Students Demand Removal Of Oregon’s 100-Year-Old Pioneer Statue

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

We have previously discussed the removal university names, mascots, and symbols in recent years in response to student protests, including an effort to replace the GW “Colonial” mascot. I have previously expressed my concerns over the removal of long-held mascots and names in colleges from “the Cowboys” to “Shooter the Fox” to the Aztecs to the “Fighting Sioux” to “Chief Illini” to the “Prospectors.” Now, NPR Oregon reports, the University of Oregon is considering the removal of its iconic statue, “The Pioneer,” as its 100-year anniversary approaches. Students and faculty have denounced The Pioneers as, in the words on one students, “a monument to violence and white supremacy.”

History doctoral candidate Marc Carpenter told the Daily Emerald that there a statue celebrating European settlers is like a confederate monument in honoring “violence and white supremacy, and I don’t think those are values that we want to have as a community.”

Many critics are pointing to the dedication from May 1919 when the president of the Oregon Historical Society who “extolled the virtues of the Anglo-Saxon race” and hailed the settlers as part of a “race has large powers of assimilation, and its great ideas of liberty and of the rights of mankind caused other races to become a part of it, so it became a people as well as a race.”

There are indeed many such speeches of that period extolling the Anglo-Saxon race. However, that does not mean that the pioneers who ventured out West are unworthy of respect. These are people who faced extraordinary challenges and conditions to settle out West. That does not mean that the settlements were fair to Native American tribes or that there were not great injustices done to local tribes. Yet, these are often people fleeing their own desperation and seeking a new life on the frontier.

The University issued a statement that read:

“The Pioneer statue was unveiled 100 years ago to represent Oregon’s first European settlers. A century later, a more inclusive view of history recognizes that The Pioneer symbolizes just one part of the story. The UO fully appreciates that to many Oregonians, including those of Native American ancestry, it stands for something very different, the framing of history from only one culture’s perspective. We take those views very seriously.

Last winter, the UO established a presidential working group – led by Dean of Libraries Adriene Lim and Professor Dean Livelybrooks – to audit and review campus monuments, plaques and public art installations and recommend whether any changes need to be made to those features to recognize the diverse histories of our community. The Pioneer statue is part of that review, and the working group hopes to deliver a report, including recommendations, next fall. We are happy to share any research and information from outside organizations with that working group.”

The move at Oregon again raises the tendency to simply wipe away such symbols and references rather than to put them in context with both a degree of education and, yes, understanding. Indeed, the University is right that this is “just one part of the story” and that there is an entirely different (and equally compelling) Native American history. That is why statues to both histories can be found at Oregon and should be recognized as fundamental elements in the university’s history.

What do you think?

106 thoughts on “Students Demand Removal Of Oregon’s 100-Year-Old Pioneer Statue”

  1. PC and duplicity should kill the Democrats but will it?

    “Hillary Accepted Dirt From Ukraine To Beat Trump
    By Dick Morris on June 17, 2019

    Give me a break from all the Democratic Congressional posturing over President Trump’s hypothetical answer to George Stephanopoulos’ query about what he would do if a foreign power offered to give him derogatory information about his opponent in a U.S. political campaign. Some particularly crazy Democrats are using the president’s answer — that he would look at it and might, or might not, notify the FBI — to build a case for impeachment.
    But Hillary Clinton did exactly what Trump speculated that he might do when her campaign got a heads up from Ukraine about what turned out to be corrupt payments from their former president Viktor Yanukovych’s administration. In March of 2019, Ukraine’s top prosecutor told Hill TV that “he has opened an investigation into whether her country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 US presidential election about then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in an effort to swing the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.”
    The investigation was prompted by the release of a tape quoting a top Ukrainian law enforcement official as saying that he leaked the Manafort records to help Hillary win.
    It was this leak that led to the resignation of Manafort from the Trump campaign only a few months before the election.
    If this wasn’t foreign interference, I don’t know what is.
    Also during the 2016 election, Hillary’s campaign enlisted the paid services of Christopher Steele, a former British MI-6 agent to try to build a case against Trump for colluding with Russia to release Hillary’s e mails from her secret server. Again, the Democrats get away with conduct that their party says is grounds for impeachment when done by a Republican president.
    Of course, the Democratic field will be hurt by their obsessive focus on impeachment. As any veteran or observer of the 1998 Democratic Congressional campaign should realize, the Republican fixation on Clinton impeachment so besmirched their party’s image that they failed to win the Congressional races that year — the first time the opposition party failed to gain in the midterm elections (it happened again in 2002).
    Democrats need to show progress on their key issues — health care, education, climate change, and income inequality. If they are perceived as squandering their 2018 victory in the House races on impeachment or partisan warfare, angry voters won’t give them another chance.”

    1. they won’t show any progress on climate change that’s for sure. because all of their suggestions are lame and feckless and counterproductive

      climate change is real. and the causes are whatever they are. it hardly matters when the disaster hits did it come because of anthropogenic causes or solar activity.

      and the tipping point may have been reached already and 100% of any public investment to address it needs to go to REMEDIATION which means mostly just civil engineering and infrastructure upgrade and resiliency, not idiotic tax schemes to take away money from the public which needs the resources to adapt to potentially worsening situation.

      If there is no money being allocated to projects NECESSARILY handled by the feds like Army Corps of Engineers things, then all the hot air in Congress is no better than a bunch of methane cowfarts which is supposedly a yuuuuuge source of emissions. Which is why I am supposed to go eat soy and become a soy boy. NOT!

      1. in this article NASA calls this the difference between mitigation and adaptation. yes mitigation is pretty much a lost cause at this point. time to focus on adaptation. and fast.

        https://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/adaptation-mitigation/

        don’t expect Democrats to come up with anything useful. They just want to tax you and take your stuff and give it to their cronies in “Green” industry

        of course this is not to say that the usual pollution mitigation is not worthwhile. the Democrats could always pick something worth doing like clearing and preventing the massive garbage patch in the Pacific but then again that might be too practical to stimulate their fantastical socialist imaginations.

