CSNbbs

(06-22-2021 07:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Should these students have to attend lesser schools or be deemed to be "signing off" on all of their school's history?

It seems that if we don't denigrate WMR, we are "signing off" on his 19th century values, according to some.

(06-22-2021 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 07:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Should these students have to attend lesser schools or be deemed to be "signing off" on all of their school's history?

It seems that if we don't denigrate WMR, we are "signing off" on his 19th century values, according to some.

I haven't had that impression. I think if you aren't willing to see the statue moved you might be in the category of "You are not hearing us" but not so much "You are fine with the institution of slavery".

(06-22-2021 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 07:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Should these students have to attend lesser schools or be deemed to be "signing off" on all of their school's history?

It seems that if we don't denigrate WMR, we are "signing off" on his 19th century values, according to some.

I fail to see how examining WMR’s stance on slavery and Rice’s founding as an explicitly segregated university is “denigration,” in any sense of that word. Especially the latter, given how counter it is to our current university’s environment which is truly a melting pot of backgrounds - so many of today’s current students would not be allowed to attend if the charter had not been broken.

(06-22-2021 08:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 07:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Should these students have to attend lesser schools or be deemed to be "signing off" on all of their school's history?

It seems that if we don't denigrate WMR, we are "signing off" on his 19th century values, according to some.

I haven't had that impression. I think if you aren't willing to see the statue moved you might be in the category of "You are not hearing us" but not so much "You are fine with the institution of slavery".

I have one potentially off-the-wall issue. Is the statue also Willy's tomb? And are there state laws providing that once an area is established as a cemetery, it cannot be repurposed to something else?

If the answers to both questions is yes, then it may be illegal to remove the statue.

(06-22-2021 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 07:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Should these students have to attend lesser schools or be deemed to be "signing off" on all of their school's history?

It seems that if we don't denigrate WMR, we are "signing off" on his 19th century values, according to some.

I fail to see how examining WMR’s stance on slavery and Rice’s founding as an explicitly segregated university is “denigration,” in any sense of that word. Especially the latter, given how counter it is to our current university’s environment which is truly a melting pot of backgrounds - so many of today’s current students would not be allowed to attend if the charter had not been broken.

I think emphasizing a person's worst attributes and acts is effectively denigrating him - like, when Republicans emphasized the late Senator Byrd's KKK history.

WMR would not be a shining example today, but for the late 1800's he was not far out of line. I would not judge Kubla Khan or Shaka Zulu or Henry the Eighth by today's standards. Do we need a section of the Tower of London dedicated to telling us that Henry did things we would consider crimes today? Why should we do that to WMR or Jim Bridger or Tommy Dorsey or any historical figure? And why must we seek out the worst of each historical figure and emblazon it on some marquee?

I was a student when the will was broken. Until then, I did not know those provisions were in the will. I am glad now that Rice does not stand as the sole segregated school in the US. thank you, trustees of long ago.

(06-22-2021 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 07:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Should these students have to attend lesser schools or be deemed to be "signing off" on all of their school's history?

It seems that if we don't denigrate WMR, we are "signing off" on his 19th century values, according to some.

I fail to see how examining WMR’s stance on slavery and Rice’s founding as an explicitly segregated university is “denigration,” in any sense of that word. Especially the latter, given how counter it is to our current university’s environment which is truly a melting pot of backgrounds - so many of today’s current students would not be allowed to attend if the charter had not been broken.

I think emphasizing a person's worst attributes and acts is effectively denigrating him - like, when Republicans emphasized the late Senator Byrd's KKK history.

Let's go to my Bill Cosby example. What if a TV network did a hour-long celebration of his comedy career but at the end of the hour pointed out his history of sexual assaults.

Would that be "denigrating" Bill Cosby?

Is a plaque on Willie's statue that lays out his history "emphasizing" it or is it simply pointing it out?

(06-22-2021 09:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 07:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Should these students have to attend lesser schools or be deemed to be "signing off" on all of their school's history?

It seems that if we don't denigrate WMR, we are "signing off" on his 19th century values, according to some.

