Renaming Cobo Hall

[Hermod]

And he also sided with and championed white community associations to keep out the "invasion of the Negroes". See how the entire story works? Can African-Americans at the time call him honest and trustworthy?

Going against people's wants and desires does not make a person dishonest or untrustworthy. Cobo never promised that he would make open housing a city policy. He never broke his word. You don't like his policies, fine, but that doesn't make him dishonest.

[EastsideAl]

Going against people's wants and desires does not make a person dishonest or untrustworthy. Cobo never promised that he would make open housing a city policy. He never broke his word. You don't like his policies, fine, but that doesn't make him dishonest.

So, he was a racist, but an honest one? Well, that certainly clears things up.

[EastsideAl]

Statues can have more than one meaning, especially among different audiences.

The Joe Louis fist honors a boxer, just as it mirrors the Black Power salute common in the years before it was erected.

Confederate statues are both symbols of slavery and oppression, and of southern pride and heritage.

If one is racist, the other is racist; If one is not racist, the other is not racist. Its all open for interpretation. Hopefully, we can remember they are inanimate objects, and we can treat one another with respect and dignity no matter how they are interpreted.

1953

So a monument to a guy who was paid to punch people [[who were paid to punch him back), and who destroyed the avatar of Nazi racial theories in what was certainly his most famous fight, is equivalent to a monument the leaders of a rebellion in support of the right of people with one skin color to own people of a different skin color, and to buy, sell, kill, rape, and abuse them at will?

As a famous orange blithering idiot once said "on many sides, many sides".

[dtowncitylover]

If one is racist, the other is racist; If one is not racist, the other is not racist. Its all open for interpretation. Hopefully, we can remember they are inanimate objects, and we can treat one another with respect and dignity no matter how they are interpreted.

1953

It's not open for interpretation. Civil rights and the current BLM movement are not for "black supremacy", they're for the ending of systemic racism found throughout institutions, both private and public still existing in the United States. White people then get on the defensive thinking this means their "way of life" is threatened. No dipshits, it means blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, women, trans, etc just want what white men have had for the past 500 years in America.

Confederate statues and "southern pride and heritage", whatever the eff that means, and the people that wish to protect them are for the continuation of white supremacy and making sure the USA "stays white".

If your pride and heritage is based on statues of men that sought to succeed from the US and own slaves, that's pretty fucked up.

[EastsideAl]

It's not open for interpretation. Civil rights and the current BLM movement are not for "black supremacy", they're for the ending of systemic racism found throughout institutions, both private and public still existing in the United States. White people then get on the defensive thinking this means their "way of life" is threatened. No dipshits, it means blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, women, trans, etc just want what white men have had for the past 500 years in America.

Confederate statues and "southern pride and heritage", whatever the eff that means, and the people that wish to protect them are for the continuation of white supremacy and making sure the USA "stays white".

If your pride and heritage is based on statues of men that sought to succeed from the US and own slaves, that's pretty fucked up.

Where IS that upvote button?

[detroitsgwenivere]

People are acting like this renaming thing re: Cobo Hall is some brand new ish. It's not:

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

From back in 2014

[Junjie]

If your pride and heritage is based on statues of men that sought to [secede] from the US and own slaves, that's pretty fucked up.

Pretty much.

To me, most historical figures aren't automatically unacceptable even if they were clearly racist. It depends on what else they did in life and on putting the good and the bad into context. Jefferson owned slaves, but the words he wrote inspired generations to fight against slavery, Jim Crow, and inequality. Those are both important and we can honor him for the latter while acknowledging the former. Sadly, the mingling of revolutionary ideas of liberty and deep racism is a major part of the story of the US itself and needs to be acknowledged honestly when honoring historical figures. But Confederates have nothing that would make up for launching the civil war to ensure the propagation of slavery. Honoring literal traitors who fought in service of evil needs to end.

Cobo is obviously nowhere near that bad. But it's hard to imagine that if the people of Detroit were naming the convention center today that they would choose to name it after him. We name public things after people whom we believe should be admired and remembered. Given that he's not exactly a famous figure for other, more positive reasons, I don't see why it shouldn't be changed. Anyone offended by the removal can feel free to fund raise for a permanent exhibition on him or Detroit mayors in general, with all their glories and faults, at the Historical Museum.

[Pat001]

They won’t be satisfied with just renaming buildings and removing statues. You read it here first.

[EastsideAl]

They won’t be satisfied with just renaming buildings and removing statues. You read it here first.

Who is "they"?

[Jason]

Pretty much.

To me, most historical figures aren't automatically unacceptable even if they were clearly racist. It depends on what else they did in life and on putting the good and the bad into context. Jefferson owned slaves, but the words he wrote inspired generations to fight against slavery, Jim Crow, and inequality. Those are both important and we can honor him for the latter while acknowledging the former. Sadly, the mingling of revolutionary ideas of liberty and deep racism is a major part of the story of the US itself and needs to be acknowledged honestly when honoring historical figures. But Confederates have nothing that would make up for launching the civil war to ensure the propagation of slavery. Honoring literal traitors who fought in service of evil needs to end.