        A friend who lived in Russia for years remarked one of the differences between the US and the tail end of the Soviet regime was garbage. In the US, we actually throw garbage into garbage cans. In the worker’s paradise, garbage all over the place, to say nothing of the tons of nuclear waste they just dumped into the ocean.

        Sad, pathetic communist fools! and bigger fools who want to bring it back.

        https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/vbn9e9/the-soviet-union-dumped-a-bunch-of-nuclear-submarines-reactors-and-containers-into-the-ocean

  2. Really this is Oregon and Pioneers are part of our history. If you don’t appreciate that history too damn bad. Settles traveled here and endured death and famine in route to the Oregon trail. Quit being hypersensitive.

  3. OT:

    “11 million Americans are about to get more freedom in their healthcare

    There are two big ways Washington can affect healthcare for Americans. The first is by working to expand the range of affordable, high-quality options available in every community. The second is by purposefully eliminating these options in order to drive more people toward centralized, government-run healthcare schemes.

    Here’s an example: Health Reimbursement Arrangements, or HRAs, allow workers to shop for a health insurance plan that’s right for them and their families. The previous administration imposed crushing fines and penalties on HRAs to prevent employees from selecting the plan of their choice. “It was impossible,” President Trump said.

    On Friday, President Trump announced that HRAs will now receive the same tax treatment as other employer-provided health plans. The move is crucial for America’s small businesses: It’s estimated that 90 percent of the businesses that will take advantage of HRAs have fewer than 20 employees.

    “The Obama administration had made it illegal for our business to help employees with their health insurance costs,” Maryland small business owner Tom Kunkel said at the White House on Friday. “After the Obama ruling we had to stop all reimbursements . . . which caused a great bit of hardship for our employees.”

    Now, his business and others can help defray healthcare costs for employees again.

    The Trump Administration expects that 800,000 employers will offer these new HRAs to more than 11 million employees and family members once employers fully adjust to the rule. As a result, some 800,000 Americans who would otherwise be uninsured are projected to gain coverage.”

      1. Peter, Trump didn’t control the Democrats and didn’t control the Republicans. By now you should know that the President only runs the executive branch. Despite Trump’s lack of support he has done wonders but there are limits on what anyone person could do. When he was negotiating with enemies on America’s behalf the left was busy weakening the President’s position despite the risks to the nation. When he was trying to push healthcare through the left was threatening him with investigations created in great part by the Clinton team. Blame your own side along with some Repbublicans for not letting this fantastic President do more.

        We are all paying for the left’s and Democratic Party’s temper tantrums..

      2. Tell us why we got Romneycare when Democrats had control……..80% of democrats wanted single payer of at least a public option and all we got was the republican Heritage Foundation plan since Nixon and Gingrich?And a TAX for all Americans forced to pay into the for profit scheme ?The same Americans who are one paycheck away from homelessness?Who need Repubicans when Democrats pass more republican policies than Republicans can.

        1. emma, politics is the art of the possible, not whatever you dream about. The Democrats are a big tent party and not everybody agrees with you. The ACA is not a completed program yet and wasn’t when it was passed. You get what you can get and keep moving forward.

          1. “the stupidity of the American voter” __Gruber (Obama’s healthcare architect)

            They used lack of transparency so the American voter wouldn’t know what was passed.

            In essence what Gruber says means Obamacare was unconstitutional.

            The clip also explains why prices had to climb.

  4. Why don’t students know their history?

    The First People in America were the Neanderthals.

    They were wiped out by the Second People – modern man. The earliest tribes we know of are referred to as the Clovis.

    The Third People migrated here later than the Clovis. We now know them as American Indians. They did not leave the land to the Clovis who survived a natural disaster. They fought amongs each other, kept slaves, including sex slaves, and some tribes engaged in torture.

    European setters were the Fourth People.

    Each wave of settlers, from the Second to the Fourth, quarreled with the previous ones over resources. Every. One.

    We must resist the urge to apply anachronistic judgement selectively, only to Western civilization, while absolving all other civilizations from similar judgement. Rather, learn from the past. Report it accurately, and move in.

    No one can “correct” the sins of the past, going all the way back to Cain and Abel. The sons are not guilty of the sins of the father.

    1. No, Karen, there were never any Neanderthals in the Americas. The single best guess about the peopling of the contents is that there was a synthesis of three distinct groups of migrants (Siberian, Austronesian, &c) which took place in Alaska roughly 15,000 years ago.

      And that’s anthropology, not history.

        1. Karen, New Scientist is a popular magazine. It’s written by British science writers vulnerable to sensationalism. The Neaderthals died out 20,000 years before there is any secure evidence of human habitation in this hemisphere.

          1. Smithsonian referenced it.

            I was originally taught that the Clovis, or someone closely related, were the first to cross to America. However, new discoveries are calling that into question.

            Reminds me of the time that the Brontesaurus was found to not be a separate dinosaur, but rather a sauropod that had already been named. Or when we discovered dinosaurs were warm blooded. Or theropods had feathers. Or how retroviruses helped shape our evolution.

            There is no settled science. Just about anything we know to be true can have any number of incredible discoveries. Who knows? Maybe the Neanderthals in North America discovery will be disproven.

            1. Karen…….excellent points, again. I’m glad you don’t let Grumpy, and some of the other Dwarfs, discourage you.
              You put so much thought, resesrch. and time into your comments, and they are appreciated.

            2. Karen, it’s completely speculative and it’s based on an interpretation of markings on animal bones. It also contradicts genetic research on today’s Amerindian populations.

      1. Anthropology is part of history, including modern anthropology or paleoanthropology.

        It’s so interesting to think about how life for humans has evolved over millennia.

        1. No, it is not. History is documentary, Karen. Archaeological methods can illuminate history, but that’s irrelevant here, because everything in the Americas prior to about 300 AD is pre-historic.

          1. Don’t you think that any discussion of tribes quarreling with other tribes pre-colonization would be pre-historic? Tribes did not have a written word, but rather oral history. Anything prior to Europeans arriving, with their record keeping, would be considered pre-historic anthropology for the culture. Going back enough years it becomes a paleontological study.

