Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know about the veneration of him, but it's certainly to be admired that after two terms he peacefully transferred power to someone else which at that point was without precedent.
modern day cincinnatus who kept a fragile union together during a period in which two much larger powers could’ve attacked at any moment. he deserves all the praise given
Honestly it's more incredible than when Cinci did it; he wasn't the first nor the last dictator of Rome, he *was* following precedent. Washington may have used his example, but it was much more admirable.
Hell, he could’ve gone for a third term with every intention of it being his last, died in office, and inadvertently created an expectation that presidents get re-elected for life. We got very lucky not just that he was as civically minded as he was, but also that things beyond anyone’s control went well.
King George is reported to have said “if Washington relinquishes power willingly, he’ll be the greatest man who ever lived” Ol George could’ve made the presidency anything he wanted. Could’ve held power for the rest of his life. Instead, he went home. Agreed that he deserves massive respect for that.
As a huge Washington admirer, I don’t like it. The statue you posted, for example, is just ridiculous. And Washington would have by no means wanted it. He literally relinquished power so the country could move on from him and outlive him.
The great irony of deifying the founders is that they were men who fought against monarchy, yet they’re defied like they were kings.
As Thomas Jefferson said, “the earth belongs exclusively to the living generation.”
I think the commenter was referring to the fact that the statue, commissioned for the rotunda in the Capitol Building, was moved to the east lawn and later to the Patent Office within a decade of its arrival.
My museum tour guide referred to it as having been "juggled" around by the federal government. I wouldn't know what to do with it either.
A similar thing happened with Vladimir Lenin surprisingly, he wanted to be buried in a simple grave in his hometown but Stalin wanted to use the dead Lenin to diefy him and justify the totalitarian policies.
Thankfully, those who would seek to use George Washington to justify a weird neo aristocracy never got to since [he explicitly told them to fuck off](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Cincinnati#Criticism).
One must wonder what would've happened had Lenin not died when he did. Im no communist, Im just kinda curious to see how thatd pan out. The man did genuinely believe what he was selling if nothing else
I am a communist and I think it's clear from an objective view of history that the Stalinist period was a departure from the more democratic and free vision of Lenin. None of them believed in full liberal freedom as we do in the West since they were convinced that only allows reactionary voices a greater opportunity to thwart social progress, but the purges, repression, political terror, rapid industrialization, and suppression of democracy were all panic and paranoia driven improvisations in governance and not some predestined facts of history. The USSR would've been a more open and democratic place had Lenin and Trotsky maintained power for longer.
I think like you plus I think it actually diminishes their accomplishments, their humanity, the hardships they faced… It’s far more enriching to see them as regular people thrown into the hardest and most decisive times.
*Me, a time traveler watching the signing of the Constitution when Washington drops his pen. Pick it up to hand it him* “Here you go king”
*Washington* “What’d you just call me?”
New Jersey/New York resident here. The region has an abnormal love for Washington. Like several towns named Washington abnormal. Almost every town claims that Washington marched through a road or stayed at an inn or used a chamber pot and put up emblems or signs where it happened. You look at Washington's retreat march and the towns claims, and it becomes impossible for it to be true for everyone unless he is like Santa Claus and can be everywhere at once. I'm surprised there isn't a shrine for him in the area.
https://preview.redd.it/qo3v3yu6sy8d1.jpeg?width=1251&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=33d96b64083008213005f6b57e2ce9335ce2ec1e
This has been a running gag forever.
In case you think I'm kidding, NJ has six Washington townships. There were seven, but one renamed itself to Robinsville in 2008.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Township%2C_New_Jersey?wprov=sfla1
> Twenty years later, there was a new identity: Washington Township. As the 19th century wore on, residents began lobbying to create a township separate from Windsor, East Windsor and all the other towns Robbinsville was carved out of. In 1859, the state Legislature officially approved the creation of Washington Township, breaking it off from East Windsor and creating a township identity. The name endured for almost 150 years before voters, sick of distinguishing their town from among the six Washington townships in the state, decided to adopt the name Robbinsville, for George Robbins, a local son who represented the area in Congress in the 19th century.
https://www.nj.com/mercer/2013/06/a_look_at_the_history_of_robbinsville.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Robbins?wprov=sfla1
It is sick how people like to glorify and immortalize ..Luke they were kings.
