Leave a comment

Comments 7

(The comment has been removed)

dzuunmod March 6 2008, 14:59:50 UTC
Sure, but there's an awful big difference between that quaint little thing in the west end, and the thing that's coming to the eastern part of downtown.

And he's hardly the only person to talk about naming a major-league arts complex for Oscar. A lot of people are suggesting that Place-des-Arts be renamed for him.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

dzuunmod March 6 2008, 17:36:22 UTC
I don't think he was suggesting that. He only referred to really big, really high-profile buildings like the Kennedy Center(s) and Carnegie Hall.

In any case, I think his point's a fair one.

Reply


ugh bee_york March 6 2008, 17:18:04 UTC
We had this discussion on the metro, but yes. In all honesty I don't want to talk about this too much because I'm going to get too angry about it. This whole thing makes me sick. I don't even know where to begin.

Also, anyone who wanting to keep the name Lionel-Groulx for the station makes me honestly wonder if they hate Jews, too. If you're going to defend naming something after a disgusting racist piece of shit, that says a lot about you, I think.

Reply

Re: ugh dzuunmod March 6 2008, 17:39:35 UTC
I know where you're coming from, but I can also understand how some people could be against renaming it. The Gazette mentions in their editorial today that if you take someone's name off of something, you could be opening up a big can of worms.

"Revising place names with every twist of popularity, or every reconsideration of ancient folly, would greatly cheapen the act of naming."

Not saying I agree with them, but I think it's a reasonable position to take.

Reply

Re: ugh bee_york March 6 2008, 18:00:10 UTC
I think all these rules go out the window when the person the thing is named after is a racist piece of bacteria, though. ;)

Reply

Re: ugh dzuunmod March 6 2008, 18:28:09 UTC
I agree to an extent. It just opens up the possibility that we'll fall down a very slippery slope, you know?

I'll just go with an American example since this example can serve as a pretty big, blunt instrument with which to make my case: As President of the United States, George Washington did nothing to stop slavery, which was happening on a huge scale in his day. Does that mean there should be nothing named for him?

(And I gotta mention that I could've used any number of Canadian Prime Ministers in this example for their own deplorable treatment of various groups, too.)

Reply


Leave a comment

Up