Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
mmm, no.
because she was appalled that her daughter had admiration for George Washington, and was determined to crush that admiration by telling her he was a slave owner while giving absolutely no context for the situation.
LOL on the bold.
I read the article and didn't see any part that stated she was "appalled" about her daughter admiring George Washington.
The author stated she was "dismayed" that her daughters school gave a "one dimensional" picture of Washington.
Not sure how you came up with the bold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swilliamsny
This is important. You state that she got curious and asked. You didn't take a kid's question about what ethics was and use it to make her feel like she was wrong for being excited about what she'd learned at school. Mom says the daughter's reaction was "horror". Now maybe that's just mom exaggerating for the purposes of the article, but to me, that's disturbing. If the daughter really felt that way, the mom has just done something her daughter was obviously not ready for, and mom only did it to further her own feelings and views.
On this, my daughter is like me and asks a ton of questions, but most of the time our conversations go with ME asking HER questions about what she learned. If it is a particular person like Jefferson. I will ask her if they taught her he was a slave owner and that he wrote a substantial part of our founding documents. We may then go into a discussion about slavery itself and the grappling that the Founding Fathers had over the institution and its inclusion in the constitituion.
Also I do think that the author was exaggerating. My own son when he was younger I'd say he was shocked to realize during a discussion we had, before he was 10 years old mind you, that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did NOT free the slaves. It was just a political move really.
But FWIW, I am a history buff and so we have a lot of conversations about historical persons and eras in our house. I also am a genealogical researcher and the conversation about Lincoln freeing slaves was based on us discussing one of my husband's 3rd great grandfather's, so my kid's 4th great grandfather who was a soldier in the US Colored Troops and how he was a run away slave from Kentucky. The Emancipation Proclamation, I told my son, did not free his 4th great grandfather even though Kentucky never left the Union. It freed none of our WV ancestors either. It was directed only to the CSA which Lincoln did not control so he could not possible free the slaves with that proclamation. My son was "shocked" by that discussion IMO. But he understood and had a better view of historical moments in our country's and our own family's history.
I'm genuinely curious how an argument like this can hold up. On the surface it seems to have good intentions, but when any sort of criticism is applied, it begins to fall apart. George Washington was a brilliant military leader, a truly moral politician, and a generally admired man in his time and after. He also owned slaves, which is wrong. But does it really make sense to judge the past based on the moral of the present? How dare he not know that us in 2017 would view slavery with such racially charged hate, even though much of Washington's views were entirely compatible with abolitionism, suggesting that in a different political climate, he'd have been a staunch advocate for it. In the same way though, I'm sure had her daughter utter any sort of negative sentiment of the prophet Muhammad, she'd be scolded for her intolerance, despite Mohammad also owning slaves, and much for the same reason: he was a product of his time.
I think we need to both consider the time period of the individual and compare those formerly contemporary views, ethics, and morals with our present.
Also, we must remember that not all of the Founding Fathers were slave owners. Also that slavery itself was a hotly debated topic and that a large percentage of the Founding Fathers knew it was an "evil" yet they rationalized it based upon the presumption that they, as white men were superior in intelligence and various other ways than black people were.
IMO the pompousness of the idea that they, just by being white were a superior being is a negative on Washington.
Other posters state that he freed the slaves upon his death in his will, actually he freed them upon his wife's death, not his own as he didn't want want his wife to be financially harmed by losing the value that the slaves gave her. Only one of his slaves was to be freed upon his death. Together he and Martha owned nearly 300 slaves.
We must remember slavery was primarily an economic institution. Slaves were one of the primary sources of wealth of many people, including Washington and Jefferson and other founding fathers.
Also, Washington during his life had some of his slaves run away, almost 20 of them did during he Revolution and one in particular - Harry, became a rather famous Loyalist with the British and joined the British in fighting against Washington. He eventually moved to Canada, then back to the African continent. Another of Washington's slaves, a female - Oney Judge is also well known in that she ran away and he pursued her but she was never caught. She was initially owned by Martha Washington and was not freed by George's will due to having been property of his wife, only his own slaves were to be freed by the will, not those of Martha Washington.
So that does put a mark on his character IMO. He was greedy. He was fueled primarily by materialism and profits and money versus human kindness and compassion. He also did write about the fact that holding the slaves caused him regret so he knew it was wrong but he did it anyway. This does not negate his heroic deeds on the battle field or the positive contributions he gave to the young nation, but he did have multiple "bad" angles to his personality and again, that is normal for all people.
ETA: On Muhammad, I personally believe that what you stated is just some bizarro conservative spin. No liberals I know say that Muhammad was the greatest thing before sliced bread lol. It is actually odd to me that you all really believe that liberals and people who aren't xenophobic against Muslims, that means we just love Muhammad. Newsflash, that's not what it means. I personally am an atheist and consider myself a secular humanist. I don't like any religion at all, not even Buddhism, which IMo would be the "best" religion if I had to pick one of the world's major organized religions. I think all the people in all holy scriptures were flawed individuals, just like I am and just like Washington was. Not sure how you can even compare George Washington to Muhammad.
In this age of extreme political correctness, why is the debate on historical figures restricted to whether they owned slaves? Why not review all historical figures on their stance on equal rights for minorities that weren't slaves, on women's rights, on LGBT rights, on religious rights, on whether they worked to protect the environment (factories & cities spewed raw sewerage, chemicals and what not into waterways and into the air), on their advocacy for the rights of the accused to public defenders, on discrimination against the disabled or the old in public accommodations and employment, on the use of child labor, and on and on and on. This is why I say no historical figure could pass muster against the current political correctness filter. If "it was different times" applies to any of of these issues, then it must apply to all.
No matter how much good an individual has done, the individual always needs to be held accountable.
Then how do we tell our children that never in the history of mankind has there been a good person. No historical figure can pass muster with today's political correctness litmus tests. Most fail most of those current measures.
Then how do we tell our children that never in the history of mankind has there been a good person. No historical figure can pass muster with today's political correctness litmus tests. Most fail most of those current measures.
We tell them that every person has their flaws and that it's okay to make mistakes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