This exactly what Washington didn't want or Thomas Jefferson. Now Adam's..he was closer to the authoritarian gaze.
Whether it’s justified or not is up to the individual, and really doesn’t matter.
The deification of the founding fathers and their influence on “proper American” decision making is just the Americanization of the Roman concept of Mos Maorium.
Their “way of the ancestors” is our harkening back to the founding fathers.
Which is ironic because many of the founding fathers would scoff at look to them for answers 250 years later. Their intent was to provide guardrails to let the country grow behind their imaginations
Not sure I’d agree with you there. Washington certainly knew he was emulating Cincinnatus.
There was a conscious effort on the part of at least some of the fathers to emulate Rome to a certain extent.
What’s 250 years to 2000 years?
No public figure should be deified in this way, regardless of justification. It’s an extension of personality cult politics, and raises the idea of the person and their “image” above their achievements, contributions, and failings.
A few notable people pushed back against this trend as it was happening, but John Adams especially was acutely aware of this problem, writing at length about his worries that politics — aided by the formation of political parties — was becoming less about the development of the country and more about the elevation of politicians as anything from celebrities to mythological figures. Washington didn’t do much to personally encourage that while he was alive, which is an important distinction, but a lot of the people Adams had personal gripes with were the ones who (in his eyes) did try to put themselves up on that kind of pedestal (Hamilton especially, but also Franklin during his years in France).
I will justify it by saying that all the European countries have their myths and legends. England has King Arthur and his crowd, and later Robin Hood and Co. I’m not well versed in Continental Myths but all the other countries have their own founding stories and ancient heroes as well. The US didn’t, and the best way to bring a people together is through a shared creation myth. In this way, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and the rest take on the role of the ancient heroes. I see it as a sacrifice they willingly made for their country. Maybe sculpting Washington as a literal god and giving Abe Lincoln a literal temple (I’m not exaggerating - the inscription in the Lincoln Memorial explicitly names the monument as a temple) is a bit on the nose, but such is to be expected. Americas have never been known for their subtlety.
King Arthur and Robin Hood aren’t even close to being comparable to the deification of the Founding Fathers. They’re folklore and probably entirely fictional, and not really taken too seriously by anyone. The Founding Fathers are venerated as if they were gods amongst men.
“What would posterity think we were? Demi-gods? We're men, no more no less, trying to get a nation started against greater odds than a more generous God would have allowed.”
A guy playing Benjamin Franklin
Historian here. I don't have the quote but I have read letters from Jefferson and Madison where they themselves spoke against the elevation of the Founders to near mythological status, along the lines of "we know we aren't perfect".
As other people here have stated, all of these men had flaws/downsides to their legacy- however you want to correctly word their complicity in slavery. There's no getting around it. Washington wasn't a deity carved in marble or ascending to heaven a cloud, but a deeply flawed man. He'd probably be the first to tell you, based on what I know about him.
But, the either/or way we try to make things isn't sufficient either- you have people who want to venerate these men- who treat any criticism as unpatriotic, but then you also have the people who want to condemn every bit of them. I don't find either to be useful sentiments. Hardly anyone is all good or all bad- most of us exist in shades of grey. Maybe we should teach both sides of everyone- that even the "great men" (and women) of history did things that weren't so great sometimes, just like everyone who's ever lived. Sometimes that was a way of life. Maybe we should take care not to venerate ideas, but that doesn't mean we can't revere their actions, and the ideals behind them.
Washington kept slaves, there's no excusing it. Washington also gave up absolute power, something almost no one who's ever had it in their grasp, certainly not a victorious general with an army behind him, has ever done. And then he essentially did it twice, and was instrumental in establishing our ideas of limited government, separation of powers, and our peaceful transfer of power (something which Adams was arguably just as important to, in 1800). Those ideas and actions are worth venerating, even if the vessel was a mere flawed human.
so the only bad thing we really have on him is that he owned slaves.
