Jefferson Elementary: Moral Dilemma in Deciding Whether to Change Name

[Karmadillo]

http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=18617

Berkeley’s Jefferson Elementary School may opt to change its name after some teachers felt uncomfortable with the former president having owned slaves.

“Many people realize that Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder,” said kindergarten teacher Marguerite Talley-Hughes. “That is kind of a dilemma when you call someone a hero, a dilemma when you’re trying to teach children right from wrong.”

Late last month, students, parents and school staff chose the two final contenders—Thomas Jefferson and Sequoia, after the tree—from a pool of about eight names, including Mexican-American activist Cesar Chavez; black abolitionist Sojourner Truth; Rose, the name of the street the school sits on or Ohlone, the name of the tribe that originally resided in Berkeley.

The official district policy for school renaming requires a vote from students, parents and teachers at the school, who will decide on a new name at the end of the month.

more...

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

1. Talk about revisionist history,

this is it. Lately it is sounding as if that is all Jefferson did in his life. People have to understand that in the times he lived, owning slaves was the norm, not the exception.
While he may have believed in his heart slavery was not right, this change in him didn't happen right away. As with many things, awareness comes gradually.
Bottom line? Sure he owned slaves. So did Washington. So did most people who were alive then. It isn't comparing apples to apples to apply 21st century mores to 18th century ones. It is not a valid comparison.......

[Abelman]

2. And notice

how Nobody ever seems to know that Washington rejected slavery before he died. I don't know about Jefferson, but perhaps he did as well.

Slavery is horrible. But some slaves were treated like members of the family. It doesn't make it okay, but I'll be damned if someone says that's not better.

[Solly Mack]

3. Were members of the" family "owned? raped? sold? bought?

were their children ripped from the family? were they beaten?whipped?castrated?lynched?body parts amputated?

How do you get "some slaves were treated like members of the family"?

What a grossly ignorant statement.

[K-W]

4. no, you are just overreacting.

LIKE members of the family means just that, like them, obviously they werent actually members of the family.

He wasnt defending slavery.

[Solly Mack]

5. OH BULLSHIT

He said some slaves were treated like members of the family and there is no misunderstanding what he meant...

slaves...no slaves.. not a single solitary slave..was ever treated like a member of the family.

You may choose to defend such an ignorant statement...but I'll call the statement and your defense of it exactly what it is...bovine caca

[K-W]

7. What he said was true

Like is a comparison, not an equivelency.

Some slaves were treated like members of the family. The word like allows for differences, even significant moral differences so get off your high horse.

Nobody is defending slavery here, god only knows why you would jump to that conclusion, do you really think there are lots of slavery boosters lurking at DU?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K-W]

11. HE DIDNT SAY THEY WERE FAMILY MEMBERS

He said they were LIKE family members.

You are overreacting and making wild accusations. You are in the wrong here and no amount of racial indignation will make you right.

[Solly Mack]

14. Oh stop with the semantics...

you know exactly what the statement "treated like a member of the family" means

Name a single slave in America treated like a member of the family...name one...but please remember, the one you name can't be a slave...since the very fact a person could be bought and sold prevents them from ever being treated like a member of the family

you white wash slavery all you want...but it reflects on you and your thinking.

[K-W]

18. This isnt semantics,

I know what the statement means, it means that in some way the slaves were treated like members of the family. I also know what you think it means. You think it means that in some cases slavery was ok, that isnt what it means, and just because some people do mean that when they make the exact same statement it doesnt forever change the meaning of those words.

The fact that someone can be bought and sold does not prevent them from being treated like a member of the family, that is rediculous. Go take an english class and learn about what a comparison is, and you will realize how horribly mistaken you are.

How do you explain that through much of history women were bought and sold as wives?

[Solly Mack]

23. Who said he said "they WERE family members" BUT YOU?

you have been the ONLY one claiming that was said by anyone


the rest of us know what he said...

he said some slaves were treated like a member of the family...which is a bullshit statement.

and for someone who can't spell, you're downright amusing in telling another person to take an english class...

it's euphemism NOT euphAmism :)

and it's ridiculous not rEdiculous :)

and YES..the fact that someone is bought and sold does prevent them from being treated like a member of the family

[K-W]

25. Perhaps you should read your own posts.

You are the one insisting that because slaves couldnt be identical to family members, they couldn't be like family members. You were the one insisting that the word like means "identical to" not I.

He said some slaves were treated LIKE members of the family. Which is entirely accurate, because like doesnt mean identical too.

You clearly place more importance on spelling than I do, perhaps that explains your superficial relationship with the language where you cant understand that a comparison is not an equivelency.

I spelled euphemism wrong, but I got the meaning right. Perhaps you should focus less on spelling and more on meaning, like the meaning of the word "like".

Do you honestly think that nagging me about spelling makes your argument stronger or mine weaker? To me it looks pretty juvinille and petty.

"and YES..the fact that someone is bought and sold does prevent them from being treated like a member of the family"

No it doesnt. As anyone thinking rationally could see.

Now please explain to me how wives can be bought and sold in some cultures. Are wives now not a part of the family?

[Solly Mack]

28. That's a....let's say.. an untruth...to keep within the rules

I NEVER said that nor did I ever imply that.

That's your ...ah...spin, shall we say, for the rules sake?

Your "spin" , not my words

You tell me I need an English class to understand English but now want to describe my pointing out your inability to even spell English (much less understand it) as "nagging"...interesting. LMAO

And I do so love your ah...spin on what is rational.

Especially coming from someone claiming a person can be treated like a family member even if they are bought and sold...even if they are a slave. Yeah, that's rational.

and BTW, it's juvenile.

DU comes with a spell-checker...wouldn't it be both rational and logical to use it?

[K-W]

31. No, that is not spin.

You said that someone who is bought and sold cannot be treated like family.

You are clearly claiming that one single difference between slavery and a family member invalidates any comparison.

The only way you could possibly make that argument is if the word like meant identical to.

As long as the word like keeps its original meaning, your argument makes absolutely no sense, I can treat anything like a member of the family. I could go outside right now and pick up a stick and take it into my home and eat dinner with it.

I would have treated that stick like family.

Once again, your nitpicking my spelling doesnt in any way alter our arguments. It is simply you attacking me personally. It is also hillarious because you think that the fact I dont watch my spelling on internet forums means I dont understand the language.

Once again, wives have been bought and sold, you keep ignoring that fact.

Why would it be rational or logical for me to use a spell checker? None of my misspellings have obscured the word I was typing. The only problem related to my spelling is your pointing out errors because you think it proves something other than my not caring about spelling when I post on forums.

[Solly Mack]

34. You're still spinning

You claim I don't understand English and need an English class...a personal attack...then get a case of the ass when I laugh at you for attacking me by pointing out how amusing it was that you are attacking another person for not understanding English when you can't even spell. Then you call that a personal attack. LMAO

Another spin from you:

You continue to claim I have said these two statements are the same

"they (slaves) " were family members" and
"some slaves were treated like a member of the family"

I never once said the two statements were the same. Yet you continue to claim I did. So it's either spin or a...??????????


So yeah...you're spinning, nothing but.

That you can even suggest a slave can be treated like a member of the family is beyond rational thought. By virtue of being a slave, no matter how "kind" (and I'm sure that's the rough idea implied)the master is, he's still the master. Same goes for women that were bought and sold as wives. That you equate a person with a stick, however, makes sense considering your original argument.

[K-W]

38. I'm sure the truth looks like spin you,

because you refuse to think rationally about this out of a paranoid fear of being morally ambiguous about slavery.



I never equated a person with a stick, proving once again that you are making things up. You not only mistake a comparison for an equivalency you see an equivalency when I never even made a comparison. My point was that the act of treating something like a member of the family, does not require that it be an actual member of the family. A fact that disproves everything you have said.

So now you are claiming that wives are not a member of the family... brilliant.

Perhaps you think its fun to make up your own definitions for words, but here on earth a wife, bout, sold, abused, whatever is a member of the family by definition. I don't know what you think the word family means, but I refer you to the dictionary.

[Solly Mack]

41. Oh bother...

If you truly don't understand that being bought and sold changes (as in slavery) the dynamics of any relationship, then live like you want to live.

How would you know what the definition of any word is when you can't spell the word to find out? LMAO

Shoo...just shoo...I've wasted enough time on you.

[K-W]

45. Obviously the relationship is different, nobody is arguing it isnt.

Two things need not be identical to be like each other.

Do you still not understand that?

[immoderate]

144. Can members of a family be treated like slaves?

Just askin':shrug:

--IMM

[Tomee450]

50. You are the one nitpicking.

You know exactly what he meant. Slaves were not treated as family. Even the worse member of a family was treated better than a slave. Slaves were treated like beast of burden, never like a member of a family. You are jumping through hoops in your attempt to make slavery something benign. It was never benign, but extremely awful.

[bobbieinok]

142. 'bought and sold' DOES NOT mean 'one single difference' !!!!!!!

"You said that someone who is bought and sold cannot be treated like family.

You are clearly claiming that one single difference between slavery and a family member invalidates any comparison."
.......

but, yeah, if I can rape, whip, mutilate, kill, whatever, members of my family......then sure sometimes slaves were treated 'like members of the family'

[GodHelpUsAll2]

60. You knew slaves?

Personally you knew every single slave that you can state with absolute certainty exactly how each and every one of them were or were not treated?

[mark414]

63. well...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3604409#3604984

slavery isn't that far removed from us. there are still people alive today who have had first person encounters with former slaves.

they all could've been treated like saints, but that doesn't make slavery any more right. slavery is always wrong.

