Should the State of Washington be renamed?

[San Lumen]

"Rename this and rename that because x person did y thing therefore z which is named after them is a symbol of oppression!"
If we keep renaming stuff we're eventually going to live into a 1984 dystopia, with the past convoluted and ever changing. This quote from the book sums it up.

Renaming things does nothing to change what the person has or has not done.

That's a good point. And a scary one.

Glad you acknowledge this. Where does an idea like this end? Do we rename the four state capitals named for presidents, Lincoln, Madison. Jefferson City, Jackson? Do we take down the memorials to Washington and Jefferson? Hundreds of counties and towns are named for people who held views we would consider racist or xenophobic by today’s standards. To want to rename them all of them is absurd.

[Major-Tom]

Dems aren't trynna rename states, chief.

Never said they were, sport.

Eh, fair.

[South Odreria 2]

Yes, when the motion to rename succeeds TG me and I'll give the new name

[Freiheit Reich]

Yes, liberals don't deserve to be in a state named after such an important American leader. Perhaps the state could split in two parts with the Cascade Mountains as the dividing line to reflect the political views of the state. The eastern part can be 'Washington' and the western part can be named after someone liberals admire such as Karl Marx or Lenin or perhaps someone more recent like Chavez or Castro.

2016 election results showing political divide of west vs. east:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Unit ... ton_(state)

This will also decrease confusion people have of Washington and Washington DC.

[Freiheit Reich]

Why?

Because it’s dumb. Judging people in the past on the morals of today is just stupid. Literally nobody was pro gay in the 1700s. Lincoln, the guy who freed the slaves, was a fucking racist who wanted to ship all the blacks to Africa.

Judging anyone in the past by today’s standards is a really stupid thing to do

Wanting to ship slaves back to Africa was not racist. It was fixing the 'mistake' that bad men did as best as possible. It made sense to want to send them back to their homeland just like kidnapped victims are sent back to their homes once the kidnapper is captured. If the US govt. bought land for them in Africa and gave each slave family a plot of land then that would be better for many versus being poor share croppers in a land where many felt resentment towards them. In Liberia, the Americo-Liberians were a dominant minority in politics for many years which shows that former slaves adapted well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americo-Liberian_people

[New Jeferopholletopia]

Yes, liberals don't deserve to be in a state named after such an important American leader. Perhaps the state could split in two parts with the Cascade Mountains as the dividing line to reflect the political views of the state. The eastern part can be 'Washington' and the western part can be named after someone liberals admire such as Karl Marx or Lenin or perhaps someone more recent like Chavez or Castro.

2016 election results showing political divide of west vs. east:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Unit ... ton_(state)

This will also decrease confusion people have of Washington and Washington DC.

I have heard the same arguments being made for splitting Oregon, California, and Colorado.

[Atheris]

Because it’s dumb. Judging people in the past on the morals of today is just stupid. Literally nobody was pro gay in the 1700s. Lincoln, the guy who freed the slaves, was a fucking racist who wanted to ship all the blacks to Africa.

Judging anyone in the past by today’s standards is a really stupid thing to do

Wanting to ship slaves back to Africa was not racist. It was fixing the 'mistake' that bad men did as best as possible. It made sense to want to send them back to their homeland just like kidnapped victims are sent back to their homes once the kidnapper is captured. If the US govt. bought land for them in Africa and gave each slave family a plot of land then that would be better for many versus being poor share croppers in a land where many felt resentment towards them. In Liberia, the Americo-Liberians were a dominant minority in politics for many years which shows that former slaves adapted well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americo-Liberian_people

This is a terrible take.

[New Jeferopholletopia]

Because it’s dumb. Judging people in the past on the morals of today is just stupid. Literally nobody was pro gay in the 1700s. Lincoln, the guy who freed the slaves, was a fucking racist who wanted to ship all the blacks to Africa.

Judging anyone in the past by today’s standards is a really stupid thing to do

Wanting to ship slaves back to Africa was not racist. It was fixing the 'mistake' that bad men did as best as possible. It made sense to want to send them back to their homeland just like kidnapped victims are sent back to their homes once the kidnapper is captured. If the US govt. bought land for them in Africa and gave each slave family a plot of land then that would be better for many versus being poor share croppers in a land where many felt resentment towards them. In Liberia, the Americo-Liberians were a dominant minority in politics for many years which shows that former slaves adapted well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americo-Liberian_people

They also treated the Native Africans like shit.