            My point is that it is irrational for SJWs to apply selective outrage towards Western Civilization, applying today’s standards to antiquity. Not only is it anachronistic, but they don’t do so for any other culture. They carry some romanticized idea of the “nobel savage”. However, as we are all Homo sapiens, we have the same propensity for good or ill regardless of geographical location.

            1. SJW PCniks and their ilk are not out to teach or educate. They are out to BULLY YOU.

              On the one hand, they claim there is no absolute moral standard, all norms are culturally relativistic.

              on the other hand, they condemn the West for whatever. Wait a second– if all norms are relative, then by what norm may they condemn? this makes no sense. hence, it’s just bullying.

              If it is all just will to power, then, DO NOT APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR ANCESTORS’ POWER!

            2. Academicians who analyze folklore are not called ‘historians’. They’re called ‘anthropologists’. Different skill set.

  5. Once upon a time they tried to change the name of UofOregon to match the true name of the facility. No I do not call it a school by any stretch of the imagination using any other word one might dream up.

    Hence forth the schools ‘teams will be known as the Emu’s and to make the point the official school foot gear to include sports teams was socks with Birkenstocks.

    Notice the Bi to differentiate from the expected Be rkelian sockless school some distance to the South.and also remember the California school has Professors of Cognizance for those who haven’t a clue what this message is about..

    The fight went on Rah Rah Ree kick ’em in the knee. Rah Rah Rass kick ’em in the other knee. I don’t believe the sock issue was ever concluded but some reporter from the New York Times finally asked ‘What does EMU stand for?

    “Not much if you mean does it have intense social meaning… The initials EMU stand for Earth Muffin University.

    And there in lies the story fraught with … as promised…. not much but does describe the student body. .

    Does it have a more urgent poetic frame of reference though. I mean what kind of school spirit can you get that rhymes with ducks.

    Yuck or as we say in bilterate circles… Que Cosas!

    What you were thinking of another word? Sorry ‘S’ was already taken.

  6. A generation ago, Martin Peretz offered that the university of today admired research and not teaching; in the disciplines he knew of, that research consisted mostly of inquiries into trivia.

    Higher education is population with people whose accomplishments begin and end with earning a living and navigating faculty politics. That’s it. They are useless in most other circumstances. And yet, here they are trashing people who did things which were exceedingly demanding, which sipping latte at the local Starbucks is not.

    And, ain’t it cute. If someone gave a speech lauding blacks for [insert quality here] or lauding Ellis-island immigrants for [insert here], it’s doubtful that Carpenter would bat an eye. Bet you can find it with no effort looking through the transcript of Ken Burns’ latest effort for PBS. Some century-old comments about ‘Anglo-Saxons’ enrages them. You can’t say that. They’re DEPLORABLES!

    Mr. Carpenter, here’s a message from an Old-Stock-American my grandmother would have been mortified to hear me utter: ‘go f&@k yourself’.

    1. Referring to the “toddler” part, only.

      These references to the Taliban (in this context) are just crazy and any responsible adult would omit them.

  7. New York times leader stories monday morning

    iran bad, trump bad, elizabeth warren good

    one story on Xi Jinpeng but it has to do with trade negotiations

    talk about ERRORS OF OMISSION~!

    NYT sucks!

    1. there’s also a story on gloria vanderbilt fashionista died, and one about a toddler separated at the border

      2 million people march in Hong Kong, NYT doesnt see that as fit to include on leaderboard

      one toddler separated is more important and some stories to boost liz warren, wow

      here, read a paper that’s not paid off by commies

      https://www.theepochtimes.com/nearly-2-million-hong-kongers-protest-extradition-bill-call-for-leader-to-resign_2965486.html

      1. Kurtz, You’re Off The Rails!

        The New York Times homepage features Hong Kong on the left side about halfway down from top. There is a large photo of protests with the headline: “For Hong Kong’s Youth, Protests Are A Matter Of Life And Death”. That story was put up an hour ago.

        Why are you spreading these lies????

        1. maybe they feed me a different homepage, I dont know. i don’t see the article you reference.

          maybe you guys are paid subscribers but because I’m not, i get a different layout

        2. MONDAY WALL STREET JOURNAL HAD BIG PICTURE OF HK PROTESTS — TOP STORY

          I actually pay for that since it gives me information.

          You guys can tell me what the NYT paper rag had on it because I don’t buy it and never see it anywhere out here in “Flyover”

          The non-paying front page of NYT internet front page of their website had ZILCH about Hong Kong yesterday. zed, nada, MEIYOU!

      2. The Epoch Times is a publication of a religious group formed in China in 1992 that has advocated for the existence of a 12 million year old civilization, UFOs, and Sumerian spaceships. Editorially, it is a strong supporter of the German far right and Trump.

        kurtz can’t handle the truth.

        1. Falun Gong / Falun Dafa may be a little kooky sometimes with chigong and whatnot, but it’s really just a sort of New Age movement popularizing tai chi and meditation. A very dangerous cult is what Beijing calls it. Anon, thank you for parrotting the Communist party line on this. here, why bother faking it, I will post what the PRC says about Falun Gong, and people can see how you are busy sucking up to the Reds again

          http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ppflg/t36584.htm

          1. kurtz pretends being dubious of people who believe in Sumerian spaceships means favoring their persecution. Hell, we have people in America who believe Trump is a patriotic inspirational leader (kurtz) and I don’t even favor persecuting them!

            1. the Falun gong believes some kooky stuff but then again so do Mormons

              But you’re busy repeating the party line on them here, and defending your false idol the NYT. sad

        2. Epoch Times is a good news paper. Luckily, in the west, such publications are allowed to exist, for now!

          https://www.theepochtimes.com/forced-organ-harvesting-in-china-has-taken-place-on-significant-scale-independent-tribunal-finds_2965978.html

          Maybe you don’t like how they expose the corruption in the PRC government eh? Sad!

          But apparently you noticed, they’re not always slandering Trump! For that you dislike them.

          And here we see the truth of what I said before: The Republicans can EASILY pick up Asian votes. But they have to remain strong on freedom from tyranny in East Asia and Pacific Rim!

