Does George Washington being a slaveholder outweigh his achievements as General and President?

[MiddleRoad]

Should we continue to have schools named after him, statues etc?

Or does he belong in the dustbin of history due to his status as a slaver and literal colonist?

[nicholas.slaydon]

Anyone who opposes public buildings, monuments and such and so forth being named after the father of this country is a lunatic and should not be taken seriously.

[LBJer]

Of course not.  His slaveowning doesn't make him any different than countless others of his place and time.  His achievements as a general and president DO make him different. 

[PSOL]

George Washington was a terrible general and generally not that great of a politician. His “achievements” also include mass oppression of the working class and punching left, so my personal preference is obviously low for the man.

[NewYorkExpress]

Yes, as does Jefferson et al. Does it mean we shouldn't name things after them? Depends on context.

I'd be fine with renaming the military college at West Point after Washington, but a school would be hard no from me.

I'd be fine with naming a library after Jefferson (he was an avid reader), but a school or Government building would be a hard no from me.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Anyone who opposes public buildings, monuments and such and so forth being named after the father of this country is a lunatic and should not be taken seriously.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Probably overrated simply for the fact that he was the first and therefore iconic or easy to remember.

But in his defence, it would have been hard to be politically viable and anti-slavery at the same time. The best thing to do at the time was to not highlight the issue too much (although it might've led to the instability later in the 19th century). Lincoln did do something truly great, and used anti-southern sentiment to his advantage.

I wouldn't say you would have to give him a free pass, but you have to see things in context. Times change. In some ways, every political leader or human being alive before the 20th century would be HP if you refuse to take context into mind. They didn't always have the same knowledge as we do, know what the right thing to do was, and education was in general worser than today.

I for example believe in some things but they wouldn't be politically viable if i were truly a politician. They would not be popular and i would never get to power to change it or if i do get some power, i would receive a lot of backlash (even if hindsight centuries later would reveal i did the right thing, people at the time might not agree with that). That's evolution vs revolution debate for you.

I believe that some way in the future we would have to ban meat eating or at least "restrict it" a lot, but if i would make that into a political stance, i would obviously be unpopular and be hated for that. It isn't politically viable, so that's why if i were serious about going politics (which i'm not) i wouldn't raise that issue, because the climate simply is not there.

Maybe in 200 years time, people would agree to ban meat eating because they would realize that the overproduction hurts more than that it does help. But today it isn't a viable path.

Many people on the forums agree Bernie Sanders had the right beliefs, yet he didn't came into power. Why was that? Probably because the climate / environment just isn't there yet, and that Americans aren't ready for his beliefs (yet).

[Mr. Reactionary]

George Washington is GOAT.

[Aurelius]

Anyone who opposes public buildings, monuments and such and so forth being named after the father of this country is a lunatic and should not be taken seriously.

[Schiff for Senate]

Of course not.  His slaveowning doesn't make him any different than countless others of his place and time.  His achievements as a general and president DO make him different.  

This, and you put it better than I would've.

[world.execute(me)]

Yes. He was a slaver. He damn well knew owning people as property is bad, and he did it anyway. His contributions should be remembered, but a man who literally used people as property shouldn't be worshiped as a hero.