Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s to know?

He’s a dead, white, male, cisgender, slave-owner. Full stop.

Without whom you would not live in a country that allows you this post. If this is your contribution to the world as opposed to Jefferson, you are indeed at a full stop. And amusing as well.

I agree.

This trope of "died white racist guy" is so boring and unintelligent. We can appreciate Thomas Jefferson's brilliance and genius, his vision for humanity and America and the way he used his intellect to propel forward the birth of a great new nation that still stands 200 years later. We can also assess him critically for being human, flawed, and bound to the social mores of his time. He wouldn't be the first or the last person to have contradictions in his views of the world.

He is someone who took the ideas of others and took credit for them. He essentially had good taste, not difficult when people allow you access. I get why Virginians love him for anchoring Capitol and UVA, but he isn’t a top forefather imo. Madison and Washington are far above him.

That is not true. He was extremely bright and well educated. He read extensively and was intimately aware of the mainstream ideas of liberty vs the fear of tyrannical government as he and his fellow colonists observed take over in his motherland. He was a genius in that it took him 17 days to compile these ideas and put them on paper in a way that is simple, timeless and universal. The Declaration of Independence isn't just a rebuke against the tyrannical government of King George III but a bill of human rights for all men of all time. This is due to his creative foresight and vision. The original drafts also included a strong condemnation against slavery which he was forced to remove as everyone in the Continental Congress were slave owners and they also knew emancipation was a separate cause than their immediate goal of separation from Britain.

To belittle the Declaration of Independence is really a bit much. You can criticize his contradictions and hypocrisy all you'd like but to ignore the revolutionary impact of the idea that "all men are created equal" is truly ignorant.

Is that a joke?

It’s pure hypocrisy coming from a man who owned other people.

The fact that the author was a hypocrite does not diminish the value of the sentiment nor the impact that its expression had on the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s to know?

He’s a dead, white, male, cisgender, slave-owner. Full stop.

Without whom you would not live in a country that allows you this post. If this is your contribution to the world as opposed to Jefferson, you are indeed at a full stop. And amusing as well.

I agree.

This trope of "died white racist guy" is so boring and unintelligent. We can appreciate Thomas Jefferson's brilliance and genius, his vision for humanity and America and the way he used his intellect to propel forward the birth of a great new nation that still stands 200 years later. We can also assess him critically for being human, flawed, and bound to the social mores of his time. He wouldn't be the first or the last person to have contradictions in his views of the world.

He is someone who took the ideas of others and took credit for them. He essentially had good taste, not difficult when people allow you access. I get why Virginians love him for anchoring Capitol and UVA, but he isn’t a top forefather imo. Madison and Washington are far above him.

+1

He prioritized VA over the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s to know?

He’s a dead, white, male, cisgender, slave-owner. Full stop.

Without whom you would not live in a country that allows you this post. If this is your contribution to the world as opposed to Jefferson, you are indeed at a full stop. And amusing as well.

I agree.

This trope of "died white racist guy" is so boring and unintelligent. We can appreciate Thomas Jefferson's brilliance and genius, his vision for humanity and America and the way he used his intellect to propel forward the birth of a great new nation that still stands 200 years later. We can also assess him critically for being human, flawed, and bound to the social mores of his time. He wouldn't be the first or the last person to have contradictions in his views of the world.

He is someone who took the ideas of others and took credit for them. He essentially had good taste, not difficult when people allow you access. I get why Virginians love him for anchoring Capitol and UVA, but he isn’t a top forefather imo. Madison and Washington are far above him.

That is not true. He was extremely bright and well educated. He read extensively and was intimately aware of the mainstream ideas of liberty vs the fear of tyrannical government as he and his fellow colonists observed take over in his motherland. He was a genius in that it took him 17 days to compile these ideas and put them on paper in a way that is simple, timeless and universal. The Declaration of Independence isn't just a rebuke against the tyrannical government of King George III but a bill of human rights for all men of all time. This is due to his creative foresight and vision. The original drafts also included a strong condemnation against slavery which he was forced to remove as everyone in the Continental Congress were slave owners and they also knew emancipation was a separate cause than their immediate goal of separation from Britain.

To belittle the Declaration of Independence is really a bit much. You can criticize his contradictions and hypocrisy all you'd like but to ignore the revolutionary impact of the idea that "all men are created equal" is truly ignorant.

Is that a joke?

It’s pure hypocrisy coming from a man who owned other people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s to know?

He’s a dead, white, male, cisgender, slave-owner. Full stop.

Without whom you would not live in a country that allows you this post. If this is your contribution to the world as opposed to Jefferson, you are indeed at a full stop. And amusing as well.

