Progressive Ideology

[jhu72]

https://nypost.com/2022/07/09/monticell ... jefferson/

If you want to re-write a persons legacy this is the way to do it. To paraphrase one sentence in the article... judging a man through a prism of 250 years is nearly impossible. I know Jefferson was a very complicated person. I know one thing, i don't have any plans to take a tour of Monticello anytime soon.

... I have been to Monticello 10 or more times in my life. Jefferson is the president I probably know best -- his history including the ugly. I also admire him as a founder, considering his times. This has peaked my interest. Will have to take another visit later this summer. I suspect some of the description in the article is BS, for the Post's own political reasons.

It would be great to get your POV...my understanding is that they are indeed making a concerted effort to revise how Jefferson is portrayed, basically saying that he is a very, very important figure in history, super important to UVA nearby and to the country as a whole, and that he and his legacy deserves close historical examination...and that includes the critiques that were long swept under the rug. Far from a binary presentation, it is is more rounded and fulsome than previous presentations of only the positive. In some ways, this approach preserves the ongoing appreciation and study of Jefferson rather than the more extreme approaches which would shut down or remove any monuments to those who contributed to slavery's preservation and participated in it actively. I sure wouldn't prefer the latter approach! But neither would I prefer the whitewashing...

... the last time I was there, about 10 years ago, the approach seemed more balanced, including the ugly, than in earlier times. I had no problem with it. Seemed fair. The whitewashing was gone. The article presented did not make it sound like that balance had been maintained. We will see.

[cradleandshoot]

https://nypost.com/2022/07/09/monticell ... jefferson/

If you want to re-write a persons legacy this is the way to do it. To paraphrase one sentence in the article... judging a man through a prism of 250 years is nearly impossible. I know Jefferson was a very complicated person. I know one thing, i don't have any plans to take a tour of Monticello anytime soon.

... I have been to Monticello 10 or more times in my life. Jefferson is the president I probably know best -- his history including the ugly. I also admire him as a founder, considering his times. This has peaked my interest. Will have to take another visit later this summer. I suspect some of the description in the article is BS, for the Post's own political reasons.

It would be great to get your POV...my understanding is that they are indeed making a concerted effort to revise how Jefferson is portrayed, basically saying that he is a very, very important figure in history, super important to UVA nearby and to the country as a whole, and that he and his legacy deserves close historical examination...and that includes the critiques that were long swept under the rug. Far from a binary presentation, it is is more rounded and fulsome than previous presentations of only the positive. In some ways, this approach preserves the ongoing appreciation and study of Jefferson rather than the more extreme approaches which would shut down or remove any monuments to those who contributed to slavery's preservation and participated in it actively. I sure wouldn't prefer the latter approach! But neither would I prefer the whitewashing...

What was most puzzling to me, if this article is not biased, are the comments made by the tour guides. Tour guides for such a prestigious place as Monticello have an obligation to inform visitors of our history and the story about Jefferson and his home. What troubled me was the bizarre painting placed prominently in Jeffersons remodeled music room. What was its purpose??? I hope that what I read about Monticello and Jefferson are exaggerated. My gut instincts tell me they are not.

[Kismet]

https://nypost.com/2022/07/09/monticell ... jefferson/

If you want to re-write a persons legacy this is the way to do it. To paraphrase one sentence in the article... judging a man through a prism of 250 years is nearly impossible. I know Jefferson was a very complicated person. I know one thing, i don't have any plans to take a tour of Monticello anytime soon.

... I have been to Monticello 10 or more times in my life. Jefferson is the president I probably know best -- his history including the ugly. I also admire him as a founder, considering his times. This has peaked my interest. Will have to take another visit later this summer. I suspect some of the description in the article is BS, for the Post's own political reasons.

I sure hope so. I can understand the need to find balance between Jefferson the founding father and Jefferson the slave holder. The article, if true, is not a fair representation of Thomas Jefferson.

There is a great deal of scholarship on Jefferson. Like many people, he was both brilliant and yet often impractical. The man authored the Declaration of Independence, was an accomplished inventor, studied science and philosophy and changed the world. Nevertheless, Monticello never turned a profit even though all of his labor was essentially free. He was so far in debt at one point that he sold his large library of books to the Federal Government thus beginning of the Library of Congress. So even in this case he managed to turn an adverse event into a benefit for his country and civilization.

