Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most recent statehood proposal has the name becoming Washington, Douglass Commonwealth.

Just Douglass is fine. Douglass State.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Kujichagulia”

Taken from the 2nd Day of the ancient African holiday of Kwanza, and meaning “self-determination”.

It’s the perfect name for DC. It reflects our population, our African heritage, and celebrates our self determination. The name itself even MEANS self determination.


White people might have trouble pronouncing it, but F them.

OMG, this is GOOD!!!

It’s catchy, enlightening, hip.

I LOVE this!!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:In light of recent protests and name changes, I’ve heard someone mention today changing the name of Washington, DC, because Washington was a slaveholder. Will this get any traction? In light of the proposal to remove the Washington monument, it doesn’t seem far fetched. And we can’t call it anything to do with Columbia derived as it is from Columbus.

I would call the city (eventual state) simply Freedom.

Anonymous wrote:“Kujichagulia”

Taken from the 2nd Day of the ancient African holiday of Kwanza, and meaning “self-determination”.

It’s the perfect name for DC. It reflects our population, our African heritage, and celebrates our self determination. The name itself even MEANS self determination.


White people might have trouble pronouncing it, but F them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should just rename it District of Chocolate, since DC is commonly referred to as "Chocolate City".

It can't be called that because DC is not majority black.

Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 4.0%
Asian: 3.0%
White (includes White Hispanics): 43.6%
Black: 49.0%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general I think the test should not be "was this person a slaveholder" and more "why do we remember/commemorate this person?"

In the case of confederate statues, it's almost always the case that the statues were put up decades after the war during a violent terrorist campaign to claw back the rights and freedoms that black people had gained in the war all across the South. That was the intention behind the statues and behind naming so many things after confederates.

Washington, on the other hand, is commemorated more for leading the army in the Revolution and for being the first President.

Someone like Jefferson imo is on the line because we remember him for the Declaration, etc, but his life is also the embodiment of the hypocrisy that was baked in, or at least the gap between our ideals and our reality.

I'd be open to a discussion about it and from hearing from people who think it should be changed but I do think it's important to consider each case on its merits.

Jefferson was also responsible for expanding our country in an unmatched way with the Louisiana Purchase.

His writing of the Declaration is important enough in itself to merit commemoration.

He also wrote a foundational document on religious freedom.

Anonymous wrote:They should just rename it District of Chocolate, since DC is commonly referred to as "Chocolate City".

Anonymous wrote:In light of recent protests and name changes, I’ve heard someone mention today changing the name of Washington, DC, because Washington was a slaveholder. Will this get any traction? In light of the proposal to remove the Washington monument, it doesn’t seem far fetched. And we can’t call it anything to do with Columbia derived as it is from Columbus.

I would call the city (eventual state) simply Freedom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general I think the test should not be "was this person a slaveholder" and more "why do we remember/commemorate this person?"

In the case of confederate statues, it's almost always the case that the statues were put up decades after the war during a violent terrorist campaign to claw back the rights and freedoms that black people had gained in the war all across the South. That was the intention behind the statues and behind naming so many things after confederates.

Washington, on the other hand, is commemorated more for leading the army in the Revolution and for being the first President.

Someone like Jefferson imo is on the line because we remember him for the Declaration, etc, but his life is also the embodiment of the hypocrisy that was baked in, or at least the gap between our ideals and our reality.

I'd be open to a discussion about it and from hearing from people who think it should be changed but I do think it's important to consider each case on its merits.

Than for being a slaveholder? Yes, hmmm, I think that's probably true...

I am solidly on the side of BLM. I think the confederate flag should not fly, and statues of confederate heroes should be removed. But this erasing of every historical figure this country has is getting INSANE and is not going to uplift people of color, nor the cause of BLM in the long run. It simply add fuel and ammunition to the crazy far right Fox News loving racists and further entrenches their beliefs and rhetoric. You seriously want to undermine George Washington? Sure, add to the narrative that he held slave. It was wrong and should be acknowledged. It does not ERASE the fact that he was a founding father of this country and NONE of us would be American's without him.

Anonymous wrote:We should change the name to "Steve"

Anonymous wrote:Enough already on this lunacy.