• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

George Washington "concealed" at event.

FireChief

FireChief

Well-Known Member
Check out this photo from an event held Monday:

(details below the photo)

636_011811_fx_monument.jpg


"The monument of George Washington was concealed from the crowd during the annual King Day at the Dome rally.
The NAACP says no insult to Washington was intended - the three-sided structure that covered the front and sides of the statue was intended to display a rally graphic."


--"rally graphic?"

If you believe that, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. Great price..
 
hakr100 said:
You think it was because Washington didn't free his slaves until after his death?
Click to expand...

Well, technically it was 'after' his death, but his will stated it was to occur after Martha's death..

It's all about perspective. I guess the managers of that event don't share Muhammed Ali's view huh?

After defeating George Foreman for the heavyweight title in Zaire, Muhammad Ali returned to the United States where he was asked by a reporter, "Champ, what did you think of Africa?" Ali replied, "Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat."
Pasted from <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jun/16/20030616-093350-3933r/>

Or perhaps they don't give him any credit for how President Washington dealt with that conflict in his life:

After the war, Washington often privately expressed a dislike of the institution of slavery. In 1786, he wrote to a friend that "I never mean ... to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this Country may be abolished by slow, sure and imperceptible degrees." To another friend he wrote that "there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see some plan adopted for the*abolition" of slavery. He expressed moral support for plans by his friend the*Marquis de Lafayette*to emancipate slaves and resettle them elsewhere..

His will called for his ex-slaves to be provided for by Washington's heirs, the elderly ones to be clothed and fed, the younger ones to be educated and trained at an occupation.

Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_slavery>

And:

Privately, however, Washington could -- and did -- lead by example. In his will, he arranged for all of the slaves he owned to be freed after*the death of his wife, Martha. He also left instructions for the continued care and education of some of his former slaves, support and training for all of the children until they came of age, and continuing support for the elderly.
Washington's habit of extensive recordkeeping, such as his 1799 Slave Census,*has helped Mount Vernon's*historians*research and interpret*slave life on*his*five farms.

Pasted from <http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_george/index.cfm/ss/101/>

Perspective.. You know, there are some who say that had Washington pushed the issue of abolition, it would have torn the country apart and caused slavery to last longer than it did... Something to think about huh?
 
Vihzel said:
What did I do? Its a serious question. Im not sure why they would want to cover up Mr Washington. I don't think the NAACP hates him.
Click to expand...
Its a question that can turn racial real quick.
 
fordboy said:
Do I cast judgement on someone in 1811 who owned a slave? no. Why? Because owning slaves in 1811 was taught and believed to be no different than owning livestock. We view owning dogs as morally acceptable. Well, in 200 years from now.... who knows how history will remember those who owned dogs in 2011. And if I remember, most presidents owned dogs, just like most presidents back then owned slaves.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the effort with the comparison, but I am pretty sure we won't have issues in 200 years regarding owning dogs. Nobody thinks it's immoral today to keep a dog (under the proper care). Even then, people realized slavery was immoral.

I do agree with you on not passing judgement on these people. I would say that a better comparison would be passing laws against gay marriage in today's society. I would hipe that in 200 years (preferably sooner), everyone against it today will be looked upon as immoral or unjust.
 
lordofthereef said:
I appreciate the effort, but I am pretty sure we won't have issues in 200 years regarding owning dogs. Nobody thinks it's immoral today to keep a dog (under the proper care). Even then, people realized slavery was immoral.

I do agree with you on not passing judgment on these people. I would say that a better comparison would be passing laws against gay marriage in today's society. I would hope that in 200 years (preferably sooner), everyone against it today will be looked upon as immoral or unjust.
Click to expand...
I think a horse would of been a better example than a dog. But you dont know what people will have an issue with 200 years or do you have a crystal ball there? Sure there was people that slavery was bad but they was the minority over the whole is slavery ok or not. Heck did you know even black people back then owned slaves and yes they was black too. It was how things were back then. You want cheap labor then you bought a slave.

Its no different than people hiring illegal Mexicans today. Want cheap labor then you hire one. They wont complain about health care or your not paying them enough.
 
