From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Mon Nov 22 2004 - 06:42:35 GMT
Jon,
It was never about dismissing everything about the "founders", it was about the
valuable lesson in critical historical thinking that could be made by
"de-heroifying" them
Of course, I appreciate Platt's comment that respecting and admiring is part of
the game, and I never met imply that it isn't. Hell, I admire and respect many
people.
The point is to avoid censoring history to eliminate "the humanness" of people
(like revising Lila to keep Pirsig from geting laid so that all we see is his
metaphysics). With the founders, such has been the typical K-12 classroom. I've
had run-ins with the school district here over them deliberating NOT teaching
that the founders owned slaves. Why? It's a valuable discussion in the
historical view of slavery.
At any rate, you are correct. Re-interpretting morality through the veil of
modern patterns is problematic and misleading. What we should all be for is
presenting an accurate historical description of people, places and times.
Well, as accurate as possible, and without deliberate revision.
Does that fact that Jefferson owned slaves, kept a black mistress and fathered
children with her, negate his work? No. But it does make it more human,
interesting and historically meaningful.
Arlo
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:42:07, Ascmjk@aol.com wrote:
> You know, people in general were less sensitive than they are now. The
> founding fathers are generally respected for laying the groundwork for
America.
> Now, if you think America wasn't much of anything to be proud of, then I guess
> that's your view. But if one points to America as the beginning of a great new
> chapter in humanity, you can't discount the founders because some of them
> were racist. By that standard, you would have to say EVERYONE back then was
> immoral.
>
> For instance, we generally don't tolerate people neglecting or abusing the
> mentally ill these days, or the disabled. Back in 1776, it wasn't uncommon for
> these poor souls to be locked in unthinkable conditions, and utterly
> dismissed as potentially having something useful to offer society. But we
don't go
> around condemning the folks of the Founder's era for not being sensitive to
the
> plight of the mentally ill & disabled. In my mind, that's as detestable as
> racism. But I'm willing to overlook it when deciding whether or not to hang a
> portrait of a person from that era in my home.
>
> I think laying the foundations of America rightly took precedent over
> sensitivity to the mentally ill & the disabled. I would also say that George
> Washington and Thomas Jefferson are really interesting people. Jefferson
really
> tried to make some progress toward banning slavery (or at least serious cuts)
> early in his life, but seemed resigned to the continuation of slavery toward
the
> end. The opposite is true with George Washington, who literally rebelled
> against the prevailing sentiments of his entire family toward the END of his
> life, leaving strict (stricter than ANYthing else in his entire will)
> instructions to free slaves and then to free more after the death of his
wife. Some of
> these slaves were not freed by Washington's family, despite the instructions.
> This was a man who gave serious thought to this important issue, and he
> should get acknowledgment for his final commands.
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
> You know, people in general were less sensitive than they are now. The
> founding fathers are generally respected for laying the groundwork for
America.
> Now, if you think America wasn't much of anything to be proud of, then I guess
> that's your view. But if one points to America as the beginning of a great new
> chapter in humanity, you can't discount the founders because some of them were
> racist. By that standard, you would have to say EVERYONE back then was
> immoral.
>
> For instance, we generally don't tolerate people neglecting or abusing the
> mentally ill these days, or the disabled. Back in 1776, it wasn't uncommon for
> these poor souls to be locked in unthinkable conditions, and utterly dismissed
> as potentially having something useful to offer society. But we don't go
around
> condemning the folks of the Founder's era for not being sensitive to the
plight
> of the mentally ill & disabled. In my mind, that's as detestable as racism.
> But I'm willing to overlook it when deciding whether or not to hang a portrait
> of a person from that era in my home.
>
> I think laying the foundations of America rightly took precedent over
> sensitivity to the mentally ill & the disabled. I would also say that George
> Washington and Thomas Jefferson are really interesting people. Jefferson
really
> tried to make some progress toward banning slavery (or at least serious cuts)
> early in his life, but seemed resigned to the continuation of slavery toward
the
> end. The opposite is true with George Washington, who literally rebelled
against
> the prevailing sentiments of his entire family toward the END of his life,
> leaving strict (stricter than ANYthing else in his entire will) instructions
to
> free slaves and then to free more after the death of his wife. Some of these
> slaves were not freed by Washington's family, despite the instructions. This
was
> a man who gave serious thought to this important issue, and he should get
> acknowledgment for his final commands.
> Jon
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 22 2004 - 08:31:46 GMT