Alt.left demands removal of George Washington statue because he was a slave owner

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by me again, Aug 16, 2017.

Loading...
  1. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    It finally had to happen. The alt.left is on the move...

    Full story:
    Pastor Wants Presidents’ Names Removed From Parks Over Ties To Slavery « CBS Chicago
     
  2. FTFaculty

    FTFaculty Well-Known Member

    Washington provided for his slaves to be granted their freedom upon the death of Martha, thus divesting his estate of one of its greatest assets. Also, he allegedly was nearly driven into bankruptcy because he refused to sell a slave, even one who was older and no longer could work in the fields, if they did not wish to be sold, so he ended up taking care of a great number of people who likely would've been treated like trash elsewhere. This isn't to justify Washington's slave holding, it was an evil institution, but there is room for nuance within even an evil institution--just like not all German soldiers who fought for Hitler were psychopathic SS officers.
     
  3. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    I swear I heard someone predict this just last night......

    Oh, I remember now! It was President Trump!
     
  4. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    These calls aren't new, so it's not like this means Trump is some sort of prophetic supergenius.
     
  5. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    We debated the topic of honoring slaveholding founding fathers when I was in middle school in the 90's and I'm confident that the debate is much older than that.

    One of my favorite books of all time is Uncle Tom's Cabin. In it, we see a contrasting depiction of different types of slave owners. There were those who were truly evil people who deserve not a lick of understanding or grace- unfathomably horrible human beings. There were others who were, basically, slaveowners in name only, as they treated their slaves as one part employee and one part family. Within such a family, slaves were often better off than if they were free because free slaves were always in danger of being kidnapped and taken back into slavery, whereas being "owned" (god, I detest using that word in this context...) by a family meant there was legal recourse to keep them in a safe place.

    Even then, slavery was no way to live and the book ultimately leads to the conclusion that having ethical owners does not erase the moral imperative for abolition, a truth that I'm glad nearly everyone now agrees with.

    Sorry for the tangent, but the moral is that yes, even in examining the absolute worst aspects of human history, there are shades and hues.
     
  6. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    As someone else mentioned, he has the ultimate bully pulpit.
     
  7. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Indeed someone did. But I suppose his predicting something that's already happened is one of his less important misuses of it lately.
     

Share This Page