His list of inventions including the dumbwaiter, polygraph and wheel cipher amongst others.

https://interestingengineering.com/7-th ... n-invented


We should come to realize the conundrum that was Jefferson and acknowledge both his genius and his flaws. Similar dichotomies apply in slightly different ways for Washington, Adams, Madison and Franklin as well as Lincoln and both Roosevelts.

No matter, we are all imperfect as humans and these folks were no different in that regard. We should celebrate their accomplishments but also not forget their shortcomings and frailties. Not very difficult IMHO

[Seacoaster(1)]

https://nypost.com/2022/07/09/monticell ... jefferson/

If you want to re-write a persons legacy this is the way to do it. To paraphrase one sentence in the article... judging a man through a prism of 250 years is nearly impossible. I know Jefferson was a very complicated person. I know one thing, i don't have any plans to take a tour of Monticello anytime soon.

... I have been to Monticello 10 or more times in my life. Jefferson is the president I probably know best -- his history including the ugly. I also admire him as a founder, considering his times. This has peaked my interest. Will have to take another visit later this summer. I suspect some of the description in the article is BS, for the Post's own political reasons.

I sure hope so. I can understand the need to find balance between Jefferson the founding father and Jefferson the slave holder. The article, if true, is not a fair representation of Thomas Jefferson.

There is a great deal of scholarship on Jefferson. Like many people, he was both brilliant and yet often impractical. The man authored the Declaration of Independence, was an accomplished inventor, studied science and philosophy and changed the world. Nevertheless, Monticello never turned a profit even though all of his labor was essentially free. He was so far in debt at one point that he sold his large library of books to the Federal Government thus beginning of the Library of Congress. So even in this case he managed to turn an adverse event into a benefit for his country.

His list of inventions including the dumbwaiter, polygraph and wheel cipher amongs others.

https://interestingengineering.com/7-th ... n-invented


We should come to realize the conundrum that was Jefferson and acknowledge both his genius and his flaws. Similar dichotomies apply in slightly different ways for Washington, Adams, Madison and Franklin as well as Lincoln and both Roosevelts.

No matter, we are all imperfect as humans and these folks were no different in that regard. We should celebrate their accomplishments but also not forget their shortcomings and frailties. Not very difficult IMHO

+1, as usual.

[RedFromMI]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/j ... o-fox-news

Guy involved in this whole issue of Monticello is a known racist…

[cradleandshoot]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/j ... o-fox-news

Guy involved in this whole issue of Monticello is a known racist…

So how is that relevant to the article? Your making an assumption based on what the SPLC has labeled him. If the article is wrong or misleading then say so. If the article has valid points is what the important issue is. I know diddly squat about the author and don't really care. I hope in the near future one of our posters goes for a visit and tells us what they think.

[RedFromMI]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/j ... o-fox-news

Guy involved in this whole issue of Monticello is a known racist…

So how is that relevant to the article? Your making an assumption based on what the SPLC has labeled him. If the article is wrong or misleading then say so. If the article has valid points is what the important issue is. I know diddly squat about the author and don't really care. I hope in the near future one of our posters goes for a visit and tells us what they think.

It is not just from the SPLC. And his past writings are extensive and extensively racist/white supremacist. The point is that Fox News and the NY Post among others are blindly giving guys like this a platform without mentioning their agenda. When you try to “own the libs” using sources like this you are just becoming them.

[cradleandshoot]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/j ... o-fox-news

Guy involved in this whole issue of Monticello is a known racist…

So how is that relevant to the article? Your making an assumption based on what the SPLC has labeled him. If the article is wrong or misleading then say so. If the article has valid points is what the important issue is. I know diddly squat about the author and don't really care. I hope in the near future one of our posters goes for a visit and tells us what they think.

It is not just from the SPLC. And his past writings are extensive and extensively racist/white supremacist. The point is that Fox News and the NY Post among others are blindly giving guys like this a platform without mentioning their agenda. When you try to “own the libs” using sources like this you are just becoming them.

Your showing your own bias. I don't care what the authors political beliefs are. The point is was the article factual or not?? You criticize the author and never mention if the article he wrote is based on fact. He posted enough pictures of his tour of Monticello to make his point. FTR, progressive authors do the same thing. If they are not embellishing the facts i have no issue with what they write.

