What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Yost Arena no more?

Hockeybuckeye said:
Thank you for proving my point so perfectly! How long have you been indoctrinated into the New World Order?
Click to expand...

I think most world religions talk about treating all people with respect. I know Christianity does and that is what, 2000 or so years old? Doesn't sound like that new of an order to me. If changing the name of a building makes a significant percentage of people happy, better to change the name of a building. (Especially when you have a living legend and decent human being, Red, still alive to honor.)

U of M could be handling this better and quietly changed the name of the building. They didn't so here we are.

If you don't want things to change,... good luck.
 
'What's in a name? that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet. So Yost would, were it not Yost called'

Michigan:
Yes, the hockey rink (former field house) is named after a football coach/athletic director.
The basketball arena is named after a football coach/athletic director
The Natatorium is named after a track coach/athletic director.

My take on this whole thing: humans are flawed. If you want zero scandal associated with your stadium/arena name, don't name it for a human (or a company), no matter how great you think they are at the time, nor how much money they wave in your face.
Michigan stadium.
I will be ok with the decision either way. I understand not wanting to honor someone who didn't fight for all of the student athletes during his time, but I also understand that expecting a person to remain on a pedestal for generations to come is not realistic. There's still a legacy behind the name Yost, that can remain while still acknowledging he wasn't perfect.

Ray Fisher (whom the baseball stadium is named for) was an assistant football & basketball coach during his time as Michigan's baseball head coach. Did he have any involvement in the Willis Ward situation? (I don't know and don't care to research). Should we consider renaming the baseball stadium as well?


I don't know what the student section will decide to call themselves. CoY is after I graduated (but possibly not before I matured enough to stop standing in the student section). Maybe they acknowledge that as "children" of a previous generation they have hopefully evolved past the previous generation (or several)'s worldview. Even if the building name doesn't change, I would think the student section name might. That's for the current students to decide.
 
GhostOfYost said:
Funny that you are talking about Hitler's rise to power in a "democracy". trump's rise to power in a party which he wasn't even a member of 20 years ago mirrors that. Pretty much sums up the importance of this issue. Don't be stupid. If it offends you that much just continue calling it Yost, as old farts do with Pine Knob....
Click to expand...

A more appropriate analogy will end up being calling TCF Center Cobo. That name was dropped for similar reasons. And the CC Little building was re-named not long ago for the same reason. Funny that Little and Yost both spoke at the same eugenics event.
 
wolverineTrumpet said:
'What's in a name? that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet. So Yost would, were it not Yost called'

Michigan:
Yes, the hockey rink (former field house) is named after a football coach/athletic director.
The basketball arena is named after a football coach/athletic director
The Natatorium is named after a track coach/athletic director.

My take on this whole thing: humans are flawed. If you want zero scandal associated with your stadium/arena name, don't name it for a human (or a company), no matter how great you think they are at the time, nor how much money they wave in your face.
Michigan stadium.
I will be ok with the decision either way. I understand not wanting to honor someone who didn't fight for all of the student athletes during his time, but I also understand that expecting a person to remain on a pedestal for generations to come is not realistic. There's still a legacy behind the name Yost, that can remain while still acknowledging he wasn't perfect.

Ray Fisher (whom the baseball stadium is named for) was an assistant football & basketball coach during his time as Michigan's baseball head coach. Did he have any involvement in the Willis Ward situation? (I don't know and don't care to research). Should we consider renaming the baseball stadium as well?


I don't know what the student section will decide to call themselves. CoY is after I graduated (but possibly not before I matured enough to stop standing in the student section). Maybe they acknowledge that as "children" of a previous generation they have hopefully evolved past the previous generation (or several)'s worldview. Even if the building name doesn't change, I would think the student section name might. That's for the current students to decide.
Click to expand...

You know WT, though I don't know you well I wanted to say I respect your opinion much more than some who have posted here.
I also had another thought, are there any living Yost descendants and if so have any stepped up defending his legacy?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Patman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
Sean Pickett said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Patman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Patman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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^]
 
LtPowers said:
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^]
Click to expand...

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!
 
pdt1081 said:
"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."
Click to expand...

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
 
dxmnkd316 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Lost_Husky said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's just it. Take the "righteousness" out of the publicized decision, and 95% the attention goes away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top