  8. Here’s a free speech story Turley could talk about instead of another stupid group of antifa hooligans pissing on some old white icon, at this point a dog bites man story

    2 million hong kongers march against Beijing Communist meddling in Hong Kong affairs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THDqNpCBzZk

    Beijing has silenced stories about this from appearing on Wechat, the biggest social network in the world
    A monstrously huge suppression of news and a blatant one

    Not as subtle as the American mass media ignoring it, of course

  9. Margaret Sanger would be proud of them

    “The mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase among Negroes, even more than the increase among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.”

    “Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a menace to the race”

    “We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

    1. Just what we’d expect from a “Trumpster”, a slew of lies and slander!

      It’s been said that any blithering idiot can find a youtube video to back their assertions. Here Trumpster sets out to prove that point.

      1. Peter, tell us what you know about Sanger and eugenics so we can think about your viewpoint. If we hear nothing we know you know nothing.

  10. It is a part of history and it seems that the new regime wants to get rid of anything that has to do with history instead of putting up a new statue beside this one representing the other side

    1. Public monuments are not historical markers but celebrations of past actions which citizens hope to still aspire to. Oregon Pioneers are worthy, defenders of slavery are not, though ultimately it’s up to the citizens of those localities.

  11. It does nothing to change the history of our nation, It doesn’t change the events that led to the settling of the American West. It doesn’t change one thing. It is what it is. What it does do is remove the ability of people to question who that statue represents, the events that lead to the statue being placed and the people that came here. This is a bunch of whiney academics that are desperately trying to rewrite history. Of course we can’t do that. Bad things happened to good people and if todays Oregonians had to venture west in the old days, the Mississippi river would have stopped them dead in their tracks. Todays removers of statues are a bunch of wusses. If they had to endure what early settlers had to endure, they wouldn’t have made it 10 feet into the water.

      1. Peter, what is false in Stack’s statement. Do you know nothing about the eugenics movement of the time?

      2. Either you can prove StackPointer’s comment to be false, or you validate the point that erasing reminders of our nation’s history only succeeds in making people ignorant of it.

    1. Margaret Sanger and her keen interest in eugenics.

      Sanger was a racist who wanted blacks destroyed and/or enslaved, just like the Democrats.

      Liberals don’t want blacks to be independent thinkers. They want their welfare slaves to their every bidding and, for Heaven’s sake, keep them in power. Isnt that right Maxine, Sheila, Jerrold and Nancy?

      1. MARTIN LUTHER KING ACCEPTED

        MARGARET SANGER AWARD

        National award recipients 1967–1969

        The first Sanger awards were given in 1966 under four categories, Human Rights, Medicine, Leadership and Service, on the 50th anniversary of Planned Parenthood’s founding. The award in human rights was presented to Martin Luther King who was unable to attend due to “pressing business concerning his Chicago movement,” his wife, Coretta Scott King, received the award in his place.

        Edited from: The Margaret Sanger Award – Wikipedia
        ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

        What’s Happening Here??

        Here we have a string of Trumpers claiming, without a shred of proof, that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was a malicious ‘racist’.

        Yet Civil Rights icon Martin Luther King Jr sent his wife Coretta to accept the first Margaret Sanger Award for ‘Peace’.

        The Trumpers in question here are saying that Martin Luther King was so incredibly stupid he didn’t know that Sanger was a ‘racist’. In reality, it easier to believe that the Trumpers here are indeed the actual racists for suggesting Dr King was that ignorant.

        1. I don’t know that Sanger was malicious and I don’t know if King suspected her intentions or even thought about them. What I do know is that Sanger was involved in eugenics something we shied away from in the years that followed.

          Interesting that your total knowledge of Sanger has to do with MLK accepting a reward.

          1. Alan, the truth is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you know. The real racists are those trying to smear Margaret Sanger.

            The real racists are those who want to defund Planned Parenthood. P.P. is a leading provider of healthcare for low-income women in America including a large percentage of Blacks and Hispanics. The real racists knew that defunding P P could be seen as racist.

            So the real racists created a smear campaign targeting P.P.’s founder, Margaret Sanger. The concept was to paint Sanger as towering ‘racist’ linked to the KKK. The real racists reckoned that by starting a malicious rumor campaign, they could convince poor Blacks and Hispanics that P P is a ‘racist’ organization.

            The entire smear campaign is indicative of everything wrong with American conservatives today. They will resort to any dirty trick to further their agenda.

            1. “Alan, the truth is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you know. The real racists are those trying to smear Margaret Sanger.”

              Peter, Whose programs are killing black babies at the fastest rate and white rich babies rarely? The winner is the Margarat Sanger programs that have killed millions of black babies and made sure to locate the original clinics right next door to where they live. The numbers show the truth.

              “The real racists are those who want to defund Planned Parenthood. … provider of healthcare for low-income women in America ”

              Planned Parenthood is mostly an abortion center. We had this argument about a year ago and I explained how the numbers were created. It’s an abortion provider that happens to provide a bit of extra care to make them look responsible.

              I am not asking for healthcare to be defunded for the poor. In fact I am willing to transfer the funding to real healthcare clinics for the poor not one that is primarily interested in lower class baby killing and the fetal parts market. You want the money spent on abortion for everyone instead of those in need. By the way PP gets most of its funding elsewhere so government isn’t even an absolute necessity. As an aside I wish PP would use medications that haven’t expired.

              The only one with dirty tricks is you. There is no question about Margaret Sanger trying to place abortion clinics in black areas. That is well documented.

              1. Alan, this comment shows how aggressively ignorant you are!

                Abortions only comprise a small percentage of P P’s work. Their most basic services are cancer and STD screenings. P.P. is also a major dispenser of birth control pills.

                But it seems that Alan likes to lie. And he’s willing to recklessly slander P P to promote a racist rightwing agenda that denies healthcare to low income women.

                1. Abortions only comprise a small percentage of P P’s work

                  I’ll remember that the next time one of you lot start whinging about the CIA having subjected someone to simulated drowning.

