencies to be involved.
From the DCPS Policy Handbook, Section 8.59 Naming or Renaming Schools
https://dcps.duvalschools.org/Page/9598
Quote
III. Renaming an Existing School
A. The Superintendent, any School Board member, or one of the initiating entities named below, may submit a written request to the School Board during a regular Board meeting, requesting the Board rename an existing school. An "initiating entity" is defined as:
1. SAC of the school;
2. PTA of the school;
3. At least 75% of the school's students;
4. Alumni of the school (the minimum number of which is at least 75% of the school's current student body population, as evidenced by a signed petition indicating the graduate's name and graduation year)*; or
5. Community members within the school's attendance zone (the minimum number of which is at least 75% of the school's current student body population, as evidenced by a signed petition indicating the community member's name and address within the attendance zone)*.
*Note: The district will have no obligation to verify the accuracy of the petitions presented.
B. Upon receipt of the written request described in subsection III.A. above, the School Board shall decide by a majority vote of the Board whether to accept the written request and refer the matter to the Superintendent for further review. If the School Board accepts the written request, then the Superintendent shall establish procedures for renaming the school, which include soliciting community input from the following:
1. SAC of the school;
2. PTA of the school;
3. Students of the school;
4. Community members within the school's attendance zone;
5. Members of the school's faculty and staff; and
6. Alumni of the school.
C. The Superintendent shall offer to the School Board for its decision by a vote of the Board, either a proposed new name to the Board or recommend no change to the school's existing name. The School Board may, after considering the submission of the Superintendent's recommendation, accept or reject the recommendation, or request another name be proposed for its consideration, until the Board makes a final determination of the petition to rename the school.
IV. Requirements applicable to naming or renaming a school:
A. The name of the school shall not be of a person (whether living or deceased); and
B. The name shall not be in conflict with an existing name of a school.
The Board initiated the name change process, so now they should be onto "B" where the Superintendent solicits input from that list of people and groups. If I remember correctly, they held public meetings at Westside HS over that name change, as well as Public Hearings at scheduled Board meetings.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 10, 2020, 04:44:28 PM
If DCPS follows its own rules, there will be community engagement. Current students are just one of several constituencies to be involved.
From the DCPS Policy Handbook, Section 8.59 Naming or Renaming Schools
https://dcps.duvalschools.org/Page/9598
Quote
III. Renaming an Existing School
A. The Superintendent, any School Board member, or one of the initiating entities named below, may submit a written request to the School Board during a regular Board meeting, requesting the Board rename an existing school. An "initiating entity" is defined as:
1. SAC of the school;
2. PTA of the school;
3. At least 75% of the school's students;
4. Alumni of the school (the minimum number of which is at least 75% of the school's current student body population, as evidenced by a signed petition indicating the graduate's name and graduation year)*; or
5. Community members within the school's attendance zone (the minimum number of which is at least 75% of the school's current student body population, as evidenced by a signed petition indicating the community member's name and address within the attendance zone)*.
*Note: The district will have no obligation to verify the accuracy of the petitions presented.
B. Upon receipt of the written request described in subsection III.A. above, the School Board shall decide by a majority vote of the Board whether to accept the written request and refer the matter to the Superintendent for further review. If the School Board accepts the written request, then the Superintendent shall establish procedures for renaming the school, which include soliciting community input from the following:
1. SAC of the school;
2. PTA of the school;
3. Students of the school;
4. Community members within the school's attendance zone;
5. Members of the school's faculty and staff; and
6. Alumni of the school.
C. The Superintendent shall offer to the School Board for its decision by a vote of the Board, either a proposed new name to the Board or recommend no change to the school's existing name. The School Board may, after considering the submission of the Superintendent's recommendation, accept or reject the recommendation, or request another name be proposed for its consideration, until the Board makes a final determination of the petition to rename the school.
IV. Requirements applicable to naming or renaming a school:
A. The name of the school shall not be of a person (whether living or deceased); and
B. The name shall not be in conflict with an existing name of a school.
The Board initiated the name change process, so now they should be onto "B" where the Superintendent solicits input from that list of people and groups. If I remember correctly, they held public meetings at Westside HS over that name change, as well as Public Hearings at scheduled Board meetings.
Thanks, good to know.
Thank you Charles... :)
Years later after renaming Lake Calhoun to Lake Some-Dakota-Name-Even-Though-They-Took-The-Land-From-The-Ojibwe..... years after Minneapolis renamed the lake:
a) Shooting are up 140%
b) Murders are up 58%
c) Poverty amongst First Nationers is up 26%
d) Homeless......
well, ya.
What is in a name can be incredibly important. 92% of things that are named don't matter.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on August 10, 2020, 05:25:44 PM
Years later after renaming Lake Calhoun to Lake Some-Dakota-Name-Even-Though-They-Took-The-Land-From-The-Ojibwe..... years after Minneapolis renamed the lake:
a) Shooting are up 140%
b) Murders are up 58%
c) Poverty amongst First Nationers is up 26%
d) Homeless......
well, ya.
