George Washington: A Descendant of Odin?
publicdomainreview.org
publicdomainreview.org
Anyone reading Washington's May 31st 1776 letter to his brother, John Augustine Washington ( https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-04-02-... ) will note similarities if not references to Machiavelli in the 2nd paragraph as GW describes Britain ("...She is capable of the most delusive Arts...") and as he describes the weakness of certain members of Congress ("... feeding themselves upon the dainty food of reconciliation...")
So, although Machiavelli never said, "The ends justify the means" or "exitus acta probat", its not surprising that Washington - an avid reader and student of political/military thinking - would arrive at the same conclusion as Machiavelli; namely that acting out of necessity is a virtue, when the alternative is the loss of human rights or a return to what Hobbes described as the "State of Nature".
He felt Congress was kidding itself about alternatives to independence, and GW had the difficult task of motivating an entire army to stay the course.
I don't think he was alluding to Machiavelli.
'Washington, realpolitik-y pragmatist' is a perfectly sensible argument to make, I just don't think some verbiage on his carriage had much to do with it, one way or the other.
If that's not "ends > means", I don't know what is.
No, of course not, that was King George III :)
George Washington played a large role though.
> In May 1769, Washington introduced a proposal, drafted by his friend George Mason, calling for Virginia to boycott British goods until the Acts were repealed.
> Washington regarded the passage of the Intolerable Acts in 1774 as "an Invasion of our Rights and Privileges".
> As tensions rose in 1774, he assisted in the training of county militias in Virginia and organized enforcement of the boycott of British goods instituted by the Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_in_the_Ameri...
The conjoined colonies wouldn't have had any strategic advantage in their plans against Britain, without the South Carolina colony.
There were probably plenty of other less timeless decisions he had to make.
I think reasoning along the lines of "this decision negatively affects X group in an immediately unjust way, therefore it shouldn't be done" is naïve and conceited. People who use this type of reasoning are either knowingly playing the "I'm more moral than you" card and incidentally causing a net worse situation in the future, or they are just naïve and don't understand that local immorality can lead to net positives in the future.
I'm not arguing that hard decisions aren't necessary. I'm saying that aren't as necessary as sometimes claimed, and should be viewed with some skepticism.
Slavery was more important to the southern economy, but slavery existed in New York as fully legal until phaseout began in 1799. It wasn't eliminated until the 1820s.
Monied interests in most states/colonies would have have permitted the loss of their property without compensation.
Many wanted the split from Britain to cause slavery to end. Nobody was proposing that it begin. Southern colonies insisted that they were going to continue slavery. If the north agreed to leave slavery unchanged, they would go along with the split, allowing other changes, and they would keep slavery. If not, they would not cooperate, there would be no split, no other changes, and they would keep slavery. Either way, slavery would remain unchanged.
The decision to leave slavery unchanged did not "allow slavery to occur".
There was no such decision to be made (or at least no such decision on the table).
The decision was whether to have slavery-permitting states in the US, or slavery-permitting states outside the US.
No idea which bucket Washington fell into though, just a tangential observation.
I lived in new england for a while and this mythmaking culture around the founding fathers gets old very quickly. The US just isnt old enough to have mythical kings and gods. That went away when the US broke from the uk. These new myths are rather weak alongside those of europe or asia.
Mostly because US-tradition has killed the concept of nobility.
US-based folklore and myth is on stuff like John Henry (wielded two sledgehammers to beat out a rail-engine at building railroads).
Modern-US folklore is about beings like "Spiderman" or "Batman". Mythical beings who roam the streets to try and make the world a better place.
I find it fascinating that the heroes of modern myth and legend are relatively small scale. US heroes / legends need to be about the people. Spiderman is always saving that old-lady who's crossing the street. Even Superman is mostly concerned about keeping "Metropolis" working. Batman may be rich, but he's a celebrated hero because he's otherwise an unexceptional person (compared to Superman or Wonder Woman anyway).
The US-based myths and legends are about the "every-day man". Its more about "you too can be a hero" sort of thing, as opposed to a literal being chosen by the gods to save and/or conquer the world (god-kings like Gilgamesh or even King Author: charged by the Christian god to find the Holy Grail... Jesus's cup from the Last Supper)
That sort of thing doesn't fly in the US. If you are an "ascended being" of some sort, you have to have humble beginnings as an every-day man (ex: Clark Kent was born and raised on a Farm... originally without any powers and therefore understands the issues facing normal men).