                2. Not so. Review Planned Parenthood’s financials, Peter. When they release how much is spent on abortion they only report the actual procedure but all the other visits leading to the abortion along with the other testing even when the patient is found not pregnant adds up to a lot of money spent on abortion.

                  You are a supporter of baby killers so of course you will accuse others of lying to hide the blood on your hands. That, Peter, is a normal emotion of those that know what they are promoting is wrong.

                  As an aside taxpayers pay for about 24% of abortion costs in the US.

                  1. ABORTIONS ACCOUNT FOR JUST 3%

                    OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S ACTIVITIES

                    As you can see in the chart atop this post, abortion services account for about 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s activities. That’s less than cancer screening and prevention (16 percent), STD testing for both men and women (35 percent), and contraception (also 35 percent). About 80 percent of Planned Parenthood’s users are over age 20, and 75 percent have incomes below 150 percent of the poverty line. Planned Parenthood itself estimates it prevents more than 620,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and 220,000 abortions. It’s also worth noting that federal law already forbids Planned Parenthood from using the funds it receives from the government for abortions.

                    So though the fight over Planned Parenthood might be about abortion, Planned Parenthood itself isn’t about abortion. It’s primarily about contraception and reproductive health. And if Planned Parenthood loses funding, what will mainly happen is that cancer screenings and contraception and STD testing will become less available to poorer people. Folks with more money, of course, have many other ways to receive all these services, and tend to get them elsewhere already.

                    The fight also isn’t about cutting spending. The services Planned Parenthood provides save the federal government a lot of money. It’s somewhat cold to put it in these terms, but taxpayers end up bearing a lot of the expense for unintended pregnancies among people without the means to care for their children. The same goes for preventable cancers and sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS. You can find a lot more information about Planned Parenthood and its services here.

                    Edited from: “What Planned Parenthood Actually Does In One Chart”

                    The Washington Post, 2/2/12
                    ………………………………………………………………………………………….

                    Alan, how does 3% comprise a majority of activities????

                    You are aggressively ignorant with no regard for the truth.

                    1. “ABORTIONS ACCOUNT FOR JUST 3%”

                      Peter, you don’t know how to count and your lack of intellect doesn’t permit you to question what you read. That is why you are so ingorant on almost everything.

                      Patient registered and tells the problem
                      Problem discussed
                      pregnancy testing
                      other blood tests taken
                      Inerveiw to discuss pregnancy
                      literature given
                      other diagnostic testing for STD’s
                      abortion
                      pills provided
                      contraception information provided

                      This is just part of the things listed. There are ten items so far which in your type of calculation would mean abortions accounted for only 10%. That is a stupid person’s way of understanding what happened. The reason for the person being there was she felt she was pregnant. Everything is involved in the abortion even the sale of fetal parts and even though that sale isn’t part of your 3%.

                      Peter, learn one thing. You think you are very smart. You are not.

                    2. Alan, you’re further out than I ever thought. And on this issue, you’re just making it up as you go along. No real concept of PP really does. No concern for women. Just a laser-like focus on pushing the lies.

                    3. ” you’re just making it up as you go along. No real concept of PP really does.”

                      Peter, I actually reported this on the blog a good while back and I think it was to you but it might have been to someone else. You think you are so smart that if you don’t know it no one else can. In my studies I met a lot of people like you. They didn’t do well in anything and when they went into the real world they didn’t do well there either.

                      Can’t help you. Most of Planned Parenthoods facade was debunked quite awhile ago. You rely too much on others to tell you what to think. That is understandable since to date you haven’t learned how. I’ve tried to teach you but you are a very stubborn person.

          1. Actually, I’d wager King didn’t know Sanger from a cord of wood. The award probably came w/ a meal and lodgings for his staff.

  12. Unless all the white people who agree with this suggestion are willing to head back east and back to Europe, trying to convince others to go with them, they should favor the statue staying and adding some for native Americans and any other historically significant group – Asian Americans? – who contributed to Oregon’s success.

    This is not the same issue as confederate statues which celebrate a losing and purposefully inhuman cause which – unlike the spirit of the Oregon Pioneers – are no longer part of the state’s aspirations.

  13. Did anyone really think it would stop with the removal of Confederate Monuments and Christopher Columbus?

    Mike

    1. It ends when the attempt to displace and disinherit the native born and antagonize them — us– is met with organized force. The nature of that force? will remain to be seen. Will it be economic, intellectual or social force? or eventually, naked violence? Only time will tell.

      It’s organized force that conquered in the first place, and only organized force will hold sway in the end. That’s just reality. Don’t cry over it– if the settlers were crybabies then they never would have made it past the Alleghenies in the first place. A few scalpings would have scared them off..

  14. A great answer to the question by the great Joseph Epstein. Copied in its entirety because it is behind a wall. Worthwhile reading for some perspective on the problem.

    The Menace of Political Correctness

    Political correctness started out as a minor project of the international firm known as the Good Intentions Paving Company. What, after all, could be better intended than insisting that denigrating ethnic names (“polak,” “kike,” “spic,” “wop,” and worse) and language debasing women be debarred from public discourse and put out of bounds in civilized private conversation? Nothing, surely. But political correctness soon came to be about much more than social decorum. As with so many projects of the Good Intentions Paving Company, things haven’t worked out quite as planned.

    Lashed up as it soon became with the campaign for a misguided equalizing in all American institutions, political correctness took a large leap forward in its ambitions. Criticism of any action or attempt to bring equality soon became, ipso facto, politically incorrect. Affirmative action—the rigging of admissions requirements at the country’s most prestigious universities in favor of what were deemed oppressed minority groups—was an early gambit in the campaign for equal outcomes and a boost, too, for political correctness. Criticizing affirmative action carried with it the penalty of being thought racist.

    How could one admit minority students, it was felt, without catering to their special interests? So an ample buffet of courses in African-American, Chicano, and other studies were offered at universities. These courses would, naturally, be taught by matching minority-group faculty. To denigrate these courses, to argue that they were largely victimology, and as such that they lowered the standard once in place for the liberal arts in higher education, would in itself of course be politically incorrect, and most people who knew better were hesitant to step forth and say so.

