This seems more analogous to why Buddhist groups in the US are much less likely to decorate their buildings and such with swastikas than Buddhist groups in Asia.
“So, let’s limit all discussion and outrage over ANY issue to only those affected directly or living in the affected area. If you don’t live in the South…you have no say over which flag gets flown…right?”
Millions of people living in the south wanted those flags removed from their government property because of what that flag symbolized to them.
I see no evidence that millions of Oregonians ( or even a handful of people) were demanding the school change its name or millions (or even a handful) protesting the name change.
I see a few snowflakes getting their panties in a twist over the name change and desperately trying to make this an issue, who have nothing whatsoever to do with this school district. IMO, it’s because they must be #neverPC regardless of its importance or lack thereof.
Apparently the term “lynch,” originally “Lynch’s Law” then “lynch law” was named after a Captain William Lynch who set up his own tribunal in Virginia, circa 1780. Another source claims that it came from a mayor of Galway who hanged his own son, but that sounds less likely.
Panty bunged snowflakes - of all varieties - are a vital part of our economy. Think of all the layers, activists, professors and victimology support groups that rely on their continued panty discomfort.
This reminds me of the incident many years back when someone on a city council was reprimanded for using the word ‘niggardly’ (by someone whose vocabulary was lacking).
There are enough real problems in this world that there doesn’t need to be any faux outrage over non-insults.
Seems like there is no outrage other than from those posting here reacting with outrage to what is otherwise an apparently non-controversial name change.
I see no reason why I should have any say in what flags get flown in the South - did I miss something?
I think the reasoning is flawed. It is not the same as having Indian mascots as those can easily insult a group of people (although no one has ever cared about the Fighting Irish). There are some exceptions to the Indian rule, both on the high school and NCAA level. Florida Seminoles was able to keep the mascot, North Dakota Fighting Sioux were out.
But someone’s last name? It’s an Irish name that means ‘mariner’ or ‘sailor’. Should we also get rid of any other names people might find offensive?
If the district were really attached to the name, it could change the school names to include the full names (e.g. “Jane Lynch School”, “John Lynch School”, etc.) or something like “Lynch Family School”, which would be much less likely to connote an unfavorable first impression that the school administration seems to be encountering and having to explain (and it is likely that for every person who asks, there are others who do not ask and continue to assume the unfavorable meaning, which the school administration probably does not like the idea of happening).
It is worth noting that the existing names are “Lynch Meadows”, “Lynch Wood”, and “Lynch View”. Such word combinations look like they would increase the chance of a wrong first impression, compared to names like “Jane Lynch” or “Lynch Family”.
I think anyone who sees the name of a school assumes it is named after a person, place, or activity. We see ‘Brown’ and think it is named after a person, not a color. If there was a “White” school, I wouldn’t immediately think 'ooh, that’s a school only for White people."
Sometimes there are good reasons to rename schools. There was one in Jacksonville FL that was named (a long time ago) after a man who was a KKK member. Believe it or not, many people objected because of ‘tradition.’ In the 60’s a lot of schools were renamed to honor Kennedy so people who had gone to Wm Henry Harrison High had to get over it.
In this case, I think the school district could have said “The Lynch family was active in prior school districts, but we want our schools to be named to reflect our community now.” No need to mention that the name is unattractive to the district. I don’t care if they change them, just that the reason is because some people require an explanation. The schools weren’t named after a lynching. There is actually an explanation why Lynch was chosen. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of the roads, parks, or playgrounds in the area are also named Lynch.
That there’s some world-class wholesale stereotyping. Those dang minorities and their grudging-holding victimhood. Not like us rugged, stoic white people. Oy.
"… kids surnamed Hitler and how it affected their lives and how their parents decided to keep the family name rather than change it. "
I lived in Austria for a while and not once did I encounter the surname Hitler.
I’ve often wondered why the most reviled figures in history generally have rare surnames:
Hitler (rather than Mueller, Schmidt, Schneider, Fischer, …)
Mussolini (rather than Rossi, Russo, Ferrari, Esposito, …)
Stalin (rather than Ivanov, Smirnov, Kuznetsov, Popov, …)
Although I couldn’t find corresponding lists of common surnames in Uganda and Cambodia, the same apparently holds for Dada (Idi Amin’s surname) and Saloth (surname of Pol Pot).
I don’t know if there’s any cosmic significance, but it’s certainly odd.
^^Stalin was not his real last name; he chose it because it means “made of steel.”
The names are reviled because they are uncommon (although I think the Mussolini heirs still use that name and the Bin Ladin family still uses theirs). A reviled person with a common surname (take some well-known murderers Bundy, Simpson) or another dictator (Franco) is less likely to have that surname associated with himself.
Names and words and their connotations are a fascinating subject. It’s odd that so many former slaves took the surnames of the masters after the Civil War. You’d think those names would have been reviled too.
“Stalin was not his real last name; he chose it because it means “made of steel.””
And he was Georgian, not Russian, so the common names would be different.
Carry on.
A “Jane Lynch School” would be pretty obvious as being named after a person.
But a “Lynch View School” may give the impression of being named after a place where the activity of lynching was done, even if Lynch really refers to a person and there was no lynching in the general area.
I didn’t mean it that way. It’s ok the minority population, be that white, black, red or brown, to hold grudges or victimized. But how do you progress if the majority of nation feel victimized by their own society? Wouldn’t you have to change from resistance mode to governing mode? Or maybe the majority are already feeling victimized albeit for different reasons.
The first college my D went to was Lynchburg College in Lynchburg, Va. The name was enough for her not to want to even consider it originally. I just checked, and it is not named after the infamous Lynch in another part of Virginia.
Well re-naming of a town showed up in my newspaper this morning.
Not for cultural/historical/politically correct reasons but for the purpose of tourism and economic development.
Sort of puts a new spin?
It’s under discussion to change the name of the area from “X” to “X Beach” to boost tourism. And all those people who have spent untold hours bolstering the historical value of the town are NOT happy.
The fireworks have just begun. Thankfully, I’m not involved.