3 ms·
Having read the article, and done a bit more reading, I think a lot of the changes described here are good. Marion Sims’s accomplishments are utterly tainted b
by 542458 6y ago
Having read the article, and done a bit more reading, I think a lot of the changes described here are good.
Marion Sims’s accomplishments are utterly tainted by the absolutely nightmarish ways he conducted his research. Anything that pretends he’s some sort of hero - including naming buildings after him - can go away and I won’t be too upset.
Likewise, Fisher’s accomplishments were great, but he was employed by eugenics organizations, actively pursued legislation to forcibly sterilize 10% of the population, and wrote essays supporting Nazi eugenics programs during and after WW2. Personally, I wouldn’t be too fond of walking past a mural every day of the guy who thinks that I, and anybody else who shares my line, should be “removed” from the breeding stock by whatever means necessary. We’re not striking him from history or anything - just removing the monuments glorifying him.
I also don’t think it’s the end of the world if we remove a slur from the rarely used scientific names of some obscure species.
Sure, there will always be people who try to take things too far. For example, I’m not sold that ‘noosing’ needs to go - but it doesn’t sound like that one actually has much support. But the changes that the article describes as actually having sufficient support to pass seem reasonable, at least to me.