I am becoming more and more skeptical about the racist label being thrown so freely by progressive folks. It makes it much easier to judge people you don't know. You call em a racist and it is suppose to be the end of the conversation. When the folks at the SPLC start throwing around the racist label... I look at the source.

It is ironic how back in the 50s tailgunner Joe accused everybody of being a communist that he didn't like. It some respects the modern day progressives are carrying on in the tradition of tailgunner Joe.

Are you now or have you ever been a white supremacist??? What goes around comes around.

[Seacoaster(1)]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/j ... o-fox-news

Guy involved in this whole issue of Monticello is a known racist…

So how is that relevant to the article? Your making an assumption based on what the SPLC has labeled him. If the article is wrong or misleading then say so. If the article has valid points is what the important issue is. I know diddly squat about the author and don't really care. I hope in the near future one of our posters goes for a visit and tells us what they think.

It is not just from the SPLC. And his past writings are extensive and extensively racist/white supremacist. The point is that Fox News and the NY Post among others are blindly giving guys like this a platform without mentioning their agenda. When you try to “own the libs” using sources like this you are just becoming them.

Your showing your own bias. I don't care what the authors political beliefs are. The point is was the article factual or not?? You criticize the author and never mention if the article he wrote is based on fact. He posted enough pictures of his tour of Monticello to make his point. FTR, progressive authors do the same thing. If they are not embellishing the facts i have no issue with what they write.

I am becoming more and more skeptical about the racist label being thrown so freely by progressive folks. It makes it much easier to judge people you don't know. You call em a racist and it is suppose to be the end of the conversation. When the folks at the SPLC start throwing around the racist label... I look at the source.

So we are "both sides'ing" blatant and long-term racism now?

[cradleandshoot]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/j ... o-fox-news

Guy involved in this whole issue of Monticello is a known racist…

So how is that relevant to the article? Your making an assumption based on what the SPLC has labeled him. If the article is wrong or misleading then say so. If the article has valid points is what the important issue is. I know diddly squat about the author and don't really care. I hope in the near future one of our posters goes for a visit and tells us what they think.

It is not just from the SPLC. And his past writings are extensive and extensively racist/white supremacist. The point is that Fox News and the NY Post among others are blindly giving guys like this a platform without mentioning their agenda. When you try to “own the libs” using sources like this you are just becoming them.

Your showing your own bias. I don't care what the authors political beliefs are. The point is was the article factual or not?? You criticize the author and never mention if the article he wrote is based on fact. He posted enough pictures of his tour of Monticello to make his point. FTR, progressive authors do the same thing. If they are not embellishing the facts i have no issue with what they write.

I am becoming more and more skeptical about the racist label being thrown so freely by progressive folks. It makes it much easier to judge people you don't know. You call em a racist and it is suppose to be the end of the conversation. When the folks at the SPLC start throwing around the racist label... I look at the source.

So we are "both sides'ing" blatant and long-term racism now?

Pretty much, FTR, what is long term racism?? My point remains the same, was his article about Monticello factual or not? It ain't that hard to determine. All it takes is a trip to Monticello and take the tour. Fair minded people can decide for themselves.

[PizzaSnake]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/j ... o-fox-news

Guy involved in this whole issue of Monticello is a known racist…

So how is that relevant to the article? Your making an assumption based on what the SPLC has labeled him. If the article is wrong or misleading then say so. If the article has valid points is what the important issue is. I know diddly squat about the author and don't really care. I hope in the near future one of our posters goes for a visit and tells us what they think.

It is not just from the SPLC. And his past writings are extensive and extensively racist/white supremacist. The point is that Fox News and the NY Post among others are blindly giving guys like this a platform without mentioning their agenda. When you try to “own the libs” using sources like this you are just becoming them.

Your showing your own bias. I don't care what the authors political beliefs are. The point is was the article factual or not?? You criticize the author and never mention if the article he wrote is based on fact. He posted enough pictures of his tour of Monticello to make his point. FTR, progressive authors do the same thing. If they are not embellishing the facts i have no issue with what they write.

I am becoming more and more skeptical about the racist label being thrown so freely by progressive folks. It makes it much easier to judge people you don't know. You call em a racist and it is suppose to be the end of the conversation. When the folks at the SPLC start throwing around the racist label... I look at the source.

So we are "both sides'ing" blatant and long-term racism now?

