Should the State of Washington be renamed?

[San Lumen]

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.

Oh give me a freaking break. Its not going to happen.

[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.

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

He didn't found America though, he was a slaveowning general who participated in the founding of a horribly flawed attempt at a republic.

[Benuty]

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.

Vile for what reasons?

[San Lumen]

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

Hence why Im unsure how I feel. Many of the monuments were built through as a form of intimation when Jim Crow became law.

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.

what a horrible take. Do you study him in school? should we take down the Washington Monument?

[Belands]

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

He didn't found America though, he was a slaveowning general who participated in its founding.

Ah yes, one of the founding fathers who led the American army in the revolutionary war did not found America after all. Thanks for enlightening me!

[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.

Vile for what reasons?

Yeah so there was this whole bit about massacring natives and owning a ton of slaves

He didn't found America though, he was a slaveowning general who participated in its founding.

Ah yes, one of the founding fathers who led the American army in the revolutionary war did not found America after all. Thanks for enlightening me!

Reread my sentence.

[Belands]

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

Hence why Im unsure how I feel. Many of the monuments were built through as a form of intimation when Jim Crow became law.

Haven't heard of it being used as intimidation, though I've never explicitly looked into that. Any source?

[San Lumen]

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

He didn't found America though, he was a slaveowning general who participated in the founding of a horribly flawed attempt at a republic.

Did you study history at all? If your did you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement. Many of the ideals we hold today where not things they believed in. The idea of same sex marriage, people of color and women voted wasn't on their minds. It was a very widely held belief at the time they should not vote or participle in government and had less rights.

They also knew where things they couldn't have conceived of.

They knew events would arise that would require changes to the constitution hence why they created they amendment process.

[Torisakia]

If we're going to be renaming things due to their namesakes being involved with atrocities from 250+ years ago, then we might as well just start a new country.

[Benuty]

Vile for what reasons?

Yeah so there was this whole bit about massacring natives and owning a ton of slaves

The same natives that on a dime switched alliances with European patrons over land, and economic issues, and proceeded to wipe out their own native competitors? Slavery itself is only immoral because the moral majority center of society deems it as such. Owning people as property, and having commerce law regarding it wasn't immoral to them save for the groups who considered it such. Even traditional anti-slavery states until a certain point allowed slave owners, and slaves to reside in them. It took change of moral center, and law to renege on having them there.

[Belands]

Ah yes, one of the founding fathers who led the American army in the revolutionary war did not found America after all. Thanks for enlightening me!

Reread my sentence.

"He didn't found America though" is literally the first part of you sentence, then you finish with "who participated in its founding". You sure you don't need to re-read your sentence?

[Cordel One]

He didn't found America though, he was a slaveowning general who participated in the founding of a horribly flawed attempt at a republic.

Did you study history at all? If your did you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement. Many of the ideals we hold today where not things they believed in. The idea of same sex marriage, people of color and women voted wasn't on their minds. It was a very widely held belief at the time they should not vote or participle in government and had less rights.

They also knew where things they couldn't have conceived of.

They knew events would arise that would require changes to the constitution hence why they created they amendment process.

People did believe in same-sex marriage and abolition back then, they're not new ideas. Morality existed long before Wahington.

[Cordel One]

Reread my sentence.

"He didn't found America though" is literally the first part of you sentence, then you finish with "who participated in its founding". You sure you don't need to re-read your sentence?

He didn't found it but he helped found it.

[San Lumen]

Hence why Im unsure how I feel. Many of the monuments were built through as a form of intimation when Jim Crow became law.

Haven't heard of it being used as intimidation, though I've never explicitly looked into that. Any source?

Here you go: https://www.wral.com/confederate-monume ... /19158196/

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/54426688 ... ist-future

Two good sources.

[San Lumen]

Did you study history at all? If your did you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement. Many of the ideals we hold today where not things they believed in. The idea of same sex marriage, people of color and women voted wasn't on their minds. It was a very widely held belief at the time they should not vote or participle in government and had less rights.

They also knew where things they couldn't have conceived of.

