Let's get right on that. Right after we rename other things named for slave traders or people who were 'unkind' to indians...like Washington and Jefferson and their ilk.
And "Professional grievance-mongers" sounds like a band name to me (apologies to Dave Barry).

My thought is, if you're so offended by Elihu Yale's involvement in the slave trade, don't go there. Simple as that. But, like it or not, his contributions, more than anything else, made that University happen. So, the name can stay, and you can get over it.

(The only reason anyone goes to Yale, anyway, is because Harvard rejected them.)

But, that said...

From the article:

This is part of a larger effort, on and off campuses, to stamp out dissenting attitudes and rewrite history to comport with contemporary prejudices.

It is not "rewriting history." It is making sure that all aspects of a person's history, including the unpalatable aspects, are mentioned.

To refer to Thomas Jefferson as a "racist rapist" is rather terse, but probably accurate.

Despite the denunciation of slavery that he was compelled to remove from the final draft of the Declaration of Independence, the fact is, he owned more slaves than any other Founding Father, including George Washington. And yes, he had a long term relationship with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. It's impossible to look at their slave-master dynamic and believe that the relationship was mutually consensual.

How do you say no to someone who owns you?

Consider all those formerly valuable degrees from Yale -- soon to be known as "Acme of New Haven"? Or, better yet, "Malcolm X University"?

Oh, please. In today's climate, the activists would insist it be Trayvon Martin U. Or Michael Brown U.

(The only reason anyone goes to Yale, anyway, is because Harvard rejected them.) ~ Patrick at August 9, 2016 4:29 AM

"...like a group of college freshmen
Who were rejected by Harvard and forced to go to Brown!
We're Rhode Island Bound."

I vote for Schoolie McSchoolieface. If it's good enough for a boat it's good enough for Yale.

Conan, re: Trayvon Martin U. or Michael Brown U.?

That's distressing. Moreso because I can actually see that happening. The hysterical revisionists keep trying to force the mythical innocent lamb narrative down our throat.

I've been researching the incidents surrounding those that Black Lives Matter chooses to rally around. I already know their penchant for some "creative perspectives" on some of these guys.

Don't get me wrong. In some cases, they have legitimate complaints. Like the shooting of Walter Scott, which seems cut and dried. I don't rule out the possibility that some fantastic new evidence might emerge that could exonerate Walter Scott, but short of possession by an evil alien race, I can't imagine what. Maybe he's got some previously undiagnosed mental illness.

But for the most part, their flat-out lying.

I found out something interesting I didn't know before regarding Trayvon Martin. Did you happen to hear this? It seems that the prosecution's star witness, Rachel something-or-other, that unfortunate girl who has yet to become fluent in any language, appeared on Piers Morgan, and if what she said is true, then it seems she might have instigated Martin to force a confrontation that might have never happened.

It seems that when Martin fled, Rachel told him that he didn't want Zimmerman to see where he lived, because Zimmerman was probably a child molester.

Brilliant. Her fanciful ideas without a single objective fact to support them likely pushed Martin to attack Zimmerman.

But there is one bright side about her being interviewed by Piers Morgan: Piers Morgan finally found an intellectual equal.

...then it seems she might have instigated Martin to force a confrontation that might have never happened. ~ Patrick at August 9, 2016 6:38 AM

The phone conversation as recalled / published has her suggesting strongly to Martin that Zimmerman was a homosexual rapist and would come after Martin.

Yeah, she was a piece of work.

And yes, he had a long term relationship with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. It's impossible to look at their slave-master dynamic and believe that the relationship was mutually consensual. ~ Patrick at August 9, 2016 4:29 AM

Actually, the DNA evidence only proves that one of the Jefferson men had a relationship with Hemmings. The most likely candidate for catting around the slave quarters was Robert Jefferson.

However, Hemmings' resemblance to Thomas' dead wife and his observed fondness for her, lends strong circumstantial evidence the Thomas may have had an affair with her. Whether Robert or Thomas fathered her children, I'll agree with you on the rape thing. If you're a slave, you really can't say no.

I suggest "New Haven Safe-Space Asylum." And put up the fences the name implies, to keep people in.

you're a slave, you really can't say no.

Conan the Grammarian at August 9, 2016 7:24 AM

Back then, if you were a spouse you couldn't either. Very little practical difference between slavery and marriage.

They were most likely Thomas Jeffersons children. Different times, different values.

I'm just waiting for the race baiters to go beyond superficial things like names, and reject all the real achievements of slave holders, and racists, like electricity, indoor plumbing, and automobiles.

You can bet their attentions are going to be quite selective, on things that cause a maximum amount of butt hurt for other people, and minimum pain for their own offended egos.

I'm just waiting for the race baiters to go beyond superficial things like names, and reject all the real achievements of slave holders, and racists

I'm waiting for them to emigrate back to the sub-Saharan nation of choice. Which in many respects would be a rejection of the above.

I mean, if the USofA is so awful why stay here?

I have never owned slaves and I've always wanted a university named after me.
I guess Yale is suitable.
-Jut

How about Adolf Hitler's School of Tolerance and Inclusion. AHSTI for short.

After all, Hitler didn't own slaves . . . per se at least.

