Just received an email with a link to this doc: https://alumni.rice.edu/sites/g/files/bx...morial.pdf

It's an important and sensitively written document. Well worth reading.

Here are the recommendations:

Quote:The Task Force is unanimous that the Academic Quadrangle needs
bold change. The area extending from the main entrance to campus
through the Sallyport to the entrance of Fondren Library, and including
Founder’s Court, can and must be significantly redesigned to reflect more
accurately Rice’s values, the history of the university, and the current
diversity of the campus, and in a way that clearly and visibly rebukes
the institution’s segregationist founding and decades of racial exclusion.
The final disposition of the statue of William Marsh Rice should be part
of that redesign, which may also include appropriate recognition of the
University’s history of desegregation and future aspirations.

The Task Force unanimously recommends the commissioning of such
a redesign through a competition, with a broadly inclusive panel to judge
the competition.

The Task Force unanimously recommends that the statue of William
Marsh Rice known as the Founder’s Memorial should no longer be
used as an iconic image of the university in its publicity and that
the entire community (including tour guides, orientation leaders,
incoming students and employees, alumni, and visitors to Rice) should
become better informed about the history of William Marsh Rice and
the university with respect to slavery, segregation, and racial injustice.
Campus-wide programming and educational efforts by our Task Force
should take a leading role in providing guidance to various units,
including the residential colleges and the Welcome Center, about this
history.

These three recommendations represent the unanimous consensus of
our entire steering committee. A strong majority of the Task Force also
believes that the redesign of the academic quad must include the removal
of the statue of William Marsh Rice from the quadrangle, preferably to
another location on campus where it would be properly contextualized
with the history of Rice as discovered through the research of the Task
Force. An important smaller group of the task force believes, however,
that a successful redesign could or should properly contextualize the
statue in its location within the quadrangle itself. These differences about
details that would need to be worked out in an overall design reflect,
to some degree, the variety of opinion that remains in our broader
community. Those differences are important, but they do not diminish
the strength of our unanimous recommendation for a bold, creative
reimagining of a space that has remained largely untouched as the
university has grown and changed.

perhaps this designer would consider entering the obtuse wokefes...er, I mean, "competition":

I think the Task Force is holding back.

I'd like to see them fully embrace the precept of 'damnatio memoriae'.

The main problem I see is whether to rename the institution as "The University at Sunset Boulevard and Main Street" or "The University near the Texas Medical Center" or maybe "The University across from Hermann Park".

(06-23-2021 05:58 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I think the Task Force is holding back.

I'd like to see them fully embrace the precept of 'damnatio memoriae'.

The main problem I see is whether to rename the institution as "The University at Sunset Boulevard and Main Street" or "The University near the Texas Medical Center" or maybe "The University across from Hermann Park".

"The Formerly Racist University in South Houston" would include the historical data that seems to be important.

I have a couple of thoughts about removing the statue. One, it is my understanding that is WMR's tomb. Two, it is my understanding that once an area is designated for burial, it must remain so by law. If my understandings are correct, seems to me that it would be illegal to move it.

(06-23-2021 06:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 05:58 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I think the Task Force is holding back.

I'd like to see them fully embrace the precept of 'damnatio memoriae'.

The main problem I see is whether to rename the institution as "The University at Sunset Boulevard and Main Street" or "The University near the Texas Medical Center" or maybe "The University across from Hermann Park".

"The Formerly Racist University in South Houston" would include the historical data that seems to be important.

You do realise that South Houston is a municipality?

Maybe "The Formerly Racist University South of Downtown Houston".

(06-23-2021 08:02 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 06:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 05:58 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I think the Task Force is holding back.

I'd like to see them fully embrace the precept of 'damnatio memoriae'.

The main problem I see is whether to rename the institution as "The University at Sunset Boulevard and Main Street" or "The University near the Texas Medical Center" or maybe "The University across from Hermann Park".

"The Formerly Racist University in South Houston" would include the historical data that seems to be important.

You do realise that South Houston is a municipality?

Maybe "The Formerly Racist University South of Downtown Houston".

The important part is that we change the name to "formerly racist". How about "the Formerly Racist University formerly named after a racist MFer"?

I can hardly wait to exchange my degree for a full disclosure degree. The current one has been disgracing my wall for over 50 years.

South Main University of Technology, SMUT for short.