What is in a name can be incredibly important. 92% of things that are named don't matter.
And I got indigestion yesterday, too. Oh, the folly of renaming the lake.
(It's Bde Maka Ska, by the way).
For your consideration and enjoyment: It's the longest lake name in the world, with 14 syllables and a catchy little song to teach you how to pronounce it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLtS-u32miY
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/03/25/robert-e-lee-high-school-renaming-jacksonville-florida-orig-jk.cnn
^ I have a family member that went to Lee decades ago. They would be proud to have the name changed. It's time for it.
Pretty amazing the comments in the video made at the meeting in support of retaining the name. Defending slavery? Are you kidding me. I am no biblical scholar, but the use of the "citation" attributed to Jesus to defend slavery should be offensive to Christians everywhere.
I recently reviewed the award winning film, Harriet, the movie about Harriet Tubman. If you want to better understand the horrors of slavery, watch that movie and then tell me how you defend Robert E. Lee and those that stood for slavery.
SIde point - Lee's easy to defend. He was key in preserving Union and minimizing guerrilla fighting after the war was over. He was a key figure in publicly accepting the end of slavery.
That said, schools aren't museums. They exist to teach kids, not preserve history. Public schools shouldn't have been named after Lee in 1880 let alone 1980 let alone today.
Lee got a school named after him because the Union lost that insurrection. That was fine in sense the goal was preserve Union. The tradeoff though was these sort of things left lurking about.
I have no issue taking issue with the overly simplistic idea that someone who fought for the CSA is just bad, bad, bad. FFS, the way Sherman made Georgia howl was arguably chalk full of war crimes, even things that in the day were seen as wrong. But those aren't the real issue.
Our public parks and buildings are a reflection OF WHO WE WANT TO BE. They're not for persevering history. That's what plaques and museums and parks are for. So let's name these schools after Michael Jordan, Oprah Winfrey, Mae Jemison, A.L.Lewis, Alex Karp, Elon Musk, et al. Hell, let's do it with the Jefferson's and the Washington's. Don't worry, kids have history classes that, maybe, just maybe, will spend a lot of time talking about them.
But that's just what I feel. What really matters is what name(s) do the people who go to these schools want. Long as it's not Cardi B, Ricky what's his name or Madonna, let's do it.
Uh... huh.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on March 27, 2021, 04:25:19 PM
SIde point - Lee's easy to defend. He was key in preserving Union and minimizing guerrilla fighting after the war was over. He was a key figure in publicly accepting the end of slavery.
Yet far more significantly than that, he was key in enabling the Civil War in the first place. He chose to support the traitors over his country. Let's be serious, people aren't defending Lee because of anything he did after the war. Especially when their defenses include things like "Jesus himself was never against slavery" and "If this high school is having problems, how long has it been predominantly African American?"
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on March 27, 2021, 04:25:19 PM
Lee got a school named after him because the Union lost that insurrection. That was fine in sense the goal was preserve Union. The tradeoff though was these sort of things left lurking about.
That, perhaps ironically, has a lot more to do with who was in the White House following the Civil War.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on March 27, 2021, 04:25:19 PM
Our public parks and buildings are a reflection OF WHO WE WANT TO BE. They're not for persevering history. That's what plaques and museums and parks are for. So let's name these schools after Michael Jordan, Oprah Winfrey, Mae Jemison, A.L.Lewis, Alex Karp, Elon Musk, et al. Hell, let's do it with the Jefferson's and the Washington's. Don't worry, kids have history classes that, maybe, just maybe, will spend a lot of time talking about them.
Better yet, why don't we just name them after who we are, or rather,
where we are? There's a reason no one ever complains about the name of Mandarin High, or Atlantic Coast High, or Westside High. Who we want to be can come from what happens inside those buildings, or at those public parks, rather than what they're named. And we get to avoid the mess of arguing over their names later on.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on March 27, 2021, 04:25:19 PM
But that's just what I feel. What really matters is what name(s) do the people who go to these schools want. Long as it's not Cardi B, Ricky what's his name or Madonna, let's do it.
Well, if we're going by who we want to be, maybe the people at these schools want to be Cardi B or Madonna. I'm sure if you looked hard enough, someone could argue why Madonna deserves to be on the same level as Jordan or Winfrey or Musk. I don't know if I'd agree, but by your standard there's no reason why we couldn't.
For everyone's sake, DCPS should just go with the same strategy they've used for every school built in the last thirty years, and just name it after where it is. It's shameful that we're having this conversation because some people just couldn't handle losing the right to own other people.
Quote
There's a reason no one ever complains about the name of ... or Westside High.
Well, a lot of the folks who went to "Nathan Bedford Forrest High School" - its former name - are probably still complaining about the name.
If the school system put half as much energy into teaching subjects that actually help students enter the workforce as they do in changing school names, what a country that would be.
Pretty sure it's the state that decides what they get to teach, but okay dude.