I agree.

This trope of "died white racist guy" is so boring and unintelligent. We can appreciate Thomas Jefferson's brilliance and genius, his vision for humanity and America and the way he used his intellect to propel forward the birth of a great new nation that still stands 200 years later. We can also assess him critically for being human, flawed, and bound to the social mores of his time. He wouldn't be the first or the last person to have contradictions in his views of the world.

He is someone who took the ideas of others and took credit for them. He essentially had good taste, not difficult when people allow you access. I get why Virginians love him for anchoring Capitol and UVA, but he isn’t a top forefather imo. Madison and Washington are far above him.

That is not true. He was extremely bright and well educated. He read extensively and was intimately aware of the mainstream ideas of liberty vs the fear of tyrannical government as he and his fellow colonists observed take over in his motherland. He was a genius in that it took him 17 days to compile these ideas and put them on paper in a way that is simple, timeless and universal. The Declaration of Independence isn't just a rebuke against the tyrannical government of King George III but a bill of human rights for all men of all time. This is due to his creative foresight and vision. The original drafts also included a strong condemnation against slavery which he was forced to remove as everyone in the Continental Congress were slave owners and they also knew emancipation was a separate cause than their immediate goal of separation from Britain.

To belittle the Declaration of Independence is really a bit much. You can criticize his contradictions and hypocrisy all you'd like but to ignore the revolutionary impact of the idea that "all men are created equal" is truly ignorant.

Encapsulation of this thread and of our times.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s to know?

He’s a dead, white, male, cisgender, slave-owner. Full stop.

Without whom you would not live in a country that allows you this post. If this is your contribution to the world as opposed to Jefferson, you are indeed at a full stop. And amusing as well.

I agree.

This trope of "died white racist guy" is so boring and unintelligent. We can appreciate Thomas Jefferson's brilliance and genius, his vision for humanity and America and the way he used his intellect to propel forward the birth of a great new nation that still stands 200 years later. We can also assess him critically for being human, flawed, and bound to the social mores of his time. He wouldn't be the first or the last person to have contradictions in his views of the world.

He is someone who took the ideas of others and took credit for them. He essentially had good taste, not difficult when people allow you access. I get why Virginians love him for anchoring Capitol and UVA, but he isn’t a top forefather imo. Madison and Washington are far above him.

That is not true. He was extremely bright and well educated. He read extensively and was intimately aware of the mainstream ideas of liberty vs the fear of tyrannical government as he and his fellow colonists observed take over in his motherland. He was a genius in that it took him 17 days to compile these ideas and put them on paper in a way that is simple, timeless and universal. The Declaration of Independence isn't just a rebuke against the tyrannical government of King George III but a bill of human rights for all men of all time. This is due to his creative foresight and vision. The original drafts also included a strong condemnation against slavery which he was forced to remove as everyone in the Continental Congress were slave owners and they also knew emancipation was a separate cause than their immediate goal of separation from Britain.

To belittle the Declaration of Independence is really a bit much. You can criticize his contradictions and hypocrisy all you'd like but to ignore the revolutionary impact of the idea that "all men are created equal" is truly ignorant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s to know?

He’s a dead, white, male, cisgender, slave-owner. Full stop.

Without whom you would not live in a country that allows you this post. If this is your contribution to the world as opposed to Jefferson, you are indeed at a full stop. And amusing as well.

I agree.

This trope of "died white racist guy" is so boring and unintelligent. We can appreciate Thomas Jefferson's brilliance and genius, his vision for humanity and America and the way he used his intellect to propel forward the birth of a great new nation that still stands 200 years later. We can also assess him critically for being human, flawed, and bound to the social mores of his time. He wouldn't be the first or the last person to have contradictions in his views of the world.

He is someone who took the ideas of others and took credit for them. He essentially had good taste, not difficult when people allow you access. I get why Virginians love him for anchoring Capitol and UVA, but he isn’t a top forefather imo. Madison and Washington are far above him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s to know?

He’s a dead, white, male, cisgender, slave-owner. Full stop.

Without whom you would not live in a country that allows you this post. If this is your contribution to the world as opposed to Jefferson, you are indeed at a full stop. And amusing as well.

I agree.

This trope of "died white racist guy" is so boring and unintelligent. We can appreciate Thomas Jefferson's brilliance and genius, his vision for humanity and America and the way he used his intellect to propel forward the birth of a great new nation that still stands 200 years later. We can also assess him critically for being human, flawed, and bound to the social mores of his time. He wouldn't be the first or the last person to have contradictions in his views of the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s to know?

