Johns Hopkins University is Going to Need a New Name

DB Daily Update ^ | David Blackmon

[EyesOfTX]

Just rename it Eric Swalwell Honeypot U and everything will be solved. – Welp, looks like Johns Hopkins University is going to be getting a new name sometime in the near future. It turns out the founder of the renowned university – yes, his name was Johns Hopkins – was a slave owner back in the 19th century, which came as a surprise to current leaders of the University since the legend about Mr. Hopkins always held that he was an early and avid abolitionist:

Those leaders penned a letter to the current school community and printed by the New York Post in which they revealed the nasty news: “For most of the last century, our institutions believed Johns Hopkins to be an early and staunch abolitionist whose father, a committed Quaker, had freed the family’s enslaved people in 1807,” university leaders wrote in a letter to the Johns Hopkins community. “We now have government census records that state Mr. Hopkins was the owner of one enslaved person listed in his household in 1840 and four enslaved people listed in 1850.”

From a story at the New York Post:

The revelations came to light as part of the Hopkins Retrospective, a project that began seven years ago to explore the school’s origins and history.

The findings contradict a narrative that was a large part of the school’s history.

“For most of the last century, our institutions believed Johns Hopkins to be an early and staunch abolitionist whose father, a committed Quaker, had freed the family’s enslaved people in 1807,” schools leaders wrote in Wednesday’s letter.

“But over the past several months, research being done as a part of the Hopkins Retrospective has caused us to question this narrative. We now have government census records that state Mr. Hopkins was the owner of one enslaved person listed in his household in 1840 and four enslaved people listed in 1850.”

Johns Hopkins launched the school, America’s first research university, in 1876. It created the hospital in 1889. School leaders noted that Hopkins “specifically directed that the hospital extend its care to include the indigent of Baltimore regardless of sex, age, or race.”

[End]

So, the school must be renamed. Oh, they haven’t said that yet, but hell, we have school districts now taking the names of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington off of their schools, how can a comparative slouch like Johns Hopkins survive with his name intact? I mean, all Johns Hopkins did was found the very first research university in the United States of America, a university whose medical center has saved the lives of hundreds of thousand of people, not just Americans, but people of all races, religions and creeds from all over the world in the intervening 144 years since its founding.

What kind of racist sloth could possibly advocate for keeping Hopkins’ name on the school he founded when there are so many more deserving people out there? You know, sterling individuals like Gerrold Nadler or Adam Schiff or Eric Swalwell or Maxine Waters or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or Chuck Schumer or Michigan’s Governor, Adolpha Whitmer. The list of much more deserving heroes of the left goes on and on and grows daily, literally crying out for more schools named for 17th-and 18th-century racists who were born into privilege, never took any risks for this country and never did anything really significant in their own lives to be renamed.

*sigh*

That is all.

[Svartalfiar]

The Democratic Party was founded by supporters of slave owner Andrew Jackson, tracing its roots to slave owners Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. No Republican has ever owned a slave. The modern rat party does not support democracy, embracing election theft. Their dirty name has got to go.

First off, that's definitely incorrect. Second, are you trying to say that Jefferson, Madison, and Jackson would agree more with the Dems of today, versus the Repubs?

[Svartalfiar]

Hm. So did Hopkins found this school entirely on his own dollar? So is the school giving back 100% of their current networth to the Hopkins family as they scrub his name?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

“No Republican has ever owned a slave.” False. Unless this is satire it should not be repeated.

Documentation, please, from each of you.

I did a search and came up with PolitiFact Rates Elder 'False' on Democrats and Slavery, But Elder Was Right by Larry Elder.

The burden of which is that Elder had been fact-checked on four points:

1. Republicans did not own slaves. Democrats owned slaves;
2. Democrats founded the KKK;
3. Democrats opposed the 13th Amendment that freed the slaves, Democrats opposed the 14th Amendment that made the newly freed slaves citizens, and Democrats opposed the 15th Amendment that granted them the right to vote; and
4. As a percentage of their party, more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats.

. . . and Elder claimed vindication on the last three but admitted that (1) was wrong - that there were records indicating that “at least ten" Republicans owned slaves. In contrast,

Historian Joseph T. Glatthaar, author of "Soldiering in the Army of Northern Virginia: A Statistical Portrait of the Troops Who Served under Robert E. Lee," estimates that in 1860, 4.9% of people living in slave states owned slaves.

The bottom line is that splitting hairs over the difference between ten (maybe even 12?) slave-owning Republicans and zero slave-owning Republicans only proves the point. Any way you slice it, the Republican Party wasn’t the home of the slave owner.

[Reeses]

are you trying to say that Jefferson, Madison, and Jackson would agree more with the Dems of today, versus the Repubs?

No, Democrats need to live up to their own rules and rename their party. They have nothing to do with what their name suggests. They are now the party of riggers.

[dfwgator]

Patrice Lumumba University

[dfwgator]

They’re as “Democratic” as the “German Democratic Republic” or the “Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea”.