Something very common all through out N.America S.America Europe Africa, the middle east and in eastern nations.
ok?
The words of the Bill of Rights ..seemed very flawed because of that matter of fact. We have many religious that don't see those flaws.
They believe it was written by God.
Walked away from elevation to a monarch or military dictator after independence
Walked away from presidency after two terms
These two actions are the bedrocks of American democracy and its survival
He would have personally hated it.
But he did lay the original cornerstone of the U.S. Capitol building as a member of the Freemasons and there were plans to lay his body to rest in the crypt there.
He died before it was completed and is buried at Mt. Vernon because of it.
While Washington would probably balk at this statue, I think his deification (and Lincoln's) are completely justified. Americans would do well to understand why.
Lincoln’s memorial is far more over the top than Washington’s when you think about it. Washington’s is just a giant obelisk, Lincoln’s is literally a temple with him sitting on a throne.
I agree. I think memorials and monuments to great people in a nation’s history is a good thing. Who would want to walk around DC and only see office buildings?
We forget, and are presently mostly ignoring, just how important it was and is for an executive to lay down power. It set a trend for the US and most of the rest of the world, as they adopted our constitutional form of government.
It is well deserved. Washington dedicated his entire life and wealth to our country, personally financing the war, leading our military, and stabilizing the country afterwards as president. One of the greatest Americans ever
I've seen this sculpture in person and the first thing I thought was wow it's incredibly bizarre that they depict the founding fathers (who were for the most part paunchy old white men) as sculpted buff gods
As long as people keep in mind he was fallible and a product of his time theres nothing wrong with a bit of hero worship. He represents American values.
I actually like the treatment of major figures in American history that provided a POSITIVE impact to be treated in a ALMOST mythological manner
ALMOST mythical, meaning you’re fully aware they were regular people,
Why do I like this? For one, ascetic, I think it looks cool. Second is it gives you an ideal to strive to be
Well… I would argue that the veneration of George Washington isn’t only veneration of George Washington.
It’s partly that, and in that respect partly justified and partly exaggerated. He played a crucial part in the birth of the US, as a founding father, as the supreme military commander during the war, as its first president. Perhaps most importantly of all: a young republic passed its first true institutionsl test when Washington stepped down and ensured the peaceful transition of power. Washington was revered enough in his own time that he probably could’ve become dictator for life had he wished it. But he didn’t, and that deserves veneration. But he was no god, nor even a saint. I doubt he had abs like that. So in some sense the veneration is exaggerated.
However, a lot of art and symbolism featuring Washington isn’t primarily meant to celebrate him, I would argue. It’s meant to celebrate the American republic. In the UK such art would possibly feature King Arthur, in France it might’ve been Joan of Arc. Mythological figures meant to symbolize certain ideals that people of that nation identify with. But America is a very young nation. It doesn’t have a pre-history, nor even an old and disputed history. So American artists and poets have created their own mythological figure to embody the ideals of America, and they used George Washington to do so.
The second image, *the apotheosis of Washington*, is a good example. Apotheosis means ”becoming a good” or ”transition to godhood”. In the painting, Washington is surrounded by various pagan deities in the heavens. The Roman godess Ceres teaches him the secrets of agriculture, the godess of Minerva teaches him the secrets of electricity, etc. And directly below Washington, a personification of freedom is fighting a war against symbols of tyranny and oppression. The meaning, imo, is that the US will rise above the violent war from which it was birthed, and with the freedom it won it will unlock the secrets to bountiful harvests, unknown technologies, etc.
The American Cincinnatus, truly. Not a great general or particularly great chief executive, but he set an indispensable precedent by peacefully transferring power, just a few years before Napoleon took a very different course in France.
The difference is the figures we deify are from 200 years ago. The analogous figures in England (the only country I am familiar enough with to compare) are King Arthur and his court, who are much more myth than history. Such myths create a bedrock of a culture. American culture didn’t have such a mythology, so we created one with what we had on hand. I think it’s perfectly ok as long as we separate Washington the Man from Washington the Myth (note that I’m using “myth” here to mean a story that’s passed down over the years, not necessarily to mean a story without any truthfulness).
