Damn, you're all a bunch of real winners
Looks Like It Is Time To Re-Write Baylor's History & Apologize
13,786 Views |
210 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Redbrickbear
Booray said:fadskier said:How was the institution connected to slavery and racism? I must missed something...sorry.Booray said:A history of Baylor as a Christian institution that ignores the school's connection to slavery and racism is a sanitized fairy tale.ATL Bear said:Sanitized fairy tales? Do tell.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.
It was founded by a slave-owner and refused admittance to black students for 118 years, for starters
My job at Baylor was to give tours of campus to prospective students and their families. We would stop by the Baylor statue for a picture on the tour.
Do you think that would be a good time to say "this is a statue of our founder Judge Baylor. Like many in the 1800s, he was a slave owner. We feel that it is necessary to educate you on that fact. Now who wants to take a goofy picture on the statue?!" That won't be uncomfortable at all.
Then they're going to think the Baylor t shirt they just bought at the bookstore is racist.BearTruth13 said:Booray said:fadskier said:How was the institution connected to slavery and racism? I must missed something...sorry.Booray said:A history of Baylor as a Christian institution that ignores the school's connection to slavery and racism is a sanitized fairy tale.ATL Bear said:Sanitized fairy tales? Do tell.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.
It was founded by a slave-owner and refused admittance to black students for 118 years, for starters
My job at Baylor was to give tours of campus to prospective students and their families. We would stop by the Baylor statue for a picture on the tour.
Do you think that would be a good time to say "this is a statue of our founder Judge Baylor. Like many in the 1800s, he was a slave owner. We feel that it is necessary to educate you on that fact. Now who wants to take a goofy picture on the statue?!" That won't be uncomfortable at all.
They really haven't thought this through.
BearTruth13 said:Booray said:fadskier said:How was the institution connected to slavery and racism? I must missed something...sorry.Booray said:A history of Baylor as a Christian institution that ignores the school's connection to slavery and racism is a sanitized fairy tale.ATL Bear said:Sanitized fairy tales? Do tell.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.
It was founded by a slave-owner and refused admittance to black students for 118 years, for starters
My job at Baylor was to give tours of campus to prospective students and their families. We would stop by the Baylor statue for a picture on the tour.
Do you think that would be a good time to say "this is a statue of our founder Judge Baylor. Like many in the 1800s, he was a slave owner. We feel that it is necessary to educate you on that fact. Now who wants to take a goofy picture on the statue?!" That won't be uncomfortable at all.
I explained on this thread and another my idea for tackling the issue-a sculpture garden or some type of history center dedicated to those who integrated Baylor. It is a way to tell the full story and celebrate more Baylor heroes.
I would also like to see the issues fleshed put in a chapel session or two for freshman. In the page in our website promoting our diversity efforts we should say why that effort is important in a way specific to Baylor.
My understanding is that for a pricey, Southern private school we are actually fairly diverse. Our rich history of connection to the missionary community means we were "global" long before many of our competitors. I am sure many of our graduates are slave descendants or come from families of immigrants and refugees.
All meaning we can tell the full story without fear of degrading the institution.
Baylor has stood for 175 years and the hundreds of thousands of students over the years obviously researched the institution and her Mission Statement prior to enrolling.
If a student does not like the facts about founding fathers and their actions over 150 years ago then by all means let's do the right thing. Pull a U-Haul up to their dorm, pack their stuff up, reimburse them all $$ they paid and help them get into a comparable University that has the history they crave.
Baylor is not for everyone. It was perfect for me and I believe she needs to be left alone.
If a student does not like the facts about founding fathers and their actions over 150 years ago then by all means let's do the right thing. Pull a U-Haul up to their dorm, pack their stuff up, reimburse them all $$ they paid and help them get into a comparable University that has the history they crave.
Baylor is not for everyone. It was perfect for me and I believe she needs to be left alone.
Thee University said:
Baylor has stood for 175 years and the hundreds of thousands of students over the years obviously researched the institution and her Mission Statement prior to enrolling.
If a student does not like the facts about founding fathers and their actions over 150 years ago then by all means let's do the right thing. Pull a U-Haul up to their dorm, pack their stuff up, reimburse them all $$ they paid and help them get into a comparable University that has the history they crave.
Baylor is not for everyone. It was perfect for me and I believe she needs to be left alone.
You are right, Baylor is not for everyone. It should be fr people who are intellectually honest. It should be for people who are willing to see the world as it actually is and say "we can make it better." It should be fr people with enough grace to admit it's imperfections.
