Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I generally don't hear it acknowledged in the conversatioms about these figures by people who criticize them. Anecdotally I don't hear it from some younger reltives of mine. It's just a feeling I get.

I don't know that it's not being taught but the attitude seems to be that a person who owned slaves shouldn't have their accomplishments and contributions acknowledged or that those contributions are taken for granted.



The disagreement is on one side of the argument, so it's not surprising that the other side isn't brought up in your casual conversations. Taking that to mean that kids aren't taught anymore that the founding fathers had positive qualities is a misjudgement of the situation on your end.


My younger relatives are early 20s so I'm not talking about children here and we're not having casual conversations.

A symptom of what I'm talking about about is the example I gave of George Washington. A great majority of the admiration I have for him is vested in his decision to relinquish power after two terms as President when many feel he could have gone on to be a life long President and how that set the precedence for the peaceful transfer of power. I've found that aspect of his character to be completely disregarded and taken for granted. It's not that they think owning slaves is a bigger negative than that positive, is that they don't even entertain that it's a point in his favor, like the peaceful transfer of power was a foregone conclusion.

I really do think that's an over correction. Some correction of his myth was definitely needed so I'm not saying this is completely wrong but I think the correction is more needed in the way we think of historical figures as good guys and bad guys instead of some mix of both, as we all are. Instead, the founding fathers seem to have just been moved from good guy to bad guy.

Now, I don't know what's actually being taught but I do see the result, which is all I'm speaking to.


the attitude seems to be that a person who owned slaves shouldn't have their accomplishments and contributions acknowledged

This is the very opposite of nuanced.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: