Just burn it down. I'd rather that than the horse**** changes we will surely make. If a group of academics can't see the harm in erasing history there's really no hope anyhow. Might we well just change the name to University A until someone comes up with a reason the letter A or the word university is racist or hurts someone's feelings in any way.

nein51 said:

---

Just burn it down. I'd rather that than the horse**** changes we will surely make. If a group of academics can't see the harm in erasing history there's really no hope anyhow. Might we well just change the name to University A until someone comes up with a reason the letter A or the word university is racist or hurts someone's feelings in any way.

---

"Erasing history" is about the most amazingly ironic phrase you could use on this subject. The point of the exercise is to reveal history-what actually happened rather than some sanitized fairy tale. I am with those who say that "canceling" our ancestors based on current moral standards can be a bridge too far. But the idea we should pretend that only their praiseworthy actions shaped the world we live in is just as dumb.

For a bonus, it is also pretty surreal to complain about a "bunch of academics" giving input at a university.

Thee University said:

---

You knew it was coming.

https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=222031

---

Isn't the idea that the Confederacy wasn't about slavery the biggest rewrite of history in the of our nation?

Booray said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Just burn it down. I'd rather that than the horse**** changes we will surely make. If a group of academics can't see the harm in erasing history there's really no hope anyhow. Might we well just change the name to University A until someone comes up with a reason the letter A or the word university is racist or hurts someone's feelings in any way.

---

"Erasing history" is about the most amazingly ironic phrase you could use on this subject. The point of the exercise is to reveal history-what actually happened rather than some sanitized fairy tale. I am with those who say that "canceling" our ancestors based on current moral standards can be a bridge too far. But the idea we should pretend that only their praiseworthy actions shaped the world we live in is just as dumb.

---

The university is in a town named for the Indians that inhabited it on land we surely didn't "buy". If you're looking to use 2021 to judge a person from 1845 you're going to find fault with basically everyone. If you think we aren't going to cancel Baylor while people are cancelling Abraham freaking Lincoln you've lost your mind. You could easily push to rename the town to Huaco, rename the university to something else though not University of Waco for obvious reasons, etc.

When you start to remove statues, change names, etc you are not adding to history by revealing it...you're erasing it. You're essentially saying that no matter what good they did we can only judge them by the bad. And we can only judge them on today's standard of good and bad.

Put this in context...people are actively looking to remove statues of Abraham Lincoln, you think Judge Baylor is going to survive that level of scrutiny??

https://www2.baylor.edu/baylorproud/2018/05/who-was-judge-baylor/

This isn't about the elimination of white supremacy, but Western Supremacy. Reversing progress under the guise of righting wrongs through historical shaming. It will harm everyone, and negatively impact those wanting to be lifted the most.

One can be against removing statutes (particularly those on private grounds) and for giving full context to those memorialized. I am guessing that is what the result will be here. Y'all can keep perpetuating sanitized fairy tales and calling it history.

Y'all do realize the American Indians owned African slaves too, right?

Booray said:

---

One can be against removing statutes (particularly those on private grounds) and for giving full context to those memorialized. I am guessing that is what the result will be here. Y'all can keep perpetuating sanitized fairy tales and calling it history.

---

Sanitized fairy tales? Do tell.

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

One can be against removing statutes (particularly those on private grounds) and for giving full context to those memorialized. I am guessing that is what the result will be here. Y'all can keep perpetuating sanitized fairy tales and calling it history.

---

Sanitized fairy tales? Do tell.

---

A history of Baylor as a Christian institution that ignores the school's connection to slavery and racism is a sanitized fairy tale.

tommie said:

---

Thee University said:

---

You knew it was coming.

https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=222031

---

Isn't the idea that the Confederacy wasn't about slavery the biggest rewrite of history in the of our nation?

---

What do you mean by Confederacy? The Confederacy covers a lot of ground.

The biggest re-write (by the victorious Northern Aggressors) in the history of our nation might be the causes for the Civil War or it could be Saddam Hussein and his Weapons of Mass Destruction or maybe it was American genocide of Indigenous people. History re-writes go on and on and on.

Your rewrite question above has been debated for 155+ years now.

The neo-Marxist enemies of the entire South use fake history to promote not only anti-Confederate narratives but also anti-South and ultimately anti-American narratives.

