Should the State of Washington be renamed?

[Ethel mermania]

Ethel

That's not a Native American name, is it?

it is still the best of all possible options.

[-Astoria-]

That's not a Native American name, is it?

it is still the best of all possible options.

Chinny reckon.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

Right now we're between Ethel, George, and Washington because it gets washed a ton, which is just brilliant.

[San Lumen]

Right now we're between Ethel, George, and Washington because it gets washed a ton, which is just brilliant.

The last one works for me.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

Right now we're between Ethel, George, and Washington because it gets washed a ton, which is just brilliant.

The last one works for me.

Let us call the US Congress immediately. NSers, TO ZE PHONES!

[Ethel mermania]

Right now we're between Ethel, George, and Washington because it gets washed a ton, which is just brilliant.

The last one works for me.

Ethel is by far the best. Needs a new poll.

[The Black Forrest]

Why not rename it to Starbucks?

[Ricksolot]

It is foolish to judge him by modern standards. He risked his life and career for what he believed. During that time it was not established that racism and slavery was evil. It was not against the law. Additionally he was a fair owner and rarely administered physical punishment. He preferred to encourage his slaves with kind respect and only became physical when nothing verbal worked. When he died he did the VERY uncommon thing and freed all his slaves in his will. In accordance with state law, George Washington stipulated in his will that elderly enslaved people or those who were too sick to work were to be supported by his estate in perpetuity. The remaining enslaved at Mount Vernon did not have to wait for Martha Washington’s death to receive their freedom. From what I can i see he was a great man who lived in a time when slavery and racism was not really challenged. Deep down he disliked the practice but there was not much he could. Slavery was literally thrusted upon him. When Washington’s father Augustine died in 1743, George Washington became a slave owner at the early age of eleven. In his will, Augustine left his son the 280 acre family farm near Fredericksburg, Virginia. In addition, Washington was willed ten slaves. As a young adult, Washington purchased at least eight more slaves, including a carpenter named Kitt. Washington purchased more enslaved people in 1755, including four men, two women, and a child. By the end of his life there were 317 slaves at mount Vernon.

Anyways back to the point. I think it’s very unbecoming of us to hold men to laws and time periods that they did not live in. Additionally, unless your a hypocrite you must also condemn Abraham Lincoln. He did not see colored people as equal, he merely saw slavery as wrong. So if George Washington deserves to be discredited based upon the laws and customs of the future despite his best efforts in securing that very future then you would also have to denounce several other historical heroes for not living up to the standards of today. These same standards that would not even exist as they do in America were it not for there valor and sacrifice.

For the sake of the future of the United States of America I pray you have the rationale to understand the foolishness in voting yes on this.

[Nilrahrarfan]

That's not a Native American name, is it?

it is still the best of all possible options.

How about "North Oregon?"

[Ethel mermania]

it is still the best of all possible options.

How about "North Oregon?"

Oregon becomes south ethel.

[Nilrahrarfan]

How about "North Oregon?"

Oregon becomes south ethel.

No, we're not calling it Ethel.
I'd actually rather have it called "State of Obama," because at least people know who Obama is.

[Ethel mermania]

Oregon becomes south ethel.

No, we're not calling it Ethel.
I'd actually rather have it called "State of Obama," because at least people know who Obama is.

you are not a team player, no coffee and Danish for you.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

No, we're not calling it Ethel.
I'd actually rather have it called "State of Obama," because at least people know who Obama is.

you are not a team player, no coffee and Danish for you.

Call it "Ethel Washington" and give Seattle to...IDK, Canada.

[Nilrahrarfan]

No, we're not calling it Ethel.
I'd actually rather have it called "State of Obama," because at least people know who Obama is.

you are not a team player, no coffee and Danish for you.

I don't drink coffee or eat Danish anyways. Especially not Danish people.