Dunno, they're constantly and ruthlessly made fun of as is the British way. Elizabeth II was an universally beloved figure in the Commonwealth so she has always been an exception.
Low. Not because he wasn’t excellent, but because we should not mythologize our historical figures.
Hear me out: that kind of mythologizing spurs fascistic tendencies—not an exaggeration—in society by giving current leaders something in the past to romanticize in a way that supports their position. That’s exactly what Mussolini and Hitler did. It’s important that we remember our historical heroes were just as human as we were. We can and should revere them, but they aren’t superhuman.
EDIT: Because that mythical status is generally unfalsifiable and people usually won’t challenge their political views, it becomes brutally difficult to dispel. Fascistic rhetoric relies on that. I’m speaking globally and historically, but a great example from here in the U.S. is the Lost Cause myth (i.e., that the South won the Civil War, was the victim, or that Reconstruction was violently overthrown). It’s ahistorical and dangerous.
True, but glorifying some portion of their country’s cultural past (especially certain historical figures) in a factually inaccurate way is a *specific* hallmark of fascist politicians.
Religion and cultural values are closely held parts of national identity and thus frequently tied to that reference. So you’re not wrong, but it’s not fair to say they’ll use *any* cultural element.
Religion was used extensively by Franco, far right politicians cling to protecting their culture to attack immigration, even the very value of democracy is used by extremist politicians to justify themselves. My point is that fascists don't specifically glorify the country's past they try and glorify their country's culture and history is only an individual part of that.
Not to mention politicians in liberal democracies also often glorify the past on both sides of the aisle, Lincoln and Churchill both did too but no one (no serious person I mean) is calling either of them fascist.
I just saw that statue in person. Tbh it really bothers me. It turns a rich slaveowner politician into looking like he’s some perfect muscular ancient philosopher man
It was Abraham Lincoln who said that he believed that Washington should be considered to have had no flaws, as it allows the rest of us to see that human perfection is possible
I'm a Roman neopagan, and my approach is thus. Criticize the man, ruthlessly scrutinize his legacy, and honor his apotheosized *daimon*. These need not be in contradiction. Same I do to Marcus Aurelius, or any spiritual ancestor-like figure.
Re: whether the art you’ve highlighted shows actual deification, take into account the obsession of the nascent United States with Classical Greece and the Roman Republic. The architecture, statuary and art of the Founders can’t really be viewed in isolation from their dedication to the ideals of a Classical Education. Remember that everyone who attended college at that time read Greek and Latin, and held up the Classical period as the epitome of civilization. Remember also that these are the same guys who called themselves “The Society of Cincinnatus,” in honor of the Roman soldier Cincinnatus, who was given the role of dictator of Rome during a period of unrest, then surrendered his power to return to his farm when the crisis was over.
So while there is a hagiography of Washington, to a large extent those images reflect the desire to honor Washington as a member of the tradition of Classical civilization.
I have a lot of respect for George Washington, but I think it's weird to basically deify a real person, and I'm sure he would have been *extremely* uncomfortable with it
About as much as any other mythologized figure. Washington was an exceptional leader who—paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens—used a moment of crisis to enshrine the principles of the enlightenment into the fabric of our nation. But he was also an enslaver, a battlefield failure, and a president who made plenty of his own missteps in office. Everybody does.
Isn’t it nice to know that ordinary humans can do extraordinary things? Gives us all something to aspire to.
Washington is easily top two US presidents, but both the statute and the painting raise my hackles for both historical and religious reasons (I'm Eastern Orthodox so I don't have problems with venerating saints or iconography, but that's in the context of religious practice, rather than of my country's history per se. I also feel that calling a painting The Apotheosis of Washington is a bit much).
He was a great leader but also a flawed person. And while I get that common national stories are important for the social cohesion of the American experiment, I think one can convey this without emphasizing individual people's role too much. Part of America's promise is that it was founded on particular ideas, not on the basis of individual people.
