Yost Arena no more?

[Patman]

Most of this is coming out of destroying history for traits we do not find valuable in today's society and we do so very marginally. Anybody with a brain larger than a walnut knows that the prejudices of older eras are not being chosen to be celebrated because a name is maintained to a building. This is more from the people who wish to see the perfect society whitewashed in a new image and often actively hate the people they serve or feel that their concerns are ultimately morally invalid. They see the reverence for the good that was done as being buried. And this is correct. The people who do want to get rid of these people do want them to be buried. And in the time your mistakes will be treated the same by the same. Your forefathers are not moral enough for the contemporary crop of religious scolds. They see their positive examples laden in sin because they didn't adhere to the right frame of mind. This is why they seek to sever people like Abraham Lincoln from the rolls of the laudable. They also don't want people having on ongoing tradition. They see themselves as beyond that. Mostly on their own hubris and hinders.

The systemic forgottence of our forefathers is mostly to proclaim what they have brought forth, contemporary society 1950 to 2014 or so, as sinful and thus must be replaced by modern standards, saints, and acolytes.

If you think I'm wrong. Please ask yourself why at more than a surface level. We know this is a cultural replacement trying to eliminate the sins of the past but by doing so you also negate the positive done. Unless I'm wrong and we should purge our societies of the previous days saints as today's sinners. I just don't think that serves a purpose other than the self-celebration of today's supposed moral betters.

[TalonsUpPuckDown]

Most of this is coming out of destroying history for traits we do not find valuable in today's society and we do so very marginally. Anybody with a brain larger than a walnut knows that the prejudices of older eras are not being chosen to be celebrated because a name is maintained to a building. This is more from the people who wish to see the perfect society whitewashed in a new image and often actively hate the people they serve or feel that their concerns are ultimately morally invalid. They see the reverence for the good that was done as being buried. And this is correct. The people who do want to get rid of these people do want them to be buried. And in the time your mistakes will be treated the same by the same. Your forefathers are not moral enough for the contemporary crop of religious scolds. They see their positive examples laden in sin because they didn't adhere to the right frame of mind. This is why they seek to sever people like Abraham Lincoln from the rolls of the laudable. They also don't want people having on ongoing tradition. They see themselves as beyond that. Mostly on their own hubris and hinders.

The systemic forgottence of our forefathers is mostly to proclaim what they have brought forth, contemporary society 1950 to 2014 or so, as sinful and thus must be replaced by modern standards, saints, and acolytes.

If you think I'm wrong. Please ask yourself why at more than a surface level. We know this is a cultural replacement trying to eliminate the sins of the past but by doing so you also negate the positive done. Unless I'm wrong and we should purge our societies of the previous days saints as today's sinners. I just don't think that serves a purpose other than the self-celebration of today's supposed moral betters.

How do you know this to be the single truth? There are other conclusions one can draw from the same fact pattern. One is yours, that you're the oppressed victim here. Another could be that it's taken 400 years for the various groups white people have historically crapped on to have enough pull in this country to say that they aren't going to take it anymore. There are others that I won't bother mentioning. Now I don't profess to know which is which (nor do I care to debate - I simply wanted to point out other possibilities exist) but I do know that wishing this genie back into the bottle isn't going to return things to the way they were.

I do agree there were much better ways for the administration to have handled the situation irrespective of the rationale which, for me, is the primary takeaway. At the end of the day, however, whatever Michigan names their rink is fine with me. Red/Mel haven't played my team post B1G and I don't expect a new name on their barn to change that (though I still hold out hope for a home-and-home as that would be a sellout for us).

[RSTuthill]

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum[/URL] estimates that besides the 6 million Jews the Nazis killed about 5.7 million Soviet civilians and another 3 million POWs, 1.8 million non-Jewish Polish civilians, over 300,000 Serb civilians, up to 250,000 people with disabilities living in institutions and between 250,000 and 500,000 Roma.
Sean

The Soviet Union is widely believed to have lost ~27 million people in WW2, more than half of which were civilian deaths. That is the reason that Russia still celebrates Victory Day (May 9) with massive parades. Much of that war was fought on their soil. By comparison the USA lost ~400,000 almost none of which were civilian.

[Hockeybuckeye]

Most of this is coming out of destroying history for traits we do not find valuable in today's society and we do so very marginally. Anybody with a brain larger than a walnut knows that the prejudices of older eras are not being chosen to be celebrated because a name is maintained to a building. This is more from the people who wish to see the perfect society whitewashed in a new image and often actively hate the people they serve or feel that their concerns are ultimately morally invalid. They see the reverence for the good that was done as being buried. And this is correct. The people who do want to get rid of these people do want them to be buried. And in the time your mistakes will be treated the same by the same. Your forefathers are not moral enough for the contemporary crop of religious scolds. They see their positive examples laden in sin because they didn't adhere to the right frame of mind. This is why they seek to sever people like Abraham Lincoln from the rolls of the laudable. They also don't want people having on ongoing tradition. They see themselves as beyond that. Mostly on their own hubris and hinders.

The systemic forgottence of our forefathers is mostly to proclaim what they have brought forth, contemporary society 1950 to 2014 or so, as sinful and thus must be replaced by modern standards, saints, and acolytes.

If you think I'm wrong. Please ask yourself why at more than a surface level. We know this is a cultural replacement trying to eliminate the sins of the past but by doing so you also negate the positive done. Unless I'm wrong and we should purge our societies of the previous days saints as today's sinners. I just don't think that serves a purpose other than the self-celebration of today's supposed moral betters.

