Petition to change the name of Mt Washington

[DavidG]

When it comes to history everyone is a Monday morning quarterback.
Wait until they look back at what's happening today.

 

[skiguy]

Edit: On the ham radio forum where I post, the rule is that posters who do not behave are banned from that thread, but the thread is allowed to continue. Just a thought...

Maybe there should be a license required to operate in the first place. QSL

 

[maineguy]

Maybe there should be a license required to operate in the first place. QSL

QSL! The fact that you can't use screen names and have to use your call, which will identify you, cuts down on a lot of the nonsense.

 

[sierra]

On the contrary, I prefer less moderation. I only discovered today now how to quote multiple posts in the same post.

Drawing a distinction between forced labor occuring in places such as China and chattel slavery is not demeaning anyone, and it isn't just semantics. It is recognizing that they are different evils. And, slavery in the Colonies and the United States was different from previous historical instances of slavery.


How is changing the name of a mountain destroying history?


and

It may or may not surprise you that I do not support the name change of Mt. Washington either, at least at this time. What's objectionable are much of the reasoning and statements made here, and those of some of the commisson, and the unwillingness to reassess the legacies of our founding fathers.

While our founding fathers may have said, written, and done great things, they were also hypocritcal and had deep moral failings. These were moral failings recognized by at least some of their contemporaries. If we are afraid to recognize these contradictions and continue to unquestioningly deify them, then we have little hope of becoming "a more perfect Union." And we should be pissed at them, because we as a country, are still paying for their sins today. (Yes, it is possible to be both grateful for and pissed at the same persons/people.)

I choose to respect our founding fathers, you choose not to. Were they perfect? No, they were not. Ironically, you benefit from the very foundation they set, yet you choose to vilify them, once again, you have that freedom because of them.

 

[jrcinnh]

My standard, probably flippant, answer to this question is what about July and August. Julius and Augustus Ceasar were slave holding dictators that conquered their neighbors, among many other now considered evil deeds. Why don't we change the name of their months? Why must I write their names every year.

 

[Rhody Seth]

I don't think the name should be changed and I don't see much of a push to change it. Everything and it's cousin up there is called Mt. Washington something or other so I think it's name is secure at this point.

Part of progressing as a society is acknowledging the mistakes and shortcomings of our history. Founding Fathers is an apt descriptor. Just like our parents, its easy to view them with rose-colored glasses and put them on a (in this case literal) pedestal. It's okay to point out the ugly stuff and say "yeah, that was wrong." It doesn't negate their contributions to this country and certainly doesn't vilify them.

 

[JoshandBaron]

you have that freedom because of them.

Freedom wasn't the issue, taxes were. If the country remained British it would have much the same freedoms it has today.

 

[maineguy]

If the country remained British it would have much the same freedoms it has today.

That is hardly true. The British don't have a Bill of Rights. In GB, you can be jailed for speech that the government does not approve of. They don't have a constitution which embodies all the basic laws governing the country. We are way more free than the Brits...

 

[JoshandBaron]

That is hardly true. The British don't have a Bill of Rights. In GB, you can be jailed for speech that the government does not approve of. They don't have a constitution which embodies all the basic laws governing the country. We are way more free than the Brits...

You don't need a bill of rights to have rights. The UK gov't can't jail you simply for speech they don't approve of. We have very similar limits to our free speech (threats, public safety.) They don't have the same protections around hate speech, if that's your concern.

 

[sierra]

Freedom wasn't the issue, taxes were. If the country remained British it would have much the same freedoms it has today.

That is not true. I would have to surrender my handguns and my right to carry them as well.

 

[maineguy]

You don't need a bill of rights to have rights. The UK gov't can't jail you simply for speech they don't approve of. We have very similar limits to our free speech (threats, public safety.) They don't have the same protections around hate speech, if that's your concern.

Why do you think that the Bill of Rights was added to the constitution? Hate speech has just become another excuse to silence those whose opinions some people don't want to hear, you know, the Sensitivity Industrial Complex. People in Britain have been arrested for using the wrong pronouns. And, Sierra is also correct in what he posted.

 

[CaptCaper]

That is not true. I would have to surrender my handguns and my right to carry them as well.

Amen and a lot more than that. There is a reason the founding fathers left England starting with the Pilgrims and why they're still coming here to live.

 

[rocket21]

Freedom wasn't the issue, taxes were.

Yep, Dr. Joseph Warren scarified his life in combat because the British government was making his tea too expensive.

 

[peakbagger]

Probably getting to the point where we should let this thread take a break until new substantiative moves are made on this.