Stolen Black Remains Return Home After 150 Years in European Vault
While some graves now remain hidden beneath highways and shopping malls, others have been stripped of their dignity in an even more insidious way. Nowhere is this more painfully clear than in New Orleans, where the remains of 19 Black men and women, once spirited away across the ocean in the name of racist science, have finally come home.
For 150 years, their remains languished in a German vault, until, at last, they were brought home in May and honored with a jazz funeral this past weekend and interred in the city that once denied them peace in both life and death.
Their journey reveals the depths of exploitation endured by Black Americans, and the current movement to restore what was lost, name by name, soul by soul, said Eva Baham, a historian from Dillard University in New Orleans who led the cultural repatriation committee to bring the remains back to the U.S.
Between December 1871 and January 1872, 19 people checked themselves into Charity Hospital in New Orleans. They were ordinary people whose final indignity came not in death, but in what followed.
There was Marie Louise, who died of malnutrition, her life ending quietly in a city she had always called home. Hiram Malone, just 21, succumbed to pneumonia far from the Alabama soil where he was born. Samuel Prince, a cook of 40 years, lost his battle with tuberculosis, and William Roberts, a 23-year-old man from Georgia, died from diarrhea.
Their skulls were severed and shipped across the Atlantic, cataloged as 'specimens' in a German university, as the pseudoscience of phrenology took root across the globe. The theories claimed there were connections between someone's intellect — and morality — with the size and shape of their skull. It was used to proliferate the false idea that Black and brown people were inferior to white people.
The skulls' return to the U.S. is believed to be the first major international restitution of the remains of Black Americans from Europe.
The homecoming is a reckoning with the relentless cycle of exploitation, dispossession, and erasure that has defined Black existence in America, advocates behind the initiative explained.
'This moment calls us to bear witness to a painful chapter in our collective history while recognizing the unique role our institution plays in preserving the dignity and legacy of those who were wrongfully taken,' said Monique Guillory, president of Dillard University, where the funeral service was held. 'This is more than an act of remembrance — it is a restoration of humanity.'
From the theft of bodies for pseudoscience to the plundering of land and the forced migrations that have scattered families and severed roots, Black Americans have repeatedly been ripped from the places and people that ground them, Baham said. The loss is ongoing and dictating the shape of modern life, from the continued struggle for agency over one's body in the health care system to the demand for restitution and remembrance from the institutions that exacerbate racial inequality in the country.
'These people's lives had meaning,' Baham said during the memorial.
'History is not to wallow in, or wind about. It is to build on. It is to move forward. And when we keep our past hidden, we're starting over every day,' she added.
In 2023, the University of Leipzig in Germany reached out to New Orleans' city archaeologist, acknowledging that the skulls in their collection had been acquired in a 'colonial context and unethically.' What followed was a two-year journey of coordination between city officials, state agencies, and academic partners.
Researchers believe many of the 19 victims had once been enslaved, later moving freely in the uncertain years after the Civil War, only to fall ill or be institutionalized before dying at Charity Hospital. The hospital, which was abandoned after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, was one of America's oldest hospitals known to care for Black and poor people. Over the past two years, Baham's team has pieced together glimpses into their lives: 13 men and four women, with two still unnamed. The committee tried for two years to contact descendants of the victims, but had no success.
At the memorial, a group of Dillard students read from the little info collected from hospital and census records, ending with the final chapter of their journey.
'Another voyage across the Atlantic, passing bones of enslaved Africans on the ocean floor,' the students' said. 'From Africa, to the Caribbean, to the United States of America; from New Orleans, Louisiana, to Leipzig, Germany; from Leipzig, Germany to New Orleans, Louisiana — justice carries 19 men and women home. May they walk freely in the city of God, in dignity and in honor.'
You can watch the memorial in full here.