I haven't had that impression. I think if you aren't willing to see the statue moved you might be in the category of "You are not hearing us" but not so much "You are fine with the institution of slavery".

I have one potentially off-the-wall issue. Is the statue also Willy's tomb? And are there state laws providing that once an area is established as a cemetery, it cannot be repurposed to something else?

If the answers to both questions is yes, then it may be illegal to remove the statue.

This is one of the other reasons I'm against moving the statue. My understanding is it is his tomb.

(06-22-2021 09:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 07:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Should these students have to attend lesser schools or be deemed to be "signing off" on all of their school's history?

It seems that if we don't denigrate WMR, we are "signing off" on his 19th century values, according to some.

I fail to see how examining WMR’s stance on slavery and Rice’s founding as an explicitly segregated university is “denigration,” in any sense of that word. Especially the latter, given how counter it is to our current university’s environment which is truly a melting pot of backgrounds - so many of today’s current students would not be allowed to attend if the charter had not been broken.

I think emphasizing a person's worst attributes and acts is effectively denigrating him - like, when Republicans emphasized the late Senator Byrd's KKK history.

Let's go to my Bill Cosby example. What if a TV network did a hour-long celebration of his comedy career but at the end of the hour pointed out his history of sexual assaults.

Would that be "denigrating" Bill Cosby?

Is a plaque on Willie's statue that lays out his history "emphasizing" it or is it simply pointing it out?

It is emphasizing it. If you want a plaque on your door outlining the worst choices you ever made, go for it. As least you won't feel denigrated.

(06-22-2021 09:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 07:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Should these students have to attend lesser schools or be deemed to be "signing off" on all of their school's history?

It seems that if we don't denigrate WMR, we are "signing off" on his 19th century values, according to some.

I fail to see how examining WMR’s stance on slavery and Rice’s founding as an explicitly segregated university is “denigration,” in any sense of that word. Especially the latter, given how counter it is to our current university’s environment which is truly a melting pot of backgrounds - so many of today’s current students would not be allowed to attend if the charter had not been broken.

I think emphasizing a person's worst attributes and acts is effectively denigrating him - like, when Republicans emphasized the late Senator Byrd's KKK history.

Let's go to my Bill Cosby example. What if a TV network did a hour-long celebration of his comedy career but at the end of the hour pointed out his history of sexual assaults.

Would that be "denigrating" Bill Cosby?

Is a plaque on Willie's statue that lays out his history "emphasizing" it or is it simply pointing it out?

I find this line of thinking, that someone's past discretions must be ignored because of the good they did, to be a bit at odds with conservatives who tout the importance of history.

(06-22-2021 09:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]It seems that if we don't denigrate WMR, we are "signing off" on his 19th century values, according to some.

I fail to see how examining WMR’s stance on slavery and Rice’s founding as an explicitly segregated university is “denigration,” in any sense of that word. Especially the latter, given how counter it is to our current university’s environment which is truly a melting pot of backgrounds - so many of today’s current students would not be allowed to attend if the charter had not been broken.

I think emphasizing a person's worst attributes and acts is effectively denigrating him - like, when Republicans emphasized the late Senator Byrd's KKK history.

Let's go to my Bill Cosby example. What if a TV network did a hour-long celebration of his comedy career but at the end of the hour pointed out his history of sexual assaults.

Would that be "denigrating" Bill Cosby?

Is a plaque on Willie's statue that lays out his history "emphasizing" it or is it simply pointing it out?

I find this line of thinking, that someone's past discretions must be ignored because of the good they did, to be a bit at odds with conservatives who tout the importance of history.

"...must be ignored..."?

you, like 93, tend to go to the extremes all for or all against in these discussions. Then you attribute these extremes as our positions.

(06-22-2021 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 07:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Should these students have to attend lesser schools or be deemed to be "signing off" on all of their school's history?

It seems that if we don't denigrate WMR, we are "signing off" on his 19th century values, according to some.

I fail to see how examining WMR’s stance on slavery and Rice’s founding as an explicitly segregated university is “denigration,” in any sense of that word. Especially the latter, given how counter it is to our current university’s environment which is truly a melting pot of backgrounds - so many of today’s current students would not be allowed to attend if the charter had not been broken.