Did Sam Houston own slaves or allow others to own them? We may need to rename the entire city. Who was Harris County named after?

The KRM Quad ladies and gentlemen.

Where there are musings as to "Was slavery really that bad?" and the possibility of reparations to the descendants of slave-OWNERS is bandied about.

(06-23-2021 08:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The KRM Quad ladies and gentlemen.

Where there are musings as to "Was slavery really that bad?" and the possibility of reparations to the descendants of slave-OWNERS is bandied about.

I missed the musings as to "Was slavery really that bad"? Where can I find those? Serious question, please answer.

Personally, I don't anybody should get reparations - descendants of slaves or descendants of slave owners or anybody else. Reparations should be for those directly affected by seizure of property.

But as somebody who has had eminent domain called on me several times, I was always offered compensation for my losses. Not always fair compensation, but still, something. Is the principle different now than in 1863?

(06-23-2021 08:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The KRM Quad ladies and gentlemen.

Where there are musings as to "Was slavery really that bad?" and the possibility of reparations to the descendants of slave-OWNERS is bandied about.

I missed the musings as to "Was slavery really that bad"? Where can I find those? Serious question, please answer.

"Was owning slaves immoral? Well that’s a good question. By today’s standards it would be immoral and illegal. According to one website, EH.net, 21,878 individuals in Texas owned slaves in 1860. That doesn’t make it less immoral by today’s standards, but it does suggest that it wasn’t uncommon.

Was WMR an active slave trader? No, actually according to accounts I’ve read he received 15 slaves in payment of a debt. Where these slaves were, how they were treated, and what eventually happened to them is unclear. But in this instance slaves were treated as property. Oh the horror!!!"

(06-23-2021 08:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The KRM Quad ladies and gentlemen.

Where there are musings as to "Was slavery really that bad?" and the possibility of reparations to the descendants of slave-OWNERS is bandied about.

I missed the musings as to "Was slavery really that bad"? Where can I find those? Serious question, please answer.

"Was owning slaves immoral? Well that’s a good question. By today’s standards it would be immoral and illegal. According to one website, EH.net, 21,878 individuals in Texas owned slaves in 1860. That doesn’t make it less immoral by today’s standards, but it does suggest that it wasn’t uncommon.

Was WMR an active slave trader? No, actually according to accounts I’ve read he received 15 slaves in payment of a debt. Where these slaves were, how they were treated, and what eventually happened to them is unclear. But in this instance slaves were treated as property. Oh the horror!!!"

Oh, I see what you are doing now. You are taking some statements and expanding on them to cover something else. Nobody asked if "slavery was really that bad". Its your take on what he said, which is not what he said.

(06-23-2021 08:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The KRM Quad ladies and gentlemen.

Where there are musings as to "Was slavery really that bad?" and the possibility of reparations to the descendants of slave-OWNERS is bandied about.

I missed the musings as to "Was slavery really that bad"? Where can I find those? Serious question, please answer.

"Was owning slaves immoral? Well that’s a good question. By today’s standards it would be immoral and illegal. According to one website, EH.net, 21,878 individuals in Texas owned slaves in 1860. That doesn’t make it less immoral by today’s standards, but it does suggest that it wasn’t uncommon.

Was WMR an active slave trader? No, actually according to accounts I’ve read he received 15 slaves in payment of a debt. Where these slaves were, how they were treated, and what eventually happened to them is unclear. But in this instance slaves were treated as property. Oh the horror!!!"

Oh, I see what you are doing now. You are taking some statements and expanding on them to cover something else. Nobody asked if "slavery was really that bad". Its your take on what he said, which is not what he said.

I would be labeled histrionic by some for that.

(06-23-2021 08:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The KRM Quad ladies and gentlemen.

Where there are musings as to "Was slavery really that bad?" and the possibility of reparations to the descendants of slave-OWNERS is bandied about.

Think of all those poor slave owners who lost out on their livelihood based on owning another human beings...

My god, think of all those great industrialists who relied on children for work!

(06-23-2021 09:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The KRM Quad ladies and gentlemen.

Where there are musings as to "Was slavery really that bad?" and the possibility of reparations to the descendants of slave-OWNERS is bandied about.

I missed the musings as to "Was slavery really that bad"? Where can I find those? Serious question, please answer.

