Let’s also outlaw Latin as it was the language of an oppressive imperialistic empire, and let’s outlaw the use of the Latin alphabet. Actually let’s outlaw any written texts altogether as they set an unfair hurdle for the illiterate. Let’s not require lawyers to pass any exams because that’s unfair to those whose cultures don’t have education.
There is a way though given the way America works for them to stop the nonsense at Harvard. Harvard graduates should just renounce all their funding pledges to the university.
Very sad that even Harvard Law School has descended to this ridiculous and dangerously stupid level of PC. You do not have to be a rightwing tea party Trumpish nut to be disgusted by the idiocy of the self-censorship PC morons. Don’t they see how they are just playing into the hands of those who say universities should all be defunded?
I suppose now the law school will require trigger points before allowing students to read reports of cases involving nasty crimes.
Please!!!
NPR had a story on that this evening.
All in all sounded like a big yawn, and why not change the stupid coat of arms?
If not now, could have been done long ago if they weren’t so ossified.
NPR had a story on that this evening. All in all sounded like a big yawn, and why not change the stupid coat of arms? If not now, could have been done long ago if they weren't so ossified.Why change it?
NPR had a story on that this evening. All in all sounded like a big yawn, and why not change the stupid coat of arms? If not now, could have been done long ago if they weren't so ossified.Why change it? Why not change it? Time is change. Life is change. When we are kids we use kids toys, when we become adults we shed those toys (or flags or mottos). or something like that. To be honest I myself couldn't give a fart - but it's sort of like gay marriage thing, if enough people think it's that important, who am I to disagree. Besides I didn't notice a single substantive argument for why it shouldn't be changed - well admittedly I've read all of two articles on it. So I might well be missing that convincing argument.
Your argumentum absurdism is as always absurd Lois. Changing a symbol related to slavery is not at all related to the use of non-English words.
If we don’t draw the line at symbols of slavery, where do we? This is not an historical document or building that we can understand in context, it’s an existing symbol, in use now. Why should we relegated to answering the question of what it means by saying, “well, it used to mean we promote the owning of other people, but now we’re saying it means something else, so it’s okay.”
Sure what ever you say.
Guess the whole thing is simply absurdism to me to begin with, so I don’t get the hand wringing.
NPR had a story on that this evening. All in all sounded like a big yawn, and why not change the stupid coat of arms? If not now, could have been done long ago if they weren't so ossified.Why change it? Why not change it? Time is change. Life is change. When we are kids we use kids toys, when we become adults we shed those toys (or flags or mottos). or something like that. To be honest I myself couldn't give a fart - but it's sort of like gay marriage thing, if enough people think it's that important, who am I to disagree. Besides I didn't notice a single substantive argument for why it shouldn't be changed - well admittedly I've read all of two articles on it. So I might well be missing that convincing argument. I, on the other hand, haven't heard a single substantive argument for why it should be changed.i don't believe in change for the sake of change. The only argument I've heard is someone's specious idea of PC. Lois
Your argumentum absurdism is as always absurd Lois. Changing a symbol related to slavery is not at all related to the use of non-English words. If we don't draw the line at symbols of slavery, where do we? This is not an historical document or building that we can understand in context, it's an existing symbol, in use now. Why should we relegated to answering the question of what it means by saying, "well, it used to mean we promote the owning of other people, but now we're saying it means something else, so it's okay."It's a symbol of slavery, an important part of our history that shouldn't be excised. Why should it be hidden and ignored? That serves no one but the PC crowd. America's history of slavery should be shown and discussed. To hide it is to pretend it never happened, which would denigrate everyone who is descended from an American slave. That would be like obliterating every symbol of the Holocaust or native Americans--which would dishonor the victims who were annihilated. Lois
Your argumentum absurdism is as always absurd Lois. Changing a symbol related to slavery is not at all related to the use of non-English words. If we don't draw the line at symbols of slavery, where do we? This is not an historical document or building that we can understand in context, it's an existing symbol, in use now. Why should we relegated to answering the question of what it means by saying, "well, it used to mean we promote the owning of other people, but now we're saying it means something else, so it's okay."That's not what it would say to me. It would say that it represents a terrible time in our history but now we know better. By keeping it, we are not sweeping our bad choices under the rug and pretending it never happened. Destroying all symbols of it will dishonor the men, women and children who were harmed by it. It makes it too easy to pretend it never happened. Symbols should not only be for beating our chests and saying how wonderful we were and are. Lois
Some ARE trying to sweep it under the rug. We HAVE cleansed it from our children’s history classes. It’s still in books, colleges and on the streets and in politics though. You are mixing up different things.
First, ask what a symbol of a university should be, then try to make your position make sense.
Your argumentum absurdism is as always absurd Lois. Changing a symbol related to slavery is not at all related to the use of non-English words. If we don't draw the line at symbols of slavery, where do we? This is not an historical document or building that we can understand in context, it's an existing symbol, in use now. Why should we relegated to answering the question of what it means by saying, "well, it used to mean we promote the owning of other people, but now we're saying it means something else, so it's okay."So let's obliterate all mentions of slavery. Let's ban any discussion of it in schools. Let's pretend it never happened. Let's dishonor the descendants of slaves as if their history doesn't count. What more could we do to African Americans to marginalize them even more than they have been marginalized already? We did it with native Americans, why not do it to descendants of slaves? Let's not have any symbol that reminds anyone of America's greatest shame.
Some ARE trying to sweep it under the rug. We HAVE cleansed it from our children's history classes. It's still in books, colleges and on the streets and in politics though. You are mixing up different things. First, ask what a symbol of a university should be, then try to make your position make sense.A symbol of a university should be symbolic of the country's actual history. Come to think of it, obliterating a symbol of its history would be a reflection of what America has done over and over. Pretend the unpleasant never existed. Wipe out every reminder of it.
Perhaps, instead of getting rid of the symbol of the sheaves of wheat, they should just add slaves tending to the sheaves. That would show the veritas of the actual contributors of the wealth that helped to found Harvard (slaves).
That might work but I suspect the PC crowd would be against that, too. Nothing that might upset anyone.
Pardon me for pointing out what should be obvious, but doesn’t seem to be, in that a symbol that is titled “Veritas” should be about truth rather than about some passing sense of what is politically correct.
Or they could change the symbol’s title to whatever is Latin for political correctness and stick a smiley face beneath it.
Pardon me for pointing out what should be obvious, but doesn't seem to be, in that a symbol that is titled "Veritas" should be about truth rather than about some passing sense of what is politically correct. Or they could change the symbol's title to whatever is Latin for political correctness and stick a smiley face beneath it.Politice rectam :) Looks better in Latin Could also be rectitudo politica False history could be historia ficta.