[Protagoras]

89. sad how quickly absolute statements begin to

skew discussions and substitute strongly held personal beliefs from knowledge (which, of course, it is not).

What was the topic of this thread again?

[SaveElmer]

71. "Black" Jack Custis...

Martha Washington's first husbands father, John Custis, had a slave son named Jack. The elder Custis proclaimed his paternity, and tried to get his son accepted into society. At one point he threatened to leave everything to Jack in his will. Eventually, he made sure of his schooling and left him land, a horse and money in his will. Many believe John Custis was more devoted to this son than his white son (Daniel Parke Custis)

Martha Washington also had a slave who was her own half-sister. Somn slaves were treated as family members because they were family members.

This explanation is by way of taking up your challenge. Of course the overwhelming number of slaves were not treated in this way. But, given the norms of the day, it is legitimate to recognize differences in the way different people treated them. FOr example, I would argue George Washington treated his slaves far better that Jefferson, freeing them at his death, and refusing to split up families

[Horse with no Name]

73. self delete

Edited after reading further about slavery apologists.

[Tomee450]

49. And I also will

say Bullshit. No slaves were ever treated like a member of the family. Since when are family members likely to be sold off? Since when are members of family subject to be raped. Even slaves who worked in the big house were never secure. They could not even marry without the permission of the owner. The black member of Lewis and Clark's expedition was whipped by his master because he expressed his disagreement with his master, either Lewis or Clark. It did not matter that he had been of great help on the expedition. He was still only a slave. This attempt to revise history and make slavery less horrible than it was needs to end. Slavery was a four hundred year holocaust in which slaves were treated like they were inhuman. They were given the worst food,forbidden to read and write. If they tried to escape they were hunted down like dogs. Black women were raped, were forced to bear children who were then sold. It was common for slave owners to even sell their own children. All of the founding fathers who owned slaves knew that they were wrong to do so yet they continued to support that practice.

[LynneSin]

97. I have to agree with Solly on this one

Because I would never treat a family member the way that even slaves living in the best condition were treated.

Some slaves were fortunate enough to live in conditions where their masters would allow the slaves to learn to read, practice their own religon and work without harsh punishments. But no matter how much sugar we put on it - they were still slaves. None of them willingly ran up to the slave traders and ask to be sent to a foreign country where they would be auctioned off like livestock and forced to live in a substandard lifestyle.

[SemperEadem]

147. While there may have been a few families

who did not treat their black employees as slaves, I'll bet they didn't sleep in the main house, eat off the main china, come in through the front door, have their choice of the best clothing hanging in the closets, sit and sip mint julips all afternoon long on the porch, socialize with the neighbors and marry into the family.

That would be treating them like they were family. I'm not saying it ever happened, but it happened so few times that there are no documented cases that it has.

[SaveElmer]

70. Depends on where they came from...

Of course racial dividing lines were much more complicated then is traditionally taught. Many slaves were mulattoes or outwardly white. Many slave owners did treat certain slaves like family members because they were family members.

John Custis, Martha Washington's first husbands father had a black child known as "Black" Jack Custis. John Custis tried to get his mulatto son accepted into society, and at one point threatened to leave him everything in his will. As it was, he left him land, a horse, and money.

Martha Washington had a slave who was her half-sister, and was treated like a family member.

Washington, in fact kept over 300 slaves of which only 100 worked. He was opposed to splitting up slave families.

[kwassa]

100. The slave is the master's property, with no familial or personal rights

saveelmer
"Of course racial dividing lines were much more complicated then is traditionally taught. Many slaves were mulattoes or outwardly white. Many slave owners did treat certain slaves like family members because they were family members"

This is false, for several reasons. No slaves were outwardly white, for starters.

The fact that a slave is biologically related to his/her master is irrelevant to their status as slaves. It is also irrelevant to their treatment as members of a family, which they could never be, because of their slave status.

The phrase "being treated LIKE a member of the family" is meaningless because of it's lack of specificity. The phrase implies, however, that slaves were treated as well as members of the family, which is patently false, because they were always less than any family member, and subject to the arbitary dictates of the master. A master/slave relationship is not a family relationship, as there is no familial responsibility recognized by any law. The master has all rights, the slave had no rights, the slave was in fact the master's property, regardless of any biological relationship.

[SaveElmer]

101. I am sorry but you are wrong in a couple of cases....

There were numerous slaves who were by all outward appearances white. Any son or daughter of a mulatto slave whose father was white was still considered a slave. There are many examples of slave who were 3/4 white by blood and more.

I agree that biological relation to a slave owner did not affect their status as a slave, but it is not irrelevent. Slave children of slave owners were quite often treated better than other slaves. Even with Jefferson, he freed the Hemmings children at his death, and Jefferson's daughter or grandaughter (can't remember which), freed Sally instead of selling her off.

As I think I included in my post, Martha Washington's first husband Daniel Parke Custis had a half brother by a slave woman. His father John Custis proclaimed the relationship and worked to get this son, known as "Black" Jack Custis accepted into Virginia society. Indeed, John Custis at one point threatened to leave his entire estate to this son, and of course freed him on his death, and gave him title to land and a horse, along with money.

Martha Washington had a slave who was her half-sister that reports indicate was white in appearance. And even here, on the Washington estate where comparatively speaking, slaves were treated more humanely than on most, she was treated much differently.

I agree that the term "like" is unclear...and in most cases you are right about the legal rights of slaves who were also family members. But to say it never happened would be wrong, and to say the relationship was irrelevent is also wrong.

[kwassa]

105. you are talking about anomalies, at best, which creates the false idea

that a familial relationship between master and slave was common, when it is in fact impossible due to the power differential. The slaves had no power, quite simply.

As to looking white, this certainly would not be to the trained eye. I know many extraordinarily light-skinned African-Americans, some with natural blond hair and blue eyes, but their African heritage is not undetectable at all.

The notion of who could be considered white varied in different locations around the South, and was not codified as the one-drop rule until fairly late. Sally Hemmings was only 1/4th black, and supposedly bore a strong resemblance to Jefferson's wife, her half-sister. This did not make her any less a slave, or grant her any rights of inheritance of Jefferson's estate. Her children by Jefferson were 1/8th black. Jefferson freed her, but did not endow her with property, or treat her as a wife, or his children by her like he treated his children by his wife. This is evidence of the lie that Sally was "treated like family".

you said:
"I agree that the term "like" is unclear...and in most cases you are right about the legal rights of slaves who were also family members. But to say it never happened would be wrong, and to say the relationship was irrelevant is also wrong."

I am right in all cases about the legal rights of slaves in relation to white masters. They had no rights. Remember the Dred Scott decision. It is true that certain slave masters took some care of their illegitimate children by slaves. It is also true that these children were sold off to other plantations because it caused strife with the wife at home to have light-colored black children who resembled the master wandering around. The diarist Mary Chestnutt wrote about this phenomenon, so did Fredrick Douglass.

And I think that the essential point of what you are saying is false, and I think you greatly exaggerate the progressiveness of Washington, too. I just finished a biography on him, and did not in any way feel that he was remotely as racially progressive as you paint him.

[SaveElmer]

107. Take a look at...

"An Imperfect God..." by Henry Wiencek....by the standards of the day, and in the society in which he lived...in a Virginia characterized by hierarchy and deference, Washington was about as progressive as was possible. Washington freed his slaves at his death, tried to find a way politically to do it while he was President, and provided for their support and education after they were freed. His estate made its last payment in 1834.

I agree I was unclear...as slaves they did not have any legal rights...but their blood relation to the owner was not irrelevent. It was not an anomoly that these slaves were often treated differently. When I said "Most" I was referring to the totality of their lives...many...though not an overwhelming number did gain legal rights after the death of their owners, or in the cases where they were manumitted.

You stated, "The notion of who could be considered white varied in different locations around the South, and was not codified as the one-drop rule until fairly late. Sally Hemmings was only 1/4th black, and supposedly bore a strong resemblance to Jefferson's wife, her half-sister. This did not make her any less a slave, or grant her any rights of inheritance of Jefferson's estate. Her children by Jefferson were 1/8th black. Jefferson freed her, but did not endow her with property, or treat her as a wife, or his children by her like he treated his children by his wife. This is evidence of the lie that Sally was "treated like family"."

First, at the time of Jefferson and Washington, any child of a female slave was considered a slave, it didn't matter what color she appeared to be. There are many descriptions of these slaves in which the author noted that the slave looked white to their eyes. There were very few plantations without slaves of mixed parentage.

Lastly, I really am not trying to claim that these slaves were treated like a family member...whatever the original poster meant by that...and everything you say about Sally Hemmings is correct, but she and her offspring were treated differently, they were freed where the rest Jefferson's slaves were not. And this was not uncommon among slaves with blood ties to owners. Jefferson was a hypocrite and a racist, but he was not atypical for his time.

I just have an impatience with absolutism when looking at history...blanket statements of fact can rarely be made when it comes to human relations...by bringing up these examples I am merely trying to point out that things were more complex, and there were differences in treatment for slaves...this is not insignificant when considering how to judge someone 220 years later.

P.S. Thanks for being civil in this...discussions of slavery tend to heat up passions, which I understand...Sometimes people who try and look at context in history, particularly on this topic are branded as slavery apologists.

[kwassa]

110. The point is that being treated differently is still not family treatment

and those illegitimate slave children who were freed or did receive some type of assistance from their white masters still did not have the same familial relationship as the "legitimate" children. They were always lesser-than.

[SaveElmer]

111. I didn't really claim they did...

But your statement that the blood relationship was irrelevent is also not true.

