|
|
Post by ag87 on Jul 28, 2017 16:24:36 GMT -8
I can add to that list of sins - and my examples aren't buried in the distant past. Most folks know about the abandonment of Vanport. After that came the preferential destruction of black neighborhoods to build the Portland freeways and the Lutheran hospital. That attitude continues to show in PDX's unconscionable neglect of its black and immigrant neighborhoods. Billions are spent on trolleys and rail cars to take rich white people from their condos to downtown entertainments, while bus service to get the working class folks to their industrial and commercial jobs are cut and road maintenance is neglected. Schools in largely black and immigrant neighborhoods are neglected as well, as are playgrounds and parks. Portland is the whitest big city in America but it's not white enough for the locals . . . for obvious reasons there is a net outmigration of African-Americans from the city. Closer to home, we've lost football players because of harassment and/or false arrests by the Corvallis PD, and I have never heard of the PD being held to account for it. Black students account for 1.4% of the OSU population, while the state as a whole sits at about 2%. Maybe those atrocious PDX schools are enough to explain that discrepancy, but it deserves some scrutiny. There isn't much to be proud of here . . . I'm going to push back a little on the "billions are spent on trolleys" part. It's wrong in multiple ways. First money - the Interstate Max line cost about $350M. It serves the closest thing Portland has to black and immigrant neighborhoods. Bus routes were created to serve that line and make commutes to downtown quicker and more efficient. The westside line cost about $950M (both numbers are construction and design costs). Inner Beaverton is largely Asian. Hillsboro has many first generation Latino families. The dollars for these projects were never intended for road maintenance. In fact, the City of Portland (for Interstate) and the Cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro along with Washington County (for Westside) got huge influxes of transportation dollars that built streets. Between those two projects, the area received $600M of federal funding that would have never came to Oregon without the projects. Our federal taxes went to it, but Tri-Met and Metro had to compete with other cities to bring the money back. Have you ridden Max? I've commuted on it and there are not many "rich white people" going to "downtown entertainments" on it. I did not have a part of the lines to Milwaukie and Clackamas Town Center. But I'm pretty sure those areas are considered working class. I agree about the freeway through northeast Portland. It was before my time. I do know every time I went with my boss to talk to a senior Tri-Met person regarding how much money and effort could be saved if we bought a property (a take), the answer was no. They would specifically talk about that freeway. Lastly, is Portland the whitest big city? I know Portland used to be #2, behind Minneapolis. |
|
bill82
Freshman
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 971 
|
Post by bill82 on Jul 29, 2017 2:22:02 GMT -8
Agreed. Whatever Arnold did or thought, it has so little relevance to the black experience in Corvallis today that it seems like an imported problem. Ironically, although the Gill situation is nothing like the Arnold case, it's a thousand times more relevant to OSU today and therefore far more worthy of attention and discussion. Again, I don't think we take his name down, but I don't mind shining a light on events from that era. Oregon is known throughout the nation, historically, as the most racist state outside of the Deep South. The territory evicted all African-Americans in 1844. The state had a statute on the books that did not permit any "free negro or mulatto" from 1857 (when Oregon was still a territory and went all the way to the Rockies) until 1922. Oregon did not sign the 15th Amendment, giving African-Americans the right to vote until 1959, and did not sign the 14th Amendment, granting citizenship to former slaves, for good until 1973. (The 14th Amendment became Federal law on July 26, 1868, and Oregon, symbolically voted it down on October 16, 1868. The 15th Amendment became law on March 30, 1870.) Oregon was the 47th state to ratify the 14th Amendment and 45th state to ratify the 15th Amendment. In the early part of the 20th Century, Oregon had the largest Ku Klux Klan of any state west of the Mississippi. Walter Pierce, an open member of the Ku Klux Klan, was elected governor in 1922 and later served five terms in the United States House of Representatives. There are reasons that Oregon is so homogeneous and has a disproportionately small number of Catholic schools. Thanks for the perspective. I was not aware of the vote on the 15th Amendment or the concentration of KKK. That does heighten the need to look at the high profile markers of the past. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jul 29, 2017 8:16:47 GMT -8
The Supreme Court (Burdick v United States 1915) has ruled that acceptance of a pardon carries an imputation of guilt. So while the pardon may have foreclosed any legal culpability for the boys in gray and their leaders, it did not dismiss their moral culpability. Wow, Gerald Ford's interpretation of Burdick! I am loving this. Ford used his interpretation of Burdick to, first, pardon Nixon and, second, to attempt to sell it to the American people. (Hint: they strongly disagreed.) Pretty much everyone agrees that Burdick literally says what you say, but most believe that that part of Burdick is dicta and is not part of the Supreme Court's holding. Looking back at Confederate soldiers, they were granted legislative amnesty as a matter of course and some received a presidential pardon, as well. (It is important to note that several high-ranking Confederates did not receive either in their lifetime. Robert E. Lee died a traitor--mostly because he died so quickly. Jefferson Davis actually was not pardoned until Jimmy Carter did so.) The dicta in Burdick was trying to differentiate between legislative amnesty and a presidential pardon. Obviously, if soldiers received legislative amnesty, that would moot the point that Burdick is trying to make. If a soldier receives amnesty, there is no imputation of guilt, even if Ford's dicta was right. Unless Arnold did something that only made the pardon applicable and not amnesty, his service in the Confederate States of America never happened in the eyes of the law. This is not a legal issue. It is a moral one and admittedly a subjective one when it comes to who is selected to be honored with named buildings and monuments at a public university. As far as I'm concerned if Arnold never publicly renounced the Confederate cause - the vile, unredeemable cause of owning human beings as private property- he does not deserve to be honored by people, especially young people in 2017. The future belongs to those young people and they will ultimately decide. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jul 29, 2017 9:00:47 GMT -8
Wow, Gerald Ford's interpretation of Burdick! I am loving this. Ford used his interpretation of Burdick to, first, pardon Nixon and, second, to attempt to sell it to the American people. (Hint: they strongly disagreed.) Pretty much everyone agrees that Burdick literally says what you say, but most believe that that part of Burdick is dicta and is not part of the Supreme Court's holding. Looking back at Confederate soldiers, they were granted legislative amnesty as a matter of course and some received a presidential pardon, as well. (It is important to note that several high-ranking Confederates did not receive either in their lifetime. Robert E. Lee died a traitor--mostly because he died so quickly. Jefferson Davis actually was not pardoned until Jimmy Carter did so.) The dicta in Burdick was trying to differentiate between legislative amnesty and a presidential pardon. Obviously, if soldiers received legislative amnesty, that would moot the point that Burdick is trying to make. If a soldier receives amnesty, there is no imputation of guilt, even if Ford's dicta was right. Unless Arnold did something that only made the pardon applicable and not amnesty, his service in the Confederate States of America never happened in the eyes of the law. This is not a legal issue. It is a moral one and admittedly a subjective one when it comes to who we choose to honor with named buildings and monuments at a public university. As far as I'm concerned if Arnold never publicly renounced the Confederate cause - the vile, unredeemable cause of owning human beings as private property- he does not deserve to be honored by people, especially young people in 2017. The future belongs to those young people and they will ultimately decide. I have no real insight into individuals, but the war was truly not about owning human beings. It eas a war of the rich trying to stay and get even richer. The vast majority of the combatants were poor, peasant farmers, who fought for a cause they truly did not understand. Many conscripted to serve. Most were uneducated and followed what they told were the "truths". Slavery was a means to an end... free labor, owner status, etc. On many fronts no different than in many areas throughout the world today. My point these "witch hunts" are fostered by those currently trying to make a name for themselves in this "look at me" society. The culture of the nation and/or state at the time plays a role here and shouldn't just be undone because we now are more "sophisticated". It's petty, there are much more important things to spend time focusing on. I find it an interesting character study in those who want to focus on the past indiscretions of others vs those willing to try to make today's world a better place. It seems to me our young benefit from the latter as "history" will always be subjective and open to interpretation. I'd rather while learning from our mistakes focus on "making" history, versus trying to judge and change the past... which of course never happens. "We can learn from history, but we can also deceive ourselves when we selectively take evidence from the past to justify what we have already made up our minds to do." |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Jul 29, 2017 9:35:12 GMT -8
The Interstate MAX line was put in over the *strenuous* objections of the local neighborhood. My perception is that the local black community felt that the project was being rammed down their throat because the city wanted to gentrify the neighborhood and eventually push the line into Vancouver. And, whatever your opinion on gentrification, you must admit that the locals predicted the outcome perfectly. Black renters have been forced out of the neighborhood - most have moved to the neglected neighborhoods to the east, some have completely left the city.
The transit system is explicitly designed to funnel people downtown, where millions of dollars in tax-increment financing (over $350 million just for the Pearl District) has been used to fuel high-end development. Let that soak in for a moment - PDX gave Pearl District developers $500 from every man, woman, and child in the city - which just means that the taxes on immigrant and black neighborhoods are that much higher. (And please, please don't spout the nonsense that the TIF-funded developments pay for themselves in future taxes. All TIF financing does is favor one spot over another. Without it, you would have the same amount of investment but it would be spread more evenly through the city.)
So much of the argument in favor of these lines seems to boil down to, "They got lots of federal money for them". But PDX has to pay to run those lines and maintain them - and that money is entirely local. Last year Portland spent less than $13 million on street maintenance. For reference, Albany OR, with less than a tenth the population, spend over $9 million and a city the size of PDX is expected to spend about $100 million. Just drive around that city and you'll see where the hearts of PDX's leading lights really are. Downtown is designed like a theme park - with trolleys, dedicated bike paths, a tramway, and lots of new pavement with special bike lanes and traffic controls. But as you get away from downtown, the city literally disintegrates beneath your tires.
I don't live in PDX, but I have a couple (rich, white) friends that do. I've asked them how they use MAX, and their answers are along the lines of, "I love it. Every Friday I hop the train downtown and catch a movie at the movie/bar there." Do any of their employees use it? "No." I know, I know . . . it's pure anecdote, but this isn't: Overall transit use is *less* today than it was before they started the first MAX line. Buses are more flexible, can serve more neighborhoods, and are cheaper to operate. But rich white people won't step on a bus and not many will vote for the taxes to improve them. And - most importantly - developers can't profit from a new bus stop.