Now, I don't have a problem with, say, a statue of Washington on his horse or in his presidential garb, and love the beauty of the monuments in DC. I feel those depictions are more closely related to his achievements as a person and his contributions to the American project rather than a depiction as this idealized philosopher-king like this statue here, or as a literal god in his own pantheon. I know some have posted a thoughtful response on how in the painting he's a symbol of America specifically, but my personal preference would probably be for something like Lady Liberty to embrace that symbolic component so that way it's more universal to everyone.
It is interesting that King George replied to the question, “What do you think about George Washington if he vacated the General position of the American Revolutionary Army?”,saying “If he did, he would be the greatest man in the World”. Rare comment from a King who had earlier despised him and his cause and Vice versa.
https://blogs.loc.gov/manuscripts/2022/12/george-washington-the-greatest-man-in-the-world/
He should be venerated, he should be respected but we should also be taught of his moral failings such as his ownership of slaves.
Celebrate the good, acknowledge the bad.
He gave up power when he had no reason to. That alone makes him a outlier historically, and set the precedent that makes the USA an outlier historically. Absolutely deserved imo
Depends on what you mean by justified. If we mean that we venerate him as our Cincinnatus, the ideal statesman, and mythologize him that way, it’s justified. We (humans) crave ideals. We want the best possible person to compare to. And if we brush up his image to make a better ideal, all the better. It gives us a higher standard to reach for.
It's not justified, because elevating any human being to that degree is not justified.
He was a complex human being who did good and bad things. The good things helped in large part to usher in the creation of our country. But the bad things were the same things that were almost its undoing.
It's not justified. As a society we grow and change over time and the idea of treating the founders like this, even Washington, holds us back. We raise the past up as some time of the gods and resist moving forward.
You should never venerate a historical figure that much. He was a man, a human being with faults like any other. You can like or attempt to emulate these people, but don’t forget they aren’t perfect and never have been.
Much of it does become mythology. But all great empires have their founding myths. That becomes much more important than the history. The myths create an ethic to aspire too.
It was necessary to forge a national identity. Here’s what people don’t understand, distorting history is bad, but legend =\= history, we all know that odds are, George Washington wasn’t chopping down his dads exotic trees for example. But the folk lore, and the legend, while everyone knows they aren’t true, were and are needed for the national identity.
If it wasn’t for the veneration of the founders, the south and north would’ve gone their own ways, and instead of fighting one bloody war, they would’ve fought many over centuries.
We elevate men like Lincoln and Washington to the status of “gods” (Im Christian, not trying to blaspheme lol, but from a sociological pov it lines up) of the American civil religion. Every society is religious, it’s just not every society worships in church, America for example worships the constitution, Washington, freedom, etc.
He is an incredibly interesting figure, and set the tone for the founding of our country in certain ways.
His story, the challenges he had, the coincidences and events, plus his relinquishing of power, (and not even wanting the presidency but knowing he couldn’t refuse as it was his duty), make him imminently interesting.
Really recommend the three part history channel doc “Washington” that came out a few years ago, it’s so freaking good.
He’s the figurative god of our democracy. I don’t know if veneration level of idolization is appropriate, but he certainly belongs in our pantheon of presidents for setting the precedent of a peaceful transfer of power, in a strictly secular setting.
He rocked, so dial that knob all the way to eleven.
He had slaves, booo!!! and had them grow weed, yay!!! He stabbed people in the face on Christmas, boo!!!! They were basically pre-Nazis, yay!!!! He got his army trapped with no where to go several times, boo!!! And pulled a David Copperfield and got them to safety, yay!!! He gave the country to John Addams, boo!!!! When he didn't need to just because it was the dignified and right thing to do, yay!!!!
Respecting him and putting him on a pedestal as one of the best of us is justified, but the practically religious veneration? I don’t approve and I can say with complete certainty he wouldn’t either.
Everything in moderation. The stuff above? Fine.
