More Reverse Racialism from Universities

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Georgetown University will be offering an admissions edge to descendants of enslaved people sold to fund the school, officials announced on Thursday.

Jesuit priests connected to the private Catholic university sold 272 enslaved people in 1838, to pay off the university's massive debts. The men, women and children were sold to plantations in Louisiana; the university received the equivalent of $3.3 million, securing its survival.

A working group, created last year to explore Georgetown's historical ties to slavery, says even more slaves might have been sold in the 1830s to keep the school afloat.

How Slavery Shaped America's Oldest And Most Elite Colleges
And the school's connection to slavery is both broader and deeper than the one well-documented sale. Georgetown was supported by the plantations of Jesuit priests in Maryland; hundreds of people were enslaved by those Jesuits. An "unknown number" of other enslaved people worked in or for the school, the working group says.

In their report, made public Thursday, the working group says much more research is needed to fill in gaps in the historical record. They also call for a formal apology from the university for the school's "historical relationship with slavery."

And, the report suggests, the school should give descendants of people owned by the Maryland Jesuits "an advantage in the admissions process."

On Thursday, the university announced it would be doing just that — specifically, by treating the descendants of those enslaved people the same way it treats legacy students, applicants whose family members attended Georgetown.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...n-edge-in-admissions-to-descendants-of-slaves

So basically they are compensating for past financial (and moral) wrongs to families by giving the family descendants extra opportunities that many likely would have, had their ancestors not been wronged by the university. Wow, how evil is that?! And to top it off, these slave descendants now have the same kinds of opportunities that some slave owner descendants (some legacies) now have. How do they deserve that? Reverse racialism is just as bad because after Obama became President all the effects of centuries of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and inheritances all went away.

 

[JonA]

 

[Trausti]

Georgetown University will be offering an admissions edge to descendants of enslaved people sold to fund the school, officials announced on Thursday.

Jesuit priests connected to the private Catholic university sold 272 enslaved people in 1838, to pay off the university's massive debts. The men, women and children were sold to plantations in Louisiana; the university received the equivalent of $3.3 million, securing its survival.

A working group, created last year to explore Georgetown's historical ties to slavery, says even more slaves might have been sold in the 1830s to keep the school afloat.

How Slavery Shaped America's Oldest And Most Elite Colleges
And the school's connection to slavery is both broader and deeper than the one well-documented sale. Georgetown was supported by the plantations of Jesuit priests in Maryland; hundreds of people were enslaved by those Jesuits. An "unknown number" of other enslaved people worked in or for the school, the working group says.

In their report, made public Thursday, the working group says much more research is needed to fill in gaps in the historical record. They also call for a formal apology from the university for the school's "historical relationship with slavery."

And, the report suggests, the school should give descendants of people owned by the Maryland Jesuits "an advantage in the admissions process."

On Thursday, the university announced it would be doing just that — specifically, by treating the descendants of those enslaved people the same way it treats legacy students, applicants whose family members attended Georgetown.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...n-edge-in-admissions-to-descendants-of-slaves

So basically they are compensating for past financial (and moral) wrongs to families by giving the family descendants extra opportunities that many likely would have, had their ancestors not been wronged by the university. Wow, how evil is that?! And to top it off, these slave descendants now have the same kinds of opportunities that some slave owner descendants (some legacies) now have. How do they deserve that? Reverse racialism is just as bad because after Obama became President all the effects of centuries of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and inheritances all went away.

Are you really that desperate to virtue signal? I wouldn't criticize Georgetown for doing this. It's not racism, as the benefits flow to a class of people based on their ancestors' history with the school, not race.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...n-edge-in-admissions-to-descendants-of-slaves

So basically they are compensating for past financial (and moral) wrongs to families by giving the family descendants extra opportunities that many likely would have, had their ancestors not been wronged by the university. Wow, how evil is that?! And to top it off, these slave descendants now have the same kinds of opportunities that some slave owner descendants (some legacies) now have. How do they deserve that? Reverse racialism is just as bad because after Obama became President all the effects of centuries of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and inheritances all went away.

Are you really that desperate to virtue signal? I wouldn't criticize Georgetown for doing this. It's not racism, as the benefits flow to a class of people based on their ancestors' history with the school, not race.

So since the entire US benefited from slavery, you'd be okay with all descendants of slaves getting an educational benefit in admissions through the dept of education policy at public universities?

