GW is an embarassement? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Chas H · #16 09-14-2011, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

And all those people were descendants of slaves? Nice assumption if you don't worry about a basis in reality. Thats like blacks who want to be called African American when they have no idea if the are of African descent. Chris Rock does a great stand up on that subject.

Who knows? I don't and neither do you. Unless you think the 300 and some slaves on the Washington estate never had children then it's possible some of those present were.
But as it turns out there were no hard feelings, as reported on Snopes. You really should direct your comments to the original poster.
I have no idea why you think this Rock guy has any relevence to the thread.

Honus · #17 09-14-2011, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

If the races were reversed in this scenario do you think anyone would howl?

I'm sure they would. So what?

Somehow I think Mr. Washington would get over it were he still around.

People are too darn sensitive these days. Do you think that America will suffer some great harm because some black people don't like George Washington, if indeed that is the case?

Botnst · #18 09-14-2011, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

"George Washington was born into a world in which slavery was accepted. He became a slave owner when his father died in 1743. At the age of eleven, he inherited ten slaves and 500 acres of land. When he began farming Mount Vernon eleven years later, at the age of 22, he had a work force of about 36 slaves. With his marriage to Martha Custis in 1759, 20 of her slaves came to Mount Vernon. After their marriage, Washington purchased even more slaves. The slave population also increased because the slaves were marrying and raising their own families. By 1799, when George Washington died, there were 316 slaves living on the estate."

Perhaps the descendents of GW's slaves found his likeness offending. Are you claiming they are wrong?

Conveniently leaving out the part about educating and emancipating his slaves when it was not fashionable to do so.

Chas H · #19 09-14-2011, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Conveniently leaving out the part about educating and emancipating his slaves when it was not fashionable to do so.

In the part of the article I quoted GW started out with 10 slaves and died with 316. How many did he emancipate?
Can you comment on the original post?

Botnst · #20 09-14-2011, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

In the part of the article I quoted GW started out with 10 slaves and died with 316. How many did he emancipate?
Can you comment on the original post?

In his will he emancipated all slaves (on Martha's death) except the elderly, which he willed for their care.

I did comment on the original post.

cmac2012 · #21 09-14-2011, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

You cannot see the photo on your computer?

I see a red X. So I hit quote, copied the URL and pasted it into another window, but that didn't work either. Oh well, I get the idea.

R Leo · #22 09-14-2011, 01:03 AM

You bastards are fiddling while Rome burns....

Focus on real issues, OK?

cmac2012 · #23 09-14-2011, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

I asked if you thought the descendents GW's slaves were wrong to be offended. You have yet to answer that question.

There might be a loose knit organization of people with that ancestry. If any were offended, I wouldn't call that wrong but neither do I think it noble or liberating. Various arrangements of the power of individuals in society have held forth for a long time - lords and serfs, masters and slaves, with pockets of semi liberated souls also existing for brief ages.

We're all born into some role, most don't rise or fall that far from the circle they were spawned in. For Washington to evolve in the midst of the possession of serious power is noteworthy. Much more common for people to be loathe to lose power.

cmac2012 · #24 09-14-2011, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R Leo

You bastards are fiddling while Rome burns....

Focus on real issues, OK?

Easy there, big fella.

It is an interesting question, in a number of directions. Seeing the picture, I can see why they would want to obscure it. It's too dominating. If that's the best place to have the stage, who needs or wants to have a life sized statue on a 5 foot pedestal not far behind the main speaker?

One camp here jumps to the conclusion that the intent is to diss Washington. I could see a black leader appreciating Washington's enlightened evolution while still recognizing that some blacks are going to feel some discomfort at gathering at the virtual feet of a famous slaveholder.

It's an odd place for a statue, or conversely, a stage.