Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Rhode Island to change its name
The official name of Rhode Island includes the word Plantations. And we all know what that word means. So Rhode Island will in all likelihood drop it from its official name. Nothing much to see, except how I remember the olden days of liberalism, when we were taught to scoff at the old timers who used to obsess about such things. How small minded they were when they wouldn't let someone say this, or say that. How not in tune with the heart and soul of the First Amendment were those who insisted on some lofty moral standard by which all Americans should be measured. For me, that's the funniest thing about post-liberalism. We are doing the very things that the forebears of the post-modern left had once railed against as part of the move to tear down the foundational fabrics of American society. Having torn them down, of course, it is time to rebuild in the manner of our brave new world. So things like this, because it offends the new moral standard by which all Americans should be measured, must change. History, you just can't help but repeat it.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
The biggest question I have is why it was not changed before now. Not because of the word "plantations" but because of who gave it that name in the first place? I would have thought that as the colony became a state it would have wanted to truly break for "The King" and gain its own identity. HMM makes me wonder.ReplyDelete
But now to change it would be like trying to change its history. Not wanting to reflect upon where it came from. Besides it is not like kids around the country learn its "official name". They learn the simple name "Rhode Island" Isn't that enough. I personally never knew that it was anything other than Rhode Island so I guess- it is news to me.
Yes the word "plantation" does have connotation that reflect upon the darker part of history in America. But this is only one connotation. Just like words like "gay" have historical meanings that are no longer used today. But those meanings still exist as part of the fabric of history. It is not a visual symbol like the swastika that they mentioned in the article, it is a word with multiple meanings like so many in the English language (ever so rich it is). We should encourage learning about the meaning not just dump the word because it has a new connotation and meaning that we don't like.
And you have a problem with this why? America was founded on slavery and genocide. If you don't want to admit it, that's up to you. But it's about time we start getting rid of the leftovers from the evils of our past.ReplyDelete
I think what is being said is that by taking it out of the name they are trying to "say it never happened". If you read the article one of the arguments for keeping the name is that it will allow for discussion of the history. Not a lets forget it and move on attitude, rather a- yes it happend and now we need to point out some other things you may not know about our state's history. Since I don't live in that state I don't have a dog in the fight so to speak. But in my opinion it is part of the history of the state and since so many want to try to change history there should be an outcry of support for changing, however the article says that most in the government and those trying to get in the government are opposed to the change as well as many others. So changing history is not something that is as easily done as some librals would like to believe.ReplyDelete
Again you said "leftovers from the evils of our past" well if you read the article you would see that this was a name not having anything to do with slavery. It was a name given to a colony- in this case it was the merger of colonies. Yes later there were larger issues of slavery etc. but the name was given long before that took place.