How does WMR's stance on slavery and Rice's past as segregated have anything to do with Rice 120 years and 60 years past those points in history? That is, aside from the 'lets beat the crap out of us now to make sure we feel bad on things that happened literally in my grandfather's and great-great grandfather's time'?

I mean, you specifically challenged the thesis of the quotation I put forth in the other thread --- but here you are actively promoting exactly what that quote describes.

The only thing that these types of things do is try and make everyone feel this giant slab of ongoing collective guilt.

Seriously, the people of South America are infinitely better than us in this context. The people that iived through the crap in Argentina and Chile in 30's to the 70's use that to denote 'wow, look how far we have gone and look at what a better society we are'.

Here, we focus on stuff even more spaced out in time to make us feel like we are still the worst of the worse. Me? I take a look at the history of WMR and say 'look at the amazing amount of good and progress that has emerged from a person that was not even in the top levels of slave holders'. (I mean, he had, what, 12-13 slaves?)

And I look at the trust, and the actions of the Board in 1966 in breaking the trust for that reason, and say: wow, look at the even further good that emerged from Rice at a very early point in the Civil Rights movement of 60 years ago, and look at the continued good that has produced in the over two, maybe three generations since they did that.

The distinctions are important --- and in a good and uplifting way. But on one side, the spectre of the basis is so bad that we have to continuously self-flagellate like some religious sect to remind us how inherently bad we must feel on a continued and deep manner.

Me? I will choose to look at those distinctions in a 'holy **** we have moved a long gd way in manner that has helped a ton of people, just in my lifetime,' And I will look at WMRs having 12 or 13 slaves and say -- the balance overall of that in the long run has been pretty much vastly on the positive side of the ledger.

(06-22-2021 09:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I fail to see how examining WMR’s stance on slavery and Rice’s founding as an explicitly segregated university is “denigration,” in any sense of that word. Especially the latter, given how counter it is to our current university’s environment which is truly a melting pot of backgrounds - so many of today’s current students would not be allowed to attend if the charter had not been broken.

I think emphasizing a person's worst attributes and acts is effectively denigrating him - like, when Republicans emphasized the late Senator Byrd's KKK history.

Let's go to my Bill Cosby example. What if a TV network did a hour-long celebration of his comedy career but at the end of the hour pointed out his history of sexual assaults.

Would that be "denigrating" Bill Cosby?

Is a plaque on Willie's statue that lays out his history "emphasizing" it or is it simply pointing it out?

I find this line of thinking, that someone's past discretions must be ignored because of the good they did, to be a bit at odds with conservatives who tout the importance of history.

"...must be ignored..."?

you, like 93, tend to go to the extremes all for or all against in these discussions. Then you attribute these extremes as our positions.

You're arguing against recognizing WMR's past discretions.

(06-22-2021 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 07:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Should these students have to attend lesser schools or be deemed to be "signing off" on all of their school's history?

It seems that if we don't denigrate WMR, we are "signing off" on his 19th century values, according to some.

I fail to see how examining WMR’s stance on slavery and Rice’s founding as an explicitly segregated university is “denigration,” in any sense of that word. Especially the latter, given how counter it is to our current university’s environment which is truly a melting pot of backgrounds - so many of today’s current students would not be allowed to attend if the charter had not been broken.

How does WMR's stance on slavery and Rice's past as segregated have anything to do with Rice 120 years and 60 years past those points in history? That is, aside from the 'lets beat the crap out of us now to make sure we feel bad on things that happened literally in my grandfather's and great-great grandfather's time'?

I mean, you specifically challenged the thesis of the quotation I put forth in the other thread --- but here you are actively promoting exactly what that quote describes.

The only thing that these types of things do is try and make everyone feel this giant slab of ongoing collective guilt.

Seriously, the people of South America are infinitely better than us in this context. The people that iived through the crap in Argentina and Chile in 30's to the 70's use that to denote 'wow, look how far we have gone and look at what a better society we are'.

Here, we focus on stuff even more spaced out in time to make us feel like we are still the worst of the worse. Me? I take a look at the history of WMR and say 'look at the amazing amount of good and progress that has emerged from a person that was not even in the top levels of slave holders'. (I mean, he had, what, 12-13 slaves?)