Booray said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Just burn it down. I'd rather that than the horse**** changes we will surely make. If a group of academics can't see the harm in erasing history there's really no hope anyhow. Might we well just change the name to University A until someone comes up with a reason the letter A or the word university is racist or hurts someone's feelings in any way.

---

"Erasing history" is about the most amazingly ironic phrase you could use on this subject. The point of the exercise is to reveal history-what actually happened rather than some sanitized fairy tale. I am with those who say that "canceling" our ancestors based on current moral standards can be a bridge too far. But the idea we should pretend that only their praiseworthy actions shaped the world we live in is just as dumb.

For a bonus, it is also pretty surreal to complain about a "bunch of academics" giving input at a university.

---

I think it's ironic that you believe that BU has somehow "sanitized" history for well over 100 years to its constituents (students). I was taught over and over, in various departments, what I still feel like was in an accurate and uninhibited manner. I did not leave Baylor with any impression that the world we live in was shaped by men and women that were perfect in their methods, at the current time.

I also find it ironic that you would pick on the fact that someone would be skeptical of a "bunch of academics" giving the particular input the article referenced. There are certainly plenty of "academics" which I believe we all know means "profs and researchers" that are and would be more than capable of making a centric decisions regarding events that occurred in the 1800s and prior, but their track records say otherwise.

This is why Dr L makes the money she does and why she was chosen for the job, she needs to understand her audience, very clearly, as the impact for unwinding the history of Baylor, including the uncomfortable facts, could be devastating. There are plenty of ways to use past transgressions as teaching moments, and that would certainly fall into the capable hands of the "academics".

beerman said:

---

Booray said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Just burn it down. I'd rather that than the horse**** changes we will surely make. If a group of academics can't see the harm in erasing history there's really no hope anyhow. Might we well just change the name to University A until someone comes up with a reason the letter A or the word university is racist or hurts someone's feelings in any way.

---

"Erasing history" is about the most amazingly ironic phrase you could use on this subject. The point of the exercise is to reveal history-what actually happened rather than some sanitized fairy tale. I am with those who say that "canceling" our ancestors based on current moral standards can be a bridge too far. But the idea we should pretend that only their praiseworthy actions shaped the world we live in is just as dumb.

For a bonus, it is also pretty surreal to complain about a "bunch of academics" giving input at a university.

---

I think it's ironic that you believe that BU has somehow "sanitized" history for well over 100 years to its constituents (students). I was taught over and over, in various departments, what I still feel like was in an accurate and uninhibited manner. I did not leave Baylor with any impression that the world we live in was shaped by men and women that were perfect in their methods, at the current time.

I also find it ironic that you would pick on the fact that someone would be skeptical of a "bunch of academics" giving the particular input the article referenced. There are certainly plenty of "academics" which I believe we all know means "profs and researchers" that are and would be more than capable of making a centric decisions regarding events that occurred in the 1800s and prior, but their track records say otherwise.

This is why Dr L makes the money she does and why she was chosen for the job, she needs to understand her audience, very clearly, as the impact for unwinding the history of Baylor, including the uncomfortable facts, could be devastating. There are plenty of ways to use past transgressions as teaching moments, and that would certainly fall into the capable hands of the "academics".

---

Whose track records suggest "otherwise?" What are you trying to say here?

Why would the unwinding of Baylor history be devastating if Baylor has such a distinguished track record of teaching that history in a such a clear and accurate manner?

Booray said:

---

One can be against removing statutes (particularly those on private grounds) and for giving full context to those memorialized. I am guessing that is what the result will be here. Y'all can keep perpetuating sanitized fairy tales and calling it history.

---

Why is it necessary to point out a person's flaws on a statue? Why not explain the reason he/she deserved the statute and leave it at that?

Maybe we should start doing this at funerals as well. Pepper in the individual's personal failings with his or her good qualities just for "context." Let's open the closet and let people see all of the skeletons. Right?

Nein is right - this isn't about correcting white supremacy but Western culture.

In our somewhat liberal neighborhood in Austin, the HOA has a big debate raging about whether it's a good idea for people to be flying American flags. There is a movement to permit them only on memorial day and July 4th that is gaining serious traction because the flag represents colonialism, white supremacy, etc., and it's mostly led by the younger generation moving into our neighborhood. We have a generation that has been taught that our country is evil in our colleges. It really does make one fear for our country in the coming decades.