[San Lumen]

It is foolish to judge him by modern standards. He risked his life and career for what he believed. During that time it was not established that racism and slavery was evil. It was not against the law. Additionally he was a fair owner and rarely administered physical punishment. He preferred to encourage his slaves with kind respect and only became physical when nothing verbal worked. When he died he did the VERY uncommon thing and freed all his slaves in his will. In accordance with state law, George Washington stipulated in his will that elderly enslaved people or those who were too sick to work were to be supported by his estate in perpetuity. The remaining enslaved at Mount Vernon did not have to wait for Martha Washington’s death to receive their freedom. From what I can i see he was a great man who lived in a time when slavery and racism was not really challenged. Deep down he disliked the practice but there was not much he could. Slavery was literally thrusted upon him. When Washington’s father Augustine died in 1743, George Washington became a slave owner at the early age of eleven. In his will, Augustine left his son the 280 acre family farm near Fredericksburg, Virginia. In addition, Washington was willed ten slaves. As a young adult, Washington purchased at least eight more slaves, including a carpenter named Kitt. Washington purchased more enslaved people in 1755, including four men, two women, and a child. By the end of his life there were 317 slaves at mount Vernon.

Anyways back to the point. I think it’s very unbecoming of us to hold men to laws and time periods that they did not live in. Additionally, unless your a hypocrite you must also condemn Abraham Lincoln. He did not see colored people as equal, he merely saw slavery as wrong. So if George Washington deserves to be discredited based upon the laws and customs of the future despite his best efforts in securing that very future then you would also have to denounce several other historical heroes for not living up to the standards of today. These same standards that would not even exist as they do in America were it not for there valor and sacrifice.

For the sake of the future of the United States of America I pray you have the rationale to understand the foolishness in voting yes on this.

Very well said. I’ve been saying this the whole thread. Some people are quite ignorant of history.

[Ethel mermania]

you are not a team player, no coffee and Danish for you.

I don't drink coffee or eat Danish anyways. Especially not Danish people.

Don't knock it until you tried it.

[Nilrahrarfan]

I don't drink coffee or eat Danish anyways. Especially not Danish people.

Don't knock it until you tried it.

Probably not gonna try it

Unless Wilkins and Wontkins sell it.

Post 666 LOL

[Auze]

The state of Washington was named after George Washington. I have heard some argue that because George Washington was a slave owner, racist, and a homophobe that he shouldn't be glorified and that the state of Washington should be renamed. This is especially true since Washington is a heavily liberal state.

I am undecided on this, but I can definitely understand the arguments for not glorifying George Washington anymore. What do you think?

Not sure how he was a homophobe, if he wrote against homosexuals I haven't heard of it.

[Holy Marsh]

Leave my state and home alone.

[San Lumen]

The state of Washington was named after George Washington. I have heard some argue that because George Washington was a slave owner, racist, and a homophobe that he shouldn't be glorified and that the state of Washington should be renamed. This is especially true since Washington is a heavily liberal state.

I am undecided on this, but I can definitely understand the arguments for not glorifying George Washington anymore. What do you think?

Not sure how he was a homophobe, if he wrote against homosexuals I haven't heard of it.

It wasn't;t even on the radar then. It was taboo topic and not discussed in public at all.

[Star Confederacy]

Where did you get that Washinton was a homophobe from?

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Where did you get that Washinton was a homophobe from?

Same kind of assumption as if you randomly pick a spot on earth, it will be wet.

still unfounded

[Ifreann]

A lot of money relative to what ordinary people like you or I are ever likely to have available to us. Not so much to the people who would be doing those things.

What?

Do you not understand that some people are very rich? The Washington Post is owned by the richest man in the world.

---

Renaming the state of Washington is a disgusting idea that doesn't deserve the light of day. George Washington was even liberal for his day. He advocated for increased tolerance of all peoples, he didn't free his slaves because he knew it would be futile (They would just become slaves somewhere else) so he did what he could, he treated them like family.

I don't know what kind of fucked up family puts people through the abuse of slavery.

Add to that the exorbitant cost of renaming every mention of "Washington State," worse if it's DC too. What about the other countless mentions of "Washington" (the monument, statues, streets, the list goes on?

Oh no, a few million dollars. The nation will be bankrupted.

---

It is foolish to judge him by modern standards. He risked his life and career for what he believed. During that time it was not established that racism and slavery was evil. It was not against the law. Additionally he was a fair owner and rarely administered physical punishment. He preferred to encourage his slaves with kind respect and only became physical when nothing verbal worked. When he died he did the VERY uncommon thing and freed all his slaves in his will. In accordance with state law, George Washington stipulated in his will that elderly enslaved people or those who were too sick to work were to be supported by his estate in perpetuity. The remaining enslaved at Mount Vernon did not have to wait for Martha Washington’s death to receive their freedom. From what I can i see he was a great man who lived in a time when slavery and racism was not really challenged. Deep down he disliked the practice but there was not much he could. Slavery was literally thrusted upon him. When Washington’s father Augustine died in 1743, George Washington became a slave owner at the early age of eleven. In his will, Augustine left his son the 280 acre family farm near Fredericksburg, Virginia. In addition, Washington was willed ten slaves. As a young adult, Washington purchased at least eight more slaves, including a carpenter named Kitt. Washington purchased more enslaved people in 1755, including four men, two women, and a child. By the end of his life there were 317 slaves at mount Vernon.