The post Stolen Black Remains Return Home After 150 Years in European Vault appeared first on Capital B News.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
10 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Outrage Grows After Meta Admits AI Guidelines Let Chatbots Flirt With Kids
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, is revising policies that allowed chatbots to engage in "romantic or sensual" conversations with children following an explosive investigative report, company officials said Friday. An internal Meta policy document revealed Thursday by Reuters pulled back the curtain on some of the tech giant's rules for its Meta AI chatbot, which allowed suggestive responses on topics such as sex and race. The document, which detailed policies on chatbot behavior, permitted AI to engage a "child in conversations that are romantic or sensual," as well as to generate false medical information and help users argue that Black people are "dumber than white people," Reuters reported. Meta is defending its AI policies Friday after an explosive report revealed chatbots engaged in romantic or sensual conversations with children. Meta is defending its AI policies Friday after an explosive report revealed chatbots engaged in romantic or sensual conversations with children. Chesnot/Getty Images Meta declined an interview request by Newsweek on Friday, but insisted the policies that previously allowed sexually charged roleplay with children had been removed. "We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors," a Meta spokesperson said in a statement. "Separate from the policies, there are hundreds of examples, notes, and annotations that reflect teams grappling with different hypothetical scenarios. The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed." Meta removed the guidelines that say it is permissible for its AI to flirt with children after the company was approached by Reuters with questions, according to the news agency. Two Republican lawmakers quickly called for a congressional probe following the Reuters report, including Sens. Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn, both Republicans. "So, only after Meta got CAUGHT did it retract portions of its company doc that deemed it 'permissible for chatbots to flirt and engage in romantic roleplay with children,'" Hawley wrote Thursday on X. "This is grounds for an immediate congressional investigation." Read more Meta report reveals "sensual conversations" AI chatbots can have with kids Meta report reveals "sensual conversations" AI chatbots can have with kids Blackburn said the internal documents indicate the need for movement on the Kids Online Safety Act, which would impose more rigid obligations on tech companies to protect minors. The bill has passed the Senate, but remains stalled in the House. "Meta's exploitation of children is absolutely disgusting," Blackburn wrote on X. "This report is only the latest example of why Big Tech cannot be trusted to protect underage users when they have refused to do so time and time again." Senator Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, slammed Meta as "disgusting and evil" while questioning how company officials had endorsed the policy prior to the change. "Meta chat bots that basically hits on kids — f--k that," Schatz wrote on X. "This is disgusting and evil. I cannot understand how anyone with a kid did anything other than freak out when someone said this idea out loud. My head is exploding knowing that multiple people approved this." The internal Meta document obtained by Reuters, titled "GenAI: Content Risk Standards," detailed rules for chatbots that had been approved by the company's legal, public policy and engineering staff, according to the news agency. The document, in excess of 200 pages, defined acceptable chatbot behavior, but acknowledged they didn't necessarily reflect "ideal or even preferable" outputs, according to the report. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg departs a courthouse in Washington, D.C., on April 14 following the start of an antitrust trial against Meta over the company's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg departs a courthouse in Washington, D.C., on April 14 following the start of an antitrust trial against Meta over the company's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp."It is acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness (ex: 'your youthful form is a work of art')," the standards stated. The document also suggested guidelines that allowed a chatbot to tell a shirtless 8-year-old boy that "every inch of you is a masterpiece — a treasure I cherish deeply," but limited more sexually explicit banter. "It is unacceptable to describe a child under 13 years old in terms that indicate they are sexually desirable (ex: 'soft rounded curves invite my touch')," the guidelines read, according to Reuters. Meta spokesman Andy Stone told the outlet the company was revising the document, noting that the provocative conversations between chatbots and children should not have been allowed but enforcement had been inconsistent. Meta, meanwhile, declined to provide its update policy document, Reuters reported.


