4 ms·

There's no denying that Franklin was a genius, but should our society honor a slave owner by putting his face on currency? That's a serious question. I think F

There's no denying that Franklin was a genius, but should our society honor a slave owner by putting his face on currency? That's a serious question. I think Franklin's legacy is clouded by some moral ambiguity: his innovations were incredible, he fought for abolition and yet he didn't walk the talk. Is that a mistake we should overlook in remembering him?

VLM 13y ago
This is the same country that put "in god we trust" on a coin honoring Jefferson of all people, I don't think mere shame is sufficient to force logical thinking. When fundies tell me our highly religious founding fathers (LOL) would want bibles in our classrooms, I always suggest the Jefferson Bible which either confuses them or freaks them out if they actually know what I'm talking about.
thurn 13y ago
We should be careful to avoid presentism, applying modern moral standards to somebody who lived over 200 years ago. By the standards of his time, Franklin was unquestionably a great man.
- hawkharris 13y ago
  You can justify almost any instance of slavery or genocide by arguing that the perpetrators acted according to the standards of their time and communities.
  - agwa 13y ago
    He's not justifying Franklin's slaveholding, he's justifying Franklin as a person. It's silly to discount everything great Franklin did because he held a position on slavery that was no worse than the prevalent opinion of the time. Most of the "bad" people in history (e.g. Hitler, Pol Pot) acted worse than the standards of their time. Nobody's justifying them or their actions with this logic.
    - hawkharris 13y ago
      I agree that no one should discout Franklin's inventions and great ideas. That's why I was careful to mention them in my comment. But I take issue with forgetting about this one aspect of Franklin's character because he was simply following the standards of his time. The question is, standards for whom? Affluent white people? The standards certainly weren't acceptable to black Americans. I know that I may sound nit-picky, but I think it's important to apply our current sense of morality to this period in American history. When we gloss over the uncomfortable details, we gloss over some of the lessons.

VLM 13y ago

This is the same country that put "in god we trust" on a coin honoring Jefferson of all people, I don't think mere shame is sufficient to force logical thinking. When fundies tell me our highly religious founding fathers (LOL) would want bibles in our classrooms, I always suggest the Jefferson Bible which either confuses them or freaks them out if they actually know what I'm talking about.

thurn 13y ago

We should be careful to avoid presentism, applying modern moral standards to somebody who lived over 200 years ago. By the standards of his time, Franklin was unquestionably a great man.

hawkharris 13y ago
You can justify almost any instance of slavery or genocide by arguing that the perpetrators acted according to the standards of their time and communities.
- agwa 13y ago
  He's not justifying Franklin's slaveholding, he's justifying Franklin as a person. It's silly to discount everything great Franklin did because he held a position on slavery that was no worse than the prevalent opinion of the time. Most of the "bad" people in history (e.g. Hitler, Pol Pot) acted worse than the standards of their time. Nobody's justifying them or their actions with this logic.
  - hawkharris 13y ago
    I agree that no one should discout Franklin's inventions and great ideas. That's why I was careful to mention them in my comment. But I take issue with forgetting about this one aspect of Franklin's character because he was simply following the standards of his time. The question is, standards for whom? Affluent white people? The standards certainly weren't acceptable to black Americans. I know that I may sound nit-picky, but I think it's important to apply our current sense of morality to this period in American history. When we gloss over the uncomfortable details, we gloss over some of the lessons.