 

[JonA]

I wouldn't criticize Georgetown for doing this ... as the benefits flow to a class of people based on their ancestors' history with the school, not race.

We do not punish children for the misdeeds of their parents; why would we compensate them for their misfortunes?

 

[ZiprHead]

I wouldn't criticize Georgetown for doing this ... as the benefits flow to a class of people based on their ancestors' history with the school, not race.

We do not punish children for the misdeeds of their parents; why would we compensate them for their misfortunes?

Because their parent's misfortunes drastically affected the children's lives.

 

[JonA]

We do not punish children for the misdeeds of their parents; why would we compensate them for their misfortunes?

Because their parent's misfortunes drastically affected the children's lives.

Keep going; you'll get there.

Let's start with describing the misfortune: What is slavery?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We do not punish children for the misdeeds of their parents; why would we compensate them for their misfortunes?

If I steal your grandfather's horse*, then he dies but left the horse in his will to his daughter, then his daughter dies after having left the horse in her will to you, I don't have to give the horse to you--but if I do, it's a good thing. It's even better if I give the horse, an apology, and compensate you for not having had the horse.

*

Show

ETA:It's even worse if I steal your grandfather.

 

[atrib]

I wouldn't criticize Georgetown for doing this ... as the benefits flow to a class of people based on their ancestors' history with the school, not race.

We do not punish children for the misdeeds of their parents; why would we compensate them for their misfortunes?

Because the "misfortunes" of American slaves have had an enormous effect on the lives of their descendants and the opportunities available to them? Because up until just a few decades ago the descendants of these "unfortunate" people could not attend many public universities or use the same restrooms as white people? Because even today America is dominated by white culture and white privilege? Because one cannot wish away centuries of our history where black people were bought and sold as personal property, even though we may have recently elected a colored president?

 

[JonA]

We do not punish children for the misdeeds of their parents; why would we compensate them for their misfortunes?

If I steal your grandfather's horse*, then he dies but left the horse in his will to his daughter, then his daughter dies after having left the horse in her will to you, I don't have to give the horse to you--but if I do, it's a good thing. It's even better if I give the horse, an apology, and compensate you for not having had the horse.

Good.

Now what if my grandfather had left the horse to no one in his will?

Of what has my daughter been deprived by you stealing a horse she was never going to get?

 

[JonA]

We do not punish children for the misdeeds of their parents; why would we compensate them for their misfortunes?

Because the "misfortunes" of American slaves have had an enormous effect on the lives of their descendants and the opportunities available to them? Because up until just a few decades ago the descendants of these "unfortunate" people could not attend many public universities or use the same restrooms as white people? Because even today America is dominated by white culture and white privilege? Because one cannot wish away centuries of our history where black people were bought and sold as personal property, even though we may have recently elected a colored president?

How are you measuring these effects?

I think if you and Don put your responses together, you'll have something real good.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If I steal your grandfather's horse*, then he dies but left the horse in his will to his daughter, then his daughter dies after having left the horse in her will to you, I don't have to give the horse to you--but if I do, it's a good thing. It's even better if I give the horse, an apology, and compensate you for not having had the horse.

Good.

Now what if my grandfather had left the horse to no one in his will?

Of what has my daughter been deprived by you stealing a horse she was never going to get?

The default is that the family gets the inheritance regardless of a will.

 

[JonA]

Good.

Now what if my grandfather had left the horse to no one in his will?

Of what has my daughter been deprived by you stealing a horse she was never going to get?

The default is that the family gets the inheritance regardless of a will.

I thought my point was clear, especially with my follow-up question, but I will try again:

What if circumstances were such that my grandfather's descendants were never going to get the horse in the first place?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The default is that the family gets the inheritance regardless of a will.

I thought my point was clear, especially with my follow-up question, but I will try again:

What if circumstances were such that my grandfather's descendants were never going to get the horse in the first place?

Irrelevant. They get the horse because it represents a free legacy passed down. Secondly, no one else should own the horse or its interests. They don't have a right.

 

[JonA]

I thought my point was clear, especially with my follow-up question, but I will try again:

What if circumstances were such that my grandfather's descendants were never going to get the horse in the first place?

Irrelevant. They get the horse because it represents a free legacy passed down.

Are you brain dead?

If the horse isn't left in the will to my daughter, then my daughter isn't going to get the horse. It isn't automatically some 'free legacy passed down'.

Secondly, no one else should own the horse or its interests. They don't have a right.

And what should the penalty be of them taking the horse anyway?