Pretty much, FTR, what is long term racism?? My point remains the same, was his article about Monticello factual or not? It ain't that hard to determine. All it takes is a trip to Monticello and take the tour. Fair minded people can decide for themselves.

Don’t need to visit again to be acquainted with some facts:

Jefferson was a slaveowner and consigned his progeny with Sally Hemings to chattel slavery.

Monticello would not have existed without the institution of slavery.

Last time I was there it was a 3-D hagiography to the “great white man” myth. So, given the cyclic nature of human behavior, I think this recent swing of the pendulum is neither unexpected nor unreasonable.

[Kismet]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/j ... o-fox-news

Guy involved in this whole issue of Monticello is a known racist…

So how is that relevant to the article? Your making an assumption based on what the SPLC has labeled him. If the article is wrong or misleading then say so. If the article has valid points is what the important issue is. I know diddly squat about the author and don't really care. I hope in the near future one of our posters goes for a visit and tells us what they think.

It is not just from the SPLC. And his past writings are extensive and extensively racist/white supremacist. The point is that Fox News and the NY Post among others are blindly giving guys like this a platform without mentioning their agenda. When you try to “own the libs” using sources like this you are just becoming them.

Your showing your own bias. I don't care what the authors political beliefs are. The point is was the article factual or not?? You criticize the author and never mention if the article he wrote is based on fact. He posted enough pictures of his tour of Monticello to make his point. FTR, progressive authors do the same thing. If they are not embellishing the facts i have no issue with what they write.

I am becoming more and more skeptical about the racist label being thrown so freely by progressive folks. It makes it much easier to judge people you don't know. You call em a racist and it is suppose to be the end of the conversation. When the folks at the SPLC start throwing around the racist label... I look at the source.

Here's a suggestion for you - rather than mindlessly ranting here - go to your local library and pick up and read a few biographies of the people of the time - here's three for starters which should get you through the summer


American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph Ellis (1996)

Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson (2003)

Washington: A Life By Ron Chernow (2010)

As an example of taking items about people out of context, you would learn the following about Franklin -

He did not attend the funeral of his spouse. He failed to show up at either of the weddings of his daughter and son. His illegitimate son, William who was an ardent loyalist to the crown who was imprisoned during the American Revolution and who left America for Great Britain after Yorktown.

During the revolution, Franklin served as Ambassador to France (1776–1785) where he was linked to any number of secret societies as well as links to any number of women, both young and old.

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/10/ ... lin-paris/

Does any of this detract from his contribution to this country? Nope.

Like Jefferson and Washington, he was human...not in any way perfect. But in many things, notably politics, publishing and science he was way ahead of his time and certifiably, in many ways, a true genius and patriot.

[PizzaSnake]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/j ... o-fox-news

Guy involved in this whole issue of Monticello is a known racist…

So how is that relevant to the article? Your making an assumption based on what the SPLC has labeled him. If the article is wrong or misleading then say so. If the article has valid points is what the important issue is. I know diddly squat about the author and don't really care. I hope in the near future one of our posters goes for a visit and tells us what they think.

It is not just from the SPLC. And his past writings are extensive and extensively racist/white supremacist. The point is that Fox News and the NY Post among others are blindly giving guys like this a platform without mentioning their agenda. When you try to “own the libs” using sources like this you are just becoming them.

Your showing your own bias. I don't care what the authors political beliefs are. The point is was the article factual or not?? You criticize the author and never mention if the article he wrote is based on fact. He posted enough pictures of his tour of Monticello to make his point. FTR, progressive authors do the same thing. If they are not embellishing the facts i have no issue with what they write.

I am becoming more and more skeptical about the racist label being thrown so freely by progressive folks. It makes it much easier to judge people you don't know. You call em a racist and it is suppose to be the end of the conversation. When the folks at the SPLC start throwing around the racist label... I look at the source.

Here's a suggestion for you - rather than mindlessly ranting here - go to your local library and read a few biographies of the people of the time - here's three for starters which should get you through the summer


American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph Ellis (1996)

Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson (2003)

Washington: A Life By Ron Chernow (2010)

As an example of taking items about people out of context, you would learn the following about Franklin -

He did not attend the funeral of his spouse. He failed to show up at either of the weddings of his daughter and son. His illegitimate son, William who was an ardent loyalist to the crown who was imprisoned during the American Revolution and who left America for Great Britain after Yorktown. During the revolution, he served as Ambassador to France (1776–1785) where he was linked to any number of secret societies as well as links to any number of women, both young and old.

