On the heels of a week-long "SACRED GROUND" series (discussed in twoposts), this morning I was greeted by an Inquirer editorial about "Two stories, one nation" in which the Inquirer belabors the tedious canard that the world only "discovered" that George Washington owned slaves as a result of excavating the foundation of the house he lived in while he was in Philadelphia.
Long slighted in the retelling of the nation's birth, the irony of a slave-holding president only became widely reported to historic-area visitors last summer. In what proved to be a genius stroke, then-Mayor John F. Street jump-started the first full-scale excavation of Washington's house. The dig unearthed artifacts the slaves likely touched, as well as exposing the ground they walked.
With good reason, black-history activists such as attorney Michael Coard, head of the Avenging the Ancestors Coalition, now commemorate the ground as sacred in ceremonies like the one held there yesterday. Among park visitors of all backgrounds, though, the dig triggered a sensation that bodes well for the so-called President's House memorial as a compelling tourist attraction.
I learned that George Washington (and other presidents) owned slaves when I was in the fifth grade. In fact, the "irony of a slave-holding president" is one of the contradictions of this country's early history, and it is impossible to understand the "three-fifths compromise" without learning that many of the founders were slaveholders. Not only have the individual details about Washington's slaves -- including those kept in Philadelphia -- been in history books for at least 70 years, anyone who visits George Washington's home at Mount Vernon has been able to learn about his slaves; since 1962 the slave cabins have been there for generations to ponder. (Not to leave out Thomas Jefferson's home at Monticello where tourists can learn about who the slaves were and where they lived, but everyone seems hell-bent on singling out Washington, who freed his slaves in his will. Most of Jefferson's slaves were resold on his death.) But the Inquirer's longstanding position is that there's been some kind of shameful historical coverup.
I realize that this is said to be good for tourism, and that the editorial comes on the heels of the "SACRED GROUND" series, so my normal inclination would have been to dismiss today's scolding as not worthy of a blog post.
It's just that there's something about the timing that smacks of a one-two punch. Today's Fourth of July slight on the founding (with its gratuitous praise for the bigoted Avenging the Ancestors group) comes right on the heels of former Editorial Page Editor Chris Satullo's atrocious smear, titled "A not-so-glorious Fourth -- U.S. atrocities are unworthy of our heritage".
Put the fireworks in storage.
Cancel the parade.
Tuck the soaring speeches in a drawer for another time.
This year, America doesn't deserve to celebrate its birthday.
He carries on about waterboarding and the like, and concludes,
The waterboarding, the snarling dogs, the theft of sleep - all the diabolical tricks haven't made us safer. They may have averted this plot or that. But they've spawned new enemies by the thousands, made the jihadist rants ring true to so many ears.
So put out no flags.
Sing no patriotic hymns.
We deserve no Fourth this year.
Shame on the Inquirer. While not doubting Satullo's sincerity, Newsbusters did a great job of taking issue with the editorial mindset he displayed, and concluded by urging people to celebrate anyway:
I know that Satullo is quite sincere in his hatred of the United States. In fact, I'm sure he feels this low at every July Fourth celebration. July Fourth is probably a black day for him no matter who is president. I feel bad for his heartburn, but that he spews his bile for the rest of us to be bothered with is downright unneighborly.
Happy July Fourth, folks. Be proud of this great nation, Satullo's nonsense aside. The U.S.A. is still the shining light on a hill shining the light of freedom on all the world. Anti-Americans like Satullo might have blinders on, but for those willing to see, we stand like a rock.
Unfurl those flags and let freedom wave.
The problem I'm having is I just don't think the blame lies entirely with Satullo. I think the overall picture is one of a distinct anti-Fourth of July agenda, and I must object.
That this country is not perfect and has not lived up to its ideals is as plain as the fact that George Washington owned slaves. But I think today is a time to celebrate the founding, not denigrate it.
Satullo's nonsense exactly. If he wants to rail against atrocities he need to look no farther than a few blocks north of the Inquirer's building to see the steet thugs terrorize the people of Philadelphia. But I guess that's OK after all the thugs have rights. But I guess Satullo's attitude is pure Philadelphian since after all the people of Philadelphia were happy to see George Washington's troops starve as they profited from selling food to the British.
Happy Independance Day!
Kay Blinebury
Kay Blinebury · July 4, 2008 09:51 PM
Satullo's nonsense exactly. If he wants to rail against atrocities he need to look no farther than a few blocks north of the Inquirer's building to see the steet thugs terrorize the people of Philadelphia. But I guess that's OK after all the thugs have rights. But I guess Satullo's attitude is pure Philadelphian since after all the people of Philadelphia were happy to see George Washington's troops starve as they profited from selling food to the British.
Happy Independance Day!
Kay Blinebury
Kay Blinebury · July 4, 2008 09:51 PM
Eric, are you sure Washington's slaves were freed by his will? As I understand it, Martha Washington and her sons by an earlier marriage connived with the judge handling the will to have that provision stricken as being unusual for a man of George Washington's character, and indicative of a mind failing in its dotage.
Keep in mind that Washington had originally planned to free his slaves soon after returning home to Mount Vernon after his last term in office, only to be dissuaded by Martha when she pointed out her sons would raise a legal stink about it. George then turning to a posthumous manumission under the belief doing it through his last well and testament could not be challenged.
One more thing to contemplate. George and Martha really didn't have a happy marriage. It was more one of convenience, and Martha was rumored to be having an affair with the judge later assigned to handle Washington's will. Now take into account the fact what Washington came down with on his trip back to Mount Vernon after visiting a friend was not usually (my emphasis) treated by bleeding back then. Were the doctors doing it of their own initiative, or at the direction of Martha Washington? And why did it continue until the man was nearly exsanguinated?
It was complicated somewhat by the fact that he did not own his wife's dower slaves, but he freed those he legally could free, and did the best for the rest under the circumstances -- far more than most men in his position ever would have done. And yes, his family did not like it.
Anyone getting echoes of emotional abuse of children here? (Eric's obviously hearing some of what I am, given the headline. But this emotion strikes me as not just desire for punishment but as abusive sadism.)
I've thought before that our reaction to attacks - the reflexive impulse to ask "What did we do wrong? What did we do to provoke this? Why do they haaaaaate us?" - is reminiscent of the thought process of an abused wife toward the abuser. The helplessness and tendency to blame oneself rather than one's attacker are signatures of longterm abuse.
Here, instead, we see a psychological separation of America from the author, with the author taking the role of abuser.
Just a weird thought. But it's odd how those particular dynamics show up here.
jaed · July 6, 2008 05:40 PM
"The way some people talk, you'd almost think they want America's days to be numbered."
Almost on the mark. They want their anointed selves to persist in power, and America is one possible vector for that. They are happy to see America continue, if they can be in charge and redefine patriotism away from the central American texts to a more nebulous "community."
Beware of anyone who wants to "elevate" a virtue that is doing perfectly well on its own (like patriotism) to something more transcendent. They will denigrate the humbler virtue by caricaturing it. I have seen this for decades with Christianity, where a dozen contenders have tried to put their personal program forward as new, improved, Jesusness. CS Lewis, in contrast, called his summation of the faith "Mere Christianity." Similarly, we should strive for mere patriotism, rather than some new transformed version (those Transformers can turn into some pretty surprising stuff).
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
i think it doesn't matter to celebrate independence day with or without any fireworks or parade. The most important is its spirits.