And I look at the trust, and the actions of the Board in 1966 in breaking the trust for that reason, and say: wow, look at the even further good that emerged from Rice at a very early point in the Civil Rights movement of 60 years ago, and look at the continued good that has produced in the over two, maybe three generations since they did that.

The distinctions are important --- and in a good and uplifting way. But on one side, the spectre of the basis is so bad that we have to continuously self-flagellate like some religious sect to remind us how inherently bad we must feel on a continued and deep manner.

Me? I will choose to look at those distinctions in a 'holy **** we have moved a long gd way in manner that has helped a ton of people, just in my lifetime,' And I will look at WMRs having 12 or 13 slaves and say -- the balance overall of that in the long run has been pretty much vastly on the positive side of the ledger.

I think you're arguing about something different than what I'm saying. You're arguing about how to frame this discussion, and I'm arguing about having the discussion.

I think the discussion should be had, and I'm more than fine framing it the way you do above.

(06-22-2021 09:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think emphasizing a person's worst attributes and acts is effectively denigrating him - like, when Republicans emphasized the late Senator Byrd's KKK history.

Let's go to my Bill Cosby example. What if a TV network did a hour-long celebration of his comedy career but at the end of the hour pointed out his history of sexual assaults.

Would that be "denigrating" Bill Cosby?

Is a plaque on Willie's statue that lays out his history "emphasizing" it or is it simply pointing it out?

I find this line of thinking, that someone's past discretions must be ignored because of the good they did, to be a bit at odds with conservatives who tout the importance of history.

"...must be ignored..."?

you, like 93, tend to go to the extremes all for or all against in these discussions. Then you attribute these extremes as our positions.

You're arguing against recognizing WMR's past discretions.

I am arguing against emphasizing them with a public display. I recognize his 19th century thinking and actions were very different from 21st century standards.

(06-22-2021 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 07:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Should these students have to attend lesser schools or be deemed to be "signing off" on all of their school's history?

It seems that if we don't denigrate WMR, we are "signing off" on his 19th century values, according to some.

I fail to see how examining WMR’s stance on slavery and Rice’s founding as an explicitly segregated university is “denigration,” in any sense of that word. Especially the latter, given how counter it is to our current university’s environment which is truly a melting pot of backgrounds - so many of today’s current students would not be allowed to attend if the charter had not been broken.

How does WMR's stance on slavery and Rice's past as segregated have anything to do with Rice 120 years and 60 years past those points in history? That is, aside from the 'lets beat the crap out of us now to make sure we feel bad on things that happened literally in my grandfather's and great-great grandfather's time'?

I mean, you specifically challenged the thesis of the quotation I put forth in the other thread --- but here you are actively promoting exactly what that quote describes.

The only thing that these types of things do is try and make everyone feel this giant slab of ongoing collective guilt.

Seriously, the people of South America are infinitely better than us in this context. The people that iived through the crap in Argentina and Chile in 30's to the 70's use that to denote 'wow, look how far we have gone and look at what a better society we are'.

Here, we focus on stuff even more spaced out in time to make us feel like we are still the worst of the worse. Me? I take a look at the history of WMR and say 'look at the amazing amount of good and progress that has emerged from a person that was not even in the top levels of slave holders'. (I mean, he had, what, 12-13 slaves?)

And I look at the trust, and the actions of the Board in 1966 in breaking the trust for that reason, and say: wow, look at the even further good that emerged from Rice at a very early point in the Civil Rights movement of 60 years ago, and look at the continued good that has produced in the over two, maybe three generations since they did that.

The distinctions are important --- and in a good and uplifting way. But on one side, the spectre of the basis is so bad that we have to continuously self-flagellate like some religious sect to remind us how inherently bad we must feel on a continued and deep manner.

Me? I will choose to look at those distinctions in a 'holy **** we have moved a long gd way in manner that has helped a ton of people, just in my lifetime,' And I will look at WMRs having 12 or 13 slaves and say -- the balance overall of that in the long run has been pretty much vastly on the positive side of the ledger.

I think you're arguing about something different than what I'm saying. You're arguing about how to frame this discussion, and I'm arguing about having the discussion.

I think the discussion should be had, and I'm more than fine framing it the way you do above.

I'm fine with framing it like that as well.

What if a black student at Rice is uncomfortable with a slaver being "put on a pedestal" in our campus and would appreciate at least a plaque pointing out WMR's history when it comes to that. Does that really prevent you from framing our history as you laid it out?

(06-22-2021 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Let's go to my Bill Cosby example. What if a TV network did a hour-long celebration of his comedy career but at the end of the hour pointed out his history of sexual assaults.

Would that be "denigrating" Bill Cosby?

Is a plaque on Willie's statue that lays out his history "emphasizing" it or is it simply pointing it out?

I find this line of thinking, that someone's past discretions must be ignored because of the good they did, to be a bit at odds with conservatives who tout the importance of history.

"...must be ignored..."?

you, like 93, tend to go to the extremes all for or all against in these discussions. Then you attribute these extremes as our positions.

You're arguing against recognizing WMR's past discretions.

I am arguing against emphasizing them with a public display. I recognize his 19th century thinking and actions were very different from 21st century standards.

Which is ignoring these issues... It's an intentional decision to only discuss the positive while ignoring the negatives.

There are certainly multiple ways that we could present a full discussion of WMR and Rice's founding, some appropriate and some inappropriate. But I fully support making that discussion public. Perhaps y'all are a bit closer to when Rice was integrated, and this more aware that Rice was founded as a white's only institution. I know I wasn't aware of that detail of our past until much later (and maybe even after graduation).

When I talk of perspectives, similar to what Tanq says, that change in our charter should be discussed in a positive light given how much progress has been made at Rice in respect to expanding access to our resources.

(06-22-2021 09:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I find this line of thinking, that someone's past discretions must be ignored because of the good they did, to be a bit at odds with conservatives who tout the importance of history.

"...must be ignored..."?

you, like 93, tend to go to the extremes all for or all against in these discussions. Then you attribute these extremes as our positions.

You're arguing against recognizing WMR's past discretions.

I am arguing against emphasizing them with a public display. I recognize his 19th century thinking and actions were very different from 21st century standards.

Which is ignoring these issues... It's an intentional decision to only discuss the positive while ignoring the negatives.

There are certainly multiple ways that we could present a full discussion of WMR and Rice's founding, some appropriate and some inappropriate. But I fully support making that discussion public. Perhaps y'all are a bit closer to when Rice was integrated, and this more aware that Rice was founded as a white's only institution. I know I wasn't aware of that detail of our past until much later (and maybe even after graduation).

When I talk of perspectives, similar to what Tanq says, that change in our charter should be discussed in a positive light given how much progress has been made at Rice in respect to expanding access to our resources.

I can be painfully aware that Fred has bad body odor without having to post it on the bulletin board. I am aware that Betty cheats on her husband but see no need to write it on bathroom walls. I am aware that 25 years ago Bill told a racist joke. See no need to put that on facebook.



As I said earlier, I was totally unaware of the white's only provision until the will was broken. Similar to you. I felt at the time it would be a good thing for the future of the U., in many ways. I did not foresee the need to self-flagellate.

(06-22-2021 07:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Understood and (again) I am not arguing for the removal of his statue. Clearly there has been some whitewashing of history, though, and it is really more recently that we have taken a closer look at some of the uncomfortable parts of our "heroes".

Look at Bill Cosby... he had an incredible career in comedy. One of the greatest comedians of all-time by anybody's measure. What if NBC was coming out with a 90-minute special celebrating Cosby's career? Would you be OK with that if ZERO mention was made of the serial sexual assaults?

Its funny that when I mentioned an anecdote, you pointed out how the comparison fails... and then you gave an even worse one.

Bill Cosby didn't found a top 20 University. iirc, he was a big supporter of Temple? I suspect they still have a plaque or something honoring his philanthropy, and I don't think it mentions one word about his sexual assaults. College Express (a resource for students seeking scholarships) doesn't mention it. Look at https://college.lovetoknow.com/Bill_Cosby_Scholarship No mention of it... just his (and his wife's) scholarships. If you wanted to look, if you did research on it, you'd certainly find references to it in a lot of places... but you DON'T tend to find those things 'at the point of his positive impact'.

