Ship of Fools: Jefferson-Jackson

Thread: Jefferson-Jackson Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029259

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

There's been some interesting radio discussion about a number of state Democratic Parties that are considering renaming the Jefferson Jackson dinners that are big party fundraisers.

The argument is that, just as Southerners are considering the consequences of flying a Confederate flag Democrats are wondering if naming their big dinner after two Presidents who were slave owners and in Jackson, the man who cleared the South of Indians. It's interesting that this is being driven by the Democrats and not outside pressure.

What do people think about this. Is it needless political correctness or an interesting example of self examination rather than criticizing others?

(title edited)

[ 06. August 2015, 15:34: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Not a surprise that it's being driven by Democrats, since these days, people who have views on race and social issues diametrically against Kefferson and Jackson tend to be Democrats.

Personally, I'd make a distinction between a dinner named for guys who had disgusting views and carried out disgusting actions, but still might have been notable for other things, and a flag meant to symbolize the preservation of one of those disgusting things. I'd say the latter has less redeeming value than a dinner named after the former.

That said, if people do think it's the best thing to rename the dinner, I've got no serious argument with that.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Conor Cuise O'Brien tears a strip out of Jefferson.

From the mid-90s. As can be seen from the title, O'Brien attacks TJ both from the left and the right. for being a racist AND a revolutionary.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

As for the claims that this is all just political correctness run amuck, I wonder if those making that argument think that the same point would apply to the re-naming of Mount Stalin.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Well, that has a historical significance. it says something about Canadian/Soviet relations at a particular time so I think there was a case for leaving it.
Bismarck was bit of a bastard too- not as much as Stalin, of course- hardly anyone was- but I suppose at least comparable to Jefferson and Jackson- but AFAIK nobody has suggested changing the name of the capital of North Dakota, even when the uSA aand Germany were at war.
If you're going to get all twitchy about things that are named after dead people who don't now quite fit what we think they should be, you're going to be hard pushed to find anyone to name anything after. So either name nothing after anybody or just accept that the past is another country where they do things differently.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Well, that has a historical significance. it says something about Canadian/Soviet relations at a particular time so I think there was a case for leaving it.
Bismarck was bit of a bastard too- not as much as Stalin, of course- hardly anyone was- but I suppose at least comparable to Jefferson and Jackson- but AFAIK nobody has suggested changing the name of the capital of North Dakota, even when the uSA aand Germany were at war.
If you're going to get all twitchy about things that are named after dead people who don't now quite fit what we think they should be, you're going to be hard pushed to find anyone to name anything after. So either name nothing after anybody or just accept that the past is another country where they do things differently.

Admittedly, domestic realpolitik probably plays a role in these things. Even among American Catholics, there probably aren't a lot of people who have ever been seriously worked about Bismarck's Kulturkampf. But, Canada does have a lot of ethnic Ukrainians, most of whom feel some connection to those who died in the famine.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
As for the claims that this is all just political correctness run amuck, I wonder if those making that argument think that the same point would apply to the re-naming of Mount Stalin.

Or to the renaming of Stalin Township in northern Ontario (now named after still-living disability activist Rick Hansen). I have always wondered how township administrators fared at annual meetings of the Association of Municipal Clerk-Treasurers of Ontario. At the time of renaming, I looked for a copy of the township arms, but could find nothing. IIRC it is near Dill, Mountbatten, Eden, Eisenhower, Attlee, and De Gaulle townships.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
As for the claims that this is all just political correctness run amuck, I wonder if those making that argument think that the same point would apply to the re-naming of Mount Stalin.
Or to the renaming of Stalin Township in northern Ontario (now named after still-living disability activist Rick Hansen). I have always wondered how township administrators fared at annual meetings of the Association of Municipal Clerk-Treasurers of Ontario. At the time of renaming, I looked for a copy of the township arms, but could find nothing. IIRC it is near Dill, Mountbatten, Eden, Eisenhower, Attlee, and De Gaulle townships.

It was actually the Ontario case I was looking for, when I found the BC one.

I rememner the Edmonton Journal editorializing on that name-change in the 80s, when the Southam chain(or was it just the Journal?) was going through some sort of idealistic-adolescent phase of defending free-speech and related causes.

"Removing the name Stalin is the wrong choice. Rather, we should let the name stand as a history lesson, and ask ourselves why we couldn't see through that man when he was our ally."

All well and good, but still kinda sucky for the people who live there...

"Where am I from? A little place called Stalin. Yeah, I know, kinda schocking, but upon deeper reflection, why couldn't we see through that man when he was our ally?"

[ 06. August 2015, 15:14: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

My suggestion at the time (the memo might be found in the provincial archives) was to rename it Stalingrad, which would preserve the wartime reference, but link it to the heroic defence of the city, to which King George had presented a sword of honour. The then-premier's assistant to whom I presented it seemed confused, and thought that Rick Hansen was a better idea--- but he is still living, I mentioned, and while a very worthy person, there is a policy against this. I was thanked for my document, but had to buy my own coffee.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

There are even more egregious cases. For example, during the run up to the 2012 U.S. Presidential primaries it came out that Republican hopeful Rick Perry owned a hunting camp whose name was an actual racial slur. While the same arguments about 'preserving history' would seem to apply, I'm not sure that's necessarily determinative.

Of course there's a difference between place names and events. Places persist without any effort on our part. Events, like the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, require continuing effort to maintain. More to the point the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner is, at least in part, an exercise in public relations. If the early 21st century Democratic Party doesn't feel comfortable being associated with the policies of Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson it seems reasonable to change the name of the event going forward.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

What do people think about this. Is it needless political correctness or an interesting example of self examination rather than criticizing others?

It is rare example of self-examination.
I agree with Mancini (from the link) that such conversations are good. I don't agree with keeping the name. Would anyone opt for a Jimmy Saville Pediatric Hospital?
A name is what represents a group. It isn't the starting point of a conversation, it is the underlying ideal. Or at least the ideal the group is trying to present as such.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

lilbuddha wrote:

quote:
Would anyone opt for a Jimmy Saville Pediatric Hospital?

I certainly would not, given that Savile's reputation in the world of pediatrics is now justifiably trashed beyond all recognition.

I might be open to a Jimmy Saville Concert Hall, however, especially if that was the name already in use before the scandals broke.

But I could also entertain arguments in favour of dropping the name. Probably, that name of a concert hall would prompt enough disgusted harrumphing from the general public that the owners would want to change it on Vox Populi grounds alone.

[ 06. August 2015, 16:31: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't agree with keeping the name. Would anyone opt for a Jimmy Saville Pediatric Hospital?

Well, quite. We commemorate figures from our past in various different ways - statues, monuments, street names, town names, buildings, fancy dinners etc.

Most of these are just fine, and don't imply any kind of unquestioning acceptance of everything they did. Most US cities have a Jackson Street and a Jefferson Street somewhere, and there's nothing at all wrong with that.

There's also nothing at all wrong with an annual dinner commemorating Jefferson and Jackson - a nice dinner and a seminar about the legacy of these particular presidents is fine, and the seminar could certainly discuss some of the complexities of history.

But using Presidents Jefferson and Jackson as figureheads for a major fundraiser suggests something more than "here are some notable figures from our history" - it suggests that they are ideals for the party to aspire to, when some of their opinions would make them rather unpopular in contemporary society.

ETA: Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris, and other noted paedophiles are in a somewhat different situation from a Jackson or a Jefferson. They are, perhaps, rather closer to Nathan Bedford Forrest - there's nothing particularly wrong with having been a Confederate General, but being the KKK Grand Wizard puts him rather beyond the pale.

[ 06. August 2015, 16:42: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Cniht wrote:

quote:
There's also nothing at all wrong with an annual dinner commemorating Jefferson and Jackson - a nice dinner and a seminar about the legacy of these particular presidents is fine, and the seminar could certainly discuss some of the complexities of history.

But using Presidents Jefferson and Jackson as figureheads for a major fundraiser suggests something more than "here are some notable figures from our history" - it suggests that they are ideals for the party to aspire to, when some of their opinions would make them rather unpopular in contemporary society.

Interesting distinction, but I wonder...

How many political dinners are there that are not also fundraisers? I seem to have the idea that the two things usually go hand in hand.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
...

I might be open to a Jimmy Saville Concert Hall, however, especially if that was the name already in use before the scandals broke.

Not a direct comparison at all, but I'm always amused by the name of the Harold Holt Swim Centre in Melbourne.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
...

I might be open to a Jimmy Saville Concert Hall, however, especially if that was the name already in use before the scandals broke.

Not a direct comparison at all, but I'm always amused by the name of the Harold Holt Swim Centre in Melbourne.

I suspect there has been a Circus thread along those lines at one time or another, with entries like...

The Grace Kelly Driving School

The Karen Carpenter Weight Loss Clinic

The Louis Althusser Marriage Counseling Centre

etc.

Back to the topic, the Jefferson District Of The Unitarain Universalist Association was re-named a few years back, for much the same reasons that people want to re-name this dinner.

[ 06. August 2015, 17:58: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

They could be renamed the Johnson-Clinton dinners, after the two Democratic presidents who survived Republican impeachment trials.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

'Join us for the annual Clinton Dinner- 'cos eating ain't cheating'...

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

I guess we can just consider this to be the all-purpose Renaming thread for now...

Quebec considering removing N-word from 11 place names

The fact that a news site can't even bring itself to use the word in a headline probably tells us something about its suitability as an everyday place name.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

ISTM that Jefferson and Jackson are in two wildly different spheres. Jefferson, like Washington, had great civic virtues that existed along side his failings. Jackson seems to be devoid of any public virtue other than having won a battle in a war that had already ended. Removing Jackson's name from most anything would not be a great loss.

But, if we insist that our civic heroes have the virtues of a Jefferson and no vices, we are simply demanding that there be no heroes. Just insisting that they have anywhere near his accomplishments may ensure that the book of heroes is forever sealed going forward. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

tclune wrote:

quote:
Jackson seems to be devoid of any public virtue other than having won a battle in a war that had already ended.

Well, he is popularly associated with "Jacksonian Democracy" which, from what I can tell, is not so much a group of institutions or a series of accomplishments, but more of a broad style of populist politics. I think it does have quite a hold on the American political imagination.

[ 09. August 2015, 18:29: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

There are those who attribute the modern style of party politics and patronage to Jackson. Earlier "party" was considered a derogatory word like "faction".

Some of us may not think of that as a noble contribution but the established parties probably approve.

Jefferson is a troubling mix of history and talents. The slaveholder also seemed to have frequent sexual relations with negroes and mixed race women. Some of this may have been the slaveholder raping his slaves, but some of it seems more complicated.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0