Text

Hate it - Comment // Like it - Share it (I don't moderate the comments unless your an ass!)
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts

Monday, June 15, 2020

I went to one of many Robert E. Lee High Schools - Here is why I think we need to change the name.

I graduated in 1985 from Robert E. Lee High School in Midland Tx. I didn't know anything about Robert E. Lee when I attended the school other than the romanticized version found in Texas textbooks. It never occurred at the time to learn about Lee and it never occurred to me that the idea of naming a school after a confederate general might be hurtful to my fellow students. While this blog is about my school there isn't a doubt in my mind that most of this blog is going to be applicable to many of the schools in this country named after confederate generals. 

Before I get into the history of why the school is named after a confederate general I want to get one of the most popular (and weakest) arguments for keeping the name out of the way. It's a quote by George Santayana (often falsely attributed to Winston Churchill or others)...


Do you know who Benedict Arnold was? Of course you do... because you were taught who that was. Changing the name of a school or removing a statue will NOT make people forget the past. Glorifying the past is not the same as remembering it. Teach the past. Put it in museums and classrooms and make sure people learn real history. Naming schools after someone is an honor. Naming a school after someone who fought against his country is whitewashing. Would you feel comfortable with a school named after Benedict Arnold? Like it or not, it is exactly the same with regard to members of the confederacy.

People claim again and again that Lee fought for the south because he was a patriot, that might be 100% true, but it doesn't change the fact that by fighting for the south he was ipso facto fighting for the right of people to own other people. He took up arms against his country and Lincoln wanted him tried for treason but was talked out of it for the good of the country. After taking office in 1865 (after the assassination of Lincoln) Andrew Johnson pardoned most of the confederates who took part in the war, but not Robert E. Lee. Lee requested the pardon and swore the amnesty oath but Lee was not pardoned and his citizenship was never restored in his lifetime (it was eventually restored in 1975 by President Ford, 14 years after the school in Midland Texas opened in 1961. 

Robert E. Lee was not pardoned and his citizenship was never restored in his lifetime...

Do you know how the various schools ended up getting named after confederates in the first place? Because that is an actual story about forgetting and changing history. 

The war ended in 1865. After it was over Lee himself asked that there be no statues or commemorations of him (which means that this whole argument is ignoring HIS wishes). It was that way until 29 years later in 1894 a group called the United Daughters of the Confederacy came around spent all kinds of money to whitewash history. They were the first to claim the war was about states rights, but if you go and read the various Declarations of Secession of the southern states they all talk about two things, and two things only... the right to own slaves and the failure of the northern states to return runaway slaves. Those are the causes as listed in the actual texts that were used to succeed.


The Daughters spent money all over the country passing off a revisionist history of what happened in the war and glorified the south as if it was some noble cause. So when you look at where these statues and many of the schools come from it is not in any way remembering the actual history that was, it is honoring a lie... and as I said General Lee himself asked that it not be done.

“As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated,” Lee wrote of an 1866 proposal, “my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labor.”


His own relatives still say he wouldn't want them and that they should be removed! Whether you admire Lee or not his wishes have been dishonored with every school name and every statue.

But what about our own school? It wasn't founded or funded by the Daughters like the Lee High in Tyler was... no, it was founded in 1961 as an all-white school after the supreme court had already said ruled that such schools were illegal in 1954. It wasn't until the civil rights movement that all-white schools started once again being named after confederates (I honestly don't think it was a coincidence).

It remained all-white until 1969. The only black people at Lee in 1968 were the cleaning staff. (if you doubt this the yearbooks are available online at classmates.com - I had been given the wrong dates once and as I want to know REAL HISTORY I went and checked the yearbooks to verify them myself). 

Lee High literally had to be forced to integrate. It was named Robert E. Lee High, not as some honor to General Lee (who I have pointed out at least twice DIDN'T WANT it) but as a direct dog whistle. It's a fake history and whether I or anyone else finds it hurtful or offensive shouldn't matter... it is hurtful and offensive to those whose family were once slaves and know they go to a school that daily glorifies a man who fought and killed his countrymen in order to keep it going. If it was really about history, we would all already know this information. It's never been about history. It's been about cleaning history. It's been about whitewashing. I loved my school. I'm proud of my accomplishments and the friends I made there, changing the name would not change those feelings,  not even a little.   