Quote:

Quote:It's also fine and dandy to say... let's remove the guy who made all of this possible now for blacks AND whites, since he isn't here to defend himself or to have 'evolved' himself on any issues... and any statute of limitations on his gifts has run.

The fact that black people may enjoy a great education these days was expressly against his wishes, though.

What difference does that make to the comment?? It was also expressly against the wishes of George Washington that women vote. It's an observation, not a value statement.

Quote:Perhaps those are the best state schools that these students could attend when it comes to the best education for the dollar. Should these students have to attend lesser schools or be deemed to be "signing off" on all of their school's history?

Forest:Trees... You're making my point exactly. Apply that exact same logic to Rice. My point was that despite the INCREDIBLY racist history of those state schools... MUCH more active and aggressive in promoting racism than ANY single man... AND for much longer and more recently than the life of WMR... where the founding and support for those universities directly came from slavery and acts of overt racism... And while those may be the best schools someone can attend, there are vastly more schools comparable to Mississippi than to Rice... NOBODY 'signs off on' the history of a founding of a school merely by attending, wearing a shirt with their logo or name on it, cheering for their teams or passing by a statue or building honoring someone who played a vital part in creating 'what something is' today. The only thing they are celebrating it their sports or the academic value they received from it (or give to others).

WMR is not celebrated for, and never HAS been celebrated for owning slaves and oppressing black people. He is ONLY celebrated for founding what is now a top 20 University.

Interestingly though... I bet Bill Cosby is celebrated not only for his philanthropy, but also as a 'famous alumni' for his career. In THAT context (where we are celebrating his career) mention of his controversy is ABSOLUTELY appropriate. Any similar celebration of WMR (beyond the University... say to his life) would mention the controversy.

(06-22-2021 09:54 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]It seems that if we don't denigrate WMR, we are "signing off" on his 19th century values, according to some.

I fail to see how examining WMR’s stance on slavery and Rice’s founding as an explicitly segregated university is “denigration,” in any sense of that word. Especially the latter, given how counter it is to our current university’s environment which is truly a melting pot of backgrounds - so many of today’s current students would not be allowed to attend if the charter had not been broken.

How does WMR's stance on slavery and Rice's past as segregated have anything to do with Rice 120 years and 60 years past those points in history? That is, aside from the 'lets beat the crap out of us now to make sure we feel bad on things that happened literally in my grandfather's and great-great grandfather's time'?

I mean, you specifically challenged the thesis of the quotation I put forth in the other thread --- but here you are actively promoting exactly what that quote describes.

The only thing that these types of things do is try and make everyone feel this giant slab of ongoing collective guilt.

Seriously, the people of South America are infinitely better than us in this context. The people that iived through the crap in Argentina and Chile in 30's to the 70's use that to denote 'wow, look how far we have gone and look at what a better society we are'.

Here, we focus on stuff even more spaced out in time to make us feel like we are still the worst of the worse. Me? I take a look at the history of WMR and say 'look at the amazing amount of good and progress that has emerged from a person that was not even in the top levels of slave holders'. (I mean, he had, what, 12-13 slaves?)

And I look at the trust, and the actions of the Board in 1966 in breaking the trust for that reason, and say: wow, look at the even further good that emerged from Rice at a very early point in the Civil Rights movement of 60 years ago, and look at the continued good that has produced in the over two, maybe three generations since they did that.

The distinctions are important --- and in a good and uplifting way. But on one side, the spectre of the basis is so bad that we have to continuously self-flagellate like some religious sect to remind us how inherently bad we must feel on a continued and deep manner.

Me? I will choose to look at those distinctions in a 'holy **** we have moved a long gd way in manner that has helped a ton of people, just in my lifetime,' And I will look at WMRs having 12 or 13 slaves and say -- the balance overall of that in the long run has been pretty much vastly on the positive side of the ledger.