[kwassa]

112. Here is more about Washington's treatment of his slaves

and the blood relationship was only as relevant as the master CHOSE to make it; it was entirely up to the master to recognize it, or not, as he chose.

this site is quite interesting, by the way.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/gwslav.htm

"The Only Unavoidable Subject of Regret":

George Washington and Slavery

By Peter R. Henriques

excerpt:

In his effort to achieve a disciplined work force, Washington occasionally resorted to corporal punishment, although there is no record that he personally ever administered it. There is, however, the testimony of the perceptive wife of the British ambassador, Henrietta Liston. Acknowledging GW's consistent control of his passions on public occasions, she noted that "in private and particularly with his Servants, its violence sometimes broke out." Another visitor was shocked at the way the President spoke to his slaves - "as differently as if he had been quite another man, or had been in anger." One of GW's former slaves much later recalled that GW was "exact and strict" and might complain "in language of severity." GW justified the occasional severity. In his words, "if the Negros will not do their duty by fair means, they must be compelled to do it." Or again, "must have by fair means or by coercion (the first is vastly more agreeable to me) When confronted by a particularly recalcitrant bondsman he simply directed his manager to "give him a good whippin". Occasionally, female slaves felt the whip as well. He wrote his manager, "Your treatment of Charlotte was very proper, and if She, or any other of the Servants will not do their duty by fair means, or are impertinent, correction (as the only alternative) must be administered." His directions regarding one runaway perhaps represents his attitude in general: "Let Abram get his deserts when taken, by way of example; but do not trust to Crow to administer it as he is swayed more by passion than judgment in all his corrections." Or again, "As for Waggoner Jack, try further correction accompanied by admonition and advice." Apparently, in this case it did not work, for GW later wrote his plantation manager to warn a young slave named Ben that if he did not shape up, "I will ship him off as I did Waggoner Jack for the West Indies where he will have no opportunity to play such pranks." In a final example, he had his manager tell Muclus, "if his pride is not a sufficient stimulus to excite him to industry, & admonition has no effect on him, that I have directed you to have him severely punished and placed under one of the Overseers as a common hoe negro." Interestingly, GW recognized that with a few of his servants, whipping was counter-productive. About Will French he noted, "Harsh treatment will not do with him. You had better therefore let him piddle, and in this way (thought I believe little trust is to be placed in him) get what you can out of him."

[SaveElmer]

113. This is freaking me out...this is one of my professors

Are you a Mason student ?

Washington's views on slavery evolved...he could be harsh at times...but in context he was progressive. I don't want to put words into Dr. Henriques mouth, but he would in all likelihood agree that Washington would probably be a good yardstick to judge other slaveholders by.

Yes, I did not claim that slaves with blood ties to slaveowneres had legal rights...just that they were very often treated better than other slaves.

[kwassa]

118. Joseph Ellis has a different take on Washington

"His Excellency, George Washington" is the book to which I refer.

Ellis sees Washington as a control freak who spent his life and energies trying to improve his estates and personal fortunes, and as such, couldn't divest himself of his slaves during his own lifetime or suffer economic hardship. Much of Washington's opposition to slavery stemmed not from any moral principal, but from the impractibility of the slave system for the type of farming Washington was turning to. Washington was also unable to free slaves that were part of Martha's dowry, which meant those were to be passed on to Custis heirs, as they had no children of their own.

Washington shifted from the labor-intensive tobacco crops to wheat and other crops thad didn't require the labor. His own thinking on the morality of slavery was never revealed, because he only talked about it as an economic proposition. He was, however, very conscious of his own public image, and his role in the founding of the country.This reduces to speculation as to his views on the morality of slavery.

Bottom line, he didn't free his own slaves during his lifetime.

[SaveElmer]

120. You are making my point for me...

There is no absolute answer here...history is about interpretation and about the plausible.

In my opinion, given the time in which he lived at was was considered the norm, Washington was fairly progressive and is a good yeardstick against which to judge others of his class.

There are letters in which Washington does express moral problems with slavery

“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for this abolition of .”

“Among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by slow, sure, and imperceptible degrees.”

“I wish from my soul that the legislature of this state could see the policy of a gradual abolition of slavery. It would prevent much mischief.” “… No man desires more heartily than I do . Not only do I pray for it on the score of human dignity, but I can clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union.”

He wished “to liberate a certain specie of property. . . which I possess very repugnantly to my own feelings.”

“The unfortunate condition of the persons whose labour in part I employed, has been the only unavoidable subject of regret. To make the Adults among them as easy & comfortable in their circumstances as their actual state of ignorance and improvidence would admit; and to lay a foundation to prepare the rising generation for a destiny different from that in which they were born, afforded some satisfaction to my mind, and could not I hoped be displeasing to the justice of the Creator.”

That he manumitted his slaves at all was astounding for men in his circumstance....and read the emphatic way in which he wished it to be carried out

"I do hereby expressly forbid the Sale, or transportation out of the said Commonwealth, of any Slave I may die possessed of, under any pretence whatsoever. And I do moreover most pointedly, and most solemnly enjoin it upon my Executors hereafter named, or the Survivors of them, to see that th<is cla>use respecting Slaves, and every part thereof be religiously fulfilled at the Epoch at which it is directed to take place;"

George Washington was not perfect, I never claimed he was, but in the time and place in which he lived, and with the prevailing norms in Virginia Society, he at least provide some yardstick by which to gauge others in his same strata.

[kwassa]

131. Washington didn't free his slaves during his lifetime, or take a public

stand against slavery during his lifetime ....

so that doesn't constitute bravery to me on this issue. It is mildly progressive, at best.

Much of his concern about the slave system was not from a moral stance, but from the stance of financial practicality, as Washington was a pragmatist of the first order. Slavery didn't work for him on an economic basis, more than any other.

[SaveElmer]

132. If you lived in the 18th century...

And the stability of the country hinged on you.

And the south was looking for the slightest excuse to dissolve itself from the union, than yes, even doing what Washington did was bravery.

I suppose he could have gone ahead and became an abolitionist, which I guess is all that will satisfy you, but then of course, he would have been just another planter, and not the father of the country. He did what was feasible for his time and place.

Washington did view the system of slavery from an economic stance. He realized it was inefficient, which makes his moral stand all the more clear in that his repugnance at splitting up families led him to keep 200 slaves with their families even though they could not work. Of the 300 slaves on Washington's estate, 100 worked. The rest were there because Washington refused to split up families.

And as some of the letters I referenced show, Washington evolved his thinking from that of a typical Virginia gentry farmer, to one where he displayed repugnance of it based on the marality of the issue.

We praise F.W. de Klerk for evolving beyond his racism to help guide South Africa to majority rule. We cheered when he was awarded the Nobel prize (with Mandela). Yet up until this change he was as racist as the next person. I think Washington deserves the same praise.

[SaveElmer]

133. Test

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. It's still a very euphamistic description that really doesn't belong on

a progressive site or in history books. We all know that not all slave owners beat and chained their slaves, but it is only in recent history that one sees people euphamistically describing slaves as "being treated like members of the family." Truth be told, they were property and might have been cared for more like a Cadillac than a rusted old truck, but it is DANGEROUS and irresponsible for people to describe it in such euphamistic terms...just some food for thought.

[K-W]

8. It isnt a euphamism,

it is indeed possible for slaves to be treated like family and it has occurred throughout history throughout the myriad of cultures that had slaves.

It could certainly be used to paint too rosy a picture of slavery in the wrong context, but in that case it is the context that is wrong. The words themselves are a perfectly reasonable statement.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. How many members of your family do you treat like you own?

It is a euphamistic statement that is only a REASONABLE statement to a WHITE person or an incredibly OBTUSE person.

[K-W]

13. Look up the word euphamism

It simply isnt a euphamism.

And it is a reasonable statement if you understand english and logic. It is an unreasonable statement if you abhor slavery so much you dont hear distinctions when you think someone might be defending it.

I have the same emotional reaction you do to such statements, but I can think through it and see how the statement itself isnt wrong.

[Solly Mack]

17. that's euphemism...for those who understand english :)

[K-W]

19. ...thanks for calling attention to a spelling error

if you understand english, you can back me up here, no?

[K-W]

15. By the way, wives have been slaves through much of history.

And were always considered members of the family.

[mark414]

35. if i may step in here for a moment

the subject at hand is not slavery through much of history, but american slavery and the relationship that our founding fathers had with that peculiar institution (and, as it seems, the relationships that the slaves themselves had with their owners).

i am reminded of a man named zepheniah kingsley, a slavocrat from florida who had 9 children with 2 black wives (slaves, obviously).

i'm not sure exactly what year this was, but one year kingsley bought a new shipment of 50 native africans to add to his already sizeable slave population. kingsley could certainly be considered a "benevolent" slave holder, in the sense that he did not interfere much with the activities his slaves wished to participate in and he was very generous in what he allowed them to do. he allowed them to maintain their traditional religion and culture and would let them go on with their traditional celebrations - complete with music and dancing. from the surface, his slaves were "treated like family."

but you have to dig further into kingsley's ambitions and intentions for his slaves. you have to examine kingsley's self interest. and what is in the master's self interest? that his slaves be happy and productive.

if we think about it this way...we have the master's self interest, which causes him to "excite the ambition of the slave," by cultivating utility, local attachment, moral values, etc. what this did was foster a sense of pride and self-respect in his slaves, gave them feelings of dignity and self worth. when the slave is content, and appreciative of his master, it encourages his productivity, ultimately leading to more money and more profits for the slave master.

that is why some slaves were treated "like a family member." they were used only as a means, to earn more money and more profit for their owner. you do not use people who are "like family" as a means for profit. kingsley was an expert in what he called "the management of negroes." he treated them "like family" so that they could make him more money.

and no matter how well a slave was treated, he could've been treated like his master's brother - he knew full well that if he stepped out of line he faced the lash or some other form of punishment. slavery itself and many other laws of the time put white people on a false pedestal, elevating their social status because everyone knew that white folks were better than those "inferior negroes." family members, whether identical or "just like" implies that you are on equal footing. slaves were never on equal footing with their masters.

and so with that, i disagree with you, and am calling you on your bullshit. revisionist history does nothing but harm in the pursuit of real truth and real history.