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/10/ ... lin-paris/

Does any of this detract from his contribution to this country? Nope.

Like Jefferson and Washington, he was human...not in any way perfect. But in many things, notably politics, publishing and science he was way ahead of his time and certifiably, in many ways, a true genius.

Exactly. All humans are a collection of strengths and weaknesses, morality and immorality.

What is so irksome is when any deviation from the myth of the unimpeachable “founding father” trope is raised, the author is pilloried, often by groups or individuals with suspect intent and motivation. It is not as if these are scholarly disagreements between historians; these are smear campaigns waged by political “action groups”.

So, next time we hear these breathless dispatches perhaps we should enquire: “qui bono”?

[Kismet]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/j ... o-fox-news

Guy involved in this whole issue of Monticello is a known racist…

So how is that relevant to the article? Your making an assumption based on what the SPLC has labeled him. If the article is wrong or misleading then say so. If the article has valid points is what the important issue is. I know diddly squat about the author and don't really care. I hope in the near future one of our posters goes for a visit and tells us what they think.

It is not just from the SPLC. And his past writings are extensive and extensively racist/white supremacist. The point is that Fox News and the NY Post among others are blindly giving guys like this a platform without mentioning their agenda. When you try to “own the libs” using sources like this you are just becoming them.

Your showing your own bias. I don't care what the authors political beliefs are. The point is was the article factual or not?? You criticize the author and never mention if the article he wrote is based on fact. He posted enough pictures of his tour of Monticello to make his point. FTR, progressive authors do the same thing. If they are not embellishing the facts i have no issue with what they write.

I am becoming more and more skeptical about the racist label being thrown so freely by progressive folks. It makes it much easier to judge people you don't know. You call em a racist and it is suppose to be the end of the conversation. When the folks at the SPLC start throwing around the racist label... I look at the source.

Here's a suggestion for you - rather than mindlessly ranting here - go to your local library and read a few biographies of the people of the time - here's three for starters which should get you through the summer


American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph Ellis (1996)

Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson (2003)

Washington: A Life By Ron Chernow (2010)

As an example of taking items about people out of context, you would learn the following about Franklin -

He did not attend the funeral of his spouse. He failed to show up at either of the weddings of his daughter and son. His illegitimate son, William who was an ardent loyalist to the crown who was imprisoned during the American Revolution and who left America for Great Britain after Yorktown. During the revolution, he served as Ambassador to France (1776–1785) where he was linked to any number of secret societies as well as links to any number of women, both young and old.

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/10/ ... lin-paris/

Does any of this detract from his contribution to this country? Nope.

Like Jefferson and Washington, he was human...not in any way perfect. But in many things, notably politics, publishing and science he was way ahead of his time and certifiably, in many ways, a true genius.

Exactly. All humans are a collection of strengths and weaknesses, morality and immorality.

What is so irksome is when any deviation from the myth of the unimpeachable “founding father” trope is raised, the author is pilloried, often by groups or individuals with suspect intent and motivation. It is not as if these are scholarly disagreements between historians; these are smear campaigns waged by political “action groups”.

So, next time we hear these breathless dispatches perhaps we should enquire: “qui bono”?

fine analysis on your part.

One of the reasons I prefer history to mythology.

[cradleandshoot]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/j ... o-fox-news

Guy involved in this whole issue of Monticello is a known racist…

So how is that relevant to the article? Your making an assumption based on what the SPLC has labeled him. If the article is wrong or misleading then say so. If the article has valid points is what the important issue is. I know diddly squat about the author and don't really care. I hope in the near future one of our posters goes for a visit and tells us what they think.

It is not just from the SPLC. And his past writings are extensive and extensively racist/white supremacist. The point is that Fox News and the NY Post among others are blindly giving guys like this a platform without mentioning their agenda. When you try to “own the libs” using sources like this you are just becoming them.

Your showing your own bias. I don't care what the authors political beliefs are. The point is was the article factual or not?? You criticize the author and never mention if the article he wrote is based on fact. He posted enough pictures of his tour of Monticello to make his point. FTR, progressive authors do the same thing. If they are not embellishing the facts i have no issue with what they write.

I am becoming more and more skeptical about the racist label being thrown so freely by progressive folks. It makes it much easier to judge people you don't know. You call em a racist and it is suppose to be the end of the conversation. When the folks at the SPLC start throwing around the racist label... I look at the source.

Here's a suggestion for you - rather than mindlessly ranting here - go to your local library and pick up and read a few biographies of the people of the time - here's three for starters which should get you through the summer


American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph Ellis (1996)

Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson (2003)

Washington: A Life By Ron Chernow (2010)

As an example of taking items about people out of context, you would learn the following about Franklin -

He did not attend the funeral of his spouse. He failed to show up at either of the weddings of his daughter and son. His illegitimate son, William who was an ardent loyalist to the crown who was imprisoned during the American Revolution and who left America for Great Britain after Yorktown.

During the revolution, Franklin served as Ambassador to France (1776–1785) where he was linked to any number of secret societies as well as links to any number of women, both young and old.

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/10/ ... lin-paris/

Does any of this detract from his contribution to this country? Nope.

Like Jefferson and Washington, he was human...not in any way perfect. But in many things, notably politics, publishing and science he was way ahead of his time and certifiably, in many ways, a true genius and patriot.

Or I could simply visit Monticello and take a FLP revisionist take on American history? None of you have said diddly squat about the authors observation made during his tour. What I get in response is a poster pointing out all of Ben Franklins faults. FTR.. Franklin is irrelevant to the topic. Try and stay focused if that is possible and not veer off onto irrelevant tangents. It was a pathetic attempt at deflecting from the topic at hand. If you want to discuss Ben Franklin, then make Ben the topic of your conversation.

[Kismet]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/j ... o-fox-news

Guy involved in this whole issue of Monticello is a known racist…

So how is that relevant to the article? Your making an assumption based on what the SPLC has labeled him. If the article is wrong or misleading then say so. If the article has valid points is what the important issue is. I know diddly squat about the author and don't really care. I hope in the near future one of our posters goes for a visit and tells us what they think.

It is not just from the SPLC. And his past writings are extensive and extensively racist/white supremacist. The point is that Fox News and the NY Post among others are blindly giving guys like this a platform without mentioning their agenda. When you try to “own the libs” using sources like this you are just becoming them.

Your showing your own bias. I don't care what the authors political beliefs are. The point is was the article factual or not?? You criticize the author and never mention if the article he wrote is based on fact. He posted enough pictures of his tour of Monticello to make his point. FTR, progressive authors do the same thing. If they are not embellishing the facts i have no issue with what they write.

I am becoming more and more skeptical about the racist label being thrown so freely by progressive folks. It makes it much easier to judge people you don't know. You call em a racist and it is suppose to be the end of the conversation. When the folks at the SPLC start throwing around the racist label... I look at the source.

Here's a suggestion for you - rather than mindlessly ranting here - go to your local library and pick up and read a few biographies of the people of the time - here's three for starters which should get you through the summer


American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph Ellis (1996)

Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson (2003)

Washington: A Life By Ron Chernow (2010)

As an example of taking items about people out of context, you would learn the following about Franklin -

He did not attend the funeral of his spouse. He failed to show up at either of the weddings of his daughter and son. His illegitimate son, William who was an ardent loyalist to the crown who was imprisoned during the American Revolution and who left America for Great Britain after Yorktown.

During the revolution, Franklin served as Ambassador to France (1776–1785) where he was linked to any number of secret societies as well as links to any number of women, both young and old.

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/10/ ... lin-paris/

Does any of this detract from his contribution to this country? Nope.

Like Jefferson and Washington, he was human...not in any way perfect. But in many things, notably politics, publishing and science he was way ahead of his time and certifiably, in many ways, a true genius and patriot.

Or I could simply visit Monticello and take a FLP revisionist take on American history? None of you have said diddly squat about the authors observation made during his tour. What I get in response is a poster pointing out all of Ben Franklins faults. FTR.. Franklin is irrelevant to the topic. Try and stay focused if that is possible and not veer off onto irrelevant tangents. It was a pathetic attempt at deflecting from the topic at hand. If you want to discuss Ben Franklin, then make Ben the topic of your conversation.

Thanks for the expected and tiresome mindless response - won't waste any more time trying to have any kind reasoned conversation with you as you demonstrate your capacity to not listen to any other views except your own. Enjoy your personal echo chamber where all other thoughts except your own sail right over your head.

[RedFromMI]

The author cradle keeps referring to is presenting a tired view that telling the truth about slavery and how it permeated the lives of the time is a problem because it ‘tarnishes’ the white male supremacist view that these things were just fine to be left alone.

In other words, we must whitewash our history to keep our children from seeing the ugly parts.

[cradleandshoot]

The author cradle keeps referring to is presenting a tired view that telling the truth about slavery and how it permeated the lives of the time is a problem because it ‘tarnishes’ the white male supremacist view that these things were just fine to be left alone.

In other words, we must whitewash our history to keep our children from seeing the ugly parts.

Who is trying to whitewash anything?? The pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction. Jeffersons history should be balanced between the good he did and the bad. That does not appear to be how Jeffersons legacy is being portrayed at present.

[MDlaxfan76]

The author cradle keeps referring to is presenting a tired view that telling the truth about slavery and how it permeated the lives of the time is a problem because it ‘tarnishes’ the white male supremacist view that these things were just fine to be left alone.

In other words, we must whitewash our history to keep our children from seeing the ugly parts.

Who is trying to whitewash anything?? The pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction. Jeffersons history should be balanced between the good he did and the bad. That does not appear to be how Jeffersons legacy is being portrayed at present.

Has the pendulum swung to an un"balanced" state?
Or is there simply balance now?

You say "That does not appear to be how Jeffersons legacy is being portrayed at present." How do you know?

This article, this Fox News appearance...by this one "visitor"??? And you don't think it is relevant to recognize that the perceptions by this one "visitor" may well be biased by his history of racist writings and involvement? Does it not occur to you that what may well actually be a "balanced" portrayal of Jefferson at Monticello simply offends a racist, and writing about it gets him an appearance on Fox???

If one bothers to read what numerous fellow posters have responded, no one on here is calling for an unbalanced portrayal, for ignoring the immense contributions made by Jefferson, or by the other examples of Founders with significant personal flaws and contradictions.

Nope, merely a balanced view.

Jefferson is a particularly interesting set of contradictions, given the foundational vision for America he espoused in his inspirational writings, contrasted with his own personal choices. His home is a particularly apt place to highlight those contradictions as it was largely there that his personal choices were in highest relief.

Shifting gears just a bit, it seems to me that this examination of the writings, beliefs, and actions, of the Founders makes even more clear that "originalist" logic is inherently flawed. We should not look to the Founders or what they wrote as the perfect, much less sole, sources of wisdom on America. America should never be static, stuck in the past.

Rather, we should see that what the Founders set in motion, based on aspirational principles, requires ongoing work. Ongoing progress forward.

We can, and (IMO) should, debate on how fast to move in this "progress" (recognizing that all actions have consequences, often unintended), but what we should definitely not do is justify retrograde positions based on "text", as if "sacred", written in bygone eras by men whose personal flaws and compromises made them indeed imperfect.

[kramerica.inc]

The author cradle keeps referring to is presenting a tired view that telling the truth about slavery and how it permeated the lives of the time is a problem because it ‘tarnishes’ the white male supremacist view that these things were just fine to be left alone.

In other words, we must whitewash our history to keep our children from seeing the ugly parts.

The ugly parts are important to show. But what is often missing from this discussion (and these revisions to history) is the context of the people compared to world norms.

Slavery was not seen in the same light as it is today. When there was nothing in the world- war, brutality, and slave labor was how societies and economies were built. Perspectives change. Civilizations grow, evolve and change. What was considered kosher then is not today.

I watched a movie the other day. It was made in 2007. So not THAT long ago. Many of the things said in the movie, were extremely offensive. Would probably get DMac banned from this forum if he posted them as his own- even as a joke.

Now consider that the topic we are discussing - slavery, had been used since 3500 BCE as THE form of labor for EVERYTHING. There were no machines, technology etc. It was just slave labor.

So slavery was going strong in the world for over 5,000 years. In America, it began 400 years ago. So when you look at it from that perspective, Jefferson's place in history was at the relative "end" of slavery. His political contributions were not perfect compared to today, but they were progressive for his time. He is a controversial and complicated figure because he was at the real tipping point for slavery. He was living during the transition. He had a foot in both worlds.