Washington was criticised during his lifetime for the hypocrisy of fighting a revolution for freedom and equality and yet continuing to own slaves. During his lifetime there were abolitionist movements that wanted to, obviously, abolish slavery. He knew all the arguments against slavery, but slavery made him the richest man in America. Washington so valued having slaves that he regularly sent his slaves out of the state to avoid a law that would have freed them if they remained there for more than six months.

Further, when you talk about judging Washington by the standards of his day, what about the standards of the slaves? You just described him having people beaten for failing to work hard enough to enrich him. Do you think those people getting beaten thought he was a fair master? Do you think they would have made excuses for him? Why do we not talk about them when we talk about judging Washington by the standards of his day?

[San Lumen]

What?

Do you not understand that some people are very rich? The Washington Post is owned by the richest man in the world.

---

Renaming the state of Washington is a disgusting idea that doesn't deserve the light of day. George Washington was even liberal for his day. He advocated for increased tolerance of all peoples, he didn't free his slaves because he knew it would be futile (They would just become slaves somewhere else) so he did what he could, he treated them like family.

I don't know what kind of fucked up family puts people through the abuse of slavery.

Add to that the exorbitant cost of renaming every mention of "Washington State," worse if it's DC too. What about the other countless mentions of "Washington" (the monument, statues, streets, the list goes on?

Oh no, a few million dollars. The nation will be bankrupted.

---

It is foolish to judge him by modern standards. He risked his life and career for what he believed. During that time it was not established that racism and slavery was evil. It was not against the law. Additionally he was a fair owner and rarely administered physical punishment. He preferred to encourage his slaves with kind respect and only became physical when nothing verbal worked. When he died he did the VERY uncommon thing and freed all his slaves in his will. In accordance with state law, George Washington stipulated in his will that elderly enslaved people or those who were too sick to work were to be supported by his estate in perpetuity. The remaining enslaved at Mount Vernon did not have to wait for Martha Washington’s death to receive their freedom. From what I can i see he was a great man who lived in a time when slavery and racism was not really challenged. Deep down he disliked the practice but there was not much he could. Slavery was literally thrusted upon him. When Washington’s father Augustine died in 1743, George Washington became a slave owner at the early age of eleven. In his will, Augustine left his son the 280 acre family farm near Fredericksburg, Virginia. In addition, Washington was willed ten slaves. As a young adult, Washington purchased at least eight more slaves, including a carpenter named Kitt. Washington purchased more enslaved people in 1755, including four men, two women, and a child. By the end of his life there were 317 slaves at mount Vernon.

Washington was criticised during his lifetime for the hypocrisy of fighting a revolution for freedom and equality and yet continuing to own slaves. During his lifetime there were abolitionist movements that wanted to, obviously, abolish slavery. He knew all the arguments against slavery, but slavery made him the richest man in America. Washington so valued having slaves that he regularly sent his slaves out of the state to avoid a law that would have freed them if they remained there for more than six months.

Further, when you talk about judging Washington by the standards of his day, what about the standards of the slaves? You just described him having people beaten for failing to work hard enough to enrich him. Do you think those people getting beaten thought he was a fair master? Do you think they would have made excuses for him? Why do we not talk about them when we talk about judging Washington by the standards of his day?

Slavery is morally wrong and no is disputing that. This whole debate is ridiculous. Washington was a great man. Did he have faults? Yes. But as the old saying goes let he who is without sin cast the the first stone.

When it comes to rewriting history is renaming things you know what I found more offensive? In the Lincoln film with Daniel Day Lewis many names of members of Congress where changed as to not embarrass their descendants. Who cares if their ancestors voted against the 13th amendment?

[Cekoviu]

Slavery is morally wrong and no is disputing that. This whole debate is ridiculous. Washington was a great man. Did he have faults? Yes. But as the old saying goes let he who is without sin cast the the first stone.

i haven't enslaved anyone so i'm perfectly qualified to cast the first stone against a slave owner i'd say