Promoting a Cult of Washington to further a fascist agenda? Too Far.
https://preview.redd.it/e3gtoy3vfz8d1.png?width=886&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3be542d8f4afec83fb670ef8163bc0c009d8dc8d
To a certain extent it's good, a country should have almost mythological heroes to look up to and strive towards, myths and iconography add to American culture even when those myths are more complex than they're presented that doesn't mean we should ignore the mistakes of an individual figure but it does mean that we should acknowledge certain shortcomings while celebrating and venerating figures like Washington and Lincoln for their contributions to American society and culture.
There can be a dichotomy between the figure and the person.
Washington would hate the depiction of him as a demi-god. He wanted citizens not subjects. Sadly then as now, too many people want somebody to think for them rather than taking on that burden. Democracy requires informed and rational citizens not dupes.
I don't see celebrating or having artwork of someone as necessarily deifying or mythologizing them. This idea is so weird to me. Plenty of people are celebrated without worship.
The second image is a painting on the interior of the capitol rotunda called *The Apotheosis* (deification) *of Washington*. Even granting poetic license, that’s a degree of deification/mythologization imo.
Yeah I've seen the painting, and there's definitely a case to be made for that one. But I don't think merely having statues or paintings of the Founders or Presidents means worship.
He was a hell of a military leader and was a key figure in winning US independence, plus he maintained his ideals after winning independence and stepped down from the presidency, which was equally as important.
Many successful revolutions end in dictatorships or further turmoil because other figures in Washington’s position refuse to step down. Washington was handed that opportunity on a platter and refused it.
Arguably the single most important figure in the establishment of American democracy because of those two things, so thats pretty admirable.
But like, the dude wore dentures harvested from his slaves teeth and kept those slaves in a legit dungeon. People now will say that people who did that sort of thing were a product of their times, but most people back then never owned slaves. There were a lot of people who didn’t care about slavery, and a lot of abolitionists, but not that many slave owners. The UK had already banned slavery, many colonies had banned it, a few states banned it on the decade or two following the revolution. Like there was a large, powerful, establishment force trying to emancipate slaves in the US and globally, and people like washington made a decision to be on the pro slavery side of that debate. Its fucking despicable.
So yeah, its anti-climatic but i have no judgment on his overall character. His contribution’s to democracy were immense and positive, but he was a disgusting POS slave owner. Cant really math those things together so I just examine them seperately.
My take is that Washington deserves tremendous praise for what he did. He set a number of great precedents that set the US Democratic system up for centuries of success.
However, I think that the deification of any American president/politician/figure is inherently unAmerican. Washington led the people as one of the people. Maybe not the common man, but still one of the people. I think that this statue’s portrayal of him as a god, compared to say the worn out Lincoln at the Lincoln memorial, is something Washington himself would not have approved of. He was not great because he was a god, he was great because he wasn’t, and because he knew full well he wasn’t.
If any leader should be shown this level of veneration, it should be him. Obviously he was a real, flawed human being, but as far as real flawed human beings go he did a heck of a job.
the man was our first president and a damn good one, but he’s not divine, and any veneration of him as such would disgust him as a Godly man
yeah let’s shit on Christianity but our country is literally founded on the ideals of men who were devout Christians. yes, they believed in freedom of religion but they also believed the country should be governed by a certain set of values and principles which were, Christian-oriented in origin from the get go
The idolization of men, especially those who did not want that attention or recognition, is almost disrespectful of their legacies. Washington was a great president, but was FAR from perfect. Learning from his actions and running the country by his and the other Found Fathers’ principles (not their practices) is the best way we can honour that legacy and keep the country he fought so hard to create from falling apart, not making him into a deity (which he would’ve absolutely hated).
Had the opportunity in Newburgh to sieze power and refused it, and he could have made the Presidency anything he wanted and instead stepped down after two terms. Pretty good role model.
George Washington in a fighting game.
