It seems like Ishi had been isolated from his tribe following an invasion from surveyors. He was brought to Berkeley as a "wild man," (he was thought to be one of the few remaining Yahi tribe members), where Kroeber practically made him an artifact in the museum. After Ishi died, medical researchers wanted to do an autopsy and keep his brain for eugenics-related research, much to the dismay of the tribe, who obviously wanted a proper burial. No reparations were made till 1999, when the brain was finally given back.
This is fraudulence of Cancel-Culture: it's based on the premise that two wrongs make a right. It's neither just nor fair to hold historical figures from 200 years ago up to the standards of today. The world was a MUCH difference place back then and, thank god we've progressed and advanced.
I know, but, at what point do you put such opinions into a historical context? Should Ford cars be renamed because Henry Ford, before the war, openly liked Hitler? At what point does such revision impinge upon freedom of speech and thought? "Goodthink" or you're of no account.
I know Cal does not want to be associated with such things, but the university itself is a creature of history's context. I think there's a cowardice in such revisionism. Academic freedom itself could be at stake if institutions succumb to zeitgeists of popular opinion. I attended Cal '76-'80 and remember hearing the polar extremes of both Communists and Klansmen blather and rant each day as I crossed Sproul Plaza. I hated both, but loved what seemed to a perfect representation of Cal's high and open-minded standard of free speech. I think it short-sighted to close off one opinion out of the whole spectrum.
BTW- fun fact, some of the principal proponents of the modern eugenics movement were Cal professors. This was not at all uncommon and most of the prejudice was not racial, but against the disabled. Does that somehow negate the work of those professors, including Shockley, for which they were recognized? Again, context may not excuse, but may go a long way to explain thoughts that leave modern folks scratching their heads in wonder. But, in the end, people are entitled to their own thoughts, feelings, and opinions. Or all should all accomplishments be filtered by the personal lives of people.
What if some or all of the people that develop an effective COVID vaccine are anti-LGBT? I guess we don't bother to thank them, when we get vaccinated? Or do we skip the vaccination because of their personal feelings?
I don't think it applies to these buildings, a significant amount of my time in Berkeley was spent in LeConte either for classes or the lab that I worked at, but I don't have an attachment to that name. However, for names of dorm or college/university (like Yale), I can see why people have had formed some long term investments to those names. I'm just saying that I can see why mostly-reasonable people might have doubts about these name changes.
The LeConte case seems obvious. However, I may be missing something because I'm not seeing a compelling reason to change the name of Kroeber Hall.
It seems like Ishi had been isolated from his tribe following an invasion from surveyors. He was brought to Berkeley as a "wild man," (he was thought to be one of the few remaining Yahi tribe members), where Kroeber practically made him an artifact in the museum. After Ishi died, medical researchers wanted to do an autopsy and keep his brain for eugenics-related research, much to the dismay of the tribe, who obviously wanted a proper burial. No reparations were made till 1999, when the brain was finally given back.
There's quite a lot more to his career though. Seems like overall he was an extremely progressive figure in his field, for his time.
https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2020/07/01/on-the-renaming-of-anthropologys-kroeber-hall/
This is fraudulence of Cancel-Culture: it's based on the premise that two wrongs make a right. It's neither just nor fair to hold historical figures from 200 years ago up to the standards of today. The world was a MUCH difference place back then and, thank god we've progressed and advanced.
I don't really buy the 'standards of their time' argument, but even if I did, LeConte was bad even by the standards of the era.
Well, it is if your plan is to undermine more than mere white privilege.
Oh, BTW, Furd has a more current example:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/william-shockley
I know, but, at what point do you put such opinions into a historical context? Should Ford cars be renamed because Henry Ford, before the war, openly liked Hitler? At what point does such revision impinge upon freedom of speech and thought? "Goodthink" or you're of no account.
I know Cal does not want to be associated with such things, but the university itself is a creature of history's context. I think there's a cowardice in such revisionism. Academic freedom itself could be at stake if institutions succumb to zeitgeists of popular opinion. I attended Cal '76-'80 and remember hearing the polar extremes of both Communists and Klansmen blather and rant each day as I crossed Sproul Plaza. I hated both, but loved what seemed to a perfect representation of Cal's high and open-minded standard of free speech. I think it short-sighted to close off one opinion out of the whole spectrum.
BTW- fun fact, some of the principal proponents of the modern eugenics movement were Cal professors. This was not at all uncommon and most of the prejudice was not racial, but against the disabled. Does that somehow negate the work of those professors, including Shockley, for which they were recognized? Again, context may not excuse, but may go a long way to explain thoughts that leave modern folks scratching their heads in wonder. But, in the end, people are entitled to their own thoughts, feelings, and opinions. Or all should all accomplishments be filtered by the personal lives of people.
What if some or all of the people that develop an effective COVID vaccine are anti-LGBT? I guess we don't bother to thank them, when we get vaccinated? Or do we skip the vaccination because of their personal feelings?
* Or should judgements of all accomplishments be filtered by the personal lives of people?
BTW- I don't condone what he did wrong, but Bill Cosby is still one of my favorite comedians- ever.
I don't think it applies to these buildings, a significant amount of my time in Berkeley was spent in LeConte either for classes or the lab that I worked at, but I don't have an attachment to that name. However, for names of dorm or college/university (like Yale), I can see why people have had formed some long term investments to those names. I'm just saying that I can see why mostly-reasonable people might have doubts about these name changes.
Not to be too cynical about this, but is there any indication that the new name won't simply be "up for sale" as a fund-raising "opportunities"?
Walter Gordon? No DAMN way Lawrence. No cops. DEFUND THE POLICE!