[K-W]

40. You can disagree with the truth till you are blue in the face.

The simple fact of the matter, that could be cleared up by a high school english teacher is that I can treat something like a member of the family that is not a member of my family.

Your entire argument revolves around your insisting that one cannot compare two unlike things, when that is precisely what a comparison is.

You are also completely ignoring the fact that many family structures have included slavery and bee extremely exploitive, completely blowing your argument apart.

[mark414]

42. dupe

delete

[mark414]

43. actually i did use both examples, separately

but that is all i will say as it is apparent from this thread that you are too dense to get it

and i would rather sound like bush than a slavery apologist

[K-W]

47. I get it just fine. Where are you misreading me?

I get that the phrase can be used in a way that defends slavery. I get it perfectly.

I also get that it doesnt have to, so anyone insisting that using it is always offensive is a liar.

Your accusations about me are unfounded and based on your own misunderstanding.

[LynneSin]

98. That's true - you could treat a non-relative like a member of the family..

...I have several very dear friends who are like members of my family. But none of my friends were ripped from their home and aquired by me through an auction where I was the highest bidder. And none of my friend worry that if they do something really worng that I might use a whip or other severe punishment on them to reprimend them.


NSMA said it best - some slaves were treated like Cadillacs and some were treated like junkers. But slaves were property.

[Kipepeo]

52. Agreed

nice post. And I think this deserves repeating:

"family members, whether identical or "just like" implies that you are on equal footing. slaves were never on equal footing with their masters."

So obvious I can't believe people are having to spell it out.

On a trivial note it reminds me of an old SNL skit: 'this game is just like $10,000 Pyramid except completely different!'

[Protagoras]

91. Actually I work with a lot of families where

the wives and/or children are often treated worse than pieces of garbage. Where they are beaten, raped, etc. It's sick, sad, and wrong. This isn't meant to defend anything said above by anyone...it's not even about the slavery discussion. It's just a response to the structure of this all or nothing thread where it seems we have become incapable of exception seeking, or seeing examples that challenge our absolutist positions.

Slavery is a putrid, black cancer on the soul of every culture that engages in it. But that still doesn't really inform me about the oddities of ALL the individual relationships (whatever their form) that developed within its warped structure. Sometimes flowers grow in the most bleak places...and sometimes there's rot in the most well tended garden.

In other words...Vast generalizations are often largely correct, but we shouldn't become so comfortable that we take that to mean they are absolute truths.

(oh NSMA this was put here because of the overall thread, not in direct response to your posts, hope ya don't mind :D)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

95. I don't mind at all and I was challenging tha manner in which

the description was languaged. I certainly am not challenging the fact that Jefferson was a great contribution to our country nor am I saying anyone who had slaves in that era should not be recognized for the good they did do. In fact, Jefferson came to realize slavery was wrong probably by way of having owned slaves.

While I know people treat their families poorly, it's not the IMAGE one strikes up when using family.

[Kipepeo]

22. I don't think it's reasonable

I think it's quite impossile for a slave to be treated like family. To do such would mean they wouldn't be slaves, because you wouldn't, uh, own them. Pretty straightforward.

What do you mean when you say treated like family? Because obviously that's where people are disagreeing.

[K-W]

26. It is a comparison, it doesnt require an exact match.

Saying that something is LIKE something else does not mean that they are identical.

[Kipepeo]

32. I know that

but if you don't see how that phrase is grossly offensive to many (after hearing it used by slavery-apologists) I don't know how capable I am of explaining.

In the south where I'm from I have always heard it in the context of some (white) guy ranting about how slavery wasn't so bad, some slaves were even treated like family members, and dontcha know that some black people had slaves too, etc. etc.

I don't believe this is the context in which the poster was using it. I believe (and I could be totally off) that the poster was suggesting that perhaps Jefferson and Washington did not treat their slaves as poorly as many did? If that was what was meant - I'd still say it doesn't matter. They owned slaves, and for me *that* is the point of the school's decision to change their name.

I think it was a poor choice of words, maybe from someone not having heard them used by slavery-apologists before.

[K-W]

33. Just because people take offense

doesnt mean the phrase itself is offensive.

The phrase itself isnt offensive, but it could be used in an offensive way. Im sorry but it is not ok to butcher the language to create less morally ambigous phrasing.

You are just as bad as Bush paiting every issue black and white. Owning slaves and treating them well IS different than owning slaves and treating them horribly. And anything that I treat in a way resembling a family member is treated like a family member.

I would guess that if you were ever a slave you would quickly recognize that distinction.

And for goodness sake, in many cultures in history women and children were property. In many cultures wives have been sold into marriage and in those and more wives were slaves to thier husbands. Slaves can be family, they can certainly be like family.

[Solly Mack]

36. you, of all people, are not seriously accusing anyone of "butchering"

the language are you? ROFLMAO

Owning slaves is wrong period. Owning a slave means you are demeaning a person,no matter how you treated them. It's dehumanizing them. To say otherwise is pure ignorance.

[K-W]

44. Nobody has said otherwise, that is purely your imagination.

Nobody has defended slavery once. Nobody has said owning slaves is right. Nobody has said slavery isnt demeaning. Nobody said it isnt dehumanizing.

Your assumption is wrong. Families are not, by definition right, friendly, benevolent, or respectful. Saying that someone was treated like a family member does not mean they were treated as a human should be. It doesnt mean they werent slaves or that slavery is ok. It means what it says and not the other things you are attaching to it in your head.

[Kipepeo]

37. I am just as bad as Bush?

LOL, Ok, what I take away from that is that it is not possible to have a discussion with you afterall.

Have a nice day.

:crazy:

[K-W]

39. Well, its the truth.

You can have a discussion with me, but not if you are going to argue that because you believe moral absolutes, other people arent allowed to make morally ambigous statements that could be taken as offensive. That is exactly what Bush argues.

[Horse with no Name]

74. Great point

I had never heard slavery apologists before.
I probably sinned as well.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

54. You don't have to overtly hate a person to regard them as NOT FREE

Once you take away the overt hatred, taking away freedom is about the most hateful act you can perpetrate on anyone. So I don't care if Massa LOVED his slave and treated her right nice, y'all - the fact that they were slaves means they were never treated LIKE family, although I am certain some people treated other people they OWNED with some semblance of affection.

You or anyone else using the words "LIKE FAMILY" to describe it is a COMPLETE revision of how it really was for THEM. YOu have no right to euphemize the fact that one person owned another. As you said, there's a history of it...how it keeps being acceptable is people EUPHEMISING it as though ANY of it were just.

[entanglement]

138. Shocked to see this guy defend slavery!

Never expected to see something like this on DU. You're 100% correct about the dangers of euphemisms.

[philosophie_en_rose]

143. Exactly! Consider pets being like "family."

My dog is a part of my family. We treat her well. We love her and would never harm her. However, there are minimal laws to protect her. Although I never would, I could breed her to some other dog and turn her into a puppy mill. I can sell her. I could probably beat, starve, or even kill her. According to the law, she's mine. She is a part of my family, but the law deems pets to be property - regardless of how I feel about it.

Imagine that language applied to a human being. It doesn't matter how much a slave was loved by her or his "owner." It doesn't matter whether an enslaved human being was considered a pet or a worker. It's the status itself that is degrading.

[Tomee450]

46. Oh baloney!!

As a black person it just makes my blood boil when I hear people making excuses for slavery,making it seem as if in some cases it was benign. It was not. Slavery was evil. Slaves were not treated like family members, just read some of the slave narratives. My grandmother could tell you a thing or two about slavery. It's information she received from her grandmother who was a slave. Thomas Jefferson knew that slavery was wrong but he bought and sold slaves anyway. He liked to live a lavish lifestyle and was always in debt. He did not even free the woman with whom he had so many children. Slaves had no rights at all. They could be beaten, raped,and sold at will and nothing could be done about it. The slaves used to get very worried around Christmas time because that was when accounts were settle and they were more likely to be sold. One of the most heart wrenching accounts of slavery that I've ever read was of a little boy who said he and his mother were put on the auction block and sold; he never saw her again. Slavery was pure evil. Black people have oral history of its horror. This country would be much better off if the truth had been told about the horrific institution that was slavery. It is a total insult to tell black people that they are overreacting to slavery. Do you think the Jews are overreacting when they speak about the Holocaust. I don't thinks so and you probably don't either. When it comes to blacks however, we should just think a horrible institution should be excused because it was part of the time. Well, I strongly disagree.

[K-W]

48. I never made excuses for slavery, so why are you replying to me?

Im am quite curious.

[Maru Kitteh]

51. Only the very ignorant and the deliberately obtuse

could miss the intent of the phrase "treated like family". You're digging the hole a little deeper with every post and yet you keep grabbing bigger shovels.

:popcorn:

[LostinVA]

115. Some WERE treated very close to freed men and women

because they were members of his family. And, he freed these slaves when he died. I'm not an apologist for Jefferson -- he wrote that slavery was an abomination and inhumane, yet he kept his slaves,and allowed them to be sold off when he died. He recognized the economic "necessity" of them... a necessity if he wanted to continue to be a man of leisure and read books, invent things, and plan UVA.

