Washington Post appears legitimately surprised so many US Capitol artworks depict slaveowners

Since the paper is named for a slave owner, there's a little problem with myopia there.

Is it really "surprise" on the part of the Post as much as it is simple reporting?

As for real "surprise", sign me in as that's how I felt while on a Capitol tour recently when I discovered that various statues in statuary hall in that building honor people who seem to be undeserving of such an honor. Among them is the statue for Georgia which is of alexander h. stephens who served as the vice president of the confederacy, i.e. Georgia's statue honors a traitor! (see the link below)

You could accurately describe me as "outraged" over this as well as "surprised"!

Zoomers need to come out of their safe space , put the crayons down, and learn some American history.

R2 is naive. The Southern states purposely have inserted their slaving heroes and Old South figures as part of their permanent attack on the nation.

Nothing has changed, really. After all, the South made Trump happen.

Technically the Midwest and rust belt did that.

It's like this, (4(... I live in Georgia and have studied history and am far from "naive" about it's current or past history.. You clearly don't know me and have "reached" in your judgmental word choice there. For you going forward, I'd suggest a little more restraint in making such quick snap interpretations about other members here.

Putting it simply, I was very much surprised and also outraged that even now in 2023 Georgia's statue in the U.S. Capitol honors the traitorous stephens.

As such, my goal is to bring about a change in the situation via my ongoing contact with my own local legislative delegation.

Oh people get over yourselves and your picking apart history, learn to live your lives in the present.

I can almost promise we all use products every day that were manufactured using slave labor.

r2 isn't naive, they are unaware. There's a difference.

Very few people alive today remember when the U.S. government bent over backwards to appease the South for what they endured during the Civil War. Once the South was back in the United States, the North felt obligated to allow them to praise their heroes, because after all, we're all Americans, right?

The South took advantage of this to set themselves up as unfair victims of the War of Northern Aggression. Politically, they immediately began what we'd now call a culture war, claiming the government was out to get them, that urban politics were unfairly forcing rural areas into perversions (like women being allowed to vote, black people considered human, toddlers no longer sent to work in mines), and resentments were formed that lasted not just lifetimes, but generations. And the attempt at appeasement and understanding from the winning side just turned into an excuse for the South to codify and lionize awful people who were, in fact, traitors and scumbags.

No one gets taught this in schools. Anyone who assumes that the U.S. government considers the Confederacy a group of traitors and enemies (which they were) is going to be shocked to find out that the U.S. government was actually like "Hey, we'll sign bills to send money to your tiny Southern town to put up several statues of dudes who owned slaves, many of whom they raped and murdered, because it's the 50th anniversary of the war yay!!! Also send some of that sweet, sweet statuary to the Capitol!"

[quote]James Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution because of his pivotal role in the document's drafting as well as its ratification. Madison also drafted the first 10 amendments -- the Bill of Rights.

The fact that he and many others owned slaves is a residual artifact of the era in which he lived. I have no problem honoring the likes of Madison, Jefferson, Washington and many others for their contributions.

As long as it's not honoring of their actual owning of slaves, I'm fine with it.

Of course, Confederates should not be honored as they are, in fact, traitors. Not honoring them is more about their treason than about owning slaves.

Not only do we use "products" but in the former slave-holding states, we use "buildings" that were built on the backs of slave labor.

And in the post-Civil War period, often many private or public facilities were built via the system of convict labor which was in and of itself a thinly-disguised system of labor that varied slightly from slave labor and which was corrupt at it's core.

There's a scene in Gone With the Wind wherein after the Civil war as she is gaining wealth, Scarlett visits a facility she owns in which the labor there consists of convict laborers who are chained together. As such, Mitchell shown a spotlight on that specific injustice.

I genuinely believe these Zoomers will be shocked when they learn that no transgender people are honored in the Capitol.

R12 has no job, they just sit online all day, whining about trans in 50 different browser threads. Someone on YouTube posts a recipe? "But the trans!" Someone on Twitter posts a picture of a cute squirrel? "But the trans!" Someone on DL talks about the Civil War? "But the trans!"

(9) I agree with what you wrote in terms of content but I (2) am not "unaware".

I would recommend to anyone that they watch the PBS program "Reconstruction: America after the Civil War". It's both eye-opening and also shocking!

It gave me a view as to how my maternal grandmother, who was born in 1897 and always lived several hundred miles away from the former confederacy &, who seldom had any contact with Black people, could have been as racist as I've come to realize she was.

I challenge anyone to watch the show who doubts that the post-Civil War history has largely been corrupted into an entirely too-favorable view of the South and it's centuries long racist tendencies an systems.

[quote][R12] has no job, they just sit online all day, whining about trans in 50 different browser threads.

Unless, of course, that IS r12's job.

I should have used past tense, r14, but you were indeed unaware of the situation, that's why you were surprised about the Stephens statue.

Wait till Zoomers find out that removing all artworks of slaverowners and changing all the street names will have zero effect on the actual lives of people. In fact, the situation for POC will actually worsen because zero of any real issues will be addressed. Good luck Zoomers!

[quote]am far from "naive" about it's current or past history..

Maybe, maybe not, but you’re DEFINITELY naive in the proper use of apostrophes.

[quote]corrupt at it's core.

[quote]and it's centuries long racist tendencies

Oh, fucking dear!

^^^ Pardon my errors there. But as it happens, in view of my eyesight issues, I'm lucky that I can see well enough to type. Now that I've informed you of that handicap, would you rather I didn't post at all?

Proofreading efforts notwithstanding, in paying more attention to the "content" of my posts, I'm unfortunately more likely than not to struggle with grammatical or punctuation errors.

Wait till the zoomers realize if all the shit didnt that happened in the past that None of them would be living today. Morons.

Uh, what?

The nation's capital is named after a slaveholder and the Italian-born explorer who enslaved indigenous peoples.

A state is named after this same slaveholder.

Another state is named Georgia after George II, who supported the slave trade.

Two more states, North and South Carolina, are named after Charles I, one of the first major sponsors of the slave trade.

Maryland is named after his wife, Queen Henriette Maria.

Two more are named Virginia and West Virginia after Elizabeth I, who funded the exploration of the united States and made possible the slaughter and exploitation there.

Two state capitals are named after slaveholders: Madison, and Jefferson City. A third, Jackson, is named after a president who was wretched to and slaughtered many Native Americans. A fourth, Columbus, and a fifth, Columbia, are named after Christopher Columbus.

Should we just rename everything?

In my mind, there is a difference between the founding fathers and confederates. The founding fathers were flawed individuals who were building a nation. It doesn't excuse them owning slaves, but it's just different than those who owned slaves and who tried to destroy the country and were traitors - the confederates. These things need context. I can wrap my head around being upset about statues and monuments to traitors, but not about the people who actually founded the country.