Princeton Protests: Removing Woodrow Wilson over Segregation Stance?

[Impenitent]

Those who wish to ignore the bad are as bodecea writes "intellectually lazy."

Encouraging that an Asian can be at the forefront of forgiveness for Wison, because the man was such a complete racist. For example:

'

“In the matter of Chinese and Japanese coolie immigration, I stand for the national policy of exclusion. We cannot make a homogenous population out of people who do not blend with the Caucasian race…Oriental Coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson.”

 

[Pogo]

Those who wish to ignore the bad are as bodecea writes "intellectually lazy."

Encouraging that an Asian can be at the forefront of forgiveness for Wison, because the man was such a complete racist. For example:

'

“In the matter of Chinese and Japanese coolie immigration, I stand for the national policy of exclusion. We cannot make a homogenous population out of people who do not blend with the Caucasian race…Oriental Coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson.”

Yike.
I'm not sure I've ever even heard the word "Coolieism" before.

I think Emily's point is how Princeton deals with Wilson as regards his legacy with the University and the implications on whitewashing or rewriting history. That works two ways of course -- Wilson's legacy has arguably been unduly sanitized in the history books in the 95 years since he left the scene. But that's the place to do the repair -- the history books.

 

[Vigilante]

Just another subversive DemocRAT getting what he deserves!...Next is FDR for the Interment camps! ...You go DemocRATS!

 

[Impenitent]

Those who wish to ignore the bad are as bodecea writes "intellectually lazy."

Encouraging that an Asian can be at the forefront of forgiveness for Wison, because the man was such a complete racist. For example:

'

“In the matter of Chinese and Japanese coolie immigration, I stand for the national policy of exclusion. We cannot make a homogenous population out of people who do not blend with the Caucasian race…Oriental Coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson.”

Yike.
I'm not sure I've ever even heard the word "Coolieism" before.

I think Emily's point is how Princeton deals with Wilson as regards his legacy with the University and the implications on whitewashing or rewriting history. That works two ways of course -- Wilson's legacy has arguably been unduly sanitized in the history books in the 95 years since he left the scene. But that's the place to do the repair -- the history books.

It seems to me, her point is that the Wilson good outweighs the bad.

I just wanted to add a little more weight.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Much of what Wilson did was bad, yes.

And much was good.

 

[Pogo]

Those who wish to ignore the bad are as bodecea writes "intellectually lazy."

Encouraging that an Asian can be at the forefront of forgiveness for Wison, because the man was such a complete racist. For example:

'

“In the matter of Chinese and Japanese coolie immigration, I stand for the national policy of exclusion. We cannot make a homogenous population out of people who do not blend with the Caucasian race…Oriental Coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson.”

Yike.
I'm not sure I've ever even heard the word "Coolieism" before.

I think Emily's point is how Princeton deals with Wilson as regards his legacy with the University and the implications on whitewashing or rewriting history. That works two ways of course -- Wilson's legacy has arguably been unduly sanitized in the history books in the 95 years since he left the scene. But that's the place to do the repair -- the history books.

It seems to me, her point is that the Wilson good outweighs the bad.

I just wanted to add a little more weight.

I didn't infer that -- I thought her point was all about Princeton, not Wilson.

As far as the "Coolieism" quote though -- it would have been in its time political expediency, as there was strong anti-immigrant (sound familiar?) sentiment with heavy immigration coming in for labor opportunities. It's exactly what Simmons was tapping into when he revived the Ku Klux Klan in that same era.

 

[Impenitent]

If emily was referring to Princeton's actions, and not Wilson's actions, why did she give the example of Da Vinci and Jefferson? The is no equivalent movement to strike either of them from history for the wrongs listed.

 

[Pogo]

If emily was referring to Princeton's actions, and not Wilson's actions, why did she give the example of Da Vinci and Jefferson? The is no equivalent movement to strike either of them from history for the wrongs listed.

That's a mystery. I didn't get that either. But I rarely can get through a whole Emily post (hee hee Emily post, I kill me) without falling asleep before the end so I might have dozed off.

 

[Impenitent]

Much of what Wilson did was bad, yes.

And much was good.

He would be an example of a classical progressive, not a modern one.

 

[Impenitent]

If emily was referring to Princeton's actions, and not Wilson's actions, why did she give the example of Da Vinci and Jefferson? The is no equivalent movement to strike either of them from history for the wrongs listed.

That's a mystery. I didn't get that either. But I rarely can get through a whole Emily post (hee hee Emily post, I kill me) without falling asleep before the end so I might have dozed off.

That is a mistake.

She should be read thoroughly, as she is one of the most politically active members here.

What you think is her nonsense, might become law in a few years

 

[Pogo]

If emily was referring to Princeton's actions, and not Wilson's actions, why did she give the example of Da Vinci and Jefferson? The is no equivalent movement to strike either of them from history for the wrongs listed.

That's a mystery. I didn't get that either. But I rarely can get through a whole Emily post (hee hee Emily post, I kill me) without falling asleep before the end so I might have dozed off.

That is a mistake.

She should be read thoroughly, as she is one of the most politically active members here.

What you think is her nonsense, might become law in a few years

It's not that it's "nonsense" at all. I find much of it worthy. Unfortunately I find it far more wordy than wordy. It just goes on, and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on....

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . and on and on and on., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseusm. Emily Ngheim is a great activist in Houston. One man said, if he were her husband, he would suicide. Sort of cruel.

 

[Pogo]

. . . and on and on and on., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseusm. Emily Ngheim is a great activist in Houston. One man said, if he were her husband, he would suicide. Sort of cruel.

If there is a Hell I imagine it would consist of being forced to read and do a book report on an entire thread match between Emily and David Jeffrey Specth. And you'd get an electric shock every time you fell asleep.


