|
Saturday, 5 March 2016
quote [ Harvard Law School has decided to drop its crest because of links to an 18th Century slave owner in the latest race row to engulf a leading university. ]
|
midden said @ 7:14pm GMT on 5th March
So is the version with the sheaves (not sheaths) of wheat on people's backs pictured in the article the original version, or is that just commentary on the crest?
I certainly understand the desire to change the school's crest because of relation to slavery, but how far should that go? I live in the state of Maryland, and our flag includes elements from the Calvert family crest. It was Charles Calvert, 3rd Baron of Baltimore that for economic reasons decided that all slaves that came to the colony would be slaves for life as well as all their children. Previously, a slave that converted to Christianity and was baptised would be freed. Should we change our state flag because of that association? The Calvert family has a long and involved association with the history of the state. Should we ignore that because there is also an association with slavery?
I don't have an answer. History is messy. There will always be distasteful associations with something or other.
midden said @ 7:20pm GMT on 5th March
So is the version with the sheaves (not sheaths) of wheat on people's backs pictured in the article the original version, or is that just commentary on the crest?
edit: apparently it is just commentary. Here's an early version of the crest in question.
I certainly understand the desire to change the school's crest because of relation to slavery, but how far should that go? I live in the state of Maryland, and our flag includes elements from the Calvert family crest. It was Charles Calvert, 3rd Baron of Baltimore that for economic reasons decided that all slaves that came to the colony would be slaves for life as well as all their children. Previously, a slave that converted to Christianity and was baptised would be freed. Should we change our state flag because of that association? The Calvert family has a long and involved association with the history of the state. Should we ignore that because there is also an association with slavery?
I don't have an answer. History is messy. There will always be distasteful associations with something or other.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
midden said @ 7:14pm GMT on 5th March
So is the version with the sheaves (not sheaths) of wheat on people's backs pictured in the article the original version, or is that just commentary on the crest?
edit: apparently it is just commentary. Here's an early version of the crest in question.
I certainly understand the desire to change the school's crest because of relation to slavery, but how far should that go? I live in the state of Maryland, and our flag includes elements from the Calvert family crest. It was Charles Calvert, 3rd Baron of Baltimore that for economic reasons decided that all slaves that came to the colony would be slaves for life as well as all their children. Previously, a slave that converted to Christianity and was baptised would be freed. Should we change our state flag because of that association? The Calvert family has a long and involved association with the history of the state. Should we ignore that because there is also an association with slavery?
I don't have an answer. History is messy. There will always be distasteful associations with something or other.