Indeed, the ascended god-king trope is almost a villain trope in US culture.
I dont think anyone prays at the batman museum.
It would be way better as a backdrop than an unsexy, non-badass old parchment.
And keep Ashcroft away from Justice's wardrobe.
It's also interesting to look at the stories about ordinary humans (although calling Bruce Wayne, a ludicrously wealthy and powerful financier even before he became super, 'ordinary' is a bit of a stretch): not so much today, I'll concede, but back in the 70s and 80s, US soap operas were things like Dynasty or Dallas, and were firmly set in the US nobility, i.e. the financial ruling class.
Meanwhile, back in the UK, a country where we still have a reigning monarch who is the head of the official state church, soap operas were things like Coronation Street and The Archers, about working class people doing frankly boring things...
There's a gross difference between Gilgamesh (2/3rds god, 1/3rd man from his mother) and Superman.
Gilgamesh was a god-king who set of on adventure. He took what was his (aka: everything) and came back as a king.
In contrast, Superman was born into an adopted farm family and lived ~15 years without any superpowers. He's never seeked political power (and often when he does, its to his detriment. Like the time he got rid of all the nukes through the UN and then Doomsday attacked)
Even Bruce Wayne had to go through the period as a "normal joe" through the recent 'Dark Knight' movies. He gives up on his wealth and becomes a ninja... essentially. When he comes back to wealth-and-power, he's in better control over his own emotions and his fortune.
Green Lanterns are literally just normal dudes. Hal Jordan and John Stewart get rings from space aliens... but their connection to Earth and "normal people" is what make them exceptional Green Lanterns.
All of the popular American Superheroes are basically competing with each other to be more of the "average joe" than each other. Capt. America, Spiderman. Even Thor loses his powers and is forced to wander the Earth until he learns humility (aka: from being a normal person)
The only popular character I can think of as "Greek-god classic" is basically Wonder Woman. Everyone else is relatively unpopular (Aquaman, Nemor, Martian Manslayer) or even an underclass! (Mutants may have superpowers, but they are treated as a "lesser class" of people in virtually every X-men storyline).
Only in America would superheroes would the "underclass" get blessed with superpowers. Just saying.
Iron Man and Wonder Woman are the only exceptions I can think of. Iron Man is basically a counterbalance to the rest of the market however... being the rich asshole.
Though I'll admit the Papacy is something of a special case as far as Western Leaders go.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.loa.org/images...
Heck, we might still be a liberal democracy.
Slavery ended in the British Empire once Jamaica and Bardados became unimportant: trade competition with America, Industrial Revolution.
Slavery in America ended when economics of forced labor declined (but hastened 20 years by a civil war).
No president [of the US] has ever been a saint, and no wartime president has even been righteous. The civil beatification is almost certainly some combination of propaganda and the pride we feel when our team's captain scores the winning point in the big game. Whenever one is assassinated for political reasons, the record is whitewashed, so as to paint the murderous opposition in a worse light.
Lincoln may have been personally against slavery, but he was not an abolitionist--strictly enforcing the fugitive slave act before the war. He was also segregationist--endorsing the deportation of all black people from the US. He may have freed [some of] the slaves, but many of those freed slaves had already been de-emancipated months earlier by Lincoln, when he reversed Gen. Hunter's emancipation order. Emancipation was, to him, strictly a military maneuver, to disadvantage the enemy. Slavery was not truly abolished until the 13th Amendment was ratified, a move first advanced by Rep. Ashley of Ohio. He may have been a skilled debater and orator, but he also raided and silenced newspapers. He may be a symbol of freedom now, but he also suspended habeas corpus, arrested the entire Maryland legislature, and forcibly deported a particularly annoying member of the legislature, the leader of the Copperheads, to the CSA.
But he also has an impressive-looking temple on the DC mall, so all that is forgiven and forgotten.
Nobody--I repeat: nobody--ever taught us kids anything negative about Lincoln.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francus
[2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9gende_de_l%27origine_tr... (more details but in French)
I put no stead whatsoever in it, as it both assumes no bastardy or affairs, and that legendary genealogies are factual.
That said, it is fun to watch "Vikings" and go "he's my 37th great grandfather".
In fact, going by my DNA I have a sizeable chunk of west African in me - which appears nowhere in the family tree.