[Abelman]

55. Well, I see now

what an unfortunate phrasing I used.

Some slaves were treated better than others, but that doesn't make it okay. I suppose I could say that, but I dont' think anyone would read the "doesn't make it okay" part.

I doubt anything I could say would really end anyone's anger. I'll just say what's on my mind, and that is that I'm sorry if I offended anyone. However, I find your reactions somewhat troubling. Many of you have made your minds up about this issue and have closed them to any type of discussion.

As I said, I would be interested to know if Jefferson ever rejected the concept of slavery, or if he owned them throughout his entire life.

[Tomee450]

59. Jefferson was very

conflicted over slavery. He knew it was wrong yet continued to own slaves. I think it was he who said(speaking of slavery), that he trembled when he thought about God being just, an indication that he felt the nation would be punished for engaging in slavery. Jefferson, Washington, Franklin were all great men but they had one great flaw; they continued to buy and sell slaves, knowing they were wrong to do so. Washington did not free any of his slaves during his lifetime but instructed his wife to do so upon his death. People who think slavery was sometimes not that bad should spend time reading some of the slave narratives or talk to blacks whose ancestors handed down their accounts of their experience with slavery. They'd think quite differently about that institution.

[SaveElmer]

69. Washington actually freed his slaves upon his death...

And provided for their welfare. In fact he had tried to figure a way to free them while he was President.

Also, washington had over 300 slaves of which only 100 or so worked. He kept the rest because he was morally opposed to splitting slave families.

If we are going to judge Jefferson, don't judge him by todays standards, but perhaps by the standard Washington set, which was fairly progressive for his day.

[DulceDecorum]

79. Washington was also a pirate.

There are a lot of things they just don't tell you about that slave-owning man.

[SaveElmer]

80. A pirate ?

In what way are you using that term. Washington was only ever at sea once in his life - when he accompanied his brother Lawrence to the West Indies to search for a cure for Lawrence's tuberculosis. Washington contracted small pox, recovered and came home!

[DulceDecorum]

93. Perhaps you are correct.

I understand that Mr. John Gotti is an innocent plumber.

[DulceDecorum]

77. Strom Thurmond had a black daughter

and he treated her like --- well, I can't say it here.

[Kipepeo]

29. I disagree with your last statement

This one: "It isn't comparing apples to apples to apply 21st century mores to 18th century ones. It is not a valid comparison......."

But let me try to explain why b/c I fear this thread is already becoming a flame-fest and I don't want to flame anyone.

I believe in absolute right and wrong when it comes to certain issues, like slavery, for example, or denying women the right to vote or own property, etc. I don't care if it was socially acceptable by 18th century standards and everybody was doing it. Even in those times there were those who knew it was wrong and who spoke out about it. I fear that years from now people will excuse heterosexist politicians or leaders because those were the 'social mores' of the time.

I don't think this overshadows Jefferson's other contributions to our country and democracy in the world, but I also don't see the harm in an elementary school wanting to change it's name. Especially if there are 3rd grade students, for example, just learning about the horror of slavery in their history books and then learning that Jefferson - for whom their school is named (again as an example) was a slave-owner. I think it would be hard for most 3rd graders to reconcile that. So if they vote to change the name - what is the problem?

I would like to think that we'll reach a point in society where people are mostly in agreement that unprovoked preemptive war is wrong. And if that causes them to look back at Bush and judge him accordingly and maybe think of changing the name of their school then I'd be happy.

[KnowerOfLogic]

121. "Everybody was doing it" is no excuse, and everybody was *not* doing

it; there were many people in Jefferson's day who knew that slavery was wrong, and vigorously opposed it. And owning slaves is not a tiny little thing that "shouldn't be held against him." Jeezus Christ, if slave-owning can be excused away, what can't? I'm not saying that his contributions should be ignored or denied, but the commission of moral errors of a certain degree of magnitude should disqualify a person from having schools and such named after them.

[UdoKier]

12. Doesn't Jefferson get any points for creating American Democracy?

Shit, for all we know, Cesar Chavez may have skinned a cat as a teen. Greatness is no the same as purity or perfection, and you cannot separate the historical figure from the times in which he lived.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. I would like to point out...

...that without Jefferson and his ilk, we'd never be here having an open, honest, public (if somewhat heated) discussion about Jefferson and his ilk.

Geez. Berkeley is a great town, but they do tend to waste time on self-centered hand-wringing shit like this.

[Fountain79]

20. Greyness of History

This is where I find myself starting to agree with conservatives.(sad but true) Why are people so ridiculous when it comes to matters of history? Greatness can not be defined by how sinless a person's life was, it's defined by how they overcame such sins. Abe Lincoln was by today's accounts, a bigot and would most likely be called such if he talked about race the way he did in apparent conversations. Despite these feelings he overcame his own personal conflicts to denounce it and set the stage for its eventual demise.

Jefferson was not perfect either. Yet he was a instrumental figure in the development in our great country.

This is the danger of teaching black and white(not grey) history in our schools

[K-W]

24. Human's are attracted to dualism.

Just like generalities and stereotypes. One must learn to think critically, and very few people get the opportunity and many of them refuse to practice it.

[manic expression]

27. People who

criticize Lincoln, for instance, for bigoted views, are certainly right. He was a white-supremacist, and I care little if he lived in 1890 BCE or 1850 CE. During Lincoln's lifetime, Thaddeus Stevens and the Radical Republicans (the liberals) were calling for equality and justice like no other time in history. Honest Abe should not be pardoned for what are (even for his time) bigoted views.

This does not change the fact that Lincoln accomplished great things (depends on who you ask, but then you can argue about that with someone else), but his views do reflect upon his character immensely.

[Fountain79]

62. true, but....

I agree but I also agree that the fact that he had these views and still came to the realization that he had speak volumes of the type of man he was. He wasn't a great president because he was perfect, he was a great president because he was imperfect.

[Tomee450]

53. I don't deny

Jefferson's greatness as a founder of this country, but as a black person I refuse to forget that he bought and sold slaves. And I can understand why black people might object to schools being named after slave owners. Thomas Jefferson held very negative views of black people. He had a lower opinion of them than of Native Americans. Some people need to read his Notes from Virginia to get a clear picture of just what he thought of the black race. I can see white people feeling differently than blacks, after all, their ancestors were not slaves in this country. On the other hand I find it difficult to understand why some people are unable to see the African American's point of view regarding this matter.

[komplex]

64. And without the writings of Jefferson...

You'd probably be a slave today.

This nonsense is more like an Orwellian Purge than anything else.

We've always been at war with Thomas Jefferson.

[Tomee450]

72. What are you talking about?

Thomas Jefferson was not the only prominent figure who spoke against slavery. Alexander Hamilton also was opposed to slavery. Unlike some, however, Jefferson continued to own slaves. He did what he knew was wrong because he wanted to continue his extravagant lifestyle and was always broke. He also thought blacks inferior. Perhaps you need to read a little history.

[komplex]

84. The groundwork for the freedom of the slaves

Was Jefferson et al perfect?

Of course not, but they did give us the roadmap, which we still follow today.

To strike the accomplishments of Jefferson from our culture is nothing but Orwellian.

[Tomee450]

106. Nonsense

People who point out Jefferson's flaws do not dismiss his contributions to this country. Many historical figures have had imperfect characters. Jefferson, despite his contributions to this country, was a greedy hypocrite. He said one thing but did another. While he was espousing his opposition to slavery, he was also saying that blacks were inferior and buying and selling slaves. Jefferson bought and sold other human beings. He broke up their families. What he did was heinous and can not be dismissed. I've read a good deal about Jefferson. He lived way beyond his means and needed his slaves to maintain his lifestyle.

[komplex]

119. So is it just Jefferson or

how many other Founding Fathers we need to purge because they weren't pure enough.

I mean we know the crimes of Lincoln, Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Kennedy, FDR and the Holocost, TDR and Imperialism, who the hell are we going to name our schools after?

[Tomee450]

128. Slavery was uniquely awful.

It equals the Holocaust, IMO. Millions of people died during the Middle Passage and those slaves who made it to these shores were treated as less than human. No schools should bear the names of individuals who engaged in such an evil institution as slavery.

We can agree to disagree.

[ComerPerro]

21. Watch them rename it to George W Bush, or Ronald Reagan

[sweetheart]

30. Perhaps they should sell the brand to the highest bidder

Then they could be Coca Cola Elementary and at least then their system
of enslavement would be current, and it would be easier to teach the
kids. As well the school could get some extra bucks for putting the
brand on every wall in the school. Heck, even the bathroom booths
have tonnes of saleable advertizing real-estate... and it would be a
real blessing in terms of school revenues.

Since they sell everything else to the corporeatocracy, why pretend to
have any integrity at all, let's just sell the kids desks as well...
/irony

Frankly i agree that if slavery was involved, it should be dropped from
the school name, and replaced with something like "Thoreau" or a
true artist, creator, inventor or whatever.

In history as well, they should teach how the constitution was created
to preserve the white racist property state, and damn look how well its
worked, that over 200 years later, white racists still run the place and
blacks and minorities are still grossly, comparatively disenfranchised.

[Chovexani]

56. I know what they should change it to

bell hooks Elementary. :P

[Kipepeo]

57. can we vote?

:)

Get's mine.

[Hippo_Tron]

58. Every president before Kennedy was a racist

FDR might not have been, but he certainly wasn't willing to admit otherwise as to not piss off the south. Truman, even though he de-segregated the military, often used the N-word. And it was really Hubert Humphrey, not Truman, who added civil rights to the democratic platform in 1948.

My point is that things were different back then, and things were even more different in Jefferson's time. That doesn't mean that we can't acknowledge that Jefferson made some great contributions to society.