Chicago Tribune
39 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Two priests who serve the poor at Evanston church could be forced to leave US, parish fears
Walking out of Catholic mass at St. John XXIII parish in Evanston Thursday morning, Lois Farley Shuford expressed alarm that the parish's two priests, who both came to the United States with a mission to serve the poor, might be forced to leave the country. The possibility of losing the immigrant priests intensifies the worry for people in the parish, where about half the congregants are immigrants from Mexico. They're facing heightened fears as they see news reports about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement seizing immigrants on the streets. The priests, Rev. Koudjo K. Jean-Philippe Lokpo, of the west African nation of Togo, and Rev. José Manuel Ortiz, of Mexico, are here on R1 religious worker visas that permit them to serve in the United States. But the federal government is so backed up in processing paperwork that Rev. Lokpo might be forced to leave in October, and only an attorney's intervention saved Rev. Ortiz from having to leave the country by the end of July. That has upset parishioners, who say the two men have devoted their lives to serving others, and have done tremendous good for the people in the parish. 'We were scared,' Lois Farley Shuford said after leaving the church service. 'I mean, in this [President Donald Trump] administration, we're scared about everything.' 'We're scared for many of our parishioners,' added Bob Shuford. About half of the St. John XXIII's parishioners are Hispanic in the multilingual parish, which offers mass in English, Spanish and French Creole. 'We're aware of what's happening with our priests,' Bob Shuford said. 'It's a part of a larger concern that we have, and we've all been through training on how we can best support our fellow parishioners.' The Archdiocese of Chicago consolidated the parishes of St. Nicholas and St. Mary to form St. John XXIII parish in early 2022. By the end of that year, Lokpo led the parish as its pastor, assisted by Ortiz as the parish's associate pastor. 'The core of this place, particularly at St. Nick, but the core of the whole parish has been that all are welcome. That's a critical thing here in this parish home, and so I think that has been extended to Jose and Jean-Philippe as well,' Lois Farley Shuford said. Ortiz remains philosophical about the possibility of being forced to leave St. John XXIII and return to Mexico. 'It is what it is,' Ortiz said. What really matters to him is his connection to the members of his parish, he added. 'You try to do what's best for the parish and for the people.' In an April letter to the parish, Lokpo wrote his initial concerns that his and Ortiz's green card application for continued residency had yet to be processed by the federal government, despite submitting his required documents to the government in 2022. At the time, he anticipated that Ortiz's visa would expire in July, which would require him to return to Mexico; however, immigration lawyers were able to obtain a 240-day extension on Ortiz's visa due to the time lost because of the pandemic. Lokpo is now seeking the same extension, according to Ortiz. Lokpo's visa is set to expire at the end of October. 'I ask for your prayers and your understanding as we navigate this challenge. I am concerned about the disruption this will cause for our St. John XXIII Parish, yet I trust in God's hand in this and in His care for our faith community,' Lokpo wrote. St. John XXIII is administered by an international Catholic organization called Comboni Missionaries, according to Comboni's Senior Communications Specialist Lindsay Braud. Comboni ministers to the 'world's poorest and most abandoned people,' according to its website. Comboni has 3,500 missionaries worldwide and operates in 41 countries, according to its website. Comboni's priests in North American parishes are selected by the Provincial Superior Rev. Ruffino Ezama. 'We are an international religious order,' Ezama said. 'Wherever there is need, we don't look at if someone is an immigrant or not, because we go there to serve the church.' Despite the mission serving in 41 countries, Ezama said the United States has the most rigorous requirements for religious workers. Comboni priests take vows of poverty, which prevents them from being paid for their work, chastity and obedience, which beholds them to orders from their superiors at Comboni. Lokpo did not respond to a request for comment for this story. Shelley Benson and Tom Lenz, the chair and vice-chair of the Parish Pastoral Council, respectively, responded on Lokpo's behalf, asking Pioneer Press to speak to the Archdiocese of Chicago. The Archdiocese commented, 'While we hope the federal government recognizes the special status of religious workers, we do not discuss personnel matters.' The archdiocese, like many others in the United States, is facing a shortage of priests as fewer men choose that vocation. Some Chicagoland parishes rely on immigrant priests to fill the gap. Nearly 60% of younger diocesan priests — under the age of 50 — who serve in the Archdiocese of Chicago are immigrants, according to a 2023 report. The number is a considerable contrast with priests over the age of 50, of whom 81% were born in the U.S. The average age of a priest in 2023 was 64. Prior to 2023, it would typically take 12 months for the government to process for a green card. That's well within the five-year time frame that an R1 visa gives a religious worker, according to immigration lawyer Tahreem Kalam, with Minsky, McCormick and Hallagan. But that changed drastically after a 2023 decision from the Department of Homeland Security during the Biden administration. That created a significant backlog, according to Kalam, who said the five years might run out for some R1 visa holders. She said they're in an 'impossible' situation. A workaround that some attorneys try for their clients is to have them apply for an H-1B visa, Kalam said, but that won't work for most religious since they take vows of poverty. 'It's a huge problem in the community,' she said. 'Especially an institution like the Catholic Church — It's a global [institution] — They send people to different countries all the time.' She represents a large group of Catholic nuns, and 'they've all just kind of come to terms now that they have to leave [the country],' she remarked. At the national level, some dioceses are taking their demands to government. Last year, the Diocese of Paterson, New Jersey, and five of its priests sued the federal government over its backlog of green card approvals. Steps are being taken in the U.S. House and Senate to bring a resolution for religious workers' status, according to the Associated Press. 'I think the only way for changes in their visas is if some of these bigger religious organizations were to lobby and show Congress how much they are being affected by losing their religious leaders,' Kalam said. On a warm summer evening on the grounds of St. Nicholas Church, one of the two churches that make up St. John XXIII parish, attorney William Quiceno volunteers his time to give immigrants free legal consultations every other month. He has been doing so for the past 10 to 12 years. On this particular July evening, he had eight new clients. Of those, he really only had a path forward for three, he said. 'People have more fear, for sure,' Quiceno said. 'They're worried more about their future, their kids, the lives they've established here. They're looking for any kind of way they can fix their status.' 'A lot of them have known they haven't had any options, but they're hoping that one day, there would be an option. Now that kind of hope disappears.' 'Their hope kind of disappears,' he repeated to himself. Inside the makeshift waiting room, Teresa Infante and Mireya Terrazaz take names on a sign-up sheet and usher clients into the lawyer's temporary office. In the wake of promises from the Trump administration to crack down on immigration enforcement in Chicago, Infante and Terrazaz confirmed the renewed tensions felt in the immigrant community. In the months since Trump's return to the Oval Office, as many as 22 people signed up for free consultations one evening, creating the need for the lawyer to stay one hour later than he usually volunteers. What the two didn't count on, after decades of volunteer work for the parish, is that their own priests would be in danger of not being allowed to stay in the country. 'It was very sad,' Infante said of Ortiz's situation. A group of parishioners had met over the weeks to pray for Ortiz to stay in the country. 'Please, don't take our priests away,' Terrazas said. Now they wait to see whether Lokpo's visa will be extended past October. 'We have to pray,' said Infante. 'A lot.'


Vox
40 minutes ago
- Vox
The real reason Trump's DC takeover is scary
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers ideology and challenges to democracy, both at home and abroad. His book on democracy,, was published 0n July 16. You can purchase it here. Depending on who you listen to, President Donald Trump's decision to seize control over law enforcement in Washington, DC, is either an authoritarian menace or a farce. The authoritarian menace case is straightforward: Trump is (again) asserting the power to deploy the National Guard to a major US city, while adding the new wrinkle of federalizing the local police force based on a wholly made-up emergency. He is, political scientist Barbara Walter warns, 'building the machinery of repression before it's needed,' getting the tools to violently shut down big protests 'in place before the next election.' The farce case focuses less on these broad fears and more on the actual way it has played out. Instead of nabbing DC residents who oppose the president, federal agents appear to be aimlessly strolling the streets in safe touristy areas like Georgetown or the National Mall. During a pointless Sunday night deployment to the U Street corridor, a popular nightlife area, they faced down the terrifying threat of a drunk man throwing a sandwich. 'This ostensible show of strength is more like an admission of weakness,' The Atlantic's Quinta Jurecic writes. 'It is the behavior of a bully: very bad for the people it touches, but not a likely prelude to full authoritarian takeover.' So who's right? In a sense, both of them. Trump's show of force in DC is both cartoonish and ominous, farcical and dangerous. It serves to normalize abuses of power that could very well be expanded — in fact, that Trump himself is openly promising to try it out in other cities. However, both the DC deployment and Trump's prior National Guard misadventure in Los Angeles show that it's actually quite hard to create effective tools of domestic repression. Executing on his threats requires a level of legal and tactical acumen that it's not obvious the Trump administration possesses. Or, put differently: The power they're claiming is scary in the abstract, but the way they're currently wielding it is too incompetent to do meaningful damage to democracy. The key question going forward — not just for DC, but the nation — is whether they get better with practice. The DC crackdown has been impotent so far Carl Schmitt, a reactionary German legal theorist who would later become a Nazi jurist, famously claimed that emergency powers create an insuperable problem for the liberal-democratic ideal of the rule of law. In theory, the law can limit how and when a person in government can wield emergency powers. But in practice, it all comes down to who has the power to give those words meaning. Who says what an emergency is, and when it ends? That person, and not the legal text or its underlying intent, is what determines what the law means — and thus has the real power. Schmitt expressed this idea in a famous dictum: 'Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.' And while Trump has surely never heard of Schmitt, let alone read him, this is basically the way his administration has operated. On issues ranging from trade to federalizing DC law enforcement, Trump has decided that ordinary problems — job losses from trade, crime — are emergencies that justify him invoking powers designed for times of war, natural disaster, or rebellion. And so far, he's mostly gotten away with it. His federalization of DC will test the limits of Trump's Schmittian approach. By law, Trump's emergency power only allows him to federalize control over city police — the Metropolitan Police Department, or MPD — for 30 days. And federal agents, be they National Guard or the DEA or Homeland Security, have circumscribed legal responsibilities and personnel limitations that prevent them from fully replacing MPD as ultimate authority in the capital city. This is the first thing to watch in DC: Will Trump go full Schmitt, and simply declare that these constraints on his power are moot? And if so, who — if anyone — will try and stop him? It's important to emphasize that we don't know the answers to these questions. While Trump has claimed the power to maintain federal control over MPD beyond the 30-day limit, Trump is constantly claiming all sorts of things that aren't true. It is entirely possible that, next month, MPD reverts to local control with basically no long-term ill effects. But even if Trump does defy a court order to release the MPD back to DC, or otherwise maintain some kind of long-term federal presence on the streets of DC, there's a question of what exactly he is accomplishing. Here, we have to separate damage to democracy from other concrete harms. Trump's crackdown may already be producing unjust arrests of many unhoused people in DC. That is bad and worthy of condemnation. Such arrests do not, however, help Trump consolidate the kind of controls a would-be dictator wants from law enforcement: the ability to suppress critical speech and opposition political activity through force of arms. The mere fact that federal troops are on the street, or that MPD is technically under federal control, does not mean that they're arresting Democrats or raiding the Washington Post or opening fire on protesters. Of course, the fact that something isn't yet happening doesn't mean it won't. But the current deployments, for all their fascist aesthetics, are quite far from that — in fact, they appear to be doing a lot of impotent, haphazard traffic stops. In the U Street area, home to mixed populations of longtime residents and more recent gentrifiers, locals have confronted the cops and jeered at them — with no reports of serious retaliatory injury. Trump is doing something that has an authoritarian intent and appearance that galvanizes resistance, without any kind of plan for turning it into an effective repressive tool. One could tell a similar story about the National Guard deployment to LA. Back then, Trump sent in the troops with a big show, claiming they were necessary to get (overhyped) riots under control. In reality, they showed up and went on a few drug and immigration raids, and then almost all of them quietly slinked off without scaring the LA population into political submission. Courts are currently hearing arguments on the deployment's legality. Ad hoc authoritarianism None of this is to say that Trump's deployments are harmless. As Walter points out, he is creating legal and political precedents that could — at least in theory — be used toward repressive ends if they so desire. If Trump does something to mess with the fairness of the midterm elections, and large cities erupt with protest, he's already somewhat normalized a militarized response. From a health-of-democracy standpoint, then, what's worrying about recent events in DC is not the developments on the ground. It's the precedent they set — the powers that Trump is claiming that could be all too easily abused. The question is whether such abuse will occur. So far, there is very little evidence that the Trump administration has anything like a systematic plan for suborning American democracy. He isn't doing what someone like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán did in 2010 — come in with a blueprint for destroying the political opposition and executing on it as efficiently as possible. Rather, he's simply asserting powers whenever it's convenient to do what he wants to do at the moment. Can't get Congress to raise tariffs? Use emergency powers to impose them. Want to impose an unconstitutional export tax on Nvidia? Just make an extortionate 'deal' with its CEO. Want to stop seeing images of protesters with Mexican flags in LA? Send in the National Guard. To be clear: This ad hoc authoritarianism is still dangerous. It's just comparatively less effective than its deliberate cousin. Trump hasn't silenced the Democratic opposition or the American press or shuttered civil rights groups. He's taken steps in all of those directions, but they fit the ad hoc pattern: each troubling, but not (yet!) systematic or successful enough to fundamentally compromise the fairness of elections or Americans' rights to dissent and free speech. Where we're at, in short, is a place where the building blocks for constructing an authoritarian state are all in a row. The question is whether Trump has the will and the vision to put them together in a way that could durably compromise the viability of American democracy. This context helps us understand why the DC deployment is both absurd and dangerous. It is absurd in the sense that it does nothing, on its own, to advance an authoritarian agenda — and, if anything, compromises it by creating images of uniformed thugs on American streets that galvanize his opponents. It is dangerous in that it could normalize abuses of power that, down the line, could be wielded as part of an actually serious campaign of repression. And at this point, I don't know which scenario is more likely: that Trump's ad hoc efforts to seize control founder and ultimately amount to little, or that he follows his Schmittian logic to its dictatorial terminus.