    What became known as the women’s movement soon claimed oppressed status, since it could not claim actual minority status. Homosexuals, male and female, were next on board. Hispanic Americans surely qualified, and so others who could construe a history—or, in the cant phrase of the day, a narrative—of inequality forced upon them. The United States began to seem a country of victims—and victimology, the study of victimhood from the point of view of the victims, became a dominant subject in high schools and especially in the social science and humanities departments of universities.

    Political correctness meanwhile became the new national etiquette, at least among the self-acclaimed cognoscenti, or as they came to think of themselves, the “woke”—a word meaning those awake and responsive to the important social and political questions and issues of the day. In universities and in public life generally one violated this etiquette at one’s peril. A violation could be as trivial as telling the wrong joke, not being sufficiently inclusive (inclusivity, like diversity, would soon become one of the P.C. shibboleths) in one’s speech or writing, or being insensitive about observing the new dispensation on proper pronoun usage. Textbooks, commercials, newspapers, and television responded to the campaign for political correctness by giving equal time and space to all victim groups in their coverage—equal not to their demographic numbers but to what had long been thought the dominant white middle-class population in the country.

    Check Your Privilege

    With political correctness in place, one had to handle all social exchanges, all conversation, carefully, warily. A lawyer I know not long ago told me that, because a number of the people in his firm were retiring, he decided to look into acquiring room for his practice in the offices of a larger firm. Everything was in place, the deal was all but set, when a senior member of the larger firm suggested he meet for lunch with some of the firm’s younger associates, who would be working with him. A week or so after his having met with them, he received a phone call from that same senior member of the firm informing him that, as it turned out, there really wasn’t room for him in the larger firm after all. Strange, or so it seemed to him, until, roughly six months later, he learned that the young associates of the larger firm didn’t want to work with him, and this for two reasons: at the lunch he told a joke about a fat man and he referred to a few of the secretaries and administrative assistants who worked for him as “girls.” That killed the deal. That he was good to the women he called “girls,” and they loyal to him over many years, didn’t matter. The joke and the word “girls” disqualified him, made him instantly and irredeemably non grata.

    When it first got underway, there was a note of comedy about the demands of the politically correct to regulate language, with a number of traditional words declared officially verboten. “Mankind” was ruled out and replaced by “humankind.” “Man” in its traditional use as a suffix to “chairman” and other nouns was no longer allowed. (I recall round this time referring to a woman I knew who had a voracious appetite as a “real trencherperson,” and getting a small laugh. No longer funny, McGee, or so I suppose.) “Negro,” once a term of great dignity, and the word of choice for Martin Luther King, Jr., Roy Wilkins, Sr., and Whitney Young, was now thought reactionary and racist. “Oriental” was also off the books, and “Orientalism,” the title of a popular leftwing academic book by Edward Said, was now understood to be a word harking back to the bad old days of European imperialism. Pronouns needed to be fine-combed in both speech and writing, so that no “he” might appear without an accompanying “she,” no “him” without a “her.” With the political correctness police monitoring language, a loose lip could sink your ship.

    Under political correctness the First Amendment calling for free speech somehow didn’t apply, for lots of speech was now clearly out of bounds and entire subjects disallowed. Nor did political correctness have anything like a statute of limitations. One could be held responsible, and thereby punished, for what were deemed violations of the political correctness code committed half a century ago and longer—well before there was such a code. Aided by the internet’s social media, the surveillance exerted by political correctness became total, the impulse of political correctness itself totalitarian.

    Today, political correctness and the privileging of putative victim groups march along in happy tandem. Under this arrangement any perceived inequality is in itself politically incorrect. A recent case at Yale University nicely underscores how this works. Three undergraduate women there have entered a lawsuit contending that off-campus fraternities at the school should be made illegal. In their lawsuit they claim that not only were they sexually harassed while attending fraternity parties but that the fraternities, through their power of social connections with men who had earlier been members, give current fraternity members an unfair advantage in the hunt for superior jobs once undergraduate education is completed. Clearly, so the lawsuit presumes, such inequality cannot be allowed to persist. As for the sexual harassment portion of the lawsuit, one might have thought the remedy was obviously at hand: women should stay away from those fraternity parties. As for unfair advantage, the three young women themselves already have an unfair advantage over hundreds of thousands of their contemporaries by the mere fact of their having got into Yale. Perhaps someone should come along and sue these three women and Yale itself merely for existing.

    On the Attack

    If political correctness had stopped at the request for civil behavior, there would have been no difficulty in acceding to it. If homosexual men wish to be called “gay,” if blacks wish to be called “African-American,” if women prefer “Ms.” over “Mrs.” and “Miss,” there would be no problem whatsoever. But the program inherent in political correctness has evolved into something much more ambitious than that. In its current phase, it is revolutionary, seeking a utopia of complete fairness in all institutions—educational, cultural, political—which in its advocates’ interpretation means utter equality for all, excluding only those who violate political correctness’s underlying assumptions and well-known restrictions.

    Political correctness attacks all that it finds discriminatory in public and social life. Any perceived discrimination against women, African Americans, or other victim groups is no longer to be tolerated. Nor, of course, should it be, but under the attack of political correctness more than mere discrimination is under attack. The least perceived differences between individuals and groups, whether inherent or acquired through upbringing, are for now to be ignored in order that they may ultimately be eradicated. Political correctness doesn’t allow leeway for differences in intelligence, talent, or strength. Not equal opportunities but equal outcomes are its monomaniacal goal, and it is not overly concerned about the punishing means required to achieve it.

    Under political correctness, righteous indignation and tender sensibilities must be protected. Hence the politically correct have no compunction in removing statues of figures from the Confederacy from their long inhabited public places. Nor must the young be put to undue stress in the classroom. So trigger warnings have been installed in universities alerting students to courses that may contain material painful to them. If minority students wished to remain exclusively among themselves—thus all but killing the once grand ideal of integration in American life—this, too, could be arranged by setting up separate dormitories and dining rooms, clubs and extracurricular activities for their use. A tenet of political correctness is that students must above all feel safe.