[SaveElmer]

75. Careful of the term...

'Racist' implies a belief in the inherent inferiority of another race. For example, George Washington made it quite clear in some of his letters and his will that he did not believe in the inherent inferiority of blacks, but recognized their condition as the result of slavery. The fact that he provided lifetime benefits to the slaves he freed, including an education testifies for this. Washington's estate paid out its last payment to his former slaves in 1834, 35 years after his death!

Jefferson on the other hand, clearly was racist as his "Notes on the State of Virginia," makes perfectly clear!

A better word to use perhaps would be 'prejudiced' in some of these cases.

[Gold Metal Flake]

61. Here is a silly idea...

I don't mean to interfere with anyone enjoying their evening by furiously whacking their Willy of Self Ritiousness, but maybe some reading on the subject of Jefferson's many attempts at legislating an end to slavery, and the conservative's successful moves to maintain it, as well as the horrible laws enacted that prevented Jefferson from being able to safely free his slaves, lest they be "recaptured" and rebonded.

Start with What Would Jefferson Do by Thom Hartman.

[Tomee450]

76. Nonsense

Jefferson claimed to be opposed to slavery yet continued to buy slaves until the day he died. He did not free his slaves, not even Sally Hemming. If he was so opposed to slavery, why didn't he set an example and free all of his. He did not which says a lot about Jefferson. I still think Jefferson did a lot for this country. However, he was still the buyer and seller of other human beings. He broke up other people's families. That was a horrible flaw in his character.

[SaveElmer]

78. Jefferson was a hypocrite on the issue...

But, freeing slaves in Virginia in the 1770's and 1800's was made more dificult by the government. In many jurisdictions it was against the law to manumit a slave. Freed slaves could be re-enslaved under certain circumstances, and of course, a freed slave would have trouble surviving unless the former owner made some provision (as Washington did).

Having said that, Jefferson made one attempt at abolishing slavery in Virginia which failed. He never tried again, continuing to buy and sell slaves, and did not free them in his will (again as Washington did). He was also a clear racist (as Washington was not), as evidenced by his "Notes on the State of Virginia"

Judging him by the standards of the day, he did what most did, but didn;t do as much as he could. To look for the appropriate standard one might look at Washington, who did just about as much as could be done in Virginia society at the time.

[HamdenRice]

88. You are wrong ... try reading history

He did not do what "most" did, because demographically, "most" people did not own slaves. He did what most of a brutal slave owning elite of the southern states did.

[SaveElmer]

90. You are right in that I was not precise...

Of the slaveholding class in Virginia, Jefferson was typical in his treatment of his slaves - better than some, worse than others (George Washington for example). I though it was obvious what I meant in the context of the conversation in this thread, as anyone who has read history would know that the averge yeoman farmer was not a slaveholder.

I will try and be more precise in the future.

You might possibly have been more civil in your reply. I am an MA student in AMerican History - so am fairly well read on the topic.

[HamdenRice]

92. Nothing to do with precision and everything to do with interpretation

The problem with discussions of race and history is precisely one of interpretation. From your perspective, at first blush, Jefferson is "typical" of his times. But in fact, he isn't. Since you have done graduate work in history, surely you are aware that this has been the struggle within historiography for the last half century. Beginning with the Annales schools in France, and proceeding to the movement for social history and "history from the bottom up" in England, continental Europe, Africa Latin America, and North America, historians have changed fundamentally how we think about the past.

If you limit yourself to the class within which Jefferson was typical, slavery doesn't seem so evil, nor does it appear that someone in Jefferson's situation would recognize that slavery is inherently evil. But you can only maintain this view by ignoring -- writing out of the record -- all those actually existing, noisy, angry, lower class people, black people and women -- who were not typical of Jefferson's class.

Once you bring in these people -- and it is more "accurate" to do so, because they were actually there -- you get a completely different picture.

Slaves were complaining, dragging their feet, demanding their rights and running away. Excentric cousins of Jefferson were emancipating their slaves, flouting the anti-manumission laws, and choosing to ruin themselves financially in order to make their lives conform to their ethics. Poor whites were complaining and protesting that slavery was squeezing them out of their economic niche, forcing them to move into the remote mountain areas to become Appalachian poor whites.

Once you write back in the other classes and individuals, it becomes utterly obvious that Jefferson knew slavery was evil because people all around him -- excentric relatives, his own slaves, poor whites, northern colleagues -- were constantly telling him it was wrong. It is therefore no excuse to say "Jefferson was a product of his times" because in his times, anti-slavery sentiment and activity was all around him. The entire "product of his times" argument is exposed as so utterly specious, that one can only maintain it as a form of deliberate self-delusion -- as profound as the self-delusion as people like Jefferson in his own time.

As for being uncivil -- I don't see how purposeful self-deluding and racist arguments deserve a civil reception, and a higher degree in history does not insulate you from the criticism you deserve; indeed, it means you should be held to a higher standard.

[SaveElmer]

96. I wasn't commenting on the morality....

Your statement was that I was wrong in my assertion that Jefferson was not a typical slaveowner because demographically most people did not own slaves.

I acknowledged that point, stating that I should have made that more clear in my post, and that I was comparing Jefferson to those within his own class...which was the topic of discussion on the thread. Clearly that was a matter of precision.

I object to being called a racist which I most avowadly am not...nor were my comments racist. Jefferson was atypical of slaveowners in that he recognized and acknowledged the evil of slavery (which I did not deny as you imply in your message), but did not act on that belief. For that I labeled him a hypocrite. He did not do what was possible for the times, which is where this should have led him. Certainly there were others in his class who did flout the manumission laws, and who did make efforts to free their slaves. But it did take a certain amount of courage that Jefferson lacked. George Washington is a good example of the opposite. His position on slavery evolved to the point where he could no longer reconcile his support of it. He tried to do what was possible, stopping the practice of splitting families, attempting to come up with a plan to free his slaves while he was President, finally freeing them upon his death(actually Martha's), and providing for them after they were free.
In my view, George Washington is probably a fairly good standard with which to judge the Virginia slaveholder on this issue. Jefferson did not even come close to this standard. However, it has to be acknowledged that he was not the most cruel of slaveowners either. Not an excuse, but a fact. You might read "An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America" by Henry Wiencek, a flawed but still worthwhile book. Wiencek also makes this argument about George Washington as a reasonable standard to use.

It stretches the imagination to say that anti-slavery was all around Jefferson. Obviously he knew and expressed that sentiment himself, but the overwhelming sentiment in Virginia and among those in his class, which is who Jefferson associated with, was the opposite. It does no good to judge Jefferson on the totality of "...opinion among noisy, angry, lower class people, black people and women," with whom he, nor any other member of the Virginia gentry would associate. Despite his reputation as a champion of the yeoman farmer, Jefferson did not associate with them. Jefferson was born into a Virginia society of strict hierarchy and deference which precluded this type of association.

Slavery was not generally perceived as the evil it was then as it became later. Having said that, and as I have stated more than once now...Jefferson was a hypocrite, he knew the arguments against slavery, expressed them himself, but did not follow through...and he was a racist, as his "Notes on the State of Virginia" make very clear. For this he should be criticized. The immorality of Slavery was a flaw of society in the 18th and 19th century, not Jefferson's. Jefferson's flaw was recognizing that immorality and not acting on it.

Your comment that, "Poor whites were complaining and protesting that slavery was squeezing them out of their economic niche, forcing them to move into the remote mountain areas to become Appalachian poor whites," is certainly true, but as your statement implies this is an economic argument, not a moral one. Again, Jefferson can be criticized, for if he acknowledged these arguments as a supposed champion of the virtuos yeoman, but did nothing about it, he was again a hypocite.

As to whether civility is called for, my graduate studies also teach me that civil discussion is the way to get closer to truth, or wisdom, or whatever goal you are shooting for. There was nothing in my message which in any way indicated I was a racist. As I would expect you know, 'racism' implies that I believe in the innate inferiority of another race and act on that belief. There is no interpretation of my statement that could lead to that conclusion. So far you have insulted my education, and called me out for making racist comments. That is uncivil.

[HamdenRice]

135. For MA in history, your grasp of historical logic is really disappointing

You are still trapped by an illogical interpretive framework. Here are a couple of examples from your latest post:

For example: "It stretches the imagination to say that anti-slavery was all around Jefferson. Obviously he knew and expressed that sentiment himself, but the overwhelming sentiment in Virginia and among those in his class, which is who Jefferson associated with, was the opposite."

This is simply false, unless you view the past through a Gone With The Wind romanticism about the slave south. The sad fact that you don't believe "anti-slavery" sentiment was all around Jefferson only makes sense if you imagine Jefferson surrounded by other planters, and by other planters only. It only makes sense if you write Jefferson's slaves out of the picture, which is exactly what the Sally Hemmings deniers have done. In fact, Jefferson was surrounded not by planters on a day to day basis, but by his slaves, who were full of grumbling, foot dragging, rights insisting resistance. You seem to feel that if anti-slavery sentiment was expressed by slaves, it doesn't count. All slave owners knew their slaves hated slavery; that's why they feared their slaves and slave uprisings. What you are really saying is that that anti-slavery feeling doesn't count, because it is coming from the mouths of "the nigger slaves."

As for the idea that Jefferson did not associate with slaves <sic?!?!?!?!> -- DUDE HE WAS FUCKING HIS SLAVE, Sally Hemming. Isn't that "associating" with his slaves? Don't you think he had intimate day to day relationships with many slaves, which is what the overwhelming majority of northern visitors to the south commented upon??? Jefferson was perfectly aware that slavery was a horror, because he himself tried to insert that fact in the Declaration of Independence. Why are you making up fantasies to pretend that Jefferson was unaware of slavery's horrors because of his "environment."???