He’s a dead, white, male, cisgender, slave-owner. Full stop.

+1

So tired of people elevating these historical figures and not speaking the truth of who they were outloud.

I mean the “full stop” is silly.
Your descriptors make him sound like my Uncle Ted (if he had owned slaves). My Uncle Ted is pretty unremarkable, and Thomas Jefferson contributed 100x more to our great nation than anything my Uncke Ted ever did.
Just—-the full stop omits essentially everything about Thomas Jefferson that explains WHY we even know who he is, much less why we celebrate him! (Hint: it’s not for his whiteness or cis-ness or his death or his maleness. Nor is it for the fact that he owned slaves. It’s for his visionary brilliance and commitment to the ideals of what a nation could be if people began to claim their rights were bestowed on them by their creator rather than through edict from a benevolent king or queen. This was literally a revolutionary concept of its time. And this is why we celebrate him.)

It’s the commitment I am questioning. Yes, he was part of our great experiment and helped shape the nation, but at the same time, he was not so committed as to apply those ideals to his personal life. I think we are capable of seeing both the ideals he espoused and the man himself.

He lived in the system, and envisioned something different, something better.

He couldn't have married Sally Hemmings and been as successful as he was, wouldn't have had the power and respect that he did to make changes. Would it have been more admirable for him to have lived outside the system, with Sally Hemmings as his wife, freed, and broke and socially outcast? It's an interesting thought experiment but I prefer the choice that he made, for myself and the country overall.

You should really read the Smithsonian article quoted above. Even by the standards of his time, he was not great on these moral issues. (Not the worst, but not great.) Mainly because he really liked his comfy lifestyle and lived beyond his means. He really is like the modern liberal who decries climate change and social injustice but then brags about how much money he’s making with his fast fashion factory in Bangladesh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s to know?

He’s a dead, white, male, cisgender, slave-owner. Full stop.

+1

So tired of people elevating these historical figures and not speaking the truth of who they were outloud.

I mean the “full stop” is silly.
Your descriptors make him sound like my Uncle Ted (if he had owned slaves). My Uncle Ted is pretty unremarkable, and Thomas Jefferson contributed 100x more to our great nation than anything my Uncke Ted ever did.
Just—-the full stop omits essentially everything about Thomas Jefferson that explains WHY we even know who he is, much less why we celebrate him! (Hint: it’s not for his whiteness or cis-ness or his death or his maleness. Nor is it for the fact that he owned slaves. It’s for his visionary brilliance and commitment to the ideals of what a nation could be if people began to claim their rights were bestowed on them by their creator rather than through edict from a benevolent king or queen. This was literally a revolutionary concept of its time. And this is why we celebrate him.)

It’s the commitment I am questioning. Yes, he was part of our great experiment and helped shape the nation, but at the same time, he was not so committed as to apply those ideals to his personal life. I think we are capable of seeing both the ideals he espoused and the man himself.

He lived in the system, and envisioned something different, something better.

He couldn't have married Sally Hemmings and been as successful as he was, wouldn't have had the power and respect that he did to make changes. Would it have been more admirable for him to have lived outside the system, with Sally Hemmings as his wife, freed, and broke and socially outcast? It's an interesting thought experiment but I prefer the choice that he made, for myself and the country overall.

Where did I say he should have married Hemmings? The way he treated everyone and only took his personal comforts into consideration. He did not look after his children from his legal wife either. Plenty of people in his time did that. He was a spoiled rich boy who loved being lord of the manor despite what he wrote.

Anonymous wrote:What’s to know?

He’s a dead, white, male, cisgender, slave-owner. Full stop.

Without whom you would not live in a country that allows you this post. If this is your contribution to the world as opposed to Jefferson, you are indeed at a full stop. And amusing as well.

Anonymous wrote:I am a millennial who went to UVA so we obviously grew up admiring him. Right now I am reading a biography of him, Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power.

I am obsessed. He was so smart and well educated and ahead of his time in so many ways but I know he is considered controversial today since he was a rich plantation owner who also had a "relationship" with one of his slaves.

I am curious what people think of him these days.

How we think of many people of his era -- whether geniuses like Jefferson or farmers who used slave labor. They lived by the standards and mores of their times. The United States and a large part of the world have evolved since then. We should not judge those people by today's standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s to know?

He’s a dead, white, male, cisgender, slave-owner. Full stop.

+1

So tired of people elevating these historical figures and not speaking the truth of who they were outloud.