"Was owning slaves immoral? Well that’s a good question. By today’s standards it would be immoral and illegal. According to one website, EH.net, 21,878 individuals in Texas owned slaves in 1860. That doesn’t make it less immoral by today’s standards, but it does suggest that it wasn’t uncommon.

Was WMR an active slave trader? No, actually according to accounts I’ve read he received 15 slaves in payment of a debt. Where these slaves were, how they were treated, and what eventually happened to them is unclear. But in this instance slaves were treated as property. Oh the horror!!!"

Oh, I see what you are doing now. You are taking some statements and expanding on them to cover something else. Nobody asked if "slavery was really that bad". Its your take on what he said, which is not what he said.

I would be labeled histrionic by some for that.

BAZINGA!!!

(06-23-2021 08:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The KRM Quad ladies and gentlemen.

Where there are musings as to "Was slavery really that bad?" and the possibility of reparations to the descendants of slave-OWNERS is bandied about.

I missed the musings as to "Was slavery really that bad"? Where can I find those? Serious question, please answer.

"Was owning slaves immoral? Well that’s a good question. By today’s standards it would be immoral and illegal. According to one website, EH.net, 21,878 individuals in Texas owned slaves in 1860. That doesn’t make it less immoral by today’s standards, but it does suggest that it wasn’t uncommon.

Was WMR an active slave trader? No, actually according to accounts I’ve read he received 15 slaves in payment of a debt. Where these slaves were, how they were treated, and what eventually happened to them is unclear. But in this instance slaves were treated as property. Oh the horror!!!"

Oh, I see what you are doing now. You are taking some statements and expanding on them to cover something else. Nobody asked if "slavery was really that bad". Its your take on what he said, which is not what he said.

I guess I see "Was owning slaves immoral?" as being equivalent to "Was slavery really that bad?"

I hereby change my original statement to:

The KRM Quad ladies and gentlemen.

Where there are musings as to "Was owning slaves immoral?" and the possibility of reparations to the descendants of slave-OWNERS is bandied about.

(06-23-2021 09:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The KRM Quad ladies and gentlemen.

Where there are musings as to "Was slavery really that bad?" and the possibility of reparations to the descendants of slave-OWNERS is bandied about.

Think of all those poor slave owners who lost out on their livelihood based on owning another human beings...

My god, think of all those great industrialists who relied on children for work!

Histrionic for repeating was others said? OK...

(06-23-2021 09:01 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The KRM Quad ladies and gentlemen.

Where there are musings as to "Was slavery really that bad?" and the possibility of reparations to the descendants of slave-OWNERS is bandied about.

I missed the musings as to "Was slavery really that bad"? Where can I find those? Serious question, please answer.

"Was owning slaves immoral? Well that’s a good question. By today’s standards it would be immoral and illegal. According to one website, EH.net, 21,878 individuals in Texas owned slaves in 1860. That doesn’t make it less immoral by today’s standards, but it does suggest that it wasn’t uncommon.

Was WMR an active slave trader? No, actually according to accounts I’ve read he received 15 slaves in payment of a debt. Where these slaves were, how they were treated, and what eventually happened to them is unclear. But in this instance slaves were treated as property. Oh the horror!!!"

Oh, I see what you are doing now. You are taking some statements and expanding on them to cover something else. Nobody asked if "slavery was really that bad". Its your take on what he said, which is not what he said.

I guess I see "Was owning slaves immoral?" as being equivalent to "Was slavery really that bad?"

I hereby change my original statement to:

The KRM Quad ladies and gentlemen.

Where there are musings as to "Was owning slaves immoral?" and the possibility of reparations to the descendants of slave-OWNERS is bandied about.

More truthfully --- was owning slaves considered to be immoral at the time.

Small, but very salient, detail that was omitted by you.

Your other comment in your lather ("possibility of reparations to the descendants of slave-OWNERS is bandied about.") suffers the same defect, but even worse.

(06-23-2021 09:03 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 09:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The KRM Quad ladies and gentlemen.

Where there are musings as to "Was slavery really that bad?" and the possibility of reparations to the descendants of slave-OWNERS is bandied about.

Think of all those poor slave owners who lost out on their livelihood based on owning another human beings...

My god, think of all those great industrialists who relied on children for work!

Histrionic for repeating was others said? OK...

What was being asked had the term 'at that time' very much implied. So repeating it without that context and in the context you did absolutely was, My Friend.