Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matt went against the law and hid his crime. George Mason hid nothing. Why? Because it wasn't against the law at the time. We can say the law was wrong and even say we don't want to honor people who allowed it or encouraged it on our school buildings. All of that is fine. But to say these are bad people because they did something that was lawful at the time that we now think is wrong is judging the person unfairly. 200 years from now someone will judge you for something you are doing now that is lawful. That doesn't make you a bad person. You are working with the law of the land at this time.

Please. Lawful does not equal moral, and plenty of people were saying it was wrong at the time. Enslaving people does in fact make you a bad person.

No they weren't. I'm sure some were but there weren't many at all. George Mason wouldn't have written the bill of rights which then became the basis for our current bill of rights if plenty of people were saying it was wrong. Slavery has gone on since the beginning of time and still goes on today.

Are you justifying slavery? It's reprehensible, no matter when it occurs. And the language of the Bill of Rights is contradictory to the reality of how enslaved people were treated, and many of them acknowledged the hypocrisy and it troubled them. They knew very well that it was wrong.

And my guess on the last sentence was that he didn't think it was a good idea to free slaves at the same time they were starting a new country. Not that it shouldn't be done.

His views on slavery were mixed just like Jefferson. He signed some bills that were anti-slavery but had a hard time reconciling the money that came to him and Virginia and was fearful of blacks and whites living together. This was not an uncommon stance at the time at all. You can't just rewrite history as if these people lived today. There's nothing to say that he acted to expand slavery during his life. He was adamant against new slaves coming to America and more mixed on the slaves currently here which was the majority thought of the time. To say he was evil because of this is just inaccurate. He was ignorant although not knowing everything about that era there are likely things he knew that we today aren't taking into consideration on the matter. Again, it's wrong and I'm glad there was a war that ended it, but I just don't think it's fair to credit Mason as an evil person for owning slaves at the time when it was legal.

"According to Wallenstein, historians and other writers "have had great difficulty coming to grips with Mason in his historical context, and they have jumbled the story in related ways, misleading each other and following each other's errors".[146] Some of this is due to conflation of Mason's views on slavery with that of his desire to ban the African slave trade, which he unquestionably opposed and fought against. His record otherwise is mixed: Virginia banned the importation of slaves from abroad in 1778, while Mason was in the House of Delegates. In 1782, after he had returned to Gunston Hall, it enacted legislation that allowed manumission of adult slaves young enough to support themselves (not older than 45), but a proposal, supported by Mason, to require freed slaves to leave Virginia within a year or be sold at auction, was defeated.[147] Broadwater asserted, "Mason must have shared the fears of Jefferson and countless other whites that whites and free blacks could not live together".[138]

The contradiction between wanting protection for slave property, while opposing the slave trade, was pointed out by delegates to the Richmond convention such as George Nicholas, a supporter of ratification.[148] Mason stated of slavery, "it is far from being a desirable property. But it will involve us in great difficulties and infelicity to be now deprived of them."[149]

I guess no one in FCC can send their kids to GMU, either.

Really, FCC should pay Fairfax County $5M or so as reparations for the additional cost FCC imposed on the county when it tossed out the Black families to keep whites firmly in control of FCC. In exchange, Fairfax County could agree to rename Falls Church HS - which actually educated minority kids, unlike George Mason - after a minority and FCCPS could go ahead and claim Falls Church HS as the new name for George Mason.

Anonymous wrote:yeah- the whole renaming George Mason is silly. The school was name for George Mason, who is primarily known as a founding father and father of the bill of rights.
Yes, it is a true statement that he owned slaves- but neither the naming of the school nor his legacy is about his role as a slave holder.

Contrast that to 'Stonewall Jackson' or "JEB stuart' primary historic contribution is fighting for slavery- and the naming of those schools done as part of apartheid to remind blacks 'of their place' and as a way of increasing fear and intimidation.

One of these things is not like the other.

Very well said!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we renaming George mason?

Because we can only name high schools these days for saints if we name them for people and there are very few human saints.

Really? I know of a lot of saints. But I don't think people want to name public schools after Catholic or Orthodox saints.

I just meant people completely free of blemish. Of which there aren't any because we are human. Which is why we are now naming schools after unliving things like West End.

I’m not sure I would consider owning human beings and subjecting them to inhumane conditions a “blemish”.

I think the bill of rights which laid a foundation for the freedom of slaves made up for the blemish which was lawful at the time. Do you go around blaming all leaders of the world? There have been slaves all over the world in every century.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matt went against the law and hid his crime. George Mason hid nothing. Why? Because it wasn't against the law at the time. We can say the law was wrong and even say we don't want to honor people who allowed it or encouraged it on our school buildings. All of that is fine. But to say these are bad people because they did something that was lawful at the time that we now think is wrong is judging the person unfairly. 200 years from now someone will judge you for something you are doing now that is lawful. That doesn't make you a bad person. You are working with the law of the land at this time.

Please. Lawful does not equal moral, and plenty of people were saying it was wrong at the time. Enslaving people does in fact make you a bad person.

No they weren't. I'm sure some were but there weren't many at all. George Mason wouldn't have written the bill of rights which then became the basis for our current bill of rights if plenty of people were saying it was wrong. Slavery has gone on since the beginning of time and still goes on today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we renaming George mason?

Because we can only name high schools these days for saints if we name them for people and there are very few human saints.

Really? I know of a lot of saints. But I don't think people want to name public schools after Catholic or Orthodox saints.

I just meant people completely free of blemish. Of which there aren't any because we are human. Which is why we are now naming schools after unliving things like West End.

I’m not sure I would consider owning human beings and subjecting them to inhumane conditions a “blemish”.

Anonymous wrote:Matt went against the law and hid his crime. George Mason hid nothing. Why? Because it wasn't against the law at the time. We can say the law was wrong and even say we don't want to honor people who allowed it or encouraged it on our school buildings. All of that is fine. But to say these are bad people because they did something that was lawful at the time that we now think is wrong is judging the person unfairly. 200 years from now someone will judge you for something you are doing now that is lawful. That doesn't make you a bad person. You are working with the law of the land at this time.

Please. Lawful does not equal moral, and plenty of people were saying it was wrong at the time. Enslaving people does in fact make you a bad person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we renaming George mason?

He owned over 100 slaves. Unlike some of the other Founders, he did not free them and make provisions for them in his will.

Can we learn from the past rather than try to change the past? This is stupid.

This is what learning from the past looks like. These men were elevated to hero status without regard for the pain they inflicted on other human beings. We know better now. We recognize their choices as repugnant, and now we're removing them from the idol status of which they were never worthy. We can learn about them in a history book or a museum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we renaming George mason?

Because we can only name high schools these days for saints if we name them for people and there are very few human saints.

Really? I know of a lot of saints. But I don't think people want to name public schools after Catholic or Orthodox saints.

I just meant people completely free of blemish. Of which there aren't any because we are human. Which is why we are now naming schools after unliving things like West End.

Anonymous wrote:I'll be so glad when this Marxist purge fad is over.

OK, MAGA droid.

yeah- the whole renaming George Mason is silly. The school was name for George Mason, who is primarily known as a founding father and father of the bill of rights.
Yes, it is a true statement that he owned slaves- but neither the naming of the school nor his legacy is about his role as a slave holder.

Contrast that to 'Stonewall Jackson' or "JEB stuart' primary historic contribution is fighting for slavery- and the naming of those schools done as part of apartheid to remind blacks 'of their place' and as a way of increasing fear and intimidation.

One of these things is not like the other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we renaming George mason?

Because we can only name high schools these days for saints if we name them for people and there are very few human saints.

Really? I know of a lot of saints. But I don't think people want to name public schools after Catholic or Orthodox saints.

Matt went against the law and hid his crime. George Mason hid nothing. Why? Because it wasn't against the law at the time. We can say the law was wrong and even say we don't want to honor people who allowed it or encouraged it on our school buildings. All of that is fine. But to say these are bad people because they did something that was lawful at the time that we now think is wrong is judging the person unfairly. 200 years from now someone will judge you for something you are doing now that is lawful. That doesn't make you a bad person. You are working with the law of the land at this time.