Booray said:

---

beerman said:

---

Booray said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Just burn it down. I'd rather that than the horse**** changes we will surely make. If a group of academics can't see the harm in erasing history there's really no hope anyhow. Might we well just change the name to University A until someone comes up with a reason the letter A or the word university is racist or hurts someone's feelings in any way.

---

"Erasing history" is about the most amazingly ironic phrase you could use on this subject. The point of the exercise is to reveal history-what actually happened rather than some sanitized fairy tale. I am with those who say that "canceling" our ancestors based on current moral standards can be a bridge too far. But the idea we should pretend that only their praiseworthy actions shaped the world we live in is just as dumb.

For a bonus, it is also pretty surreal to complain about a "bunch of academics" giving input at a university.

---

I think it's ironic that you believe that BU has somehow "sanitized" history for well over 100 years to its constituents (students). I was taught over and over, in various departments, what I still feel like was in an accurate and uninhibited manner. I did not leave Baylor with any impression that the world we live in was shaped by men and women that were perfect in their methods, at the current time.

I also find it ironic that you would pick on the fact that someone would be skeptical of a "bunch of academics" giving the particular input the article referenced. There are certainly plenty of "academics" which I believe we all know means "profs and researchers" that are and would be more than capable of making a centric decisions regarding events that occurred in the 1800s and prior, but their track records say otherwise.

This is why Dr L makes the money she does and why she was chosen for the job, she needs to understand her audience, very clearly, as the impact for unwinding the history of Baylor, including the uncomfortable facts, could be devastating. There are plenty of ways to use past transgressions as teaching moments, and that would certainly fall into the capable hands of the "academics".

---

Whose track records suggest "otherwise?" What are you trying to say here?

Why would the unwinding of Baylor history be devastating if Baylor has such a distinguished track record of teaching that history in a such a clear and accurate manner?

---

1) "academics" teach and do research.....that's what I mean.

2) the consequences of Baylor's decisions to alter history by removing particular parts of her history, in physical forms and names, could be a terribly devastating business decision.

I never once said, nor suggested, there was anything "stellar" about anything that occurred in the past at BU or elsewhere.

And that was the point of the commission, to officially tell everyone what already knew......ok, good work, now what?

And, I never suggested academics wouldn't be involved in the research, I was suggesting caution, as was the poster you responded to, of having "academics" make the "what now" decisions, those could have a devastating impact on another set of constituents, her alumni.

My point was more centered around the fact that BU is in the business of education, but a business nonetheless. These next steps are going to be critical for the sake of being level on its reactions.

What do you think we should do? Change names? Remove statues? I certainly don't pretend to know the answer, but would like to know what YOU would do?

tommie said:

---

Thee University said:

---

You knew it was coming.

https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=222031

---

Isn't the idea that the Confederacy wasn't about slavery the biggest rewrite of history in the of our nation?

---

Actually it isn't even in the top 50.

Thee University said:

---

tommie said:

---

Thee University said:

---

You knew it was coming.

https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=222031

---

Isn't the idea that the Confederacy wasn't about slavery the biggest rewrite of history in the of our nation?

---

What do you mean by Confederacy? The Confederacy covers a lot of ground.

The biggest re-write (by the victorious Northern Aggressors) in the history of our nation might be the causes for the Civil War or it could be Saddam Hussein and his Weapons of Mass Destruction or maybe it was American genocide of Indigenous people. History re-writes go on and on and on.

Your rewrite question above has been debated for 155+ years now.

The neo-Marxist enemies of the entire South use fake history to promote not only anti-Confederate narratives but also anti-South and ultimately anti-American narratives.

---

The fact that the South Carolina militia attacked the Union soldiers at Fort Sumter is what started the "War of Northern Aggression" is in itself a rewrite.

You attack a dude. He beats your ass (and frees millions of people forced to work against their will in the process) is not "Northern Aggression." It's righteous.

Calling it Northern Aggression or "States Rights" is all a rewrite.

tommie said:

---

Thee University said:

---

You knew it was coming.

https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=222031

---

Isn't the idea that the Confederacy wasn't about slavery the biggest rewrite of history in the of our nation?

---

Stupid reductionism.

tommie said:

---

Thee University said:

---

tommie said:

---

Thee University said:

---

You knew it was coming.

https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=222031

---

Isn't the idea that the Confederacy wasn't about slavery the biggest rewrite of history in the of our nation?

---

What do you mean by Confederacy? The Confederacy covers a lot of ground.

The biggest re-write (by the victorious Northern Aggressors) in the history of our nation might be the causes for the Civil War or it could be Saddam Hussein and his Weapons of Mass Destruction or maybe it was American genocide of Indigenous people. History re-writes go on and on and on.

Your rewrite question above has been debated for 155+ years now.

The neo-Marxist enemies of the entire South use fake history to promote not only anti-Confederate narratives but also anti-South and ultimately anti-American narratives.

---

The fact that the South Carolina militia attacked the Union soldiers at Fort Sumter is what started the "War of Northern Aggression" is in itself a rewrite.

You attack a dude. He beats your ass (and frees millions of people forced to work against their will in the process) is not "Northern Aggression." It's righteous.

Calling it Northern Aggression or "States Rights" is all a rewrite.

---

Ridiculous

Read up on the events that led up to Fort Sumter.

Little doubt your preconceived notions will remain the same, however the effort might open your eyes a little .

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

One can be against removing statutes (particularly those on private grounds) and for giving full context to those memorialized. I am guessing that is what the result will be here. Y'all can keep perpetuating sanitized fairy tales and calling it history.

---

Sanitized fairy tales? Do tell.

---

A history of Baylor as a Christian institution that ignores the school's connection to slavery and racism is a sanitized fairy tale.

---

I think we're doing more to erase the Christian part than the history of those involved. I guess you could call that "sanitizing the fairy tales" as well. Damning the early history is assuredly part of that process. No one wants an honest discussion of history, only the parts that can be wielded as a weapon for an agenda.

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Thee University said:

---

tommie said:

---

Thee University said:

---

You knew it was coming.

https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=222031

---

Isn't the idea that the Confederacy wasn't about slavery the biggest rewrite of history in the of our nation?

---

What do you mean by Confederacy? The Confederacy covers a lot of ground.

The biggest re-write (by the victorious Northern Aggressors) in the history of our nation might be the causes for the Civil War or it could be Saddam Hussein and his Weapons of Mass Destruction or maybe it was American genocide of Indigenous people. History re-writes go on and on and on.

Your rewrite question above has been debated for 155+ years now.

The neo-Marxist enemies of the entire South use fake history to promote not only anti-Confederate narratives but also anti-South and ultimately anti-American narratives.

---

The fact that the South Carolina militia attacked the Union soldiers at Fort Sumter is what started the "War of Northern Aggression" is in itself a rewrite.

You attack a dude. He beats your ass (and frees millions of people forced to work against their will in the process) is not "Northern Aggression." It's righteous.

Calling it Northern Aggression or "States Rights" is all a rewrite.

---

Ridiculous

Read up on the events that led up to Fort Sumter.

Little doubt your preconceived notions will remain the same, however the effort might open your eyes a little .

---

I've not only read about Fort Sumter, I've also read many of the articles of Secession that were written as reason to leave the Union. That seems a more accounting of the reasons to leave than writings from 1901.

Every "new argument" leads back to the same one. Slavery. States Rights? The states rights to keep slaves. Economy? The impact of ending slavery on the states economy.

It's even ironic that the "states rights" people were mad that the Northern States Allowed blacks to live freely so much so that they pushed the "Fugitive Slave Act" through Congress.

I'll gladly review any historical writing you present.

BellCountyBear said:

---

Y'all do realize the American Indians owned African slaves too, right?

---

Freedmen also owned slaves, fathered children by them and sold the children at auction. Don't believe it? Go to heritage.com

ABC BEAR said:

---

BellCountyBear said:

---

Y'all do realize the American Indians owned African slaves too, right?

---

Freedmen also owned slaves, fathered children by them and sold the children at auction. Don't believe it? Go to heritage.com

---

Blacks owned slaves.
Whites owned slaves.
Muslims enslaved hundreds of thousands of Europeans for centuries
Indians routinely owned slaves of all races .

Educated people know all this . But for whatever reason some very clever people like to rehash the same tired half-truths....over and over again .