[Freiheit Reich]

Yea, no absolutely not. I am from WA State myself, and I say hell no to this.

If we rename the State of Washington, then shall we rename every state named after words from Native American Tribes? Should we rename Indiana? (Which means “land of the Indians”)

Perhaps we should considering how few 'Indians" (the Native American kind) live there. Sadly, they were pushed out because William Henry Harrison was a jerk that dishonored the treaty. Karma came for him a few days into his presidency.

Oklahoma should be renamed Indiana. This would make more sense.

https://www.connerprairie.org/educate/i ... n-indiana/

[The Black Forrest]

Because it’s dumb. Judging people in the past on the morals of today is just stupid. Literally nobody was pro gay in the 1700s. Lincoln, the guy who freed the slaves, was a fucking racist who wanted to ship all the blacks to Africa.

Judging anyone in the past by today’s standards is a really stupid thing to do

Wanting to ship slaves back to Africa was not racist. It was fixing the 'mistake' that bad men did as best as possible. It made sense to want to send them back to their homeland just like kidnapped victims are sent back to their homes once the kidnapper is captured. If the US govt. bought land for them in Africa and gave each slave family a plot of land then that would be better for many versus being poor share croppers in a land where many felt resentment towards them. In Liberia, the Americo-Liberians were a dominant minority in politics for many years which shows that former slaves adapted well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americo-Liberian_people

Offering them a ride back to Africa is not racist. Trying to get rid of them is.

Even then; it was a little too late as they had been here a generation or two.

[Aeritai]

I mean if we want to fight racism I don't think renaming a state would do anything, so I say we should just leave it be.

[Greed and Death]

Poof. The state of Washington is henceforth known as New Texas.

[The Black Forrest]

Poof. The state of Washington is henceforth known as New Texas.

*Poof* Changing it back as it might confuse the Texans.

[San Lumen]

Yes, liberals don't deserve to be in a state named after such an important American leader. Perhaps the state could split in two parts with the Cascade Mountains as the dividing line to reflect the political views of the state. The eastern part can be 'Washington' and the western part can be named after someone liberals admire such as Karl Marx or Lenin or perhaps someone more recent like Chavez or Castro.

2016 election results showing political divide of west vs. east:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Unit ... ton_(state)

This will also decrease confusion people have of Washington and Washington DC.

Can we please stop with nonsense like this? It would never happen.

[Belands]

You can't judge the morals of someone from the 1700s with the same lens you might judge someone today. Times change, and more importantly, morals and stances change. By the same logic as renaming Washington, we should erase all history prior to the 1970s, cause some of it may be racist or homophobic. The fact of the matter is Washington is the very reason this country exists and we as Americans should honor him as such.

[San Lumen]

You can't judge the morals of someone from the 1700s with the same lens you might judge someone today. Times change, and more importantly, morals and stances change. By the same logic as renaming Washington, we should erase all history prior to the 1970s, cause some of it may be racist or homophobic. The fact of the matter is Washington is the very reason this country exists and we as Americans should honor him as such.

Agreed. The same goes for many of the founding fathers. The list of things named for George Washington is quite long. Some counties are named for confederate leaders such as Jefferson Davis. A case could be made for renaming them but not sure how I feel about that.

[Freiheit Reich]

Wanting to ship slaves back to Africa was not racist. It was fixing the 'mistake' that bad men did as best as possible. It made sense to want to send them back to their homeland just like kidnapped victims are sent back to their homes once the kidnapper is captured. If the US govt. bought land for them in Africa and gave each slave family a plot of land then that would be better for many versus being poor share croppers in a land where many felt resentment towards them. In Liberia, the Americo-Liberians were a dominant minority in politics for many years which shows that former slaves adapted well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americo-Liberian_people

Offering them a ride back to Africa is not racist. Trying to get rid of them is.

Even then; it was a little too late as they had been here a generation or two.

I think there was a legitimate concern about having millions of unemployed and landless people that lacked decent education. The easiest solution was to send them back to their homeland and forget slavery existed.

