But he owned slaves!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!:shrug: Washington and slavery Main article: George Washington and slavery For most of his life, Washington operated his plantations as a typical Virginia slave owner. In the 1760s, he dropped tobacco (which was prestigious but unprofitable) and shifted to hemp[49] and wheat growing and diversified into milling flour, weaving cloth, and distilling brandy. By the time of his death, there were 317 slaves at Mount Vernon. Before the American Revolution, Washington expressed no moral reservations about slavery, but by 1778 he did not want to break up slave families and stopped selling slaves without their consent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington
Yes he did own people. I didn't realize the poll was for "who was the most perfect man" He was a good President.
I know this is beyond your limited moral and mental capacity to do so, but upon entering a discussion it's best to do so in good faith. Your standard MO is to enter a discussion and say something spineless about some American and then attempt to paint some correlation to some current day event which isn't even part of the discussion. Nothing is a greater indicator of your pathetic capacity for discussion. God forbid that we aren't constantly reminded of your menstrual temperament and juvenile determination to make every last American in history look evil all whilst doing your limited best to make everybody else a victim. Try real hard princess: we were talking about your comments on George Washington. You, displaying your usual paucity of mental abilities decided to play bait and switch and bring up Saddam. Wonderful! I wasn't talking about Saddam and I certainly don't think he should have been toppled. I think the US should have left him in power, but that's another discussion. What I would like to know is how you take it upon yourself to judge every last American leader by your contemporary (and albeit limited) moral filter, but amazingly leave out everybody else. Proof, greater than anything else, that you're have the intelligence of a tit-mouse. ~String
No. You were being facetious. As usual. And in your typical style, you dropped a few words, didn't discuss the point at and, and puked up a total non sequitur in the hopes of looking smart. ~String
Then you should have strained your little nubs and typed it out. But let's face it: you wouldn't really admit to being wrong on this subject, so what's the discussion worth? I mean, in your annoyingly circumlocuted opinion, George Washington was a really bad guy. Name one great political leader before 1800 who did great things whilst not killing people. It's a horrible reality, but what people respected back then is very different from what we respect now. ~String
Is it? Not that I see. I just happened to be reading about GW and thought it was amazing what people consider an indispensable man.
Then you're blind. I'm referring to his effect on the American Republic. And setting aside the fact that you hate everything American, the guy set the tone for this nation's democracy. He could have been king, dictator or president for life. He was one of the few men in recorded history to be offered total power and walked away from it. I have read plenty, and I'm willing to bet more than you, on George Washington. I know his flaws. He fucked around. He owned slaves. He fucked slaves. He was pretentious and he killed Indians. It's horrible, but that was the oxymoronic reality back then. Adams, the man who best reflected our contemporary morality, was a disaster as a president. A person can be a jerk and be a great president. Likewise, a wonderful person can make a horrible leader. Even Caesar owned slaves and Shajar al-Durr slaughtered thousands. One has to judge the man (or the woman) by the era. Try it and your eyes may open as never before. When you chase after information with an agenda, you filter a lot out that is truly relative. Take off the filters and you might actually learn. ~String
Yeah, I did. The Iroquois could have been the Iraqis. With their little sectarian wars. Their little petty infighting. Their pro-western and traditional groups. Some of them even thinking GW was a hot cookie. Then he decided they were pesky and burned down 40 villages. And still there were some who sucked up to him. There was even a Nour ul Maliki who said GW was the only white guy to get into Iroqouis heaven. And then the name for the US President. Conotocarious, or "Town Destroyer". Rather prophetic that. They still use it.
People know better now. Or should. There's no excuse for the US invading Iraq. While I do believe that there is a very different ethical standard in how the troops act today (yes, there are exceptions), it's obvious that no matter what happens, the Iraqis are horribly unhappy with the USA, so whatever the goal is, it's pretty much lost now. Two hundred years ago, people just didn't see Indians as fully human. Maybe they just denied the reality that was in front of their eyes, but blinders are put up early in life and by the time white men reached adulthood, the harm was done and the prejudices were cemented. I mean, nobody looks back at men of the past and curses them for treating women and children like dirt, and they were more than half the population of Earth. Why? Because that's what they were taught to do. Does that erase or excuse what happened? No, but neither of us are in a position to judge since our existence has occurred on a tall pile of bones of those who our ancestors killed to bring us into being. Are you fooling yourself into believing that you aren't here because hordes of people in the past weren't killed? If you are, then you're a fool. Like I mentioned, Achaemenids enabled a long line of leaders and events that brought you into being. If it wasn't for the innumerable slaughters in the past, none of us would be here. Again, you have to judge people by their time. Elizabeth I, Shah Jahan, Saladin and George Washington all have blood on their hands, but still have to be judged by the time they lived in. Your obsession with recounting all the horrors of the Indians, while accurate, distracts from the whole truth. By your standard, we should all sit squinty-eyed at every person who ever held power. There's simply more to it than that and if you'd actually grow up a little and set aside your agenda, you'd realize that it's possible to revere a great man and still recognize their flaws. ~String
