185 replies to this topic

[mweb08]

At this point Weber probably knows he's wrong but will dig his heels in and fight you for another 39 pages.

Sure, that's it.

You guys can all pat yourselves on the back for defending someone who campaigned for governor in Maryland with segregation as one of his main causes during the year of Brown v. Board of Education.

People can bring up other flawed people all they like, and I have no issue discussing them, but that's just a distraction from arguing the merits of Bryd himself. The argument that we shouldn't fix one mistake because there's potentially similar ones out there is never a good one imo.

[mweb08]

I'm not saying that he was in an extreme minority. However, he was very much on the wrong side of history when the opportunity to be on the right side was being taken by many. 

 
Many?   In Maryland in the 50's?   Really?   You must know something nobody else does....
 
Hell, Frank Robinson couldn't even live where he wanted when he came here in '66... he was allowed only in certain neighborhoods.... where were you then?

Yet somehow he lost the governor's race of 1954 to a Republican (not common in MD) with Civil Rights being a huge point of contention.

But sure, keep being snarky.

[SportsGuy]

Let's say that Byrd was a big time racist who also happened to do great things for UM and others. Does him being a racist, in a time filled with racism, take away from what he did for the university and diminish his name on the stadium?

I don't think so.

Again, is complaining for the sake of complaining IMO.

Throughout the history of time, there have been great people who did or believed in bad things. Some of that is major, some of it isn't. Should we get rid of everything named after anyone who did anything bad?

Should Louisville get rid of "Papa John" stadium?

Banks nowadays fuck with you in a big way...should M&T be renamed?

I mean, where exactly does it end and who should be the judges to determine this?

That's why this stuff sucks...and why it's absurd to even mention it IMO.

[mweb08]

I'm not saying that he was in an extreme minority. However, he was very much on the wrong side of history when the opportunity to be on the right side was being taken by many. Someone who makes it a mission to fight against gay marriage now isn't in some huge minority in their position, but I'd prefer that person not get a monument or stadium named after them unless they did some amazing shit otherwise.


And at least religion can be used as an excuse for that person along with being a product of their time.

 
Washington and Jefferson were among the authors of the constitution. If that isn't a golden opportunity to be on the right side of history, then I don't know what the hell is.

It was, but you have to consider time and place. Slavery was much more accepted in the late 1700's than in let's say 1850. Unfortunately, that wasn't really the time for that fight. 1954 in Maryland was a time for the fight against Jim Crow, and not only was Bryd against it, he was aggressively so and made it a big part of his campaign platform.

Slavery and Jim Crow both disgust me. We should be completely embarrassed of both. What is also embarrassing is just how long it took this country to move away from them. The argument for these things were never good or close to it, but they were more understandable in 1785 and 1885 then in 1855 and 1955.

[SportsGuy]

When my dad was alive, he became good friends with a black man who was/is one of the biggest collectors of slave memorabilia in the country. He collected/collects KKK stuff, nazi stuff, whatever....he believed that this is history and history is important for this country, even if it was ugly.

History is what it is. Some of it is great, some of it is terrible. Attempting to re-write it for your own personal causes is over the top IMO.

[mweb08]

Let's say that Byrd was a big time racist who also happened to do great things for UM and others. Does him being a racist, in a time filled with racism, take away from what he did for the university and diminish his name on the stadium?


I don't think so.


Again, is complaining for the sake of complaining IMO.


Throughout the history of time, there have been great people who did or believed in bad things. Some of that is major, some of it isn't. Should we get rid of everything named after anyone who did anything bad?


Should Louisville get rid of "Papa John" stadium?


Banks nowadays fuck with you in a big way...should M&T be renamed?


I mean, where exactly does it end and who should be the judges to determine this?


That's why this stuff sucks...and why it's absurd to even mention it IMO.

It's not just that he was a run of the mill racist, he was a staunch racist with power to negatively impact African Americans at the University level and then he attempted to do so from the Governor's mansion.

Yes, what he did regarding race must hurt his record a great deal. If he was a supporter of integration at UMD, his record and legacy would be leaps and bounds better. A debate can be had in what his legacy is, but the racism is a severe black mark, no pun intended.

And it's not absurd to mention it at all. That you had a similar positron regarding the Confederate flag is what's absurd. Americans should look at that flag with shame and scorn, yet it's just PC nonsense when some want to take it down from the SC capital grounds.

[SportsGuy]

It's not just that he was a run of the mill racist, he was a staunch racist with power to negatively impact African Americans at the University level and then he attempted to do so from the Governor's mansion.Yes, what he did regarding race must hurt his record a great deal. If he was a supporter of integration at UMD, his record and legacy would be leaps and bounds better. A debate can be had in what his legacy is, but the racism is a severe black mark, no pun intended.

Ok...so what? Why does that mean something should be changed?

You said this isn't about other people who did bad things and what they have names after them.

Well, you are wrong.

If you are going to take a stance about this, be consistent about it across the board.

Should we just name everything after MLK, Dean Smith and Lincoln?

[mweb08]

When my dad was alive, he became good friends with a black man who was/is one of the biggest collectors of slave memorabilia in the country. He collected/collects KKK stuff, nazi stuff, whatever....he believed that this is history and history is important for this country, even if it was ugly.


History is what it is. Some of it is great, some of it is terrible. Attempting to re-write it for your own personal causes is over the top IMO.

History is important, and removing a flag from a statehouse or changing the name of a stadium does not re-write history. I have no idea why people think that. I'm more for teaching both sides of history than most, but naming a stadium after someone has nothing to do with teaching both sides of history, or teaching it accurately, or even teaching it at all.

[mweb08]

It's not just that he was a run of the mill racist, he was a staunch racist with power to negatively impact African Americans at the University level and then he attempted to do so from the Governor's mansion.Yes, what he did regarding race must hurt his record a great deal. If he was a supporter of integration at UMD, his record and legacy would be leaps and bounds better. A debate can be had in what his legacy is, but the racism is a severe black mark, no pun intended.

Ok...so what? Why does that mean something should be changed?


You said this isn't about other people who did bad things and what they have names after them.


Well, you are wrong.


If you are going to take a stance about this, be consistent about it across the board.


Should we just name everything after MLK, Dean Smith and Lincoln?

It means it should be changed because black athletes, students, and fans probably shouldn't play in and watch games in a stadium named after a racist that wouldn't want them there.

I have no problem being consistent, but it's not so black and white with every person.

[SportsGuy]

History is important, and removing a flag from a statehouse or changing the name of a stadium does not re-write history. I have no idea why people think that. I'm more for teaching both sides of history than most, but naming a stadium after someone has nothing to do with teaching both sides of history, or teaching it accurately, or even teaching it at all.

It absolutely rewrites it in the way that says, forget about the good that this represents, focus only on the bad and then get rid of it.

[SportsGuy]

It means it should be changed because black athletes, students, and fans probably shouldn't play in and watch games in a stadium named after a racist that wouldn't want them there. I have no problem being consistent, but it's not so black and white with every person.

How many of those students even know this? How many of those black athletes care? Why has this never been an issue before?

Does having his name on the stadium hurt recruiting?

I mean, besides being against some cause, what harm has this brought to the school, it's students and the community as whole?

[mweb08]

History is important, and removing a flag from a statehouse or changing the name of a stadium does not re-write history. I have no idea why people think that. I'm more for teaching both sides of history than most, but naming a stadium after someone has nothing to do with teaching both sides of history, or teaching it accurately, or even teaching it at all.

It absolutely rewrites it in the way that says, forget about the good that this represents, focus only on the bad and then get rid of it.

That's not rewriting history, and people can still just as easily look at both sides, in fact discussions like this lead to way more looking at both sides than seeing the stadium name, monument, or flag typically would.

Naming a stadium after someone or having a flag at a statehouse is honoring that person or what that flag stands for. The question is simply if that person or flag is worthy of the honor. You can make the case for Bryd, not that flag.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. Rename the Lincoln Monument!

[SportsGuy]

That's not rewriting history, and people can still just as easily look at both sides, in fact discussions like this lead to way more looking at both sides than seeing the stadium name, monument, or flag typically would. Naming a stadium after someone or having a flag at a statehouse is honoring that person or what that flag stands for. The question is simply if that person or flag is worthy of the honor. You can make the case for Bryd, not that flag.

You say people can easily look at both sides...they can do that even if things stay the same, right?

[mweb08]

At this point Weber probably knows he's wrong but will dig his heels in and fight you for another 39 pages.

Well now that the person who doesn't care has jumped in, the over may be a wise Pedro's Pickz addition.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Well now that the person who doesn't care has jumped in, the over may be a wise Pedro's Pickz addition.

So that means the under is guaranteed to hit.

[RShack]

Yet somehow he lost the governor's race of 1954 to a Republican (not common in MD) with Civil Rights being a huge point of contention.

But sure, keep being snarky.

 

It's being snarky to tell the truth about the MD racism that freakin' Frank Robinson had to deal with in 1966?  

 

Look, I'm just talking about how things were... but you seem to prefer to make up fantasies about it...

 

As for that governor's race, there's no need to twist the facts to suit you... having a Republican governor was not especially rare in 1954, because the guy Byrd ran against already *was* the incumbent governor... and Byrd got ~46% of the vote against McKeldin... which is way more votes than the previous guy got when McKeldin beat him to get the governor's job in '50.   McKeldin won the governorship in 1950, ousting incumbent Preston Lane... but Preston Lane had prosecuted lynch mobs... so don't claim that McKeldin got the governor's job because his opponent was a racist, because that's a total BS fabrication that doesn't fit the actual facts... or do you think we should take Preston Lane's name off the Bay Bridge?

[SportsGuy]

I really hate that in allowed myself to get into this conversation. The PC crowd is just so unbearable.

[mweb08]

That's not rewriting history, and people can still just as easily look at both sides, in fact discussions like this lead to way more looking at both sides than seeing the stadium name, monument, or flag typically would. Naming a stadium after someone or having a flag at a statehouse is honoring that person or what that flag stands for. The question is simply if that person or flag is worthy of the honor. You can make the case for Bryd, not that flag.

You say people can easily look at both sides...they can do that even if things stay the same, right?

They can, but that's not the purpose of these things, their purpose is to honor the individual or whatever it is, and thus gives the impression that the person or thing is worthy of being honored.

But since the purpose of these things has nothing to do with seeing both sides of history or writing history, the claim that removing them hurts the ability to do the former and does the latter is invalid. It is the exact logic that would support the Nazi Germany flag flying in that country. Taking that flag down because they were rightfully embarrassed by it did not rewrite history in any way whatsoever.

[mweb08]

Yet somehow he lost the governor's race of 1954 to a Republican (not common in MD) with Civil Rights being a huge point of contention.


But sure, keep being snarky.

 
It's being snarky to tell the truth about the MD racism that freakin' Frank Robinson had to deal with in 1966?  
 
Look, I'm just talking about how things were... but you seem to prefer to make up fantasies about it...
 
As for that governor's race, there's no need to twist the facts to suit you... having a Republican governor was not especially rare in 1954, because the guy Byrd ran against already *was* the incumbent governor... and Byrd got ~46% of the vote against McKeldin... which is way more votes than the previous guy got when McKeldin beat him to get the governor's job in '50.   McKeldin won the governorship in 1950 too, ousting incumbent Preston Lane... but Preston Lane had prosecuted lynch mobs... so don't claim that McKeldin got the governor's job because his opponent was a racist, because that's a total BS fabrication that doesn't fit the actual facts... or do you think we should take Preston Lane's name off the Bay Bridge?

That you can't see your snark is funny.

He was an incumbent governor, but yes it was still rare for a Republican to be governor. And segregating was a key difference in their platforms. I'm not twisting anything. That the previous governor prosecuted lynch mobs actually helps my point even further, so thanks for that.