Pretty much puts the nail on the head Patman!
I personally know an employee of the University of Michigan who I am declining to name or say their job but they are nationally recognized as one of the top in their field and who no doubt will receive high accolades and perhaps something named for them when they step down. Now this person is also gay. Let's jump ahead 75 years from now, about the same amount of time Fielding Yost has been gone and society has yet again shifted in their views where once again homosexuality is frowned upon and condemned. What if because this person I mentioned no longer meets the requirements of modern morality in this hypothetical future that it is decided by the high minded that it would be appropriate to strip this person of the honors and recognition the University once thought it was appropriate to bestow upon them?
Is that in any way appropriate or right to ignore all that they've done for the University and to condemn them because you feel you have a superior morality?
I say those who attack people from the past who have done no wrong except there's something about them you personally disagree with then you have no morality.

[dxmnkd316]

Lol. In 75 years we're going to be looked at as savages too. Very very few people's names belong on buildings and it's up to the people 75 years from now to determine if we live up to their standards.

[Lost_Husky]

Most of this is coming out of destroying history for traits we do not find valuable in today's society and we do so very marginally. Anybody with a brain larger than a walnut knows that the prejudices of older eras are not being chosen to be celebrated because a name is maintained to a building. This is more from the people who wish to see the perfect society whitewashed in a new image and often actively hate the people they serve or feel that their concerns are ultimately morally invalid. They see the reverence for the good that was done as being buried. And this is correct. The people who do want to get rid of these people do want them to be buried. And in the time your mistakes will be treated the same by the same. Your forefathers are not moral enough for the contemporary crop of religious scolds. They see their positive examples laden in sin because they didn't adhere to the right frame of mind. This is why they seek to sever people like Abraham Lincoln from the rolls of the laudable. They also don't want people having on ongoing tradition. They see themselves as beyond that. Mostly on their own hubris and hinders.

The systemic forgottence of our forefathers is mostly to proclaim what they have brought forth, contemporary society 1950 to 2014 or so, as sinful and thus must be replaced by modern standards, saints, and acolytes.

If you think I'm wrong. Please ask yourself why at more than a surface level. We know this is a cultural replacement trying to eliminate the sins of the past but by doing so you also negate the positive done. Unless I'm wrong and we should purge our societies of the previous days saints as today's sinners. I just don't think that serves a purpose other than the self-celebration of today's supposed moral betters.

Every society/generation gets to pick who it honors for different buildings. Pick the OTR district in Cincinnati. Many of the streets were named after places in German. (Cincinnati has a large German-American population.) When WWI and WWII happened, that Germanic culture was mostly swept away and the streets officially renamed. People still know/can tell because when they built the buildings, they put the street names in blocks on the corners of the buildings that are still there. Were the German-Americans upset about, I doubt, maybe a little sad as what they once held dear had changed and became the enemy. Fast forward to today. The US relation with Germany has changed again and we are allies. German culture/heritage is celebrated in the streets. Their isn't a push to rename the streets, the city put a historical marker up describing the history of the area and the old street names, but if you didn't look for it, one would never know. Cincinnati is just one example as things are renamed all the time.

Time marches on and societies change. Values change as well. We always need to be open to change, or we become irrelevant. We need to understand and except that what was done in the past wasn't perfect and always needs to be adjusted.

With that said, U of M handling of this is more political than anything. It could have been handled in a much smoother way. I have no problem renaming a building, but don't vilify the dead in public. Quietly move them to museums and let historians/curators argue over them.

[dxmnkd316]

How do you quietly rename Yost without explaining it?

[LtPowers]

I'm curious. Is Yost Arena the only record of Fielding Yost's accomplishments and tenure at Michigan?

If not, how does removing his name from the arena constitute an erasure of those accomplishments?


Powers &8^]

[pdt1081]

How do you quietly rename Yost without explaining it?

"Based on the history of the arena, we have decided a name change is in order to more closely honor the tradition of the hockey program. Moving forward, Yost Arena will be known as [insert name here] Arena."

[Hockeybuckeye]

I'm curious. Is Yost Arena the only record of Fielding Yost's accomplishments and tenure at Michigan?

If not, how does removing his name from the arena constitute an erasure of those accomplishments?


Powers &8^]

How do you NOT see when you remove the honor bestowed because of your accomplishments you are disregarding the meaning and significance of those accomplishments? Obviously the accomplishments are still there, it just means the current administration doesn't give a sh*t about them anymore!

[TalonsUpPuckDown]

"based on the history of the arena, we have decided a name change is in order to more closely honor the tradition of the hockey program. Moving forward, yost arena will be known as [insert name here] arena presented by geico."

fyp ;-)

[dxmnkd316]

"Based on the history of the arena, we have decided a name change is in order to more closely honor the tradition of the hockey program. Moving forward, Yost Arena will be known as [insert name here] Arena."

Yeah, no one would be up in arms about that. If you don't explain why, it would get dragged even more than it is today

[pdt1081]

Yeah, no one would be up in arms about that. If you don't explain why, it would get dragged even more than it is today

That does explain why. To more closely honor the history and legacy of the team that utilizes the building. Anytime you rename something, you're going to get pushback. The majority of the population would read that release and keep moving. Doing as they are, all the "drive-bys" are forming an opinion and chiming in.

[Lost_Husky]

They also have a living U of M hockey legend, Red. They could tip their hand and say they have no plans to relocate the hockey team, and as such want to honor their hockey program and think it is fitting to rename the building after the man who will forever be synonymous with U of M hockey, Red.

[pdt1081]

They also have a living U of M hockey legend, Red. They could tip their hand and say they have no plans to relocate the hockey team, and as such want to honor their hockey program and think it is fitting to rename the building after the man who will forever be synonymous with U of M hockey, Red.

That's just it. Take the "righteousness" out of the publicized decision, and 95% the attention goes away.