Get woke.........go broke.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
Booray said:Thee University said:
Baylor has stood for 175 years and the hundreds of thousands of students over the years obviously researched the institution and her Mission Statement prior to enrolling.
If a student does not like the facts about founding fathers and their actions over 150 years ago then by all means let's do the right thing. Pull a U-Haul up to their dorm, pack their stuff up, reimburse them all $$ they paid and help them get into a comparable University that has the history they crave.
Baylor is not for everyone. It was perfect for me and I believe she needs to be left alone.
You are right, Baylor is not for everyone. It should be fr people who are intellectually honest. It should be for people who are willing to see the world as it actually is and say "we can make it better." It should be fr people with enough grace to admit it's imperfections.
That's fine. But let's be intellectually honest across the board. I'd guess every major university that started prior to 1960 was founded by slave holders, racists, bigots, etc by modern standards. Every major company in the country was probably founded by racists, bigots, etc.
The world is broken and always has been. Evil practices existed in every past society on earth. I just naturally assume any major historic figures did great and noteworthy things. And probably had significant character flaws. I don't need a sign every 2 feet to tell me that obvious fact.
Booray said:A history of Baylor as a Christian institution that ignores the school's connection to slavery and racism is a sanitized fairy tale.ATL Bear said:Sanitized fairy tales? Do tell.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.
I mean they taught it to me in the Texas history class at Baylor...so hard to say it was some sort of "secret". Even a general understanding is of philosophical views about slavery and the common opinion among the white population of pre-civil war Texas would be enough to understand that most of the people involved with Baylor's founding and early history were slave owners and supported the institution. This only ends when someone finally says "ENOUGH".
As an aside, how long before we are asked to return Texas to Mexico? Bet you can never guess why a bunch of white southerners that were okay with speaking Spanish and adopting Spanish names wanted to break away from Mexico...
Ok, so what? Baylor just apologizes and moves on. Baylor doesn't own slaves today and I assume are admitting people of all races. Baylor certainly wasn't the only one so just say we apologize for the history that we had nothing to do with and will make sure that we continue admitting all qualified students and we're done...anything else is a waste of time and money.Booray said:fadskier said:How was the institution connected to slavery and racism? I must missed something...sorry.Booray said:A history of Baylor as a Christian institution that ignores the school's connection to slavery and racism is a sanitized fairy tale.ATL Bear said:Sanitized fairy tales? Do tell.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.
It was founded by a slave-owner and refused admittance to black students for 118 years, for starters
I guess I don't see how Baylor is being intellectually dishonest. Is BU denying that Judge Baylor owned slaves (not even sure where that info comes from). Is BU denying that, just like almost every other university, it erroneously refused to admit students from other races until - (fill in the black year)Booray said:Thee University said:
Baylor has stood for 175 years and the hundreds of thousands of students over the years obviously researched the institution and her Mission Statement prior to enrolling.
If a student does not like the facts about founding fathers and their actions over 150 years ago then by all means let's do the right thing. Pull a U-Haul up to their dorm, pack their stuff up, reimburse them all $$ they paid and help them get into a comparable University that has the history they crave.
Baylor is not for everyone. It was perfect for me and I believe she needs to be left alone.
You are right, Baylor is not for everyone. It should be fr people who are intellectually honest. It should be for people who are willing to see the world as it actually is and say "we can make it better." It should be fr people with enough grace to admit it's imperfections.
You are correct, sir. The articles of secession passed by the individual Confederate States leave no doubt that the Confederates themselves understood it to be about defending slavery. In the case of Georgia, their articles even specifically mention the (alleged) superiority of the white race.tommie said:Canada2017 said:tommie said:Thee University said:What do you mean by Confederacy? The Confederacy covers a lot of ground.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?
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.
The link in the OP involves thanking this commission for completing its work, which was to include recommendations. Near as I can tell, the article does not spell out those recommendations.
Does anyone know what the recommendations actually were?
Have any of them been adopted?
Does anyone know what the recommendations actually were?
Have any of them been adopted?
bubbadog said:
The link in the OP involves thanking this commission for completing its work, which was to include recommendations. Near as I can tell, the article does not spell out those recommendations.
Does anyone know what the recommendations actually were?
Have any of them been adopted?
The board of regents "accepted" the report and will make it public some time before the end of March. Expect it to be released around 4pm on a Friday afternoon, probably going into spring break.