I mean the “full stop” is silly.
Your descriptors make him sound like my Uncle Ted (if he had owned slaves). My Uncle Ted is pretty unremarkable, and Thomas Jefferson contributed 100x more to our great nation than anything my Uncke Ted ever did.
Just—-the full stop omits essentially everything about Thomas Jefferson that explains WHY we even know who he is, much less why we celebrate him! (Hint: it’s not for his whiteness or cis-ness or his death or his maleness. Nor is it for the fact that he owned slaves. It’s for his visionary brilliance and commitment to the ideals of what a nation could be if people began to claim their rights were bestowed on them by their creator rather than through edict from a benevolent king or queen. This was literally a revolutionary concept of its time. And this is why we celebrate him.)

It’s the commitment I am questioning. Yes, he was part of our great experiment and helped shape the nation, but at the same time, he was not so committed as to apply those ideals to his personal life. I think we are capable of seeing both the ideals he espoused and the man himself.

He lived in the system, and envisioned something different, something better.

He couldn't have married Sally Hemmings and been as successful as he was, wouldn't have had the power and respect that he did to make changes. Would it have been more admirable for him to have lived outside the system, with Sally Hemmings as his wife, freed, and broke and socially outcast? It's an interesting thought experiment but I prefer the choice that he made, for myself and the country overall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s to know?

He’s a dead, white, male, cisgender, slave-owner. Full stop.

+1

So tired of people elevating these historical figures and not speaking the truth of who they were outloud.

I mean the “full stop” is silly.
Your descriptors make him sound like my Uncle Ted (if he had owned slaves). My Uncle Ted is pretty unremarkable, and Thomas Jefferson contributed 100x more to our great nation than anything my Uncke Ted ever did.
Just—-the full stop omits essentially everything about Thomas Jefferson that explains WHY we even know who he is, much less why we celebrate him! (Hint: it’s not for his whiteness or cis-ness or his death or his maleness. Nor is it for the fact that he owned slaves. It’s for his visionary brilliance and commitment to the ideals of what a nation could be if people began to claim their rights were bestowed on them by their creator rather than through edict from a benevolent king or queen. This was literally a revolutionary concept of its time. And this is why we celebrate him.)

It’s the commitment I am questioning. Yes, he was part of our great experiment and helped shape the nation, but at the same time, he was not so committed as to apply those ideals to his personal life. I think we are capable of seeing both the ideals he espoused and the man himself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jefferson started sleeping with Hemmings when she was 14. I can't even with these "he was a complicated man" posters. FOURTEEN.

In Shakespeare's time people were married at 14. FOURTEEN. Yeah, imagining time used to be different is difficult for some people. My great grandfather used to work at 7. SEVEN - and that's why this country implemented labor laws. Geez, times were different. Did you know women used to be treated like property? I know history is crazy. In the future we will be the crazy ones.

She was his slave, his wife's slave (and half sister) that he inherited when his wife died. I don't care if it was 1787 BC, all of it is disgusting and the Jefferson worship is awful.

Do you think you're witty, downplaying this crap?

Put that way, it sounds almost biblical.

We have had words for these relationships forever, which means these relationships have been around forever. Mistress, leman, affair partner, less charitably adulteress. Consort, concubine, placee. Etc.

Here’s the word you’re missing: slave. She was his slave. She was his 14 year old slave.

She had a relationship very similar to a placee, although not as formal. You can erase that, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

She was not a free woman. He literally owned her, as if she were livestock.

Nothing in her life was truly her own choice, including her sexual relationships. Or pregnancies.

IOW, she had slightly fewer options than his wife. But she wasn't powerless, she had options and made decisions.

She was powerless. If she stayed in France she would never see her mother or other siblings again. She was 16 at the time. She traded her future children’s freedom to return as a slave where she lived in a room under the porch. Jefferson wanted her back with him so he could keep having sex with her. He didn’t love her. He never freed her. Not in France, manipulated her with a false choice to come back, she had 6 more kids with him, she slept under the porch, until HE died.

She was 75% white. She was a child. Didn’t matter. Jefferson was vile.

She had choices which means she had power. More than most other enslaved people (and more than some white women). When you dismiss that, you are denying her agency. (And Jefferson was also restricted in how he could treat her, as well. He was not free from the rules of society either.)

You are awful. Do you always think rape victims have a choice?

Anonymous wrote:What’s to know?

He’s a dead, white, male, cisgender, slave-owner. Full stop.

Just like as a child the outside until streetlights came on, the world was different then. He helped to found Democracy and freedom of speech, religion and thoughts etc. Thankfully we've evolved to understand "All men created equal" means all. Thank heavens your here to reminde us of sexist, ageist racial statements look like.