Princeton Protests: Removing Woodrow Wilson over Segregation Stance?

[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 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.

Yes, and I originally heard the term used for Indians (in India, not immigrants) by the Brits, always a connotation of subservience. But this was the first time I'd ever seen the word transmogrified into an -ism -- as if it were, I dunno, some kind of ideology.

 

[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.

Yes, and I originally heard the term used for Indians (in India, not immigrants) by the Brits, always a connotation of subservience. But this was the first time I'd ever seen the word transmogrified into an -ism -- as if it were, I dunno, some kind of ideology.

Not an ideology, but a practice of enticing immigration of Asians for use as cheap labor. To me he was speaking to the people doing the importing of labor, hence the use of the term.

 

[Pogo]

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)

That's got an interesting history, Emily. Referring back to the historical changes, when the RP was a new player it was the party of Liberalism (incorporating the Abolitionists) and of doing big things with the Fed (having taken over the Whig party, which had that mindset but couldn't agree on slavery) while the DP was the party of minimal Fed power and "states rights". That contrast was manifest in the whole Reconstruction era. Much of course has shifted since then.

These dynamics are always in flux, which is why I keep pointing out to the more superficial that "so and so was a Democrat/Republican in 1870, therefore good/bad" has no meaning, since neither of those terms meant then what they mean now.

 

[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 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.

Yes, and I originally heard the term used for Indians (in India, not immigrants) by the Brits, always a connotation of subservience. But this was the first time I'd ever seen the word transmogrified into an -ism -- as if it were, I dunno, some kind of ideology.

Not an ideology, but a practice of enticing immigration of Asians for use as cheap labor. To me he was speaking to the people doing the importing of labor, hence the use of the term.

I know it's not an ideology -- it just struck me as a strange word construction. At first glance it strikes the eye as "the ideology of an immigrant worker choosing to be Asian", as if it were a choice.

I see your point, that he'd be referring to the users of rather than the population itself. But that's what makes it a strange construction. Usually the root of an -ism word would be the (active) operators of the action, not the (passive) recipients. Your interpretation does make sense though.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Yes, and I originally heard the term used for Indians (in India, not immigrants) by the Brits, always a connotation of subservience. But this was the first time I'd ever seen the word transmogrified into an -ism -- as if it were, I dunno, some kind of ideology.

Not an ideology, but a practice of enticing immigration of Asians for use as cheap labor. To me he was speaking to the people doing the importing of labor, hence the use of the term.

I know it's not an ideology -- it just struck me as a strange word construction. At first glance it strikes the eye as "the ideology of an immigrant worker choosing to be Asian", as if it were a choice.

I see your point, that he'd be referring to the users of rather than the population itself. But that's what makes it a strange construction. Usually the root of an -ism word would be the (active) operators of the action, not the (passive) recipients. Your interpretation does make sense though.

yes, the construction of the term is confusing, but considering what it was talking about, it probably derived from slang, and English slang, as you know can be a crap-shoot linguistically.

 

[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 )

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

That's a worthy approach, but you can't do that with a Constitution. It's too vague. What you speak of here is an attitude. It's why partisanship, and ultimately investing in the idea of political parties, is counterproductive. You reach a point where ideologues follow a given direction not on its own merit but because you think this is what "my" side stands for.

That's how we get to the bizarre concept of someone being a RINO or DINO, which strongly implies -- nay, requires -- that the official in question works not for his or her constituents, but for his or her political party. And that's how gridlocks are born. IMHO.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Yes, and I originally heard the term used for Indians (in India, not immigrants) by the Brits, always a connotation of subservience. But this was the first time I'd ever seen the word transmogrified into an -ism -- as if it were, I dunno, some kind of ideology.

Not an ideology, but a practice of enticing immigration of Asians for use as cheap labor. To me he was speaking to the people doing the importing of labor, hence the use of the term.

I know it's not an ideology -- it just struck me as a strange word construction. At first glance it strikes the eye as "the ideology of an immigrant worker choosing to be Asian", as if it were a choice.

I see your point, that he'd be referring to the users of rather than the population itself. But that's what makes it a strange construction. Usually the root of an -ism word would be the (active) operators of the action, not the (passive) recipients. Your interpretation does make sense though.

yes, the construction of the term is confusing, but considering what it was talking about, it probably derived from slang, and English slang, as you know can be a crap-shoot linguistically.

Yeah we agree here -- it would be something like describing the practice of using slave labor as "slavism".

I'd like to see where the quote comes from though, in context.

EDIT - on a Googly search I found it quoted in this book, page 167, which provides an interesting, if limited, background, with parallels to the contemporary... one of several works on the subject.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Yes, and I originally heard the term used for Indians (in India, not immigrants) by the Brits, always a connotation of subservience. But this was the first time I'd ever seen the word transmogrified into an -ism -- as if it were, I dunno, some kind of ideology.

Not an ideology, but a practice of enticing immigration of Asians for use as cheap labor. To me he was speaking to the people doing the importing of labor, hence the use of the term.