Thanks -- so nobody knows yet what the recommendations are except the commission members and the regents?whitetrash said:bubbadog said:
The link in the OP involves thanking this commission for completing its work, which was to include recommendations. Near as I can tell, the article does not spell out those recommendations.
Does anyone know what the recommendations actually were?
Have any of them been adopted?
The board of regents "accepted" the report and will make it public some time before the end of March. Expect it to be released around 4pm on a Friday afternoon, probably going into spring break.
If alumni donations are going to fund reports like this one then the school can expect for fewer donations in the future.
It would be hilarious to see Baylor follow Coca-Cola's lead and give a seminar on how we can all be "less white"
It would be hilarious to see Baylor follow Coca-Cola's lead and give a seminar on how we can all be "less white"
ATL Bear said: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.Booray said:A history of Baylor as a Christian institution that ignores the school's connection to slavery and racism is a sanitized fairy tale.ATL Bear said:Sanitized fairy tales? Do tell.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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
THISTHISTHIS
Slavery was terrible and I wish it had never happened. There is no way to sanitize what I am going to say.
Generally speaking the northern framers of the Constitution were against slavery while the southern framers were in favor. Both sides finally compromised in order to form our Constitutional Republic. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, many believed that slavery was near its end as cotton was no longer the profitable commodity it once was. Because of that, in part, the northern framers were willing to compromise. Shortly after the constitution was ratified Eli Whitney's cotton gin was invented and this made cotton profitable and thus resulted in a strong demand for labor. What many of the northern framers believed to be slavery's coming death, proved to be wrong with the new technology. From the beginning of our Constitutional Republic and until Lincoln was elected, the United States government largely turned a blind eye to the evil. There was compromise here and one there, but all of these essentially kicked the can down the road for another President, another Congress, another Supreme Court and another generation to deal with. Not unlike what our elected officials do today.
Here's the cold and ugly part; slavery was legal in the United States, slaves were treated as property, heck they were among the largest assets many slave holders owned and they got filthy rich off their labor, but I wonder are we really that different today. The things that might be considered morally reprehensible may be different, but overall are we that different?
Lets look at both sides of the issue. Neither are really good examples because neither one actually enslaves an entire group of people, but I believe an argument could and would be made to the contrary on both sides. But just for the sake of a little context.
Imagine tomorrow that the federal government said that you could not own a gun. It's your property, right? As an American citizen you do have property rights? Yes, one could easily say that's like comparing apples to oranges, but that's not the point. My point is that it is a right that has been guaranteed to U.S. citizens for over 200 years. I promise you if the government ever did that there's going to be a reaction.
From the opposite point of view, those who are pro-choice would have a similar reaction if the Supreme Court over turned Roe v. Wade tomorrow. They would argue that their body is their property and the government has no right to tell them what to do with their body.
These people had been told by their government for almost 100 years that slavery was legal and when it looked like the government was going to take that away, their respective states broke away and the Civil War began. Of course we know that slavery actually didn't become illegal until the emancipation proclamation, after the war started, and was not fully enforced until the passage of the 14th Amendment and the northern victory.
So slavery, abortion and gun control are like comparing apples and oranges, but I would be willing to bet that if either of the latter were taken away we'd be on the brink of Civil War here in the 21 Century.
Generally speaking the northern framers of the Constitution were against slavery while the southern framers were in favor. Both sides finally compromised in order to form our Constitutional Republic. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, many believed that slavery was near its end as cotton was no longer the profitable commodity it once was. Because of that, in part, the northern framers were willing to compromise. Shortly after the constitution was ratified Eli Whitney's cotton gin was invented and this made cotton profitable and thus resulted in a strong demand for labor. What many of the northern framers believed to be slavery's coming death, proved to be wrong with the new technology. From the beginning of our Constitutional Republic and until Lincoln was elected, the United States government largely turned a blind eye to the evil. There was compromise here and one there, but all of these essentially kicked the can down the road for another President, another Congress, another Supreme Court and another generation to deal with. Not unlike what our elected officials do today.
Here's the cold and ugly part; slavery was legal in the United States, slaves were treated as property, heck they were among the largest assets many slave holders owned and they got filthy rich off their labor, but I wonder are we really that different today. The things that might be considered morally reprehensible may be different, but overall are we that different?
Lets look at both sides of the issue. Neither are really good examples because neither one actually enslaves an entire group of people, but I believe an argument could and would be made to the contrary on both sides. But just for the sake of a little context.
Imagine tomorrow that the federal government said that you could not own a gun. It's your property, right? As an American citizen you do have property rights? Yes, one could easily say that's like comparing apples to oranges, but that's not the point. My point is that it is a right that has been guaranteed to U.S. citizens for over 200 years. I promise you if the government ever did that there's going to be a reaction.
From the opposite point of view, those who are pro-choice would have a similar reaction if the Supreme Court over turned Roe v. Wade tomorrow. They would argue that their body is their property and the government has no right to tell them what to do with their body.
These people had been told by their government for almost 100 years that slavery was legal and when it looked like the government was going to take that away, their respective states broke away and the Civil War began. Of course we know that slavery actually didn't become illegal until the emancipation proclamation, after the war started, and was not fully enforced until the passage of the 14th Amendment and the northern victory.
So slavery, abortion and gun control are like comparing apples and oranges, but I would be willing to bet that if either of the latter were taken away we'd be on the brink of Civil War here in the 21 Century.
fadskier said:Ok, so what? Baylor just apologizes and moves on. Baylor doesn't own slaves today and I assume are admitting people of all races. Baylor certainly wasn't the only one so just say we apologize for the history that we had nothing to do with and will make sure that we continue admitting all qualified students and we're done...anything else is a waste of time and money.Booray said:fadskier said:How was the institution connected to slavery and racism? I must missed something...sorry.Booray said:A history of Baylor as a Christian institution that ignores the school's connection to slavery and racism is a sanitized fairy tale.ATL Bear said:Sanitized fairy tales? Do tell.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.
It was founded by a slave-owner and refused admittance to black students for 118 years, for starters
I was sitting in my car, stopped at a stoplight. Some guy in a huge truck taps me from behind. Screws my bumper over pretty badly; small scratch on his fender. It's ok-he apologized and moved on.
fadskier said:I guess I don't see how Baylor is being intellectually dishonest. Is BU denying that Judge Baylor owned slaves (not even sure where that info comes from). Is BU denying that, just like almost every other university, it erroneously refused to admit students from other races until - (fill in the black year)Booray said:Thee University said:
Baylor has stood for 175 years and the hundreds of thousands of students over the years obviously researched the institution and her Mission Statement prior to enrolling.
If a student does not like the facts about founding fathers and their actions over 150 years ago then by all means let's do the right thing. Pull a U-Haul up to their dorm, pack their stuff up, reimburse them all $$ they paid and help them get into a comparable University that has the history they crave.
Baylor is not for everyone. It was perfect for me and I believe she needs to be left alone.
You are right, Baylor is not for everyone. It should be fr people who are intellectually honest. It should be for people who are willing to see the world as it actually is and say "we can make it better." It should be fr people with enough grace to admit it's imperfections.
Just to be clear, the evidence of Judge Baylor's slave ownership comes from county tax rolls.
I should have been clearer-I was not accusing Baylor of having been intellectually dishonest. I am saying refusing public acknowledgement going forward would be intellectually dishonest. I have no fear that Baylor will fall into that trap.
I find it interesting that I have had several posts about what I think is a positive way to handle it-focus on the integration history and give the slavery/racism history as context. No one seems to be able to explain how that would be offensive to "traditionalists" . Instead the traditionalists quiver over what they fear might be coming.
So I will ask the traditionalists whether they would oppose some prominent section of the university being set aside to tell our integration story, including a candid assessment of the history that caused it? Are you opposed to discussing the issues at Chapel? Are you against including accurate history on our web page?
Were your feelings hurt? If so, he should be forced to wear sackcloth and grovel.Booray said:fadskier said:Ok, so what? Baylor just apologizes and moves on. Baylor doesn't own slaves today and I assume are admitting people of all races. Baylor certainly wasn't the only one so just say we apologize for the history that we had nothing to do with and will make sure that we continue admitting all qualified students and we're done...anything else is a waste of time and money.Booray said:fadskier said:How was the institution connected to slavery and racism? I must missed something...sorry.Booray said:A history of Baylor as a Christian institution that ignores the school's connection to slavery and racism is a sanitized fairy tale.ATL Bear said:Sanitized fairy tales? Do tell.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.
It was founded by a slave-owner and refused admittance to black students for 118 years, for starters
I was sitting in my car, stopped at a stoplight. Some guy in a huge truck taps me from behind. Screws my bumper over pretty badly; small scratch on his fender. It's ok-he apologized and moved on.
Booray said:fadskier said:I guess I don't see how Baylor is being intellectually dishonest. Is BU denying that Judge Baylor owned slaves (not even sure where that info comes from). Is BU denying that, just like almost every other university, it erroneously refused to admit students from other races until - (fill in the black year)Booray said:Thee University said:
Baylor has stood for 175 years and the hundreds of thousands of students over the years obviously researched the institution and her Mission Statement prior to enrolling.
If a student does not like the facts about founding fathers and their actions over 150 years ago then by all means let's do the right thing. Pull a U-Haul up to their dorm, pack their stuff up, reimburse them all $$ they paid and help them get into a comparable University that has the history they crave.
Baylor is not for everyone. It was perfect for me and I believe she needs to be left alone.
You are right, Baylor is not for everyone. It should be fr people who are intellectually honest. It should be for people who are willing to see the world as it actually is and say "we can make it better." It should be fr people with enough grace to admit it's imperfections.
Just to be clear, the evidence of Judge Baylor's slave ownership comes from county tax rolls.
I should have been clearer-I was not accusing Baylor of having been intellectually dishonest. I am saying refusing public acknowledgement going forward would be intellectually dishonest. I have no fear that Baylor will fall into that trap.
I find it interesting that I have had several posts about what I think is a positive way to handle it-focus on the integration history and give the slavery/racism history as context. No one seems to be able to explain how that would be offensive to "traditionalists" . Instead the traditionalists quiver over what they fear might be coming.
So I will ask the traditionalists whether they would oppose some prominent section of the university being set aside to tell our integration story, including a candid assessment of the history that caused it? Are you opposed to discussing the issues at Chapel? Are you against including accurate history on our web page?
Yes, I'm opposed to discussing the issues at chapel. There are a lot of students that are unsaved and heading down a road towards an eternity in hell separated from God. Chapel should be about sharing the gospel first and foremost
I don't have an issue talking about the history of the University or race relations as a rule , but it feels completely hypocritical to have these warm fuzzy chapels where everybody leaves feeling better about themselves extolling these Christian virtues but the gospel was never shared. That comes across like beautifying the outside of a sepulcher that has disgusting rotting bones inside it
There you go, Hound! I also miss the fire and brimstone, hellfire and damnation!!!!The Hound said:Booray said:fadskier said:I guess I don't see how Baylor is being intellectually dishonest. Is BU denying that Judge Baylor owned slaves (not even sure where that info comes from). Is BU denying that, just like almost every other university, it erroneously refused to admit students from other races until - (fill in the black year)Booray said:Thee University said:
Baylor has stood for 175 years and the hundreds of thousands of students over the years obviously researched the institution and her Mission Statement prior to enrolling.
If a student does not like the facts about founding fathers and their actions over 150 years ago then by all means let's do the right thing. Pull a U-Haul up to their dorm, pack their stuff up, reimburse them all $$ they paid and help them get into a comparable University that has the history they crave.
Baylor is not for everyone. It was perfect for me and I believe she needs to be left alone.
You are right, Baylor is not for everyone. It should be fr people who are intellectually honest. It should be for people who are willing to see the world as it actually is and say "we can make it better." It should be fr people with enough grace to admit it's imperfections.
Just to be clear, the evidence of Judge Baylor's slave ownership comes from county tax rolls.
I should have been clearer-I was not accusing Baylor of having been intellectually dishonest. I am saying refusing public acknowledgement going forward would be intellectually dishonest. I have no fear that Baylor will fall into that trap.
I find it interesting that I have had several posts about what I think is a positive way to handle it-focus on the integration history and give the slavery/racism history as context. No one seems to be able to explain how that would be offensive to "traditionalists" . Instead the traditionalists quiver over what they fear might be coming.
So I will ask the traditionalists whether they would oppose some prominent section of the university being set aside to tell our integration story, including a candid assessment of the history that caused it? Are you opposed to discussing the issues at Chapel? Are you against including accurate history on our web page?
Yes, I'm opposed to discussing the issues at chapel. There are a lot of students that are unsaved and heading down a road towards an eternity in hell separated from God. Chapel should be about sharing the gospel first and foremost
I don't have an issue talking about the history of the University or race relations as a rule , but it feels completely hypocritical to have these warm fuzzy chapels where everybody leaves feeling better about themselves extolling these Christian virtues but the gospel was never shared. That comes across like beautifying the outside of a sepulcher that has disgusting rotting bones inside it
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
Not the same thing, he was directly responsible. No one at Baylor is today.Booray said:fadskier said:Ok, so what? Baylor just apologizes and moves on. Baylor doesn't own slaves today and I assume are admitting people of all races. Baylor certainly wasn't the only one so just say we apologize for the history that we had nothing to do with and will make sure that we continue admitting all qualified students and we're done...anything else is a waste of time and money.Booray said:fadskier said:How was the institution connected to slavery and racism? I must missed something...sorry.Booray said:A history of Baylor as a Christian institution that ignores the school's connection to slavery and racism is a sanitized fairy tale.ATL Bear said:Sanitized fairy tales? Do tell.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.
It was founded by a slave-owner and refused admittance to black students for 118 years, for starters
I was sitting in my car, stopped at a stoplight. Some guy in a huge truck taps me from behind. Screws my bumper over pretty badly; small scratch on his fender. It's ok-he apologized and moved on.
Section of the university? Not at allBooray said:fadskier said:I guess I don't see how Baylor is being intellectually dishonest. Is BU denying that Judge Baylor owned slaves (not even sure where that info comes from). Is BU denying that, just like almost every other university, it erroneously refused to admit students from other races until - (fill in the black year)Booray said:Thee University said:
Baylor has stood for 175 years and the hundreds of thousands of students over the years obviously researched the institution and her Mission Statement prior to enrolling.
If a student does not like the facts about founding fathers and their actions over 150 years ago then by all means let's do the right thing. Pull a U-Haul up to their dorm, pack their stuff up, reimburse them all $$ they paid and help them get into a comparable University that has the history they crave.
Baylor is not for everyone. It was perfect for me and I believe she needs to be left alone.
You are right, Baylor is not for everyone. It should be fr people who are intellectually honest. It should be for people who are willing to see the world as it actually is and say "we can make it better." It should be fr people with enough grace to admit it's imperfections.
Just to be clear, the evidence of Judge Baylor's slave ownership comes from county tax rolls.
I should have been clearer-I was not accusing Baylor of having been intellectually dishonest. I am saying refusing public acknowledgement going forward would be intellectually dishonest. I have no fear that Baylor will fall into that trap.
I find it interesting that I have had several posts about what I think is a positive way to handle it-focus on the integration history and give the slavery/racism history as context. No one seems to be able to explain how that would be offensive to "traditionalists" . Instead the traditionalists quiver over what they fear might be coming.
So I will ask the traditionalists whether they would oppose some prominent section of the university being set aside to tell our integration story, including a candid assessment of the history that caused it? Are you opposed to discussing the issues at Chapel? Are you against including accurate history on our web page?
Discussing at chapel? History? Yes
History on website? What would be the purpose? Not really sure I'd be against it...it just seems that the past is always being used as a weapon...when does it stop being a weapon?
You didn't get out of your car swinging and hollering like you did with those twenty Texit dudes you confronted the other day? He must have been a big ole boy!!!Booray said:fadskier said:Ok, so what? Baylor just apologizes and moves on. Baylor doesn't own slaves today and I assume are admitting people of all races. Baylor certainly wasn't the only one so just say we apologize for the history that we had nothing to do with and will make sure that we continue admitting all qualified students and we're done...anything else is a waste of time and money.Booray said:fadskier said:How was the institution connected to slavery and racism? I must missed something...sorry.Booray said:A history of Baylor as a Christian institution that ignores the school's connection to slavery and racism is a sanitized fairy tale.ATL Bear said:Sanitized fairy tales? Do tell.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.
It was founded by a slave-owner and refused admittance to black students for 118 years, for starters
I was sitting in my car, stopped at a stoplight. Some guy in a huge truck taps me from behind. Screws my bumper over pretty badly; small scratch on his fender. It's ok-he apologized and moved on.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
fadskier said:Section of the university? Not opposed at allBooray said:fadskier said:I guess I don't see how Baylor is being intellectually dishonest. Is BU denying that Judge Baylor owned slaves (not even sure where that info comes from). Is BU denying that, just like almost every other university, it erroneously refused to admit students from other races until - (fill in the black year)Booray said:Thee University said:
Baylor has stood for 175 years and the hundreds of thousands of students over the years obviously researched the institution and her Mission Statement prior to enrolling.
If a student does not like the facts about founding fathers and their actions over 150 years ago then by all means let's do the right thing. Pull a U-Haul up to their dorm, pack their stuff up, reimburse them all $$ they paid and help them get into a comparable University that has the history they crave.
Baylor is not for everyone. It was perfect for me and I believe she needs to be left alone.
You are right, Baylor is not for everyone. It should be fr people who are intellectually honest. It should be for people who are willing to see the world as it actually is and say "we can make it better." It should be fr people with enough grace to admit it's imperfections.
Just to be clear, the evidence of Judge Baylor's slave ownership comes from county tax rolls.
I should have been clearer-I was not accusing Baylor of having been intellectually dishonest. I am saying refusing public acknowledgement going forward would be intellectually dishonest. I have no fear that Baylor will fall into that trap.
I find it interesting that I have had several posts about what I think is a positive way to handle it-focus on the integration history and give the slavery/racism history as context. No one seems to be able to explain how that would be offensive to "traditionalists" . Instead the traditionalists quiver over what they fear might be coming.
So I will ask the traditionalists whether they would oppose some prominent section of the university being set aside to tell our integration story, including a candid assessment of the history that caused it? Are you opposed to discussing the issues at Chapel? Are you against including accurate history on our web page?
Discussing at chapel? History? Yes
History on website? What would be the purpose? Not really sure I'd be against it...it just seems that the past is always being used as a weapon...when does it stop being a weapon?
I am really getting confused by the rules of this "racist history" thing. Do I personally apologize for my ancestors? I'm not being glib...I really am trying to find out what we are headed towards. I did not own slaves and was not raise to be racist. My parents did not owned slaves and to my knowledge they were not racist. How far do I go back?
I am positive that at some point there are people in my family that were racist against some ethnic group or religious people. I am almost positive that this is true of almost every human being in the world and lost every institution.
I am positive that at some point there are people in my family that were racist against some ethnic group or religious people. I am almost positive that this is true of almost every human being in the world and lost every institution.
ABRAHAM was too old.
ISAAC was a daydreamer.
JACOB lied.
LEAH was ugly.
JOSEPH was abused.
MOSES was a murderer and couldn't talk.
GIDEON was afraid.
SAMSON had long hair and was afraid.
RAHAB was a prostitute.
JEREMIAH and TIMOTHY were too young.
DAVID was a murderer and adulterer.
ELIJAH was suicidal.
ISAIAH preached naked.
JONAH ran from God.
NAOMI was a widow.
JOB went bankrupt.
JOHN THE BAPTIST ate bugs.
PETER denied Christ.
The DISCIPLES fell asleep while praying.
MARTHA worried about everything.
MARY MAGDLENE was demon possessed.
The SAMARITAN WOMAN was divorcedmore than once
ZACCHEUS was too small.
PAUL was a murderer.
TIMOTHY had an ulcer.
LAZARUS was dead!
Judge Baylor was a slave owner
Only Jesus was perfect.
NEXT
ISAAC was a daydreamer.
JACOB lied.
LEAH was ugly.
JOSEPH was abused.
MOSES was a murderer and couldn't talk.
GIDEON was afraid.
SAMSON had long hair and was afraid.
RAHAB was a prostitute.
JEREMIAH and TIMOTHY were too young.
DAVID was a murderer and adulterer.
ELIJAH was suicidal.
ISAIAH preached naked.
JONAH ran from God.
NAOMI was a widow.
JOB went bankrupt.
JOHN THE BAPTIST ate bugs.
PETER denied Christ.
The DISCIPLES fell asleep while praying.
MARTHA worried about everything.
MARY MAGDLENE was demon possessed.
The SAMARITAN WOMAN was divorcedmore than once
ZACCHEUS was too small.
PAUL was a murderer.
TIMOTHY had an ulcer.
LAZARUS was dead!
Judge Baylor was a slave owner
Only Jesus was perfect.
NEXT
You left out Amnon (one of David's sons) slept with his sister, Tamar.LIB,MR BEARS said:
ABRAHAM was too old.
ISAAC was a daydreamer.
JACOB lied.
LEAH was ugly.
JOSEPH was abused.
MOSES was a murderer and couldn't talk.
GIDEON was afraid.
SAMSON had long hair and was afraid.
RAHAB was a prostitute.
JEREMIAH and TIMOTHY were too young.
DAVID was a murderer and adulterer.
ELIJAH was suicidal.
ISAIAH preached naked.
JONAH ran from God.
NAOMI was a widow.