They knew events would arise that would require changes to the constitution hence why they created they amendment process.

People did believe in same-sex marriage and abolition back then, they're not new ideas. Morality existed long before Wahington.

Same sex marriage was not a widely held belief back then. Homosexuality was taboo in that time.

[Cordel One]

People did believe in same-sex marriage and abolition back then, they're not new ideas. Morality existed long before Wahington.

Same sex marriage was not a widely held belief back then. Homosexuality was taboo in that time.

Okay?

[Glorious Hong Kong]

It should be renamed to something else to avoid confusion with Washington D.C. Maybe Jefferson or Franklin or some other Founding Father. Something also needs to be done about New York state and New York City. But that's just me.

[Benuty]

Did you study history at all? If your did you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement. Many of the ideals we hold today where not things they believed in. The idea of same sex marriage, people of color and women voted wasn't on their minds. It was a very widely held belief at the time they should not vote or participle in government and had less rights.

They also knew where things they couldn't have conceived of.

They knew events would arise that would require changes to the constitution hence why they created they amendment process.

People did believe in same-sex marriage and abolition back then, they're not new ideas. Morality existed long before Wahington.

If you went to London in 1786 and told people that two men should have the legal obligation to be able to obtain a marriage certificate they either considered you a fool, an eccentric, or someone not worth their time. Human morality and comprehension of situations change, it wasn't long ago (2003) that anal sex itself was a crime in the United States regardless of the context, who was doing it, and how the police found you doing it.

[San Lumen]

Same sex marriage was not a widely held belief back then. Homosexuality was taboo in that time.

Okay?

You are shockingly ignorant of history. They also couldn't abolish slavery in the declaration of independence or the constitution when drafted. The southern states would have never supported it.

[Belands]

"He didn't found America though" is literally the first part of you sentence, then you finish with "who participated in its founding". You sure you don't need to re-read your sentence?

He didn't found it but he helped found it.

That would make him found it would it not? Also as the man who led the army that fought for our independence I'd argue he has the largest role in founding the country. There's a reason they named him the first president.

[Benuty]

People did believe in same-sex marriage and abolition back then, they're not new ideas. Morality existed long before Wahington.

Same sex marriage was not a widely held belief back then. Homosexuality was taboo in that time.

Not to mention it would literally have ripped the country in half, and arguably sent half of it back into British hands. Turns out destroying an economy for the sake of ideology is the exception and not the rule. Not even the French republican government banned slavery in the colonies until much later.

[Cordel One]

Okay?

You are shockingly ignorant of history. They also couldn't abolish slavery in the declaration of independence or the constitution when drafted. The southern states would have never supported it.

Oh please, I know perfectly well that widespread racism existed back then. That doesn't justify owning slaves.

[Cordel One]

Same sex marriage was not a widely held belief back then. Homosexuality was taboo in that time.

Not to mention it would literally have ripped the country in half, and arguably sent half of it back into British hands. Turns out destroying an economy for the sake of ideology is the exception and not the rule. Not even the French republican government banned slavery in the colonies until much later.

Washington didn't even care, though.

[Benuty]

You are shockingly ignorant of history. They also couldn't abolish slavery in the declaration of independence or the constitution when drafted. The southern states would have never supported it.

Oh please, I know perfectly well that widespread racism existed back then. That doesn't justify owning slaves.

The Romans certainly didn't need to be racist to own slaves. They were perfectly content with owning anyone under the sun as long as it benefitted their power status. Racial slavery was a more recent phenomenon since slavery at its core is about power more than anything else.

[San Lumen]

You are shockingly ignorant of history. They also couldn't abolish slavery in the declaration of independence or the constitution when drafted. The southern states would have never supported it.

Oh please, I know perfectly well that widespread racism existed back then. That doesn't justify owning slaves.

Im not justifying owning slaves. Its abhorrent for people to own people. It simply wasn't possible for slavery to have been outlawed when the constitution was drafted. The political climate and tension of the time wouldn't have allowed it. The southern states would have walked out and the great experiment would have collapsed before it even began.