Will Los Angeles Change Its Name?

[U2Kitten]

I just made this new seal for LA county

 

[U2Kitten]

Why is it they are wanting to remove the cross, and say nothing of the goddess? That's what is irritating.

Hypocrisy always is.

New seal for California, how about a raised middle finger then eh. Road rage, traffic, crime, pollution, outrageous house prices,

I thought about all that, but I didn't want to be offensive So I put all the atypical generic LA stuff and you can image everything you want, or don't want, is right down there on those city streets!

I tend to think there are not very many history nerds within the ACLU.

Of course not, they'd die, history is too non PC for them to be in the same room with

I suppose next is St. Patrick's day celebrations/parades, as the next target. No more clovers, because that was Patrick's illustration of the Trinity.

St. Valentines day, that's out too.

Don't even wanna think about it

Does anybody approve of my new seal proposal? It is a true representation of LA county and its residents in the year 2004.

 

[nbcrusader]

Don't forget to include the porn industry on the seal (based in LA County). We must make sure we stick with non-offensive symbols.

 

[U2Kitten]

 

[verte76]

So a goddess is OK but a cross is not? I don't agree with this. I'm a history freak also, and I've never liked PC arguments for that reason.

 

[melon]

I'm going to say this. The ACLU has, overall, been a fantastic organization within the United States, and, while their cases against Christianity in government gather the most attention, they have also accepted cases that have helped conservatives. For instance, they represented a HS senior, who sued her district, after they removed a Bible quote underneath a "personal quotes" section that all HS seniors were allowed to do. They won. The ACLU also represented Jerry Falwell, of all people, after the state of Virginia passed a law limiting something in regards to religious property and tax-exempt status. Since 9/11, as well, two prominent conservative ex-Senators joined the ACLU! This was because there is one thing that liberals and conservatives have in common: fear of the government encroaching on civil liberties.

So while they take cases that may seem to go a little too far sometimes, they are generally pretty unequivocal about defending civil liberties.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

The ACLU defends the civil liberties as they interpret them. In your examples, the ACLU has supported Christians in free exercise matters - something they interpret broadly. Establishment cases are viewed very narrowly.

I don't recall how they defend the 2nd amendment....

 

[meegannie]

Back to topic, you can't erase parts of history you don't like because they offend you, you can ignore it, but can't erase things, you can't "change the past."

Yet it happens all the time in textbooks and in popular memory.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Continuing to agree with the majority in here (LOL at some of the other symbol ideas and whatnot, and to the people talking about how stupid it is to revise history-after all, we can't very well find ways to prevent some of the less great moments in history from occuring again if we don't talk about them, right?).

We cannot remove every single thing in this country that may potentially offend people. We just can't. Otherwise, we'd have next to nothing left in this world. Symbols, words, shows, movies, music, flags, whatever-all of that can only offend someone if they let it.

As long as nobody is being tied down to a chair or something and being forced to stare at that seal's cross, as long as nobody's being forced to follow a faith they personally don't agree with, I don't see the problem in keeping the symbols and all that there.

Angela

 

[thrillme]

Yet it happens all the time in textbooks and in popular memory.

That's what history nerds are here for, to correct such, "edits" in history. .

Which reminds me, I went to Dublin in January 2003, and there was this older man in this pub I went to, with some friends from my hostel. They were going to meet up with friends they knew, and when we got there, he was already in a discussion with the ones who were already there. He asked these college guys from the U.S. when the American Civil War was. They gave wrong dates, one even said, "so what, that was the past." The Irish guy then went off, "how can a country stand such ignorance", have people who know nothing of their own history and go around telling others countries how to do things.

I was taken aback, but at the same time, realised, he has a point. If you don't know about your history, how can you tell other people in other countries how to do things.

 

[U2Kitten]

We cannot remove every single thing in this country that may potentially offend people. We just can't. Otherwise, we'd have next to nothing left in this world. Symbols, words, shows, movies, music, flags, whatever-all of that can only offend someone if they let it.

