What I meant to say in that last line: ‘only to black people and some other minorities.’
You’re ignoring the opinions of a great many people of the past when you say that slavery wasn’t considered wrong in 1776. Not just the “bonkers” abolitionists.
Acting like the slaves’ concerns didn’t matter because all the white folk thought slavery was a grand idea, is kind of problematic. You’re excluding slaves from the group people who have the right to consider what is right and wrong in their day.
Just like our founding fathers!
Yep!
If the 44 SF schools were numbered, you wouldn’t get many Asians attending the 44th one! 
That only applies when we’re judging people. Thomas Jefferson can’t be judged as an extraordinary racist in the sense that Richard Spencer is an extraordinary racist. Spencer has the benefit of modern thought and philosophy, as well as understanding sensibilities of modern society. He rejected it and doubled down. Jefferson didn’t really have that knowledge available in his time period, at least not as abundantly as we do. But regardless, as a moral value, racism is racism no matter when it happened.
We can remember Jefferson for his achievements in the proper place (libraries, universities, and museums). But when our current consensus recognizes that he did some odious things by modern standards, we’re under no obligation whatsoever to keep celebrating and glorifying him with public monuments, and we shouldn’t.
OK, so what should be done with the Jefferson Memorial and other monuments in Washing— I mean, the District of Columbia?
Maybe we will get rid of them, or re-dedicate them to other people, or to something other than individual people. Maybe we will leave them as is. Who knows? It doesn’t have to be decided right away. It doesn’t even have to be decided tomorrow. We’ll see.
No, it wasn’t. And even if it had been, it doesn’t matter.
Historical monuments to major American presidents in US capitol? As you know, that’s an appropriate and historically consistent context, so I’d judge that those can stay.
In the neighborhood where I grew up, naming the elementary school after those guys is about the least appropriate context I can think of. We have plenty of local heroes who are more deserving to have things named after them.
Context matters.
This is gibberish.
And what’s important right now is the environment surrounding a child being educated—a child being educated today shouldn’t have to face entering a school named after someone who considered em a second-class person. That child and es guardians should have the agency to petition a name change.
It’s almost like you’re not actually trying to “cancel” George Washington, but instead are calling attention to the implications of implicitly endorsing his views at a school for children of all races.
Look I know it sounds bad today that George Washington murdered and ate the bodies of twelve soldiers at Valley Forge but it was a different time.
That’s the kind of perseverance you want in a leader. You know how hard it is to eat frozen human flesh with wooden teeth?
That’s probably the last thing I’d blame him for, especially since I’m sure enough troops were dying anyways that any cannibalism that happened at Valley Forge wouldn’t have required murder. Of course, getting into that situation in the first place busts the myth of Washington, the Invincible General, but that’s a story for another thread.
Oh I see, there was a horror movie. I thought there were real rumors of cannibalism at Valley Forge. Which, I mean, enough people died of starvation that I wouldn’t blame them (or be very surprised) if there had been at least a couple incidents.
That is indeed not my logic at all, since the entire free world and the neutrals all condemn such atrocities, it was wrong then, and wrong now.
How is it gibberish? I don’t think my meaning could be plainer. Also, speaking of gibberish, you misspelled the word ‘his’.
You say this like it’s some great psychic hardship. It isn’t. Especially since that same person fought a war to ensure their emancipation. I loathe the word ‘nothingburger’, but I can’t think of anything else that fits.
I never said they shouldn’t have the agency to petition a name change. I just said, essentially, that the choice to do so indicates a distinct lack of historical perspective.
I agree with this. The Founders were very much ahead of their time in some respects, but very much products of their time in others. I agree it’s unreasonable to treat their writings as gospel, especially as they pertain to matters they couldn’t have known about.
I partially agree with this. Some of his ideas on race were flawed, but some were perfectly morally correct, and it’s for those ideas that he took the country to war. I think it’s a mistake to view the dedication of a school to his memory as an endorsement of everything the man believed. The way I see it, his decision to go to war over slavery was, in his time, an act of tremendous moral courage, and it’s that courage for which he’s commemorated. Furthermore, in that specific sense, I think he’s an excellent role model for children.
Agreed.
I fully agree these people should be given a fair hearing, but I also think that it should work both ways. So far, I’ve not seen evidence that the people pushing for these name changes have given due consideration to either Lincoln’s accomplishments or the strength of character it took to achieve them.
Right, but if Hitler won and installed puppet fascist states everywhere Wolfenstein style, you’d be a-OK with it, because no one (who matters) is criticizing things?
No, it was still wrong then.