    Along with rewriting the past and protecting the young from the harsh realities of life, the political correctness program emphasizes diversity, which has become one of the great desiderata of the contemporary university, itself the hearth and home of political correctness. You will nowadays rarely see an official photograph of a university president unaccompanied by a rich mix of ethnically diverse—African-American, Asian, East-Indian, American-Indian (all right, Native American)—students. Admissions offices are instructed to accept fixed percentages of incoming students on the bases of race, national origin, and gender, replacing the old quotas once in place against Jews, Catholics, and blacks. Provosts and deans are hired to ensure this diversity is enacted. Schools without such staff or without the right ethnic mix are in danger of having federal funds denied them, for by now, such has been the spread of political correctness through the culture, that the federal bureaucracy is in on the game.

    In the contest for scholarships, prizes, and honorary awards, political correctness holds the cards, and deals from an unapologetically stacked deck. A good gauge of this is the list of any recent year’s honorary degrees bestowed by universities. The roster of recipients is sure to include at least one African American and more than one woman. Not to do so is to risk being called racist, misogynist, and to have one’s school judged egregiously behind the times. White male commencement speakers, no matter how impressive their scientific, artistic, or scholarly accomplishments, are rarer than honest politicians. Under the reign of political correctness, all other things being equal, which they rarely are, African Americans, women, and other presumably oppressed minority group members are naturally chosen over drab white males for professorships, administrative posts, scholarships, and other university appointments.

    As for literary prizes, from the Nobel Prize on down, juries for such awards now feel that the time has come to give their prizes to women, or African Americans, or poets from Greenland, for one rarely any longer has the sense that the truly best writers are being honored. I once remarked in print, in the Times Literary Supplement, that the Pulitzer Prize usually goes to one of two types: those who don’t need it and those who don’t deserve it. When some years ago Katharine Graham won the Pulitzer Prize for her rather weepy poor-little-rich-girl autobiography, the critic Hilton Kramer remarked that she was awarded it on both grounds. The idea behind giving prizes, awards, honorary degrees on the basis of political correctness is that past injustices are, at least partially, being made up for and justice is thereby being done.

    Substandard

    The university has long been the institution where utopias go to die. After World War I, socialism’s chief home was the university. (Dig round a university’s History or an English Department today and you might still discover a Marxist napping in his office.) Of course the youth rebellion of the 1960s found its home in the university. All these may now seem passing fancies, but political correctness figures to have a longer, and more significant, life than any of them, for it has affected not merely the institution of the university but the wider culture of the country.

    The goal of political correctness is to level American culture, to reduce the role of elite culture, slowly eliminating merit and intellectual authority as the main standards in the country’s culture. If one were to argue that the result of applying the criteria of political correctness is a general dumbing down of learning, or choosing to value artistic productions on a political rather than an aesthetic basis, an advocate of political correctness would likely respond that this isn’t necessarily true, but even if it were, it would be worth it. A great flattening equality is the goal of political correctness. This is what makes it revolutionary.

    What’s in it for the more strident advocates, or at least for those who are not themselves members of victim groups? Nothing so mercenary as profit, nor so obvious as direct power, but something perhaps grander than money or power—the assurance of their own splendid virtue. The role of virtue in politics or any social movement ought never to be underestimated. Outside the corridors of power, the feeling of righteousness, both on the Left and on the Right, is behind much political sentiment. The word “virtucrat” describes those whose sense of themselves is motivated by the feeling of their own superior public morality. Those who subscribe wholeheartedly to political correctness, especially those who have no direct stake in the game, do so because they feel doing so is right and just—and expressing these feelings makes them feel damned fine about themselves.

    What they may not realize is the deep cultural implications of political correctness. The New York Times Book Review, the New York Review of Books, and the London Review of Books currently review an overwhelming number of novels by women and African-American writers. In recent years much of the fiction published by the New Yorker also seems to be by women or by Asian writers. By publishing him extensively in its pages the Atlantic has made a prominent figure of the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates, whose writings—asking for reparations for slavery days, worrying about his young son’s growing up in what he assumes to be an obviously and thoroughly racist country—are heavy contributions to the victimology of our time. The market for writing of this kind, by turns angry and sad, appealing above all to the guilt of its readers, is there, one imagines, because it makes those who publish it feel they are on the side of social justice, decency, righteousness—and thereby feel good about themselves. Virtue rides high again.

    Consider the movies. Roughly half the movies up for Oscars this past year were, essentially, political correctness movies. The only one I saw, Roma, which has been widely praised, is noteworthy as an example of the P.C. movie genre. About a Mexican woman, working half as a maid, half as a nanny, for an upper-middle-class Mexican family, it is unrelenting in its dark sadness. Starkly filmed in black and white, Roma introduces us to the dinginess of the poor woman’s days. She works in the kitchen, she does vast loads of laundry, she cleans up dog-droppings, she tends to the younger children. She has a love affair with a young man who deserts her when she informs him she is pregnant with his child. When she gives birth, it is to a stillborn child. Evidence that some of the children in the household where she works love her is provided, and toward the close of the movie she saves one of them from drowning.

    But nothing changes, and at the movie’s end we see her mounting a lengthy outdoor staircase on her way to do yet another load of laundry—unending dreary toil her permanent lot for life. Roma describes a scene and situation of sheer depression. Why, then, do so many people seem to like it? Under the realm of political correctness, the definition of a feel-good movie has become a feel-bad movie. What in the end feels so good about Roma is it allows people who admire it to wallow in their own sensitivity—to feel for the hopeless life of this poor woman and yet not have to do a thing about her wretched condition. Political correctness comes at no direct cost to those who endorse it. The cost is ultimately to the culture, which in so many ways is sadly diminished.