I think you're arguing about something different than what I'm saying. You're arguing about how to frame this discussion, and I'm arguing about having the discussion.

I think the discussion should be had, and I'm more than fine framing it the way you do above.

I'm fine with framing it like that as well.

What if a black student at Rice is uncomfortable with a slaver being "put on a pedestal" in our campus and would appreciate at least a plaque pointing out WMR's history when it comes to that. Does that really prevent you from framing our history as you laid it out?

What if a white guy goes to certain parts of Chihuahua state that have statues that "put on pedestal" people who butchered 30 people in his family tree? i.e. that is me, mind you.

Me? I dont get worked up that some dude who killed literally two whole families (save for one daughter hidden in the floorboards) has a statue set up for him.

Again, you seem deeply wedded to the continuation of massive ongoing, and persistent guilt for that. If that is what makes you tick (after 160 years, mind you), that is your right.

(06-22-2021 10:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:54 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2021 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I fail to see how examining WMR’s stance on slavery and Rice’s founding as an explicitly segregated university is “denigration,” in any sense of that word. Especially the latter, given how counter it is to our current university’s environment which is truly a melting pot of backgrounds - so many of today’s current students would not be allowed to attend if the charter had not been broken.

How does WMR's stance on slavery and Rice's past as segregated have anything to do with Rice 120 years and 60 years past those points in history? That is, aside from the 'lets beat the crap out of us now to make sure we feel bad on things that happened literally in my grandfather's and great-great grandfather's time'?

I mean, you specifically challenged the thesis of the quotation I put forth in the other thread --- but here you are actively promoting exactly what that quote describes.

The only thing that these types of things do is try and make everyone feel this giant slab of ongoing collective guilt.

Seriously, the people of South America are infinitely better than us in this context. The people that iived through the crap in Argentina and Chile in 30's to the 70's use that to denote 'wow, look how far we have gone and look at what a better society we are'.

Here, we focus on stuff even more spaced out in time to make us feel like we are still the worst of the worse. Me? I take a look at the history of WMR and say 'look at the amazing amount of good and progress that has emerged from a person that was not even in the top levels of slave holders'. (I mean, he had, what, 12-13 slaves?)

And I look at the trust, and the actions of the Board in 1966 in breaking the trust for that reason, and say: wow, look at the even further good that emerged from Rice at a very early point in the Civil Rights movement of 60 years ago, and look at the continued good that has produced in the over two, maybe three generations since they did that.

The distinctions are important --- and in a good and uplifting way. But on one side, the spectre of the basis is so bad that we have to continuously self-flagellate like some religious sect to remind us how inherently bad we must feel on a continued and deep manner.

Me? I will choose to look at those distinctions in a 'holy **** we have moved a long gd way in manner that has helped a ton of people, just in my lifetime,' And I will look at WMRs having 12 or 13 slaves and say -- the balance overall of that in the long run has been pretty much vastly on the positive side of the ledger.

I think you're arguing about something different than what I'm saying. You're arguing about how to frame this discussion, and I'm arguing about having the discussion.

I think the discussion should be had, and I'm more than fine framing it the way you do above.

I'm fine with framing it like that as well.

What if a black student at Rice is uncomfortable with a slaver being "put on a pedestal" in our campus and would appreciate at least a plaque pointing out WMR's history when it comes to that. Does that really prevent you from framing our history as you laid it out?

What if a white guy goes to certain parts of Chihuahua state that have statues that "put on pedestal" people who butchered 30 people in his family tree? i.e. that is me, mind you.

Me? I dont get worked up that some dude who killed literally two whole families (save for one daughter hidden in the floorboards) has a statue set up for him.

Apparently some people do though, Tanq. WRT this discussion, there are some black students who have a problem with the WMR statue given his connection to slavery/racism. Their approach to this is different from yours (and to mine actually). Does that mean that their approach is worse than yours? Or less valid?

Quote:Again, you seem deeply wedded to the continuation of massive ongoing, and persistent guilt for that. If that is what makes you tick (after 160 years, mind you), that is your right.

I don't have guilt. That doesn't mean that I want to ignore current imbalances in our society or that I want to invalidate other the feelings of other groups.