Cobo is obviously nowhere near that bad. But it's hard to imagine that if the people of Detroit were naming the convention center today that they would choose to name it after him. We name public things after people whom we believe should be admired and remembered. Given that he's not exactly a famous figure for other, more positive reasons, I don't see why it shouldn't be changed. Anyone offended by the removal can feel free to fund raise for a permanent exhibition on him or Detroit mayors in general, with all their glories and faults, at the Historical Museum.

I agree with this. You have to look at what is being celebrated/honored by the naming/statue/etc.

The convention center was named after Cobo because it was part of the civic center and he was the mayor that oversaw the creation of the civic center. afaik the naming doesn't have any racial angle to it. If after his death Cobo became a symbol for a white-only Detroit, and mass produced statues of him were scattered across the city in prominent locations, then obviously those are white supremacist statues and should be removed.

But just because the convention center naming doesn't have a racial angle to it, it doesn't mean that out of all of the great citizens our city has had that HE should be the one we share with our visitors.

Rosa Parks wouldn't be bad. Even growing up here I didn't know until recently just how long she lived here and how active she was. Usually you just hear that she did the bus thing down south and maybe you hear that she eventually ended up in Detroit, but you usually don't hear that she spent most of her life living in Detroit being very very politically active, and I think that's something Detroit should be proud of and should want to share with guests. Whoever it's named after, imo that's the spirit that a convention center should be named in.

I don't really want a corporate name though.

[archfan]

It really sounds like the administration wants to sell the naming rights to raise cash, and removing Cobo's name is just bonus political capital.

[Farwell]

It really sounds like the administration wants to sell the naming rights to raise cash, and removing Cobo's name is just bonus political capital.

^^^^
This!!

[Atticus]

Not saying I want a corporate name, but I am not going to write them a multimillion dollar check either.

If they can raise funds selling the name, good for them. If someone wants to pay a bunch of $$ to have a more civic sounding name, great. But most importantly is that the center's budget is balanced, and if selling the naming rights is the best way to get there, so be it.

If you don't want the corporate name, there is an alternative. Write them a big check, and you can probably pick the new name.

[Zacha341]

Well the 'they' could be debated thread upon thread. As an artist what additionally troubles me is how the definition of offensive and racists will be determined, onward?

Uh, shucks! That too could occupy a whole 'nuther thread!

Who is "they"?

They won’t be satisfied with just renaming buildings and removing statues. You read it here first.

[Honky Tonk]

As an artist what additionally troubles me is how the definition of offensive and racists will be determined, onward?

The media will determine all that for you, all you have to do is just follow along.

[Zacha341]

Yeah, it's all too tiresome to sort thru the critical distinctions and what all... Lead me on oh great one [[the media)!

[Honky Tonk]

Yeah, it's all too tiresome to sort thru the critical distinctions and what all... Lead me on oh great one [[the media)!

I'm glad you added the disclaimer. That would be a lot of responsibility for one person to assume.

[1953]

I didn't vote for Trump, but I agree with him about the "many sides," bit. I saw video of two groups of idiots hitting each other; I don't condone violent protests, even if they are for a morally superior cause.

As for the statues, your argument is that the Confederate statues represent a morally inferior sentiment, because of the slavery stance by the Confederacy. This sort of proves my point. The Confederacy stood for lots of things, but you zoom in and say it stood [[most singularly) for slavery. That's the side you see. But, if you are a southerner, who's family was tangled up in the war, you might see it standing for something quite different. Heritage? Self-determination? Valor? I get that you don't agree with those sentiments, but, surely, people are apt to feel that way about soldiers in the south, too. Both slavery and valor can be embodied by the same statue, and you get to choose which you see and which you prioritize.

Think about the fact we have a Jefferson Davis statue under the capital dome. What more conciliatory act could there be for a nation seeking to reunite with a segment of its own people who have rebelled against it? Its a way of saying, "Hey, we didn't agree with you, and went to war with you over it, but you are Americans, too, and we honor the positive values you demonstrated [[standing up for your beliefs, i.e.), even while we militarily opposed the values we did not agree with [[slavery). This is history, and I think we are much better off for seeing it than for hiding it away or replacing it with new narratives.

So a monument to a guy who was paid to punch people [[who were paid to punch him back), and who destroyed the avatar of Nazi racial theories in what was certainly his most famous fight, is equivalent to a monument the leaders of a rebellion in support of the right of people with one skin color to own people of a different skin color, and to buy, sell, kill, rape, and abuse them at will?

As a famous orange blithering idiot once said "on many sides, many sides".

[Honky Tonk]

I didn't vote for Trump, but I agree with him about the "many sides," bit. I saw video of two groups of idiots hitting each other; I don't condone violent protests, even if they are for a morally superior cause.

As for the statues, your argument is that the Confederate statues represent a morally inferior sentiment, because of the slavery stance by the Confederacy. This sort of proves my point. The Confederacy stood for lots of things, but you zoom in and say it stood [[most singularly) for slavery. That's the side you see. But, if you are a southerner, who's family was tangled up in the war, you might see it standing for something quite different. Heritage? Self-determination? Valor? I get that you don't agree with those sentiments, but, surely, people are apt to feel that way about soldiers in the south, too. Both slavery and valor can be embodied by the same statue, and you get to choose which you see and which you prioritize.