I know it's not an ideology -- it just struck me as a strange word construction. At first glance it strikes the eye as "the ideology of an immigrant worker choosing to be Asian", as if it were a choice.

I see your point, that he'd be referring to the users of rather than the population itself. But that's what makes it a strange construction. Usually the root of an -ism word would be the (active) operators of the action, not the (passive) recipients. Your interpretation does make sense though.

yes, the construction of the term is confusing, but considering what it was talking about, it probably derived from slang, and English slang, as you know can be a crap-shoot linguistically.

Yeah we agree here -- it would be something like describing the practice of using slave labor as "slavism".

I'd like to see where the quote comes from though, in context.

EDIT - on a Googly search I found it quoted in this book, page 167, which provides an interesting, if limited, background, with parallels to the contemporary... one of several works on the subject.

I think I found some context. It appears to be part of a correspondance. If you want, you can dig a bit deeper, I've done enough Googling on obscure Wilsonian anti-immigrant screeds.

The Politics of Prejudice

 

[Pogo]

Yes, and I originally heard the term used for Indians (in India, not immigrants) by the Brits, always a connotation of subservience. But this was the first time I'd ever seen the word transmogrified into an -ism -- as if it were, I dunno, some kind of ideology.

Not an ideology, but a practice of enticing immigration of Asians for use as cheap labor. To me he was speaking to the people doing the importing of labor, hence the use of the term.

I know it's not an ideology -- it just struck me as a strange word construction. At first glance it strikes the eye as "the ideology of an immigrant worker choosing to be Asian", as if it were a choice.

I see your point, that he'd be referring to the users of rather than the population itself. But that's what makes it a strange construction. Usually the root of an -ism word would be the (active) operators of the action, not the (passive) recipients. Your interpretation does make sense though.

yes, the construction of the term is confusing, but considering what it was talking about, it probably derived from slang, and English slang, as you know can be a crap-shoot linguistically.

Yeah we agree here -- it would be something like describing the practice of using slave labor as "slavism".

I'd like to see where the quote comes from though, in context.

EDIT - on a Googly search I found it quoted in this book, page 167, which provides an interesting, if limited, background, with parallels to the contemporary... one of several works on the subject.

I think I found some context. It appears to be part of a correspondance. If you want, you can dig a bit deeper, I've done enough Googling on obscure Wilsonian anti-immigrant screeds.

The Politics of Prejudice

Yep, that one came up on the same search. Also returned were some wags somewhere whining about "we need to remove Wilson's name from this, that, the other because of this overtly racist comment" -- while it is my impression (from other indications) that Wilson was more racist than the average of his time, I resist the knee-jerk conclusions like this that seem to ignore the context of the time in which he lived, which is essential to the judgment of any historical figure. I'm much more interested in the context that leads up to it than a quote taken as if it just dropped out of the sky.

That history is really instructive. I believe you find out the most about where you are, by examining how you got here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, I for one am wary of "martybeganism".

 

[Pogo]

Well, I for one am wary of "martybeganism".

But what if he works really really cheap?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, I for one am wary of "martybeganism".

But what if he works really really cheap?

Cheap Labor = Cheap Product

 

[martybegan]

Well, I for one am wary of "martybeganism".

Shush, adults are talking.

 

[martybegan]

Well, I for one am wary of "martybeganism".

But what if he works really really cheap?

I get billed out at $143.00 an hour by my company, so no, I don't work cheap.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, I for one am wary of "martybeganism".

Shush, adults are talking.

Typical of "martybeganism": stupid drooling from him.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, I for one am wary of "martybeganism".

Shush, adults are talking.

Typical of "martybeganism": stupid drooling from him.

Marty keeps $9 an hour of what the company bills him out, and he thinks he is overpaid. Probably is.

 

[martybegan]

Well, I for one am wary of "martybeganism".

Shush, adults are talking.

Typical of "martybeganism": stupid drooling from him.

There is actually an intellectual conversation going on here, now go somewhere else and pretend to be a republican, you cheap, dime store hack.

 

[martybegan]

Well, I for one am wary of "martybeganism".

Shush, adults are talking.

Typical of "martybeganism": stupid drooling from him.

Marty keeps $9 an hour of what the company bills him out, and he thinks he is overpaid. Probably is.

Multiplier is 2.57, so no, I keep more than that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is actually an intellectual conversation going on here, now go somewhere else and pretend to be a republican, you cheap, dime store hack.

Not when you are part of it. Libertarianism is nonsense. Run along.

WW was a progressive, and a racist, and yet did much good as well. I don't think he can be covered with the same analysis as a Jefferson C. Davis.

 

[martybegan]

There is actually an intellectual conversation going on here, now go somewhere else and pretend to be a republican, you cheap, dime store hack.

Not when you are part of it. Libertarianism is nonsense. Run along.

WW was a progressive, and a racist, and yet did much good as well. I don't think he can be covered with the same analysis as a Jefferson C. Davis.

Do you even know what we were discussing? Stop drive by-ing, you ignorant slut.