Exactly That's why it can't be based on the thing that some things offend some of the people but not others while other things will offend another person. When you get into that, EVERYTHING will offend SOMEBODY in some way, and you CAN'T get rid of everything

As long as nobody is being tied down to a chair or something and being forced to stare at that seal's cross, as long as nobody's being forced to follow a faith they personally don't agree with, I don't see the problem in keeping the symbols and all that there.

Angela

That should work!


Sorry I couldn't get my seal to come out the right shape I am not so good at photoshop as other girls. About the content, I tried to keep it 'happy' and 'safe.' Maybe I'll make another one, a funny one with all the joke stuff

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Go for it if you wish ^^^^. .

There are a couple of beautiful shots of parts of California in your version, though...that state is so pretty, seriously. My family had gone there to visit relatives a few years back, and I really enjoyed going through the mountains and everything, and L.A. looks really cool as you're coming in by plane at night, 'cause it's all lit up and everything. .

Which reminds me, I went to Dublin in January 2003, and there was this older man in this pub I went to, with some friends from my hostel. They were going to meet up with friends they knew, and when we got there, he was already in a discussion with the ones who were already there. He asked these college guys from the U.S. when the American Civil War was. They gave wrong dates, one even said, "so what, that was the past." The Irish guy then went off, "how can a country stand such ignorance", have people who know nothing of their own history and go around telling others countries how to do things.

I was taken aback, but at the same time, realised, he has a point. If you don't know about your history, how can you tell other people in other countries how to do things.

And he's exactly right.

I think another thing that probably infuriated him was the fact that Ireland's history goes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy back, whereas ours is a lot shorter, and yet they're able to remember more about their long history than we are about our short history.

And I have unfortunately known some kids in school who had the same attitude as the one kid about it all-"it's all in the past". .

Angela

 

[U2Kitten]

Yet it happens all the time in textbooks and in popular memory.

It's getting worse all the time. The kids' books are much worse than the high school ones though. Like the one that said "Nat Turner was a slave who tried to fight for freedom, but he was captured and hanged" .. makes him look sympathetic and victimized. But in reality, (I live only a few miles from where this happened) Nat Turner was an insane and delusional slave who believed God told him to rise up and kill all whites. He imagines blood on the corn one day in 1830 and went into action. That night, he and a few accomplices axed to death his 'master', master's wife, and children. Hearing a baby crying, they realized they had missed one, went back and killed it too Nat and his men went door to door. That night, 57 men, women and children were brutally killed with axes and garden tools in their own homes. Yes, for this he was captured and hanged, as any crazed mass murderer would be. But the history book only recorded that he was a slave fighting for his freedom.

There are other things but not nearly that extreme. But one thing I think is a disservice to all students is that the textbook writers are so concerned with being PC that they add stuff on women and minorities that may be interesting, but not nearly as important historical facts as what the famous 'white guys' did. It's good to mention that stuff IN ADDITION to the traditional history, but unfortunately I have seen it REPLACE the important stuff. The last time I toured Yorktown, I never heard the words Cornwallis or Rochambeau. They were too busy telling you about one black guy and one Native American who were spies, and all the women who followed their husband to battles and how they boiled the uniforms. Again, that stuff is good as long as it doesn't squeeze out or change the facts, which is what's happening. You can't really mention or glorify Jefferson or Washington anymore, egads, they owned slaves. Nevermind these guys were among the most important founding fathers this country would not exist without.

But no matter how much you change the stories, you will never change what really happened (unless you get a time machine)

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

That's crazy, U2Kitten.

Thankfully, the textbooks in my schools were honest about the stuff going on-they didn't make that Nat Turner out to be this good guy. And they were very updated, too (that's another problem-there's some areas where kids' books aren't even updated, so they've got that combined with the revised history and everything...and people wonder why kids don't do well in school. Hmm...).

Angela

 

[U2Kitten]

Yeah and why we have kids growing up not knowing basic facts and thinking it doesn't matter

 

[melon]

I'm often disappointed at how education is treated at different grade levels. It's almost as if we teach romanticism in the early grades and the "truth" in college. Does that make any damn sense? I don't think so.

History should be blunt and unbiased, as much as possible, showing the good and the bad. I hate how history is almost as bad as any Hollywood film: with clear-cut "good" and "evil" people. But the reality is that all "good" people and all "evil" people are nuanced. The "truth" should tell us why some individuals are clearly wrong and some are clearly right.