(Emily--- j/k you knows I love ya )

 

[Impenitent]

. . . and on and on and on., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseusm. Emily Ngheim is a great activist in Houston. One man said, if he were her husband, he would suicide. Sort of cruel.

In Houston, they say, behind every great man is ... Emily Nghiem.

 

[Impenitent]

. . . and on and on and on., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseusm. Emily Ngheim is a great activist in Houston. One man said, if he were her husband, he would suicide. Sort of cruel.

If there is a Hell I imagine it would consist of being forced to read and do a book report on an entire thread match between Emily and David Jeffrey Specth. And you'd get an electric shock every time you fell asleep.


(Emily--- j/k you knows I love ya )

Although ostensibly a progressive, she has the ear of the Christian Right in Houston. I think they like what she says.

 

[martybegan]

Those who wish to ignore the bad are as bodecea writes "intellectually lazy."

Encouraging that an Asian can be at the forefront of forgiveness for Wison, because the man was such a complete racist. For example:

'

“In the matter of Chinese and Japanese coolie immigration, I stand for the national policy of exclusion. We cannot make a homogenous population out of people who do not blend with the Caucasian race…Oriental Coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson.”

Yike.
I'm not sure I've ever even heard the word "Coolieism" before.

I think Emily's point is how Princeton deals with Wilson as regards his legacy with the University and the implications on whitewashing or rewriting history. That works two ways of course -- Wilson's legacy has arguably been unduly sanitized in the history books in the 95 years since he left the scene. But that's the place to do the repair -- the history books.

It was a term used to imply imported cheap labor, and was specific to Asiatics.

Not sure if they had a similar term for the Irish, although in some circles they were just as despised as the Asians.

 

[emilynghiem]

Creating the unperson. Another overblown attempt by the Left to practice Soviet-style techniques to expunge the less-than 21st Century orthodox from the public square, and history.

It's interesting that they're going after a minor Democrat god this time. What did they do to piss the ignorant little dears off?

Wilson was a racist asshole, that's known history. He was so despised by the end of his second term that Warren Harding barely had to campaign at all and still won the biggest landslide to that date.

But he was a wheel at Princeton, that's historical fact. You can't rewrite history -- that's what internet message boards are for.

Whatever their visual depiction is, they could always add some frank commentary. Or simply limit it to his time there and ignore the POTUS years.

He was also a Democrat, whose attitudes rather undermine the story of post-Civil War epiphanies among them.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean but it's irrelevant. "Democrat" and "Republican" are not static terms. They're political parties. The parties of 1915 bear little to no relationship ideologically to those of 2015. The parties of 1865, even less so. Political parties exist for one purpose, and that is to organize and consolidate power. They don't exist to represent a fixed ideology.

Interesting Pogo
Because of the confusion over who to blame for which corruption
it is hard to tell what the parties stand for when the lines blur.

However, given the more established political platforms and agenda passed through govt today,
it is CLEAR that the Democratic Party does believe in using govt to push political beliefs in
* health care through govt as a right and obligation instead of enforcing free choice and free market
* marriage for gay and equal recognition of transgender, even though both are "faith based" and
have no place in govt imposition if you believe in "separation of church and state" as Democrats claim

This idea of contradicting the Democrats' OWN principles of
* free choice and freedom from govt intrusion on private decisions
* separation of church and state, and NOT imposing beliefs through govt
are clearly a political agenda or belief system,
that it is REQUIRED to do these things and that is why it is okay for govt to impose beliefs in these cases

Clearly a spelled out agenda of BELIEFS as found published in the Democratic Party's own
platform. These are BELIEFS, and establishing BELIEFS through govt is another BELIEF
(which the Republican party does not share, unless of course, it's THEIR beliefs in
right to life or right to bear arms which are inalienable and cannot be abridged or denied by govt
without due process of law to prove someone committed a crime before depriving them of rights)

 

[JakeStarkey]

emilyng, that difference might make sense and is clear to you, but would you rewrite it more clearly and sensibly please, in 25 words or less. The new rewrite should be more than "Dems bad, Pubs good".

 

[emilynghiem]

. . . and on and on and on., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseusm. Emily Ngheim is a great activist in Houston. One man said, if he were her husband, he would suicide. Sort of cruel.

If there is a Hell I imagine it would consist of being forced to read and do a book report on an entire thread match between Emily and David Jeffrey Specth. And you'd get an electric shock every time you fell asleep.


(Emily--- j/k you knows I love ya )

Although ostensibly a progressive, she has the ear of the Christian Right in Houston. I think they like what she says.

ha ha Impenitent except when it comes to defending Prochoice under Constitutional religious freedom.
Neither side feels comfortable when religious freedom is used to defend the other party's views.
They only want to use that to defend their views and keep the other out of govt.
But when the shoe is on the other foot, they yell and scream just as loudly about the other group's abuses.

Neither feels safe, because the Parties have NOT mutually committed to respecting the beliefs of the other. They both abuse the majority rule, media and political system to BULLY their way over the other.

So that is why there is mutual distrust. They've both crossed the line when it came to their own
beliefs, at the expense of others with conflicting beliefs.

Neither side feels comfortable when I start defending both views from each other.
It takes a while to trust me to see I'm not about imposing on them either.
I come across as "too sympathetic" and enabling of the "opposing view" so that's not good enough
to protect them from imposition. There would have to be a mutual truce, a Constitutional agreement
between major parties to respect each other's political beliefs and keep that out of govt
except where there is consensual agreement on points or policies to include

 

[Unkotare]

It is about silencing or erasing anyone you don't like or disagree with. Complete intolerance basically.....

Leftist/democrat politics as usual.