Think about the fact we have a Jefferson Davis statue under the capital dome. What more conciliatory act could there be for a nation seeking to reunite with a segment of its own people who have rebelled against it? Its a way of saying, "Hey, we didn't agree with you, and went to war with you over it, but you are Americans, too, and we honor the positive values you demonstrated [[standing up for your beliefs, i.e.), even while we militarily opposed the values we did not agree with [[slavery). This is history, and I think we are much better off for seeing it than for hiding it away or replacing it with new narratives.

+5, 1953....

[Jason]

I didn't vote for Trump, but I agree with him about the "many sides," bit. I saw video of two groups of idiots hitting each other; I don't condone violent protests, even if they are for a morally superior cause.

As for the statues, your argument is that the Confederate statues represent a morally inferior sentiment, because of the slavery stance by the Confederacy. This sort of proves my point. The Confederacy stood for lots of things, but you zoom in and say it stood [[most singularly) for slavery. That's the side you see. But, if you are a southerner, who's family was tangled up in the war, you might see it standing for something quite different. Heritage? Self-determination? Valor? I get that you don't agree with those sentiments, but, surely, people are apt to feel that way about soldiers in the south, too. Both slavery and valor can be embodied by the same statue, and you get to choose which you see and which you prioritize.

Think about the fact we have a Jefferson Davis statue under the capital dome. What more conciliatory act could there be for a nation seeking to reunite with a segment of its own people who have rebelled against it? Its a way of saying, "Hey, we didn't agree with you, and went to war with you over it, but you are Americans, too, and we honor the positive values you demonstrated [[standing up for your beliefs, i.e.), even while we militarily opposed the values we did not agree with [[slavery). This is history, and I think we are much better off for seeing it than for hiding it away or replacing it with new narratives.

The problem with this is that the confederacy didn't stand for multiple things, it stood for slavery. https://www.civilwar.org/learn/prima...eceding-states

Lost Cause historical revisionism [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_C...he_Confederacy) would have you think that it was about all kinds of honorable things but it was really just exclusively about slavery. The new narratives you're hearing are more than likely the historically accurate ones.

[dtowncitylover]

I didn't vote for Trump, but I agree with him about the "many sides," bit. I saw video of two groups of idiots hitting each other; I don't condone violent protests, even if they are for a morally superior cause.

As for the statues, your argument is that the Confederate statues represent a morally inferior sentiment, because of the slavery stance by the Confederacy. This sort of proves my point. The Confederacy stood for lots of things, but you zoom in and say it stood [[most singularly) for slavery. That's the side you see. But, if you are a southerner, who's family was tangled up in the war, you might see it standing for something quite different. Heritage? Self-determination? Valor? I get that you don't agree with those sentiments, but, surely, people are apt to feel that way about soldiers in the south, too. Both slavery and valor can be embodied by the same statue, and you get to choose which you see and which you prioritize.

Think about the fact we have a Jefferson Davis statue under the capital dome. What more conciliatory act could there be for a nation seeking to reunite with a segment of its own people who have rebelled against it? Its a way of saying, "Hey, we didn't agree with you, and went to war with you over it, but you are Americans, too, and we honor the positive values you demonstrated [[standing up for your beliefs, i.e.), even while we militarily opposed the values we did not agree with [[slavery). This is history, and I think we are much better off for seeing it than for hiding it away or replacing it with new narratives.

Yeah, NO.

"I don't support World War 2 even if rid the world of Nazi Germany." That's basically what you are saying. And while I'm more of a pacifist, I believe in a just war. I truly believe a punch to a neo-Nazi is always justified. My late WW2 veteran grandfather would've agreed. Just remember, that many of the white supremacists who went down there were the ones that were armed. The counter protesters overwhelmingly [[if any) were not armed. And it was a white supremacist who MURDERED a woman.

I would love support a soldier's valor, however if that soldier's valor was fighting for slavery, then no, I'm not going honor that. Nor should it be honored in a public place.

What other things did the Confederacy stand for? Cotton? [[Slavery) Tobacco? [[Slavery) Sweet iced tea and states' rights [[to own slaves)?

[Pam]

Cobo Center in Detroit officially renamed 'TCF Center'

Named after a bank. Is that really an improvement? They could have named it after some other person less objectionable, but I guess no money would have been involved.

https://youtu.be/9qISVP_PuXY

[EGrant]

It's an improvement, but it is sure lame.

[DetroitSoldier]

TCF is paying a significant amount of money for naming rights that will solidify the financial side of things, ensuring continued improvements to the facility. Just remember how bad of shape it was in not long ago. I'm all for corporate naming rights if it means a better product. Time will tell, but this is an easy win, in my opinion.

Besides, I'm pretty certain most locals couldn't even tell you who Cobo Center was named after, let alone out of towners who visit the place.

[Zads07]

Very glad to see the name change and going with a company that is investing in the city with a HQ downtown and plans to branch out to the neighborhoods.

Glad to see the Cobo name gone from this place.