Yes, some supporters of the Liberian movement were racist and just did not want blacks around but others likely felt it was the best situation for both whites in America and the freed slaves. The fact that Lincoln wanted to have the US govt. pay for land to start a colony for freed slaves shows that he did not hate blacks as a people but just felt whites and blacks should be separate (as most people back then felt). Yes, he was not 'woke' and would be considered racist by today's standard. However, a true racist would have killed them, put them in labor camps, or just deported them with no concern at all for their well-being.

https://www.theroot.com/was-lincoln-a-racist-1790868802

[Czechostan]

Poof. The state of Washington is henceforth known as New Texas.

*Poof* Changing it back as it might confuse the Texans.

And any NS'ers who know NewTexas.

[Benuty]

Wanting to ship slaves back to Africa was not racist. It was fixing the 'mistake' that bad men did as best as possible. It made sense to want to send them back to their homeland just like kidnapped victims are sent back to their homes once the kidnapper is captured. If the US govt. bought land for them in Africa and gave each slave family a plot of land then that would be better for many versus being poor share croppers in a land where many felt resentment towards them. In Liberia, the Americo-Liberians were a dominant minority in politics for many years which shows that former slaves adapted well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americo-Liberian_people

Offering them a ride back to Africa is not racist. Trying to get rid of them is.

Even then; it was a little too late as they had been here a generation or two.

Lincoln's fear was essentially the freed slaves, and resentful former slave owners would race war, and turn the bottom half of the country into a hellscape...not exactly irrational since some slave liberations were horrendous affairs, and Lincoln thought it better to avoid that problem. Yes it was a whole racist affair, but one that Lincoln didn't want to have on his legacy.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

If a majority of people living in Washington want to rename it, let it be so. Even "Statey McState-face" if that is what wins the referrenda.

[South Odreria 2]

Offering them a ride back to Africa is not racist. Trying to get rid of them is.

Even then; it was a little too late as they had been here a generation or two.

I think there was a legitimate concern about having millions of unemployed and landless people that lacked decent education. The easiest solution was to send them back to their homeland and forget slavery existed.

Yes, some supporters of the Liberian movement were racist and just did not want blacks around but others likely felt it was the best situation for both whites in America and the freed slaves. The fact that Lincoln wanted to have the US govt. pay for land to start a colony for freed slaves shows that he did not hate blacks as a people but just felt whites and blacks should be separate (as most people back then felt). Yes, he was not 'woke' and would be considered racist by today's standard. However, a true racist would have killed them, put them in labor camps, or just deported them with no concern at all for their well-being.

https://www.theroot.com/was-lincoln-a-racist-1790868802

That may be the first theroot article I've seen that wasn't awful

[Freiheit Reich]

Yes, liberals don't deserve to be in a state named after such an important American leader. Perhaps the state could split in two parts with the Cascade Mountains as the dividing line to reflect the political views of the state. The eastern part can be 'Washington' and the western part can be named after someone liberals admire such as Karl Marx or Lenin or perhaps someone more recent like Chavez or Castro.

2016 election results showing political divide of west vs. east:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Unit ... ton_(state)

This will also decrease confusion people have of Washington and Washington DC.

Can we please stop with nonsense like this? It would never happen.

Splitting the state will never happen because west Cascade liberals have too much power to let it happen. However, renaming the state will happen. If Columbus, OH tore down the statue of the person the city was named after, then renaming cities and states will soon happen. Liberals have to show how anti-racist and woke they are.

[Belands]

You can't judge the morals of someone from the 1700s with the same lens you might judge someone today. Times change, and more importantly, morals and stances change. By the same logic as renaming Washington, we should erase all history prior to the 1970s, cause some of it may be racist or homophobic. The fact of the matter is Washington is the very reason this country exists and we as Americans should honor him as such.

Agreed. The same goes for many of the founding fathers. The list of things named for George Washington is quite long. Some counties are named for confederate leaders such as Jefferson Davis. A case could be made for renaming them but not sure how I feel about that.

I completely understand the justification for renaming/removing Confederate monuments, but at the end of the I don't really believe in that either. While yes, they did fight against the Union, some leaders (ie Lee) only fought for the Confederacy because their home state seceded from the Union. I think the removal of statues or renaming of counties and such in general is a very slippery slope because a forum like this would not exist if we did not begin to remove Confederate statues and monuments

[Cordel One]

Washington was a vile piece of human filth, but I think it might be too late to rename the state. Tear his statues down though.

[Belands]

Washington was a vile piece of human filth, but I think it might be too late to rename the state. Tear his statues down though.

Horrible take. Him founding America and guiding its laws is the very reason you have the freedom to express yourself like this today