Reply #127: I wish they wouldn't rename it.... Kids need flawed heroes, not gods.

[politicat]

Yes, Jefferson owned slaves. So did many of the Constitutional framers, the Continental Congress, and the leaders at the time. Those who didn't own slaves often had indentured servants until after 1787 when debt bondage was outlawed with the Constitution. And many, many of the founding citizens spent at least some part of their lives in servitude. It was common, especially for the young and unmarried. (See: The Midwife's Tale, Durant's Histories, and a History of Salem, just off the top of my head; I'm a European Medievalist/Renaissance Historian, not an American Historian.) For his time, Jefferson was no different than any other medium to large scale CEO. His position, were he to be translated to this world, would be roughly equivalent to that of Bernard Rapoport, George Soros or Warren Buffett. He also: founded a university, invented a lot, assisted in building a framework that means this country still pretty much functions and has had only one major upset (so far - and we have a better track record than Britain, which averages insurrection in the streets about once a century), had the foresight to buy the "development rights" for a pittance to most of the continent, and send out a pair of sensitive and thoughtful explorers to get an idea of what they'd bought. He could have, as easily, sent a military force; he did not. He sent what passed for scientists, naturalists and anthropologists for the day. Lewis and Clark were not perfect either, but there were far worse people who could have been sent as the ambassadors of the Great White Father in the East.

I'm not excusing Jefferson's behavior. In 300 years, I can pretty much bet that, assuming the planet does not implode, and we continue to progress, our descendants will look at us and consider the fact that health care was based on ability to pay though disease and accident are not based so, to be as barbaric as holding title to another person or another person's labor. Times change, morals evolve, and ethical standards of right living become more refined with time. What was acceptable in 1000 CE is not acceptable now, and what is acceptable now will not be acceptable in 2500 CE. This is a truism of history.

I would much rather see schools named after flawed people who achieved great things, and those flaws taught as object lessons of what not to do, than to have history sanitized. I know for a fact that Elizabeth I was a tyrant at times... but she was a tyrant with a mission and the best intentions for her country at heart. That last bit excuses much. I know that Ivan Formidable (Terrible) had a wretched way with his wives, was ruthless when crossed, and also started the process that turned Russia from a complete and utter backwater into a world power.

We learn from the mistakes of history if we pay attention to history, but children especially don't pay attention to history if all of the people are perfect. "Why bother?" a kid says, "I can never be that perfect." The first time I loved history was when I saw the gritty, underside of the subject, when I read some historical fiction as a child (I'm thinking it was The Witch of Blackbird Pond, but I can't be certain.) Before that, history was dull and dry, and didn't tell me a story about real human beings struggling against their imperfections to do the very best they could and achieve as much as possible. When I saw that historical people were people who made mistakes, too, they became real for me.

Kids like it when the scandals of history come up - the scandals thrill them and excite their interest. I don't think we should take that excitement away from them.