Well... How can sex with a slave be consensual? Sally Hemmings was definitely pregnant with Jefferson's child at 16 in 1789. I suppose that isn't technically pedophilia, but the relationship seemed to begin sometime around 1787 when he took her to Paris.
If we start eliminating historic people’s greatness because of their immorality and crimes committed by today’s standards, we won’t have any great people left. MLK had numerous affairs and, if I remember correctly, allegedly watched a friend rape a woman. I don’t hear anyone saying he wasn’t a great man. I don’t believe what Jefferson did was considered pedophilia in his time. Was it even uncommon? And sex with a slave can be consensual of the woman is given a choice and accepts. I’m not saying that happened, but we don’t know anything about their relationship.
There's a difference between historical fact and allegations. If MLK watched a friend a rape a woman, we should absolutely take his statue down. No, Indy, sex with a slave can not be consensual. Slave is a slave. They can say no. They can say yes. They can fight, they can aim to please. They're still a slave, and everything about their life is being done under duress and the threat of severe punishment or death.
I'm certainly game for a discussion on the merits of Washington and Jefferson. In fact, I think it's fantastic and the sort of thing we should do with our institutions, figures and previously unquestioned mythology more often. Historians do it as a matter of philosophy and with good reason as we can come to the conclusion faults either are a part of being human or make figures less than worthy of adoration. It's much more desirable than the deification and myth making we do which leads people to false references for support of their position or ideology, whatever. It makes people more ignorant and create their own silly ideas of what they think or perceive guys like Washington or Jefferson to be, not how they actually were. Same thing is happening with MLK. I can't tell you how many times people use him to justify their point when it's obvious they don't have any idea about him other than a few superficial concepts and famous lines in a speech. As far as these to dudes go, I think both sides of the coin carry some weight. Hell, even the foundations of their Revolution should be critiqued a little bit harder as well, those ideas of it being about liberty and freedom, even a revolution of the social order. Washington was a massive slave owner, the largest in the country, and notoriously tried to stop the British ships leaving after the fighting stopped to take slaves from the decks back into slavery (The British didn't allow this, but some still ended up in slavery in the Caribbean). Jefferson had a little better relationship with slavery, putting a note about slavery in the original Declaration before it was removed and having a questionable relationship with a slave girl, emphasis on girl. Of course, their accomplishments are well known. So, are they worthy to be commemorated in statues, memorials, etc.? Probably, in my opinion. However, I am happy we have moved the line of acceptability near these guys and away from the Confederate "heroes". That was a long time coming.
Now, the toppling of the statues of Ulysses S. Grant and Cervantes in San Francisco are plainly idiotic. Those group of protestors are looking more like a caricature of themselves.
No, it isn’t. Say he wasn’t a good man, if you’d like. We can debate that. His immorality doesn’t wash away the great things he did.
He was a rapist. Who raped. He had a slave, and he had sex with her repeatedly before the age of 16. That's statutory rape in itself, and also rape due to her being his slave. The label of good man vs bad man is in itself problematic. He was a man. A man who raped. We are all people. People do good and bad things. Nobody does only good or only bad. He did great things, and he also wrote "all men are created equal" while owning slaves and later raping one starting at about 14 to 16. She was the half sister of his deceased wife, and resembled her. His father in law had also raped slaves.
This is why I totally get why people tear down all these statues, and why the Israelites weren't allowed idols. It distorts reality.
I mean, https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-tapes-allege-mlk-watched-rape-2019-5 Why did you ask me how sex with a slave can be consensual if you were just gonna turn around and tell me it can’t be? I get the generalized relationship of slave to master. I think there can be levels of consent even in that relationship. Saying yes is a lot different than fighting it tooth and nail. I just don’t think it’s a good idea to start judging people who lived hundreds of years ago by the laws we have in place today.
You may be unaware of the relationship between the FBI and MLK Jr. and other civil rights leaders. They intentionally tried to sabotage and undermine them with falsehoods. This is established through stolen records. If you are basing anything about a civil rights leader on the FBI, think critically.
I haven’t marked it down as fact. I don’t care if MLK cheated on his wife. The rape thing gives me pause, but it doesn’t eliminate the great things he did. I’m perfectly fine recognizing the bad without eliminating the great. People are flawed. All people.
Yes at gun point is not a yes. Stockholmed, owned, under duress, these are not consensual. It isn't like she could get up and leave town.
He was a rapist and a pedophile. I'm not saying wash over him in history, but Jefferson the man wasn't the greatest of guys.
We don’t put statues of people up because they were good, moral people. We put them up because of the great things they did and the influence they had on the country/world. And I still don’t buy the pedophile part. The rapist part makes more sense. He’d be a pedophile if he lived today, but age of consent has gone up a fair amount since Jefferson was alive.
