Students try to get BU to change name of dorm that honors Myles Standish, who invited several native leaders to a peace council, then killed them

But I am all for fully examining our heroes and what their legacies mean

since according to yoo they are equally as evil (shouldnt the killer that at least attended b.u. be honored there) ?

As long as they charge enough to pay for another student to attend this fine institution

When the curious look up Wituwamat, they will find out about Standish, just as much as if they were curious about Standish and looked him up directly.

So you are tired of seeing history UNBURIED?

Because the history you learned isn't what was buried or is being buried - you seem to have an issue with the history that is being exhumed interfering with your tidy hero worship.

look at the name of a BU dorm and conduct extensive reading on the historical significance of the person it is named after? There's a non-zero chance it has happened, but broadly speaking, I doubt it happens very often.

Naming buildings and landmarks after people in history is not a substitute for actually learning about history. If I never go anywhere near BU, I'll probably never see the name on the dorm, so there's no benefit to my general historical knowledge from the name being assigned to a specific building.

The Myles Standish that the BU dorm, formerly the Myles Standish Hotel, is named after is not a historical figure, but a character in a fairy tale by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.

It is still on a MA State Forest Go learn your history about him there.

You're familiar with the "but my best friend is Black" trope right?

...she'd be a bicycle.

I mean, "thou shalt not kill" was a thing in Pilgrim times, too. And Standish had ~10,000 neighbors that weren't big fans of he and his compatriots' capture, kidnap, and kill modus operandi. His playbook was a cornerstone of the Pequot Massacre which launched the institutionalization of chattel slavery on Massachusetts soil for ~150 years.

I've heard many complaints about the reign of James I, but that the Stuart rule was too weak is not one of them.

Is a thing; I don't know what it would be if it wasn't. Calling attention to that doesn't make much of a point. "Historical bias is a thing" seems like an evasion. There are a lot of kinds of historical bias. One common kind is a bias in favor of old stories, old monuments, the old historical fairy tales we learned as children. This kind of bias makes people object to the correction of lies, even when they are known to be lies.

Of course if we were 17th-century English adventurers we would judge him differently. So would we if we were the victims of those adventurers. There are plenty of people who we are accustomed to thinking of as very wicked who regarded themselves as good, and were regarded as such by like-minded people. It's good to understand that, but unless you are going to abandon all attempts at moral differentiation of the acts of others, you have to choose. I choose differently than my ancestors did; I choose to see Miles Standish as a man who acted very badly, whose other actions do not excuse him, and who, overall, is not to be admired.

Yes.

Standish as a good white man who came over and helped the natives is historical bias.

Your problem here is just the opposite of what you are pretending it is. People are bringing up the unbiased and complicated historical record, not the biased sanitized one that you are clinging to here.

With that much projection you should consider a career in stage or opera.