You might want to take a look at the recently published book by Melvin Patrick Ely, Israel on the Appomattox, about a cousin of Jefferson who was passionately anti-slavery, and who freed his slaves. It convincingly describes life in late 18th century Virginia, with slaves constantly complaining to their masters, and demanding customary rights in order to hedge in slavery's cruelties. Haven't you read any social history of ante-bellum Virginia?????

As far as being a racist, I don't think I directly called you a racist. But if you have a mental image of the south, as rich white planters sitting around having brandy while the work magically gets done by invisible hands, with whom no one "who matters" interacts, then you are trapped within a racist fantasy.

For a MA in history, it seems you have read almost no modern social history of slave society.

[SaveElmer]

145. Your willingness to ignore historical context t is disappointing

If you think that the opinions of slaves, to men born and raised in a society that had had slavery for over 100 years meant anything at all to them. These people were born into, and lived in a society that was hierarchical in the extreme, where deference was the glue that held the society together. They believed that everyone had their place and should be content with that...including slaves. To say that the foot dragging and complaints of his slaves would have meant anything to him other than as an annoyance hindering the working of his plantation, is just not factual. Look at Geore Washington's diaries...it is filled with these kinds of comments, yet no moral problem with slavery until after the Revolution where he saw significant numbers of blacks outside of the slave environment for the first time, and witnessed their basic humanity.

Opposition to slavery in the planter class of Virginia began to strengthen as the result of the fight for independence, and the awareness that slavery was incompatible with the ideals they had allegedly been fighting for. They talked about the oppression of the slaves in the abstract, and in his "Notes on the State of Virginia," aside from the blatant racism he displays, Jefferson himself says that "Slavery corrupts whites while oppressing blacks," and referred to the despotism of the slave system as being a bad example to set for future generations. However, these were intellectual objections, it was not out of any particular concern for the condition of the slaves they held, nor do I think these men ever thought they were particularly cruel to their slaves (though of course they were). And of course, despite these objections to the institution, most of these men (Washington excluded), were virulently racist.

The only interaction that would have been meaningful to Jefferson was that with men who were his equal or better in society. And that is where he needs to be judged. Did he live up to what others in his class were doing to end slavery? The answer is no he did not. As you said he witnessed members of his own family freeing slaves, and of course he knew the steps Washington had taken. He expressed those sentiments himself and did not act on them. That is what he should be criticized for.

You say "Jefferson was perfectly aware that slavery was a horror, because he himself tried to insert that fact in the Declaration of Independence. Why are you making up fantasies to pretend that Jefferson was unaware of slavery's horrors because of his "environment."???"

Your characterization of my opinion is just wrong...I carefully noted on more than one occasion that Jefferson was aware of the immorality of slavery, which made him a hypocrite for not working to free his own. However, what I am saying is that the protestations of his slaves, or the economic plight of poor whites, were not the reason for this attitude. It was his interactions with others in his social and intellectual class who had taken some steps, and his awareness that slavery was incompatible with the ideals that he himself committed to paper, that induced this attitude in him.

I may not have been as precise as I should have...I did not mean to imply (nor do I think I said) that Jefferson did not interact with his slaves, I was referring to your comments about the lower class white farmers who were complaining about slavery pushing them out economically. Of course Jefferson interacted with his slaves...he had children by one of them (I believe the evidence of this is overwhelming).

I am not trying to diminish the blight of slavery, nor am I trying to demean the slaves themselves. Of course they had complex social interactions with whites. There were precious few plantations without mixed race slaves on it. Slave society was complex, and it is amazing that it thrived given the conditions under which slaves lived. Somehow, with their basic humanity stripped from them, with family members being sold off on a whim, they were able to create a culture of their own. They created a whole strain of evangelicalism that stressed the desire to be free, with Moses as their hero, and looking to the day of jubilee. And of course slaves used methods of foot dragging, petty thievery (though they did not view it that way), and other non-violent ways of registering their protest.

My point is, that in Virginia society of the late 18th and early 19th century, that type of protest simply would not have registered with men who were born into a hierarchical, paternalistic, slave-ownng society.

You complain that I am ignoring the social history of slavery, and implying that I think the opinions and actions of the slaves were meaningless. Maybe I have, maybe I should have at least recognized its inportance to the slaves themselves, and to their cohesion following emancipation, and I should have noted the complexities that existed in society. And perhaps I should acknowledge the possibility that slave protests, hurting planters economically sped their desire to be rid of it (in those that did). But, you seem equally unwilling to consider the climate that men of Jefferson and Washington's class were born into and lived in. Hierarchy, and strict deference were the glue that bound their society together. To suggest that they would shed that simply because their slaves were complaining (in the ways noted above) is just not credible.

[Tomee450]

108. Thank you

I couldn't agree more.

[Gold Metal Flake]

85. You have records for these purchases?

Please post them.

[mark414]

125. it's called a history book

you should pick one up some time, you can learn a lot

[expatriate]

65. This is what bothers me.

“Many people realize that Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder,” said kindergarten teacher Marguerite Talley-Hughes. “That is kind of a dilemma when you call someone a hero, a dilemma when you’re trying to teach children right from wrong.”

It's an elementary school. Instead of being so concerned with teaching kids right from wrong, why not try to teach them to read and write, to add and subtract, to use grammar and to spell correctly? You know - those things that many kids are simply not being taught? I really don't think any of those kids are in a position to go out and buy some slaves because Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. Ask your average kindergartener (I note this woman is a kindergarten teacher) who Thomas Jefferson was, and he'll tell you he doesn't know.

I can understand why the name of the school would bother people, and by all means, change it if it offends, but this really strikes me as a lot of energy that could have been expended on doing what the school is really there to do - teach.

When the kids are old enough to comprehend the notion of slave-ownership, by all means teach them that this is wrong. You could even make a good lesson out of pointing out that even in the recent past, people did not comprehend the wrongness of slave-ownership, because they named the bloody school after a slave-owner. In all fairness, the positive accomplishments of Thomas Jefferson should also be included in the lesson, so we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater - and it would be a good object lesson to children to realize that there truly are no "heroes" - just people who do all kinds of things, good, bad and indifferent. Sometimes people who do some good things also do some bad things.

I hate the whole concept of "heroes". The minute you put someone on a pedestal, their feet turn to clay.

[Kipepeo]

66. A family member of mine teaches

in an elementary school in the south that is almost 99% black (it wasn't always but white flight happened ya know). All of the students in her class are black, and this has been the racial makeup of her class for many years now.

They of course teach math and reading comprehension, but they also teach history to many kids who are just learning about slavery.

Their most recent field trip (organized by white teachers, which yes I do think is relevant in some way) was to a recreated plantation village where they went around and learned what slavery was like from people dressed up as slaves and reenacting "chores" (could there be a more incorrect term?) and talking to them about how not-bad it was.

There was a big controversy at the school afterwards because some black teachers and many PARENTS wanted to know why their kids came home so...conflicted is the best way to describe it. One complaint was from a mom who's kid took away from the field trip that 'black and white people used to get along so good before the civil war.' Yes - a kid said this to their mom. And others were upset because their kids DID see the false happiness thrown onto slavery for what it was.

History MUST be taught to our kids, or we are doomed to repeat it (forget the quote), but I wonder at the way it *is* taught and the negative reaction that people seem to have over maybe some kids who took something away from their history lesson and wanted to change their school name to one that is not that of a slave holder. I mean, what does it bother anyone else if they change the name?

[expatriate]

67. Yes, I've seen similar "re-enactments" at "historical" sites

And I'm all for the school changing the name, if they feel it's offensive. I can even see where it could be confusing for kids in the higher grades, who do have classes in history. If they want to change the name, do so.

Where does it stop? Do we ban nickels, because they have Thomas Jefferson's portrait on them? Have them reminted with a more suitable person? Don't forget that Lincoln, the "Great Emancipator" was a terrible racist and said some horrifying things, even for his time, to Frederick Douglass. We'll have to get rid of pennies and five dollar bills then, or have them redesigned. Remove any image of anyone from everything because that person might not have been all good? What if they name the school after Cesar Chavez and then find out that he did some godawful thing in the past? Personally, I would tend to opt for leaving the name and using that as an object lesson in how society tends to idolize people who might not really be worthy of idolization (Ronald Reagan, anyone?)

Maybe they'd be best naming the school after something completely innocuous, like a tree or flower. Or go to a numbered system like New York City.

I'm all for just forgetting about teaching that anyone is a "hero". That's a black and white way of looking at human beings that is inherently flawed. Unfortunately, American history is often taught as if all the "founding fathers" were semi-deities and pure as the driven snow. Why not teach the truth - Thomas Jefferson had some good ideas and did some good things, but he was also a slaveholder and in many ways, a hypocrite.

[Kipepeo]

68. Sorry for not addressing the hero part of your previous post

and yes I agree. I find it silly to teach of heroes when most folks have some kind of flaw. Better to teach of what each leader contributed, etc.

But about the money thing you brought up...I think that is different. This is a story about one school wanting to change their name. I do think it's a lot different than the federal government changing the currency. If we ever do get to that point (federal changing of bills or coins) then I'd have to say I don't see nothin' wrong with it. I won't be out there advocating for it, but I won't see a problem with changing it either :shrug:

As for a smaller instance like this one school - more power to them.

