DS = Dear Son (DSs = more than one son)
DD = Dear Daughter
ILs = In-Laws
DIL = Daughter-in-Law
SIL = Son-in-Law
MIL = Mother-in-Law
FIL = Father-in-Law
@awcntdb omg it all makes sense now. thank you, that was much needed. 
gee, I leave for a few days and its crazyville.
awcntdb =D> good call out on the Rhodes Scholarships
@awcntdb so maybe you want to backtrack a little from your original introduction of Cecil Rhodes to the debate:
Rhodes was never a heralded liberal and progressive, ever.
And BTW, I read @Zinhead’s comment on Rhodes’ purported white privilege as being intentionally humorous.
@awcntdb -
What?!?! Next you will be disputing the fact that Bull Conner and George Wallace were fighting for affinity housing and safe spaces for African Americans.
@Zinhead’s a well known agitator, who’s been on a personal crusade against Cecil Rhodes and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man (SPMM) since the 80’s. How dare he attack New York (SPMM, not Rhodes)! Talk about white privilege…he acts like he owns the place…
I kind of gathered that, but the realities of a public forum made me think twice about leaving it to stand alone. I just imagined students (maybe even a few Princeton students too) and some adults actually reading that and believing it. Especially given the fact that the white privilege meme is the race meme du jour right now - until the next sheeple meme is rolled out. Therefore, I decided best to at least present the real Rhodes and what he actually believed.
^But you presented Rhodes as a heralded liberal and progressive, that’s not the real Rhodes.
MODERATOR’S NOTE: Please refrain from making political comments. I had to delete several posts.
And yes, I may have missed a couple, because I don’t have time to go through 42 pages of posts. If you feel that we should review any posts, please report them.
And they’d benefit from a good history lesson on the Reconstruction, but you’re not the one to give it to them if you can’t even get the name of the Democratic Party correct.
FYI: Up until very recently, the Rhodes Scholarship terms were such they excluded anyone who wasn’t considered ANGLO-SAXON from North America, British Empire and its colonies, and Germany(with some periodic exceptions due to the wars). There aren’t many African-American Rhodes scholars in the past…
Moreover, some would argue that non-Whites from the former colonies/satraps/puppet states of the British Empire in Africa, African-Americans, and Native-Americans have more of a right to that award considering Cecil Rhodes made it by facilitating the British colonialist conquest of a large portion of Southern Africa and in the same argument…looting the natural resources within to build the fortune which funded that scholarship. A scholarship which Rhodes himself stipulated was originally ONLY FOR WHITE ANGLO-SAXONS from the US, British Empire and its Colonies, and Germany.
That and the British Imperialist conquest which made Rhodes’ wealth possible was built upon prior wealth gained from their previously conquered colonies/satraps/puppet states such as the North American colonies which dispossessed and exploited African-American and Native-American labor.
This article by a Native-American makes some reference to that point:
Incidentally, there was still a bit of old-hidebound bigotry among some Rhodes Scholarship committee members according to an account from an older college classmate who recalled what an older alum and friend related about his experience before one such committee sometime in the late '80s.
One of the senior committee members was a retired US Army general who apparently held homophobic and seriously negative stereotypes about our LAC. When said prospective candidate heard that general starkly stereotype our college in homophobic terms(So you attend that f*g school or something along those lines), said candidate knew his chances of winning that scholarship was nil.
Hmm, a cursory googling indicates:
“Alain Locke was the first African American to win a Rhodes scholarship in 1907, igniting a legacy of excellence that African American students would proudly carry on over the next century. In fact, over the past four decades, Black Americans have won a Rhodes scholarship almost each year”
^ ^
According to another source, Alain Locke was also the last AA to win a Rhodes Scholarship until the early 1960s*. His being chosen may also have been due to the fact Rhodes Committees didn’t interview candidates in person so it’s very possible many members didn’t know he was AA though it seems a few may have known.
Locke was also immediately denied admission to several Oxford colleges and several southern White Rhodes scholarship winners refused to be housed in the same college or attend campus social events with him on account of his race.
Deleted
There is so much elitism and privilege in this thread it’s disturbing. I’m sure the opinions in here would be much different if there were statues of Hitler at these schools instead of slave owners and mass murderers.
@TatinG by that logic, the University of Berlin is allowed to erect statues of Reinhard Heydrich then, correct? And fly backwards swastikas on the flagpoles of the university. Or does this type of reminder of your peoples’ plight only pass when it’s not a majority white group at the opposite end of the stick? Serious question.
Elite means the best. Elitism is a good thing. I find it ironic the charges of elitism from people who themselves strive for excellence in their grades and activities.
@JustOneDad Fallacy. So it’s okay for the leaders and supposed protectors of the country to be celebrated for the violence they inflict on innocent people so long as armed civilians (who are punished for their crimes, may I add) are doing the same thing? Help me understand here.
Who is a victim of ‘black-on-black’ violence supposed to call if the leaders and protectors of the nation are corrupt? And it’s also interesting that you mention black on black violence as if it doesn’t make complete since that in groups, who have more interaction with each other than they do out groups, commit more acts of crime against those who belong to the same in group than they do towards those who belong to out groups. This same logic applies to everything. If you have more interaction with the group, there’s more of a tendency to commit acts of violence against that group
"that logic, the University of Berlin is allowed to erect statues of Reinhard Heydrich then, correct? And fly backwards swastikas on the flagpoles of the university. "
The Univ of Berlin is “allowed” to do whatever the laws in Germany permit. We have different laws.
I was house hunting many years ago and saw a house where a swastika had been painted in the basement. Were the homeowners “allowed” to do that? Yes. And I was “allowed” to find it creepy and disturbing and leave.
I think the Conf flag is disgusting and belongs only in museums, and I don’t think states should fly it, but as abhorrent as I find it, private individuals have the right to fly it on their own property.
@CCDD14 You’re right, they’re being discriminated against by nearly every aspect of society. Racism so institutional holders of privilege don’t even believe it exists. Cool.