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on March 29, 2021, 09:51:42 AM
If the school system put half as much energy into teaching subjects that actually help students enter the workforce as they do in changing school names, what a country that would be.
As Marcus said, the state decides the curriculum not DCPS but regardless we should be able to tackle social issues important to the students and faculty at the school while ensuring our students also get a proper education. It's okay to walk and chew gum at the same time
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on March 29, 2021, 09:51:42 AM
If the school system put half as much energy into teaching subjects that actually help students enter the workforce as they do in changing school names, what a country that would be.
Huh? Since when is school about preparing kids for the workforce? That has to be the saddest thing I've read in a while.
Quote from: Adam White on March 29, 2021, 12:09:24 PM
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on March 29, 2021, 09:51:42 AM
If the school system put half as much energy into teaching subjects that actually help students enter the workforce as they do in changing school names, what a country that would be.
Huh? Since when is school about preparing kids for the workforce? That has to be the saddest thing I've read in a while.
You're right. They should be prepared for a lifetime of protesting. Seems about the only thing they are capable of recently.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 29, 2021, 11:14:17 AM
Pretty sure it's the state that decides what they get to teach, but okay dude.
This goes well beyond the borders of Jacksonville, dude.
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on March 29, 2021, 12:13:12 PM
Quote from: Adam White on March 29, 2021, 12:09:24 PM
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on March 29, 2021, 09:51:42 AM
If the school system put half as much energy into teaching subjects that actually help students enter the workforce as they do in changing school names, what a country that would be.
Huh? Since when is school about preparing kids for the workforce? That has to be the saddest thing I've read in a while.
You're right. They should be prepared for a lifetime of protesting. Seems about the only thing they are capable of recently.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/IaWfNHPi6IZCqDFluu/source.mov)
Results (https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/education/duval-county-florida-voters-choose-to-rename-five-schools-keep-three-the-same/77-e1314688-e28a-49dc-8404-a7a8fa0b82ea) are out.
QuoteThe schools that voters chose to keep the names are:
Kirby-Smith Middle School
Jean Ribault High School
Jean Ribault Middle School
Andrew Jackson High School
Although voters technically chose to change the name of Kirby-Smith Middle School, the name received the most votes among the other choices listed.
Meanwhile, the schools that voters chose to change the names are:
Joseph Finegan Elementary School to Anchor Academy
Stonewall Jackson Elementary School to Westside Academy
Jefferson Davis Middle School to Westside Middle School
J.E.B. Stuart Middle School to Westside Middle School
Robert E. Lee High School to Riverside High School
Here are the full results. (https://www.scribd.com/document/508531915/Duval-County-school-names-voting-results)
Looks like the Board will have to go to Plan "B" on the Jeff Davis and JEB Stuart renamings.
The 2nd highest votes at JEB Stuart went to Warrior Academy with 40 votes (12.4%) - compared to the preferred Westside Middle School with 186 votes (57.6%). The other geographic choice, Wesconnett Middle School got 35 votes (10.8%)
Over at Jeff Davis, Westside Middle School got 95 votes (61.3%), with Charger Academy coming in second with 32 votes (20.7%)
Note, the percentages reported by DCPS include votes given to keeping the existing name. That should not have been a choice in the second question, which should have been answered ONLY if you wanted to change the name.
Kirby-Smith came in 2nd to the combination of Springfield ______ options. Seems logical to choose Springfield Middle School.
Since two schools picked the same name they should vote again.
Quote from: vicupstate on May 20, 2021, 07:47:17 AM
Kirby-Smith came in 2nd to the combination of Springfield ______ options. Seems logical to choose Springfield Middle School.
Since two schools picked the same name they should vote again.
The school board should have what they need now. They could maybe do a straw poll or something but hopefully the bulk of this matter is behind us.
The meeting on June 1 should be ... interesting. I expect a large crowd of neo-confederates there to advocate for keeping the names.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on May 19, 2021, 09:42:47 PM
Looks like the Board will have to go to Plan "B" on the Jeff Davis and JEB Stuart renamings.
The 2nd highest votes at JEB Stuart went to Warrior Academy with 40 votes (12.4%) - compared to the preferred Westside Middle School with 186 votes (57.6%). The other geographic choice, Wesconnett Middle School got 35 votes (10.8%)
Over at Jeff Davis, Westside Middle School got 95 votes (61.3%), with Charger Academy coming in second with 32 votes (20.7%)
Note, the percentages reported by DCPS include votes given to keeping the existing name. That should not have been a choice in the second question, which should have been answered ONLY if you wanted to change the name.
My kids went to Jeff Davis. It always struck me as so blatantly racist that not only is it named after the president of the CSA, but their mascot is a horse that knights ride into battle. May as well named it Klan Middle School. I absolutely do not support them using Charger in the new school name either. Better to get rid of all vestiges of the KKK and racism in the new name.
Short film about the people, opinions and events RE Confederate school names and monuments. Local
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJuyQB7YO88 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJuyQB7YO88)