Full Disclosure: My great-great grandparents owned 13 slaves and were Baptist preachers, (grandma too). Am I still allowed to walk across campus?

Wouldn't be surprised of an eventual name change, everything from the past has to be sanitized for folks now days. Waco University wouldn't surprise me, but neither would Snowflake U.

Seems like a slippery slope we are going down. Maybe I'm reading to much into the letter, but it seems to leave open the idea of removing monuments.

Time and again we have seen that one of the tools used in Marxist revolutions are the erasing of a society's history. Normally it begins with statues and monuments, but then it moves to books. It was first conceived in Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" and has been used during the Cultural Revolution in China, when it destroyed over 5000 years of culture and then banned any reporting of this in video and film. In Poland communism sought to recreate history in its own image through movements "against memory." Those who did not conform were sent to gulags or worse. Even in fictional George Orwell's 1984, the tyrannical regime "demands a continuous alteration of the past." The person tolerates the current circumstances because he or she has no standards of comparison. More recently a number of Venezuelan's, who were fortunate enough to escape the country, have warned Americans that the socialist revolution that took place in their country similarly started with the removal of statues and their history. Venezuela was the pride of South America as recent as the 1990s. In 2020 the Index of Economic Freedom named it the 2nd least free nation in the world, just between Cuba and North Korea.

If there is any silver lining, these people generally eat their own.

"Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, Jul. 17, 1775

"Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present Generation to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it."

John Adams

BUMBA1 said:

---

There won't be a name change, and there won't be a removal of any prominent figures such as Judge Baylor or Burleson or Neff. Rather an understanding and acknowledgement that while Baylor has done great things, promoting and accepting segregation and racism no matter how long ago it was wasn't one. I don't see any drastic changes coming.

---

What's understanding and acknowledgement going to do?

If nobody talked about it, nobody would care. Since we're making a big deal out of it, 5 - 10 years down the road, enough people will want the statues removed. They will eventually get their way, this is the first step.

tommie said:

---

The fact that the South Carolina militia attacked the Union soldiers at Fort Sumter is what started the "War of Northern Aggression" is in itself a rewrite.

You attack a dude. He beats your ass (and frees millions of people forced to work against their will in the process) is not "Northern Aggression." It's righteous.

Calling it Northern Aggression or "States Rights" is all a rewrite.

---

Time for a truth injection!

At the time Southern states began seceding, many of the Union forts within their borders were abandoned, save a few. Consider that the US Military (and government) at the start of the Civil War resembled little like what we have today. The United States had a standing army of about sixteen thousand men in 1861, most of whom served in poorly equipped outposts.

Fort Sumter, a sparsely populated duty collection point in Charleston harbor, was one of the few forts where Union personnel remained. As was evident from Lincoln's contemporaries, an attempt to send Union troops into any of the Confederate states would provoke a war.

Lincoln knew that if South Carolina and the Confederacy allowed the fort to be provisioned, it would make a mockery of their sovereignty. And if the Confederacy fired on the Union ships, it would have been the Confederacy, not Lincoln who fired the first shots of the war.

"He was a master of the situation," wrote Lincoln's private secretaries John G. Nicolay and John Hay. "Master if the rebels hesitated or repented, because they would thereby forfeit their prestige with the South; master if they persisted, for he would then command a united North."

Lincoln knew what he was doing when he ordered Fort Sumter to be resupplied. He was a cunning politician and Fort Sumter was his opportunity. He seized it believing it would be a short war. He couldn't have been more wrong.

Viewing the Civil War as a crusade to end slavery is simply not correct; abolitionists never accounted for more than a sizeable minority in the North. The cause of war in 1861 wasn't slavery. It was about the loss of millions in tax revenues.

The Confederate states had no aspirations to rule the Union any more than George Washington sought control over Great Britain in 1776. In both the American Revolutionary War and the "Civil War," independence was the goal.




In the British journal, All the Year Round," Charles Dickens observed, "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils."

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

One can be against removing statutes (particularly those on private grounds) and for giving full context to those memorialized. I am guessing that is what the result will be here. Y'all can keep perpetuating sanitized fairy tales and calling it history.

---

Sanitized fairy tales? Do tell.

---

A history of Baylor as a Christian institution that ignores the school's connection to slavery and racism is a sanitized fairy tale.

---

How was the institution connected to slavery and racism? I must missed something...sorry.