[Tomee450]

81. The students

can be taught right from wrong AND to read and write. Schools are where children are taught the history of this nation. The fact that so many whites have very little knowledge of the black experience in this country is a great tragedy. A lot of blacks are ill informed too. I had no idea that blacks had fought in every war that this country has been involved in. I had no idea about the inventions of black people. Most of what I know about African American history I learned away from school. Nothing was taught about the evils of slavery at all. In fact slavery was barely mentioned. We need to know our history. I've encountered white people who actually were surprised to learn of the contributions of African Americans to this nation. For years, the contributions of black people were deliberately omitted from the history books.

[HamdenRice]

86. How about the Adolph Hitler Animal Shelter???

After all, despite a couple of bad things he did, we know that Hitler was absolutely devoted to animals and was a strict vegetarian. There is no question in the historical record that he was devoted to his German shepherd dogs.

Hitler may have been a raving, murderous anti-semite, but as recent research has shown, anti-semitism was rampant in German society, and Hitler was a product of his environment and could not be expected to think independently about the German Jewish Question.

Most important, this building would be devoted to the welfare of animals, and if we don't get distracted by issues in Hitler's life that do not relate to animals, we can see that he is an impecable representative of concern for animal welfare.

[sleipnir]

82. Only in Berkeley would this happen!

One of the greatest Presidents condemned for a common act of the times.


The town motto of that place should be:

Berkeley, where no one is as good as we want them to be.


The wacko-leftist bastion that is Berkeley, God bless them, but they need to get a clue card back to normal society.

[SaveElmer]

83. Yeah they are over the top on this one...

They could just rename the school "No one is good enough" Elementery

[HamdenRice]

87. Actually it was not a common act of the times ...

Nor was the intellectual environment such that a person like Jefferson could not be expected to know that slavery was wrong. You should study a little American history.

First of all, in the north depending on the state, slavery had been abolished or was in the process of being abolished or was rare. In the south, the majority of people did not own slaves.

So slave owners were a minority of Americans. Owning slaves was not ubiquitous or universal.

And the vast majority of thinking people, including Jefferson, realized that slavery was wrong. Jefferson himself tried to write a condemnation of slavery into the Declaration of Independence.

Jefferson was even worse than the committed racists at the time, because he knew slavery was wrong and decided to continue participating in it. Jefferson's own cousin freed all his slaves in outrage over the system that made his fortune, and he and his family suffered drastic economic hardship by following his moral and political convictions. Jefferson, by contrast was the ultimate hypocrite -- an anti-slavery intellectual who nevertheless kept slaves and unlike even the dim-witted Washington, did not even free slaves at his death -- not even the ones he was related to.

It may be revisionism, but it sure does paint an ugly picture of a hypocrite and racist and calls into question his political philosophy and writing.

[Ron Green]

99. "The ultimate hypocrite?"

C'mon ... a little revisionism might be useful, but you're bordering on hysteria here. The fact is that slavery is a natural state of mankind, and has been with us since the beginning. Sometimes it's de facto, and sometimes de jure, but to label Jefferson "the ultimate hypocrite" because he didn't take the radical position of abandoning his inherited tradition, but simply agonized and wrestled with the issue, as history suggests, is to oversimplify and diminish the issue.

Another fact is that Jefferson and the other founders of the United States achieved what has surely been the pinnacle of the effort AGAINST the natural slavery of mankind on the earth, albeit an imperfect and partial effort, and one which is being fast eroded in our own time.

To cast him simply as a racist and a hypocrite is just silly.

[HamdenRice]

137. Slavery the natural state of mankind?

This assertion is so bizarre and fascist that it is not worth a response.

[Mairead]

103. Yes, it is revisionism

Almost everyone is a child of their time and place; few have the power to step back from their culture and see it with fresh eyes.

Perhaps, had Jefferson had it in him to be more ethical and elect not to ride on the backs of enslaved people, he would have been poor. In which case he wouldn't have been among the socioeconomic elite of his society, wouldn't have been chosen to write the Declaration, and the whole Revolution might have failed because someone much less capable would have written it instead. It's not impossible. So perhaps the whole United States as a nation in which democracy still survives against the odds...perhaps the very existence of that nation today depends on Jefferson having been able to unfairly consume all the unpaid labor of Sally Hennings and the other enslaved people at Montecello and thereby live his life of ease and historical contribution.

It's not impossible that in a few years time people will look back at the people now bloviating away here about Jefferson and say 'if they had only got off their fat chunks and opposed BushCo....'. Who knows. Hindsight is never less than 20-20.

[HamdenRice]

136. Time and place???

In his time and place it was well understood that slavery was an evil and brutal system. Jefferson himself thought so.

As for being rich -- being a slave owner was not the only way to become rich. After all, all the northern colonies had elites also and these elites were not slave owners.

Are you saying democracy (of white people) could only have developed if there was slavery for black people and therefore, slavery was justified? I suppose you supported apartheid in South Africa as being worth it so that white South Africa could enjoy "white Christian free enterprise civilization" as they called it. Or the slave labor camps of Germany and Poland were worth it for the elevation of the Aryan race?

Your logic is truly frightening.

[SaveElmer]

104. You can't help judging people can you...

The fact that slavery had been abolished in the north has little relevence to Jefferson, particularly early on. It's not like they had CNN...Jefferson probably had more contact with England than New England.

See my other post as to Jefferson's hypocrisy, which despite the hostile language we appear to agree on.

As to George Washington perhaps you should read a little history....he was anything but dim-witted. In contrast, he was highly intelligent, sober, and invariably made the correct decisions on the many momentous issues on which he was called upon to decide, including his intellectual evolution on slavery. His collaborations with Mason, Madison, and of course Hamilton produced the Fairfax Resolves, organized the Virginia response to England, produced our constitution, kept us out of war with Great Britain and France and defined the power of the central governmnent. If you look at the letters he exchanged with these men you would see he has a very firm grasp on the intellectual underpinning of the need for seperation with Great Britain, the form and relative power that the new government should take, and an excellent grasp on how the Pesident should conduct himself - precedents that have been followed to this day (except probably the current boob in there - oops, there I judged someon...hope you don't mind).

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dogday]

94. All I know is.................

If we have to keep renaming things because of the personal lives of our Presidents, we could be busy bees. Leave it alone, with all the problems in our nation, we gotta worry about this?

[theboss]

102. Fuckin' Berkeley

No Christian fundamentalist is as devout as a member of the Church of the Berkeley.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

109. Good for them. "Leaders" should always be questioned.

Although I'm a great admirer of Jefferson, his slaveholding was certainly not one of the things that make him memorable. He was a racist, though not of the brutal, unthinking, sort. He wrestled with the question of slavery and found no solution, believing as most did at that time, that blacks were inherently inferior to whites. His line "all men are created equal.." obviously didn't square with his slaveholding.

To his credit, he did believe that slavery was an evil, and should be abolished. To his shame, he sold slaves to pay his debts.

BTW. George Washington was notably a "strict master".

[LostinVA]

114. Sequoia a tree??? It was also the name of a Cherokee

scholar, who invented a written Cherokee alphabet. It is also spelled Sequoya. But "Sequoia" is also a recognized spelling.

[Arkana]

116. A lot of great men in American history owned slaves

Does that mean we shouldn't have any schools named after George Washington? Or Andrew Jackson? Or James Madison?

This is PC bullshit.

[KnowerOfLogic]

122. Who is or isn't great is a matter of opinion. nt

[mark414]

126. i don't want to be picky

but "PC" is a term invented by right wingers in order to excite working class white folks who thought they were being ignored by the system

[deadparrot]

117. Using that logic, we'd have to change a lot of names.

Including Washington D.C.

I agree it's a really tough, multifaceted issue. But it may have further-reaching effects that one would originally think.

[Zomby Woof]

123. The framers were complicated, 3-dimensional...

...and flawed. Yes, they were even hypocritical - including Jefferson. But to dismiss Jefferson's considerable accomplishments due to his slaveholding should not deny or diminish that was also a brilliant thinker, statesman, scientist, architect, inventor, writer, farmer, and a crafty politician.

But children need to get a sense of these inherent contradictions of history and the humanity which imbues it. The measure of Thomas Jefferson wasn't that he owned slaves any more than that he authored the Declaration of Independence which birthed our republic - and even that document is not without indictments against the man.

His measure lies in a complete evaluation of the man and his life, in the context of his time and place. To whitewash his story is a great disservice, but so is to only emphasize the less savory aspects of his character. Would we want to be held to the same standards?

Berkeley PC revisionism is a laughable joke, which is a shame, considering the wealth of educational opportunity (the phrase "teachable moment" comes to mind) present in this case. I suppose now these pinheads will do away with using nickels, or suggesting we sell Louisiana back to France. The children will learn nothing here except that many adults are crazy, or stupid, in their zeal to protect us from ourselves.

[JohnLocke]

124. Good grief, people!

Are we talking about the same Thomas Jefferson here? Remember, the guy who invented religious freedom in America? The guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence?

[Tomee450]

129. Not only that Jefferson

but the Jefferson who bought and sold slaves. The Jefferson who had an affair with a young girl and sired five children by her. Yes, that Jefferson, too.

[QC]

130. But he's not good enough for the People's Republic of Berkeley. n/t

[politicat]

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

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.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumpy]

134. This is ludicrous

considering that some of those parents/teachers who object to using Jefferson's name might have had ancestors who were slave owners. My great great grandparents owned slaves and I would not dishonor them for that fact. Do blacks dishonor their ancestors who might have been slave owners in Africa?

[Darranar]

140. So what if they had ancestors who were slave owners?

What difference does it make?

[kwassa]

146. I would "dishonor" such an ancestor

lumpy:
"My great great grandparents owned slaves and I would not dishonor them for that fact."

Do you mean disrespect?

I certainly would have a very low opinion of an ancestor who held slaves.