http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/11/18/dark-ugly-past-rutgers-being-explored-162443
SAIP
I 'm not sure how i feel about this...
SAIP
I 'm not sure how i feel about this...
Rutgers dark ugly past?
- Thread starter CornerTavern
- Start date
building a cultural center for a present population of 21 students does not seem like a great use of money. OTOH, there's no harm in Rutgers acknowledging whatever debt it owes to slaveowners and indigenous inhabitants.
How do I feel?
Remember the Seinfeld episode....
Was only a matter of time, right? LOL
I'm not even sure how many natives were still left in New Brunswick by 1766. I have a hard time believing that the land -- which I think at that time was basically a tavern on Albany Street -- was still native land at that point. And there's no way in hell the hill on which Old Queens sits was native land when construction began (1809?).
This is just silly.
And gee, slaveowners might have donated to Rutgers? I'm so ashamed.
Look, if Henry Rutgers owned slaves, then I might be interested in where this goes. But come on now. And I see no reason to "recruit" native students. I'm sure they can check off what ethnic group they are on the application and get preferential treatment from the university already. And how many of them are there in New Jersey high schools anyway?
Pure nonsense. The only thing I like about this is you can't know enough about Rutgers history, so I'm all for researching that. But a little perspective is necessary, if hard to find.
This is just silly.
And gee, slaveowners might have donated to Rutgers? I'm so ashamed.
Look, if Henry Rutgers owned slaves, then I might be interested in where this goes. But come on now. And I see no reason to "recruit" native students. I'm sure they can check off what ethnic group they are on the application and get preferential treatment from the university already. And how many of them are there in New Jersey high schools anyway?
Pure nonsense. The only thing I like about this is you can't know enough about Rutgers history, so I'm all for researching that. But a little perspective is necessary, if hard to find.
Thats a very good point. Rutgers was built on native land only in the sense that before the English showed up it was all native land. But Rutgers didnt buy the land from natives - they had long since been dispatched. Which is of course why NJ doesnt currently have many native American students to draw from. According to wikipedia - the Treaty of Easton forced the Lenape to move out of NJ and NY
As for slavery - thats probably more relevant - Im sure some of the founders/donors of Rutgers were slave owners, or descended from them. But realistically - every institution in America profited from slavery up until it was abolished. Im not sure what you really do with that information, nor even that focusing on the past is really a good way forward (as opposed to focusing on the present and future - just from a human perspective - trying to get people to feel bad about about the actions of people born centuries before they were born is basically a way to turn people off towards helping you deal with the actions of people that are alive today.)
I think the idea of Rutgers examining and facing its past as part of this 250 celebration is a good one. We are an institution of higher learning and research. We shouldn't ignore it. But it should be done in an academic manner. We should explore it with proper context and understanding. It shouldn't be about shaming those in the past or somehow trying to right the wrongs of those long gone. The reality is that the present day Rutgers is a shining example of equality and opportunity so any unpleasant past really only highlights how far we've come. And of course we should be spending more time celebrating all the good throughout our history.
Slavery was legal back then. Why is this an issue? You can't punish people using today's laws for stuff that was totally fine to do back then.
Yeah I think the point isn't legal but that it was never morally "totally fine to do".
You arent punishing them. They are along dead. Woodrow Wilson isnt going to rise from his grave and exact revenge if Princeton takes his name off of buildings. The question is - can you make things better for the descendants of slaves by taking these actions. And frankly, Im not sure it does - I thik it it one of those cases where it is more divisive than helpful. Its a symbolic gesture that probably doesn't really help blacks at all but pisses off lots of whites, including those who might be allies in getting actual policy changes in the present.
Similar threads