Yeah, I missed the mess too... Probably just as well.. doesn't sound as though it was worth seeing. I understand fully what I believe to be valid point regarding the fallacy of judging past cultures on standards of today, but drawing an analogy between owning dogs and persons? Ridiculous..

Vihzel asked though about my thoughts on WHY they actually concealed the 1st President.

My opinion is the event promoters do not have an appreciation for what he accomplished. They do not 'credit' him with anything that they VALUE. He has little, if any, appeal to them. They have a limited view of the history of this nation, and others, and a poor understanding of the role Washington played in this 'start-up' nation.

Had that statue been the likeness of Booker T., or MLK, it is my opinion that it would have been showcased in someway...

Racial?? no, .... it's cultural.. Values that were or were not taught. Perspectives, .. culture, values, perspectives are way below the skin...
 
lordofthereef said:
I appreciate the effort with the comparison, but I am pretty sure we won't have issues in 200 years regarding owning dogs. Nobody thinks it's immoral today to keep a dog (under the proper care). Even then, people realized slavery was immoral.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, there doesn't seem to be any real moral resistance to owning slaves until the rise of the abolitionist movements in Europe and the US.
 
EarlyMon said:
If that's true then I don't think that anyone asked the slaves if they had a moral objection to it.
Click to expand...

That's based off of the most recent information that they have assembled. I red that article today, but for the life of me, I can't seem to find it.

Now, that's not to say that NOBODY thought it was immoral, but that there was no region or large group that was opposed to slavery.

the objections to slavery at GW's time are about what you hear from PETA regarding pets today.

200 years ago, no one thought history would look ill upon them for owning slaves.

No one today thinks that history will look ill upon them in 200 years for owning a dog.

Is it possible that it will? Absolutely. Every achievement made today may be second to the fact that we own pets.


Who knows. Society will make vast changes in 200 years, and we will be judged in the light of those changes, no in the light of what we see today.
 
I saw this interesting history piece on the earliest days of the US as the colonies, when some of the significant landowners were black - and there was a system of indentured servitude to pay for the passage over. This led to a system of servants of all colors. Something went awry with that and slavery followed.

I wish they'd re-broadcast that, because I'd forgotten about it until your post.

Sees that was on one of the PBS torrents or PBS-HD netcasts...
 
EarlyMon said:
I saw this interesting history piece on the earliest days of the US as the colonies, when some of the significant landowners were black - and there was a system of indentured servitude to pay for the passage over. This led to a system of servants of all colors. Something went awry with that and slavery followed.

I wish they'd re-broadcast that, because I'd forgotten about it until your post.

Sees that was on one of the PBS torrents or PBS-HD netcasts...
Click to expand...

The life of an indentured servant was grim, not much different than a slave, really, but the term of servitude was fixed between two and five and sometimes seven years. After that the servant was free. That's certainly better than generations of slavery.
 
It also didn't start out as forced or for debtors - but that's as far as my memory goes. :(

Not speaking for the history or institution of indentured servitude - just in reference to that point in America's history that's just so fuzzy for me right at the moment.

The report was that in that era, indentured servants started out being treated quite well and some of the country's prominent families came up through those ranks. Later, the system devolved to cruelty and from there to slavery.

OK - if I can it online, I'll post a link and then everyone can form their own opinions on the content and accuracy of that history.

It was simply riveting material, tho.

edit and ps - cool! Here's a piece of it ... http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/investigations/212_indenturedfeature.html

Posting this much in case this ice storm knocks our wiring out and I lose my net, otherwise, will hope to be back with the video link.
 
EarlyMon said:
I saw this interesting history piece on the earliest days of the US as the colonies, when some of the significant landowners were black - and there was a system of indentured servitude to pay for the passage over. This led to a system of servants of all colors. Something went awry with that and slavery followed.

I wish they'd re-broadcast that, because I'd forgotten about it until your post.

Sees that was on one of the PBS torrents or PBS-HD netcasts...
Click to expand...

I remember reading that one of the reasons indentured servitude gave way to African slavery is bacause whites weren't nearly as resistant to malaria as blacks and also when they escaped they could more easily blend into the general white population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom