Posted by
Andrews on Sunday, February 14, 2010 1:02:56 AM
I was reading
an article on restoring Washington's Birthday as a holiday when I stumbled across an all too predictable, but still ludicrous, comment:
LET IT BE KNOWN THAT GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS A SLAVE OWNER. AFRO
AMERICANS WERE BOUGHT AND SOLD IN HIS DAYS. WHY SHOULD A MAN WHO OWNED
OTHER MEN AND WOMEN BE HONORED? WHY? BECAUSE HE WROTE A DECLARATION
WHICH WOULD CONTINUE THE PLIGHT OF THE WHITE RACE? HE DID NOT SET THE
SLAVES FREE.
Now, everyone knows comments of this sort. Whenever anyone has a kind word to say about Washington, Jefferson, Madison or any other founder from south of the Mason-Dixon, the comments are inevitable. But, I have to ask, do these people consistently apply these rules?
For example, every militant who tells me Washington was a slave owner, does he also denounce Mohammed in the same terms? Especially as NOI types tend to be in the forefront of making such charges against the founders, do they apply the same anachronistic rules to Mohammed?
Or, for those not inclined to Islam, do they stand up in church and denounce the kings, judges, patriarchs and the rest of the old testament figures for their ownership of slaves?
For that matter, do those who try to make holidays like Kwanza, who venerate African tradition and try to create heroes of Shaka and others, or even try to make every Pharaoh (absurdly including Macedonian Cleopatra) black, do they denounce them for owning slaves?
No. Strangely, the only individuals denounced for slave ownership are those who created the institutions here which eventually led to the abolition of slavery, the men who, though they did not always act consistently, were troubled enough by slavery to consider its abolition, rather than the many throughout history who accepted it without thinking.
Which makes me wonder, why are the only men who are criticized for slave ownership those who actually considered that it might be wrong?