 

[Metaphor]

Are you really that desperate to virtue signal? I wouldn't criticize Georgetown for doing this. It's not racism, as the benefits flow to a class of people based on their ancestors' history with the school, not race.

So since the entire US benefited from slavery, you'd be okay with all descendants of slaves getting an educational benefit in admissions through the dept of education policy at public universities?

The entire US was harmed by slavery, including the descendants of slave owners. If the United States had never had slavery, it would be a richer nation today (both morally and economically).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So since the entire US benefited from slavery, you'd be okay with all descendants of slaves getting an educational benefit in admissions through the dept of education policy at public universities?

The entire US was harmed by slavery, including the descendants of slave owners. If the United States had never had slavery, it would be a richer nation today (both morally and economically).

First that's relative harm, not harm and second, that's not true. It is a well-established fact that the US economy benefited from slavery.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Irrelevant. They get the horse because it represents a free legacy passed down.

Are you brain dead?

I cannot help it if you are ignorant.

If the horse isn't left in the will to my daughter, then my daughter isn't going to get the horse. It isn't automatically some 'free legacy passed down'.

When a person dies without having a valid will in place, his or her property passes by what is called "intestate succession" to heirs according to state law. In other words, if you don't have a will, the state will make one for you. All fifty states have laws (or "statutes") of this kind on the books.

The purpose of intestate succession statutes is to distribute the decedent's wealth in a manner that closely represents how the average person would have designed his or her estate plan, had that person had a will. However, this default can differ dramatically from what the person really would have wanted. Even where it is known what the person intended, no exceptions are made where no valid will exists. Nor are there any exceptions made based on need or special circumstances.

1990 UNIFORM PROBATE CODE

The 1990 Uniform Probate Code (the Code) serves as the starting point for many states' laws. Nevertheless, the laws of different states can vary greatly from each other and from the Code itself. However, the Code represents the best reference for a general discussion.

Under the Code, close relatives take property instead of distant relatives. The classes of relatives whose members receive property under the Code include the decedent's surviving spouse, descendents (children, grandchildren, etc.), parents, descendents of decedent's parents (siblings, nieces and nephews), grandparents, and descendents of grandparents (aunts and uncles and cousins). Adopted descendents are treated the same as biological descendents. If none of the above-named classes of relatives include any persons qualified to take the estate, the property "escheats" (goes by default) to the state.

http://estate.findlaw.com/planning-...estacy-if-you-die-without-an-estate-plan.html

 

[JonA]

Are you brain dead?

I cannot help it if you are ignorant.

If the horse isn't left in the will to my daughter, then my daughter isn't going to get the horse. It isn't automatically some 'free legacy passed down'.

When a person dies without having a valid will in place, his or her property passes by what is called "intestate succession" to heirs according to state law. In other words, if you don't have a will, the state will make one for you. All fifty states have laws (or "statutes") of this kind on the books.

The purpose of intestate succession statutes is to distribute the decedent's wealth in a manner that closely represents how the average person would have designed his or her estate plan, had that person had a will. However, this default can differ dramatically from what the person really would have wanted. Even where it is known what the person intended, no exceptions are made where no valid will exists. Nor are there any exceptions made based on need or special circumstances.

1990 UNIFORM PROBATE CODE

The 1990 Uniform Probate Code (the Code) serves as the starting point for many states' laws. Nevertheless, the laws of different states can vary greatly from each other and from the Code itself. However, the Code represents the best reference for a general discussion.

Under the Code, close relatives take property instead of distant relatives. The classes of relatives whose members receive property under the Code include the decedent's surviving spouse, descendents (children, grandchildren, etc.), parents, descendents of decedent's parents (siblings, nieces and nephews), grandparents, and descendents of grandparents (aunts and uncles and cousins). Adopted descendents are treated the same as biological descendents. If none of the above-named classes of relatives include any persons qualified to take the estate, the property "escheats" (goes by default) to the state.

http://estate.findlaw.com/planning-...estacy-if-you-die-without-an-estate-plan.html

Dance around the issue, then. This is your thread; if you don't want to discuss anything (which is seeming more and more the case given your latest replies), I'm fine counting this a loss.

 

[Metaphor]

The entire US was harmed by slavery, including the descendants of slave owners. If the United States had never had slavery, it would be a richer nation today (both morally and economically).

First that's relative harm, not harm and second, that's not true. It is a well-established fact that the US economy benefited from slavery.

How is it well-established? According to whom?