JOB went bankrupt.
JOHN THE BAPTIST ate bugs.
PETER denied Christ.
The DISCIPLES fell asleep while praying.
MARTHA worried about everything.
MARY MAGDLENE was demon possessed.
The SAMARITAN WOMAN was divorcedmore than once
ZACCHEUS was too small.
PAUL was a murderer.
TIMOTHY had an ulcer.
LAZARUS was dead!
Judge Baylor was a slave owner
Only Jesus was perfect.
NEXT
By Old Testament standards, most of us live pretty righteous and civilized lives.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
Booray said:fadskier said:I guess I don't see how Baylor is being intellectually dishonest. Is BU denying that Judge Baylor owned slaves (not even sure where that info comes from). Is BU denying that, just like almost every other university, it erroneously refused to admit students from other races until - (fill in the black year)Booray said:Thee University said:
Baylor has stood for 175 years and the hundreds of thousands of students over the years obviously researched the institution and her Mission Statement prior to enrolling.
If a student does not like the facts about founding fathers and their actions over 150 years ago then by all means let's do the right thing. Pull a U-Haul up to their dorm, pack their stuff up, reimburse them all $$ they paid and help them get into a comparable University that has the history they crave.
Baylor is not for everyone. It was perfect for me and I believe she needs to be left alone.
You are right, Baylor is not for everyone. It should be fr people who are intellectually honest. It should be for people who are willing to see the world as it actually is and say "we can make it better." It should be fr people with enough grace to admit it's imperfections.
Just to be clear, the evidence of Judge Baylor's slave ownership comes from county tax rolls.
I should have been clearer-I was not accusing Baylor of having been intellectually dishonest. I am saying refusing public acknowledgement going forward would be intellectually dishonest. I have no fear that Baylor will fall into that trap.
I find it interesting that I have had several posts about what I think is a positive way to handle it-focus on the integration history and give the slavery/racism history as context. No one seems to be able to explain how that would be offensive to "traditionalists" . Instead the traditionalists quiver over what they fear might be coming.
So I will ask the traditionalists whether they would oppose some prominent section of the university being set aside to tell our integration story, including a candid assessment of the history that caused it? Are you opposed to discussing the issues at Chapel? Are you against including accurate history on our web page?
You and I often disagree but I like your proposal.
Will this have any impact on Aggie Sticks?
Except the story should be more like - my great, great grandfather's neighbor's dog got into my GGGfather's hen house and chowed down on a couple of chickens. The dog was retrieved and the owner apologized and moved on. FIFY.Booray said:fadskier said:Ok, so what? Baylor just apologizes and moves on. Baylor doesn't own slaves today and I assume are admitting people of all races. Baylor certainly wasn't the only one so just say we apologize for the history that we had nothing to do with and will make sure that we continue admitting all qualified students and we're done...anything else is a waste of time and money.Booray said:fadskier said:How was the institution connected to slavery and racism? I must missed something...sorry.Booray said:A history of Baylor as a Christian institution that ignores the school's connection to slavery and racism is a sanitized fairy tale.ATL Bear said:Sanitized fairy tales? Do tell.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.
It was founded by a slave-owner and refused admittance to black students for 118 years, for starters
I was sitting in my car, stopped at a stoplight. Some guy in a huge truck taps me from behind. Screws my bumper over pretty badly; small scratch on his fender. It's ok-he apologized and moved on.
I thought you were going to say that you grabbed your neck, laid into your horn, opened the door and rolledBooray said:fadskier said:Ok, so what? Baylor just apologizes and moves on. Baylor doesn't own slaves today and I assume are admitting people of all races. Baylor certainly wasn't the only one so just say we apologize for the history that we had nothing to do with and will make sure that we continue admitting all qualified students and we're done...anything else is a waste of time and money.Booray said:fadskier said:How was the institution connected to slavery and racism? I must missed something...sorry.Booray said:A history of Baylor as a Christian institution that ignores the school's connection to slavery and racism is a sanitized fairy tale.ATL Bear said:Sanitized fairy tales? Do tell.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.
It was founded by a slave-owner and refused admittance to black students for 118 years, for starters
I was sitting in my car, stopped at a stoplight. Some guy in a huge truck taps me from behind. Screws my bumper over pretty badly; small scratch on his fender. It's ok-he apologized and moved on.
out onto the pavement screaming and convulsing all the while calling a Baylor lawyer you have programmed into your cell.
John Hill Westbrook