Do the Tri-Met folks and the PDX city council members imagine they are racist? I'm sure they don't. But they act like the worst kinds of racists - overtaxing black and immigrant neighborhoods, building infrastructure that they didn't ask for, and leaving them with terrible schools, unmaintained parks and potholed streets. But . . as long as they name a few of those bad schools and potholed streets for a few civil rights heroes, they seem to feel Ok about it.
Or, to return to the original question . . . as long as they can point to some dead white man and call him "racist" and tear his name off a building, they seem to think it forgives all their sins.
PS: PDX passed Minneapolis on the whiteness scale a while ago, after Somali immigrants made Minneapolis their favored destination, while PDX has continued to drive their black population out. But I just double-checked, and San Francisco and San Jose are now less black than PDX, though they are also much, much less white.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jul 29, 2017 11:19:24 GMT -8
This is not a legal issue. It is a moral one and admittedly a subjective one when it comes to who we choose to honor with named buildings and monuments at a public university. As far as I'm concerned if Arnold never publicly renounced the Confederate cause - the vile, unredeemable cause of owning human beings as private property- he does not deserve to be honored by people, especially young people in 2017. The future belongs to those young people and they will ultimately decide. I have no real insight into individuals, but the war was truly not about owning human beings. It eas a war of the rich trying to stay and get even richer. The vast majority of the combatants were poor, peasant farmers, who fought for a cause they truly did not understand. Many conscripted to serve. Most were uneducated and followed what they told were the "truths". Slavery was a means to an end... free labor, owner status, etc. On many fronts no different than in many areas throughout the world today. My point these "witch hunts" are fostered by those currently trying to make a name for themselves in this "look at me" society. The culture of the nation and/or state at the time plays a role here and shouldn't just be undone because we now are more "sophisticated". It's petty, there are much more important things to spend time focusing on. I find it an interesting character study in those who want to focus on the past indiscretions of others vs those willing to try to make today's world a better place. It seems to me our young benefit from the latter as "history" will always be subjective and open to interpretation. I'd rather while learning from our mistakes focus on "making" history, versus trying to judge and change the past... which of course never happens. "We can learn from history, but we can also deceive ourselves when we selectively take evidence from the past to justify what we have already made up our minds to do." "Indiscretions"? That's an interesting term for it. We can't help or harm Arnold, he's long dead. This is about the society and institutions we want and need moving forward into the new 21st century. Like I said; These judgements are subjective. And like I said, today's youth - today's OSU students- will ultimately decide what type of world they want to create, who they want to admire and give places of honor to. As it should be and as it must be. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jul 29, 2017 14:59:17 GMT -8
They should name them "progressive hall", "make the "wrong" choice and pay forever hall", "sanctuary hall" and the like. Much better than naming buildings after historical people who MAY have had beliefs conflicting with current or future times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jul 31, 2017 6:33:49 GMT -8
They should name them "progressive hall", "make the "wrong" choice and pay forever hall", "sanctuary hall" and the like. Much better than naming buildings after historical people who MAY have had beliefs conflicting with current or future times. Probably just me, but that sounds very bitter and cynical. |
|
|
|
Post by BeaverG20 on Aug 3, 2017 13:56:13 GMT -8
There is no evidence that he refused to bring in blacks, and he brought in one walk-on from the track team. As AD, he allowed Valenti to recruit blacks. There is no record of him uttering a single racist word. I know this is a huge reach here . . . but maybe he didn't see much profit in being a 60-year white guy trying to recruit blacks to a lily-white farm town two hours from the nearest significant black community. It was a different era then. Recruiting wasn't national, there wasn't video and AAU showcases, and Gill's recruiting budget wouldn't cover what Louisville spends on strippers in a weekend. While I agree with the point you're making, I couldn't help but be distracted by your use of the term "blacks". I know these things are generational and it has changed over the years but that's a term that is outdated and offensive. Black can be used as an adjective but shouldn't be used as a noun. If you want to play it safe, just stick to African American. I'm in no way insinuating you're racist but referring to a group as "blacks" is seen as racist nowadays. I'm not typing this to scold you but rather as a psa, kind of a "heads up". Racism or prejudice isn't something that I want associated with OSU students, faculty, administration or fans. My best friend is Jamaican, and he laughs his @ss off every time somebody calls him an African-American. It's just so pointlessly silly. Trying to be PC is seen as better, by some people, than being correct. Is he a Jamaican-American, or a Caribbean- American? Even though he served our armed forces, he wasn't actually a full American until 4 years ago, so you couldn't even throw the American on the end of whatever people used to label him without seeming like they were labeling him. If he had become a Canadian, would he be a Jamaican-Canadian? Caribbean-Quebecois? I say he's black, he says I'm white. He doesn't call me Caucasian -American, or British Islander- American, because it would be stupid, a waste of time, not accomplish anything and a label is a label is a label. Christ people are soft these days.  |
|