    Choosing Up Sides

    Political correctness meshes nicely, too, with the phenomenon known as identity politics, which has dominated the Democratic Party in recent decades. Identity politics entails groupings of people—chiefly minorities—by their victim status, whether race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion. Behind identity politics is the demand for equal rights, always with the supposition that they do not already exist and the added presumption that no progress toward this goal has genuinely been made, so that it is assumed that vast numbers of whites stand implacably opposed to black equality and men to equality for women, while homophobes are everywhere blocking acceptance for gays, and on and on. Under identity politics, sides are chosen up as in a sandlot baseball game: Victims versus Victimizers, the Woke versus the Deplorables. No one has to be told on whose side in this game virtue lies.

    Political correctness meanwhile makes it impossible to tell the truth about any aspect of identity politics without being thought crude, insensitive, or downright villainous. One cannot say without being thought a homophobe that no one really knows the origin of homosexuality and that the homosexual life can be hard. One cannot counter the Black Lives Matter movement (without being thought a racist) by saying that black lives do indeed matter, which is all the more reason it is a greater tragedy that in the city of Chicago thousands of black gang members have killed other blacks while in recent years there have been vastly fewer police killings of black men and women throughout the country. Nor is one able to suggest without being thought misogynist that men do some things better than women as women do some things better than men. (When I talk with candor about any of these subjects with friends, I generally ask, jokingly, if they are wearing a wire.) Political correctness has made conversation on any of these and many other subjects all but impossible, and in doing so has added substantially to, if not caused, resentment, anger, and divisiveness across the land.

    As for humor, while one might have thought political correctness itself supplies an ample target, comedians have tended to shy away from it, lest they, too, be put out of business by public censure. Under the reign of political correctness, one is allowed not a single mistake. One thinks of Michael Richards, so amusing as the character Kramer in Seinfeld, now disqualified owing to a joust with a heckler at a comedy club in 2006 in which he used a word second only to the c-word on our contemporary P.C. Inquisition’s index of forbidden language. One of the hallmarks of the politically correct, of course, is a grave and abiding humorlessness.

    The role of political correctness in politics has also greatly expanded. If in his political career a politician cooperated with now dead senators known to be racist—as has been the case of Joe Biden with Strom Thurmond—that is a mark in the wrong column against him. If there is anything politically incorrect in a politician’s background that can be used against him, as has Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s photograph in his medical-school yearbook, events are likely to conspire to make sure it will be so used. Although being a Democrat has saved Biden and Northam (for now), political correctness in politics is not merely a tool of the Left. In the case of Northam’s now notorious blackface-Klansman photo, it was revealed, in the hope of sinking his career, which it probably has, by a conservative blog in response to Northam’s radical views on late-term birth control. The hearings over the Supreme Court candidacy of Brett Kavanaugh were little more than trial by political correctness. Of late it has been said that the Democratic Party, owing to political correctness, probably cannot run a white male for president in 2020. Look for lots more of these attempts at the destruction of political careers by way of political correctness in the years ahead.

    A Sense of Mission

    Is political correctness as indefensible as I have made it seem? Has it become primarily the weapon I believe it now is? Have its inroads on education been as deleterious as I have described? Has it diminished the culture to the extent I have suggested? Will it come to play a greater and drearier role in our politics? Is its impulse as totalitarian as I argue? Why, finally, can’t political correctness live in harmony with excellence in all realms of art and thought, and return to its modest yet useful goal of simple decency in the treatment of all people?

    I suspect it can’t, or at any rate won’t, because its success thus far in disrupting society’s traditional arrangements of rewarding merit and promoting achievement can only encourage it to go still further in its disruptions. Political correctness has filled its adherents with a sense of mission, an enthusiastic drive to improve society. (In his Dictionary, Samuel Johnson defined enthusiasm as “a vain belief of private revelation, a vain confidence of divine favour.”) This sense of mission affords them that glowing feeling of righteousness available only to those with the strong feeling that virtue is on their side, and encourages them to persist. The utopia of political correctness, the virtuous world of absolute equality, cannot seem to the politically correct all that far off. Nothing is likely to stop them now. Certainly not the admonitory couplet about utopias, written, Michael Oakeshott in his essay “The Tower of Babel” claims, by a Babelian poet of the time:

    Those who in fields Elysian would dwell

    Do but extend the boundaries of hell.

    What, as the Russian revolutionary democrat Nikolai Chernyshevsky long ago asked, is to be done? Probably not much. One can only hope that political correctness will go so far as to make evident its absurdity, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal has made alarmist environmentalism seem absurd. Until then there is nothing to do but to wait things out, in the hope that the deep illogic of political correctness and its widespread perniciousness, like that of Prohibition and other programs of enforced virtue that have gone before, will indubitably reveal itself for the grievous mistake it is.

    https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-menace-of-political-correctness/

      1. No Peter, if there was I would have provided it specifically for you. However, this essay by the emminent Joseph Epstein is something you should read. It will help you in your search for the truth. Those that don’t have the ability to read this long essay that greatly pertains to this blog and the people that comment on it are relegating themselves to thoughts of little significance.

          1. Anonymous, we know you can’t read well but the essay Is perfect for the individuals on this blog. Then again for you it is likely an impossible read because you can’t think. Just skip over these things where one needs to have a brain.

            1. A link would have been more effective, but one couldn’t expect you to know that. Why? Because you’re clueless.

        1. Epstein attributes far too much good will and sincerity to “the Left”

          the apparatchiks of political correctness are malicious. they are not sincere.

          if you understand this, then a long explanation is superfluous.

          they quite simply intend to oppress, annoy, and harm their targets.
          they are not trying to do anything good, only gain more power.

    1. In the UK and Germany there are police IT units whose mission is to track down individuals who express the wrong opinion on subjects such as these.

      Wonder when it will come here?

      Mike

        1. yes it’s a bunch of hacks working in the basement at the poverty pimp’s palance in montgomery alabama

  15. Political correctness will kill this country. If history’s lessons are wiped away, nothing will remain to teach us to recognize today’s oppression.

    1. pc was born using persons to an unimaginably large group of situations. It died when the cognoscenti noted the replacement word violated the charge of sexism in far more certain terms. Person! PerSON Is there a Per Daughter? I don’t THINK so. Having violated their own thinking ha ha ha pc died on the vine having over dosed on excess of Beau Toxedos

Leave a Reply