13 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Tom Raper sold out to Camping World probably 10 years ago. That's why the ads stopped.

 

Is the Strawberry Bitch still up in Dayton?  Racist toward gingers.  Must Cancel.  Pronto.  

 

 

Ran across this in an old thread:

 

On 12/17/2019 at 2:04 PM, taestell said:

UC Drops Enslaver McMicken's Name From College

 

The University of Cincinnati Board of Trustees voted unanimously to rename the College of Arts and Sciences Tuesday.

 

The university is dropping enslaver Charles McMicken's name from the department he founded. Parts of his wealth came from the enslavement of African people and he used this wealth to become the main sponsor for the University of Cincinnati. In 1858, McMicken wrote that the institution should educate "white boys and girls."

 

After removing McMicken's name from the college, the university has removed it from all campus spaces:

 

Quote

Pinto requested the Board of Trustees approve a motion to rename McMicken Hall, McMicken Commons, McMicken Circle and Mick & Mack's Contemporary Cafe. [...]

 

The areas will be renamed, for now, as Arts & Sciences Hall, Bearcats Commons, University Circle and Bearcats Cafe. Digital displays should also be updated to reflect McMicken's legacy and "the university's complex historical connection to him," Pinto said.

 

Instead of erasing McMicken's name they should have kept it on the main Mcmicken Hall but changed some of the other buildings. Regardless of what people may think of him, he was essential to the university's founding. They do not need to celebrate the man, but at the same time he should still be recognized for the historical signifcance and his part in the founding of the school 

Next let's do Columbus. (starts chanting) FLAVOR TOWN  FLAVOR TOWN  FLAVOR TOWN

52 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Instead of erasing McMicken's name they should have kept it on the main Mcmicken Hall but changed some of the other buildings. Regardless of what people may think of him, he was essential to the university's founding. They do not need to celebrate the man, but at the same time he should still be recognized for the historical signifcance and his part in the founding of the school 

 

They can still list him on their website as the founder of the college with an explanation of his complicated life. You don't need to honor him with a name on a building, quad, college, etc. It's not "erasing" him. 

His name is not being erased:

 

Quote

Digital displays should also be updated to reflect McMicken's legacy and "the university's complex historical connection to him," Pinto said. [...]

 

UC has a FAQ section about that group's work and Charles McMicken.

 

It is just a shame that academics cherry pick aspects of people's lives to be outraged by while at the same time acting as if they righted a "perceived" wrong by removing the guys name from campus YET still enjoying the benefits that his donation provided to the university.  Pinto says that having his name on a building or other aspects of campus will cause UC to be a true welcoming place, yet at the same time has no problem having the entire campus on land that was donated by such "bad person" or "former slaveholder" 

 

In the effort to stamp out oppression on campus and make UC a welcoming institution, it does not change the fact that UC and the land the campus on will forever be built on the backs of former slaves and money generated from slavery. 

 

For those who buy into the "woke" BS and nonsense, every dollar in salary that professors earn at UC, and Neville Pinto's salary has a direct relation to slavery since the university would never have been possible at that location if it were not for slavery.

This my friends is intellectual dishonesty at its finest. 

54 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It is just a shame that academics cherry pick aspects of people's lives to be outraged by while at the same time acting as if they righted a "perceived" wrong by removing the guys name from campus YET still enjoying the benefits that his donation provided to the university.  Pinto says that having his name on a building or other aspects of campus will cause UC to be a true welcoming place, yet at the same time has no problem having the entire campus on land that was donated by such "bad person" or "former slaveholder" 

 

In the effort to stamp out oppression on campus and make UC a welcoming institution, it does not change the fact that UC and the land the campus on will forever be built on the backs of former slaves and money generated from slavery. 

 

For those who buy into the "woke" BS and nonsense, every dollar in salary that professors earn at UC, and Neville Pinto's salary has a direct relation to slavery since the university would never have been possible at that location if it were not for slavery.

This my friends is intellectual dishonesty at its finest. 

This is factually incorrect. The majority of the current campus is located on the former southern portion of Burnet Woods, which at that time was owned by the city.

 

The land he donated for the predecessor institution is on the hillside along West Clifton Ave, overlooking the downtown basin. IIRC UC still owns that land but it is vacant. To your point, they could sell the land and donate the proceeds or similarly donate the land to someone.

9 minutes ago, Dev said:

This is factually incorrect. The majority of the current campus is located on the former southern portion of Burnet Woods, which at that time was owned by the city.

 

The land he donated for the predecessor institution is on the hillside along West Clifton Ave, overlooking the downtown basin. IIRC UC still owns that land but it is vacant. To your point, they could sell the land and donate the proceeds or similarly donate the land to someone.

It seems like it is quite disingenuous of colleges and universities here. It is easy to strip someone's name off a building and pat yourself on the back for doing it but at the same time, when it comes to the fruits of that individual's donation from the land, or construction of the building, etc, universities refuse to disavow those and continue to live off the benefits of the money (despite the fact the name of the donor has been removed). See Marge Schott stadium for another example. 

16 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It seems like it is quite disingenuous of colleges and universities here. It is easy to strip someone's name off a building and pat yourself on the back for doing it but at the same time, when it comes to the fruits of that individual's donation from the land, or construction of the building, etc, universities refuse to disavow those and continue to live off the benefits of the money (despite the fact the name of the donor has been removed). See Marge Schott stadium for another example. 

McMicken's 1858 contribution was about $1 million which is estimated to be around $25 million today. UC's endowment is worth over $1.8 billion so his contribution is worth about 1.4%. Looks like if his heirs wanted his money back, it wouldn't be that big of an impact for them at all.

Marge Schott did not donate any funds to build that baseball stadium. While her foundation made a donation, it was to the larger Varsity Village project, not the field or stadium itself. The donation was only $2 million against a total project cost of $105 million. I don't know why someone should be given naming privileges when their contribution was only 2% of all costs.

On 6/28/2022 at 2:11 PM, ucgrady said:

Next let's do Columbus. (starts chanting) FLAVOR TOWN  FLAVOR TOWN  FLAVOR TOWN

I was always under the impression they were going to rededicate the state capital after one of America's favorite storytellers: cinematic director Chris Columbus. 

About 10 years ago, UC renamed Raymond Walters College to UC Blue Ash — not because Raymond Walters was "cancelled" but as part of a rebranding strategy for the university's satellite campuses. It's funny, I don't remember a single person claiming that UC was "erasing history" by removing Walters' name from the college. For reasons that I can't quite put my finger on, it's only when certain peoples' names are removed from something that we see such an explosion of enthusiasm for "preserving history."