"I'm just waiting for the race baiters to go beyond superficial things like names, and reject all the real achievements of slave holders, and racists, like electricity, indoor plumbing, and automobiles. "

It's already happened... in fact, they're going further than that. It demonstrates the misanthropic underpinnings of leftism -- they view themselves as the perfection of the human race, and all others are perverted abominations.

Ben, better the School of Hitler's Inclusion and Tolerance; aka SHIT university

Ben, better the School of Hitler's Inclusion and Tolerance; aka SHIT university

Conan: Yeah, she was a piece of work.

Not the word I would have used, but she's a piece of something.

#WhackLivesMAtter

Per Hitchens, the bond between Hemmings and Jefferson would be the sort of thing we'd nowadays call a "marriage"...

...Presuming we weren't inclined to busy ourselves in the unknown and dearest intimacies of people we've never met, or to aggressively condemn their parameters... If you catch my drift.

Specifically, Hitch said Hemmings demanded that any sons by Jeff be raised as free men, and they were (or he was, I fergit).

Furthermore, as pampered wives of powerful are wont to do, she demanded a trip to Paris to shop for frocks. Jefferson acceded, knowing full well that by the law of that land, she would be regarded as a free woman anywhere on the planet once her foot touched French soil.





There's a loathsome, small-minded, inarticulate impulse at work in our culture to describe anything one doesn't like as racist. When cornered after such a coarse challenge, the accuser will imagine himself excused by describing some number of unpleasant truths about his target, whether or not they're truly racist in either the present or the contemporary context.

This doesn't move the ball forward. Calling someone racist doesn't prove that you know how to be nice to people, or that you know how distinct human beings can get along well together.

Since Obama's first inauguration, "That's racist!" has been a punchline... But things aren't getting better.

Being snippy doesn't help. And it doesn't impress. History was not made to flatter shallow gossips in a coffee klatch.

Crid:

There's a loathsome, small-minded, inarticulate impulse at work in our culture to describe anything one doesn't like as racist.

Look at the bright side, Crid. The overuse of the term has made it meaningless.

I remember sitting at a party discussing a recent incident in which a white driver had hit a black cyclist. I was the only white person at the party. Most of the partygoers were decrying the assumed racism of the motorist when an elderly black man spoke up and denied the assumed racism of the incident, saying "Not everything black and white is racist. Sometimes the white guy is just a bad driver."

Funny story, Conan. But I'm a little stunned at the ugliness of the insinuation. They not only assumed that the white driver was a racist, but the implication is that he is so racist, that he actually drove over a black bicyclist on purpose.

Or perhaps, his hatred of black people is so intense, that it unconsciously caused him to mow down someone on a bicycle.

Then again, perhaps the driver wasn't a bad driver at all, and the bicyclist wasn't obeying the rules of the road.

I'm stunned that you are stunned Patrick. That is a common viewpoint in the African American community.

> overuse of the term has
> made it meaningless.

Then why use it?

I presume because there's a real thrill to calling people meen without having to back it up.

No?

Rename Yale? Lessee, Almost Got Into Harvard? Connecticut School That's Only So-So in Basketball? University of Post-Industrial Wasteland New England? I could go on for DAYS.

Oh, and John Harvard? Very definitely not a slave trader, and one of the key proponents responsible for making sure he was the namesake for Harvard University was himself an early opponent of the slave trade in the Colonies et al (Richard Saltonstall).

Just sayin'. Carry on.

PCU

If we agree that a slave can't say no, does that also mean she can't say yes? Is it impossible for a slave to have consensual sex with her owner?

"Is it impossible for a slave to have consensual sex with her owner?"

It's pretty much a tenant of post-modern feminism that sex with a man is so harmful and distasteful that no woman in her right mind would consent to it. Therefore, any woman who does is clearly suffering from disordered mental function, which means that she is incapable of consenting. Therefore, all heterosexual sex is rape. A neat tautology.

...I'm a little stunned at the ugliness of the insinuation. They not only assumed that the white driver was a racist, but the implication is that he is so racist, that he actually drove over a black bicyclist on purpose. ~ Patrick at August 9, 2016 6:16 PM

Yes, the allegation by some was that the white driver was so racist, that he actually bumped a black bicyclist on purpose.

The accident had just happened and the entire city was debating the incident. Professional rabble rousers were trying to stir things up. There was talk of inviting Al Sharpton to town. It was the lead story on the news and a hot topic in political circles at the time.

As the only white guest at this party, I was never threatened or made to feel in any way felt unsafe. I was asked my opinion and said that without evidence of racist attitudes on the part of the driver, I could not ascribe racism as a motive. Sometimes accidents happen. This was accepted by most, debated by a few, and outright rejected by a couple. As is usually the case, it was a few rabble rousers that were insisting it was racism and stirring the pot.

The point of the story was what the older guy said. Not everything black and white is tinted by racism. Sometimes the white guy is simply a bad driver.

What was also interesting its that the older guy was held in such high esteem by everyone there that the whole thing died down after he spoke up and went back to being a casual party.

A New York Times review of Hitchens' Jefferson book:

Similar narrative where people believe a police officer shot a suspect because the suspect was black and the cop knew he could get away it. They're saying the cop was racist enough to want a black man /dead/ without cause and was willing to throw his career away to get it done.