Bah...but maybe I'm too logical...

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

I'm often disappointed at how education is treated at different grade levels. It's almost as if we teach romanticism in the early grades and the "truth" in college. Does that make any damn sense? I don't think so.

Hehe....I get in trouble for telling the truth...hehe

 

[stammer476]

I'm often disappointed at how education is treated at different grade levels. It's almost as if we teach romanticism in the early grades and the "truth" in college.

And people complain that a high school diploma doesn't qualify you for anything anymore. Gee, could it be because a high school diploma is getting more and more worthless?

 

[verte76]

OMG!!! Some *college* students from the U.S. didn't know the dates for the Civil War? That's really pathetic and downright dangerous. Thomas Jefferson, wise man that he was, knew democracy wouldn't work without education. How can we expect it to work in 2004 if people just dismiss history as some sort of useless "past"? That's the worst thing about ignorance of history-- uninformed choices in elections! An "informed" choice need not be in agreement with mine. It *does* need to be based on knowledge, not ignorance.

 

[U2Kitten]

I have always believed that a person should have to pass a minimum knowledge test before they could vote. We don't need ignorant uninformed people deciding elections (not that it matters anymore as bad as the candidates are) They used to have literacy tests but they were banned as discriminatory and were accused of stopping blacks from voting in the south like poll taxes. That may have been part of it and that's a shame.But I still think, regardless of a person's demographic category they should be informed and smart enough to know what's going on, and know the basic facts of history.

 

[verte76]

My mother remembers the voting officials using "educational standards" to register voters. Yes, it was discriminatory, but here's why: they only asked African-Americans the questions. She remembers standing behind some African Americans while standing in line registering to vote. She was really nervous when she heard the questions because she didn't know the answers. Then it was her turn and they didn't ask her any questions, they just let her register. To make it not discriminatory, either ask everyone the questions or don't ask them. They made one law for the African Americans and another one for the whites. That sucks, and it's now illegal. It should be.

 

[U2Kitten]

I think they should bring it back but make it a written test and make it equal for all.

I have heard that in the last elections people rounded up homeless drunks from the streets to go vote for their candidate (Gore) in exchange for cigarettes. Then we had those senile old folks in FL who didn't know how to punch a chad. There needs to be some accountability to a person's competance.

 

[stammer476]

I have always believed that a person should have to pass a minimum knowledge test before they could vote.

As soon as you get that through Congress, I'll work on a similar bill that people should pass a minimum competence test before becoming parents.

 

[DrTeeth]

or before running for office.

Seriously, I'm against a test because it's simply discriminating towards 'dumb' people (depending on the test). Whether we like it or not, being able to vote is a 'right' and there shouldn't be any thresholds.

 

[U2Kitten]

I think there should be, because if a person is so 'dumb' that they can't read the paper, discuss the issues or understand the implications of their choice for a candidate they should not be a factor in inflicting their ill advised vote on the rest of us who have to live with it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But unfortunately that is not democracy, good governance should be performed by the wise and experienced however the right to elect the government rest on the shoulders of each and every citizen who is eligable no matter their background, views or intelligence.

 

[DrTeeth]

Other people have to live with our choice too, no matter how informed we claim to be. If a person can't read the paper then they are dyslexic (sp?) or illiterate not dumb. And you can't objectively determine to what extend people should be able to discuss the issues or understand the implications.

I'll stop here because we're derailing the thread

 

[U2Kitten]

I still think some folks are too dumb to vote And I do call illiterate dumb. Learn to read, pass the test, vote.

 

[oliveu2cm]

or before running for office.

Seriously, I'm against a test because it's simply discriminating towards 'dumb' people (depending on the test). Whether we like it or not, being able to vote is a 'right' and there shouldn't be any thresholds.

Everyone has a right to say who they want to run their country, no matter if they even can read or if they are CEO of an oil company. An educated opinion doesn't necessarily equal a common-sensed opinion.

If the president's decisions didn't affect the 'dumb' people then I can see an issue.

but, unfortunately, his decisions affect everyone.

 

[oliveu2cm]

double post