Feel free to leave your thoughts, I have tried to be respectful, I hope you will do the same.

If change is such a bad thing why'd they ever get rid of smoker's corner?

Sunday, October 22, 2017

Homophobia in Star Trek Fans ~ Warning minor spoilers ahead.

First off, before I even get started let me say I have loved every incarnation of Star Trek. I have been a big fan of the series and its message of hope for the future for as long as I can remember. Gene Roddenberry was an absolute visionary and will always be remembered as such.

Okay, so the new Star Trek is out and personally, I think it is great. Yeah, the story is a little dark and gritty for Trek, but this is still in the early days of the Star Fleet. It is set after the events of Enterprise but 10 years before The Original Series.  I don't want to give too much away to those who haven't seen it and might want to, but right now it is mainly about the start of a war between The United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet) and the Klingon Empire.

New Episodes of Discovery air Sunday night on CBS All Access

The star is Sonequa Martin formerly of The Walking Dead (Sasha) and I think she is fantastic in her role as a human raised by Vulcans. 

There are lots of things Trekkies are complaining about...
1) It's on CBS All Access in America so if you want to watch it here you have to pay for it. Everywhere else it's on Netflix (which of course you still have to pay for).
2) They changed the look of the Klingons and gave them more than one race. Apparently, this isn't "Canon" because OMG we have learned everything about the Klingon Empire by now.
3) Klingons are cannibalistic. Also supposedly not "Canon" except for all of the times you know Klingons boasted about eating the hearts of their enemies, even Worf was afraid Dax would not get into Sto-Vo-Kor when she died because she had never done this.
4) It looks better than the original series graphically. You might want to have those campy 1960s graphics back, but this is a modern telling of the story and if the original had been this visually awesome it might have lasted more then three series. If you do truly miss those campy old sets and the banter between Kirk and Spock check out the fan made show Star Trek Continues (I can't explain how awesome a recreation it is, by the third episode you will believe he is Kirk).

Some of these may or may not be legitimate concerns... I personally enjoy the show and will continue to do so...

But one of the biggest complaints people have had regarding the show is the openly homosexual character Lt. Stamets played by Anthony Rapp, and while I can understand this kind of criticism coming from the extreme religious right I truly believe it should be antithetical to any true fan of Star Trek.

Lt. Stamets - Anthony Rapp

Star Trek has always been a series with a social conscience. It has always been about pushing the boundaries of technology and space, but also about pushing the boundaries of acceptance. We've seen such a diverse group of characters in Trek over the years. Strong black women like Lt. Uhuru. Amazing black captains like Captain Sisko of DS9. Russians, Asians, and Scottsmen, and aliens from other friggin planets all working together without a care in the world.... and you want to get upset that the new show has a gay character in it? Are you serious? 




Star Trek has always generated controversy
Several stations would not air Kirk kissing Uhuru

What part of Gene's vision of openness and acceptance do you people not get?  Gay people exist. Gay people contribute fully to society and have every right to love who they love. It's that simple. Hopefully, in the future, more people will understand that.

To those I have seen claiming that this is part of the gay agenda... damn right it is. What exactly do you think the gay agenda is though? Some shadow recruitment technique to turn us all gay thus saving the planets fashion sense for eons to come? No... the only gay agenda that is and ever has been is to be accepted just like everyone else. To be treated as human just like everyone else. To be able to love and be loved just like everyone else.

If you can't get that you shouldn't be watching Star Trek in any iteration at all. 


Oh... and just FYI Gene Roddenberry would have wanted an openly gay character on Star Trek at least according to his son. 

"I think he would be 100 percent in favor of a gay character in 'Star Trek," said Roddenberry during an interview. "There's so much going on in the world today. I think he would love any sort of social issue being brought into 'Star Trek.'"