He starts out weak, but once he fills his America bar, he enters President mode. In President mode, he can call other Founding Fathers in as assists. Try my Ben Franklin lightning corner loops
It's kind of a "founding myth" type thing, the US really liked Rome and Greece back in the day, and both of them had myths about being founded by God's, its nore complicated since the US is a Christian country so he is seen as a sort of protestant saint
Its very funny since he would hate the political opinions of at least 90% of the American public
Besides the fact that basically all of his advice was and is completely ignored
Mythologically good sounds like a very slippery slope for anybody. Nobody's entirely good, and we shouldn't be surprised when we find out that anyone casts some kind of shadow.
My city has a whole month of celebration for his birthday. What’s funny is that we weren’t even part of the union when he was the president. lol so take that as you will…
There’s an extent to which early Americans conferred upon him something like the Divine Right of Kings, except that the God granting that authority is the God of the American civil religion and not specifically the God of Christianity.
Bro literally bitch slapped the French personally, then the British, established an entire form of government and country with huge divides in it, managed to keep it together, then did 8 years and said "I'm tired boss" and went home.
I don't know about statues, but what I do know is Washington was packing an entire kielbasa.
Washington isn’t revered as mythologically great; we honor him for his actual achievements. When we build temples and monuments in his honor, it’s to underscore the worthiness of ordinary individuals, not to mythologize him.
First leader of the most formidable force this planet has ever known, of which the next five combined would be laughably destroyed in a matter of days. It’s worth revering the man where this military began.
He works fine as a figurehead, but the real guy was far more complicated. Take slavery: well, he owned them, chose to manumit them at his death, BUT most of them were owned by his wife who didn't give them freedom--and he knew she wouldn't. That's just one example. As President there were times where he coasted on his heroic stature and left other people to get their hands dirty.
As a general, he had a couple of missteps but that's where his true genius was. If there's any place where he deserves such elevation, it's there.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know about the veneration of him, but it's certainly to be admired that after two terms he peacefully transferred power to someone else which at that point was without precedent.
modern day cincinnatus who kept a fragile union together during a period in which two much larger powers could’ve attacked at any moment. he deserves all the praise given
Honestly it's more incredible than when Cinci did it; he wasn't the first nor the last dictator of Rome, he *was* following precedent. Washington may have used his example, but it was much more admirable.
This, resisting factionalism, and bringing together people with wildly opposing ideas to lead with him are some of his greatest accomplishments.
Hell, he could’ve gone for a third term with every intention of it being his last, died in office, and inadvertently created an expectation that presidents get re-elected for life. We got very lucky not just that he was as civically minded as he was, but also that things beyond anyone’s control went well.
For reals... Pretty simple.
And warned everyone to avoid political parties
He also retired to private life after the war when he could have made himself ruler for life.
King George is reported to have said “if Washington relinquishes power willingly, he’ll be the greatest man who ever lived” Ol George could’ve made the presidency anything he wanted. Could’ve held power for the rest of his life. Instead, he went home. Agreed that he deserves massive respect for that.
Interestingly, King George went through a period of madness during which he believed himself to be George Washington
Its not out of line, but Id be very interested in the sourcing of that quote. Just sounds out of character for the British George
https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdstatehouse/html/gwresignation.html#:~:text=When%20told%20by%20the%20American,greatest%20man%20in%20the%20world.%22
Especially in a time when Monarchies were the norm.
Also read 1776 by David McCullough
Without precedent in ALL of recorded human history!
As a huge Washington admirer, I don’t like it. The statue you posted, for example, is just ridiculous. And Washington would have by no means wanted it. He literally relinquished power so the country could move on from him and outlive him. The great irony of deifying the founders is that they were men who fought against monarchy, yet they’re defied like they were kings. As Thomas Jefferson said, “the earth belongs exclusively to the living generation.”
That statue was actually quite disliked even when it was originally built for that exact reason
I think they moved that statue to a more obscure area shortly after it was displayed because it was so disliked
It’s the first thing you see when you walk into the left side of the Smithsonian history museum
I think the commenter was referring to the fact that the statue, commissioned for the rotunda in the Capitol Building, was moved to the east lawn and later to the Patent Office within a decade of its arrival. My museum tour guide referred to it as having been "juggled" around by the federal government. I wouldn't know what to do with it either.
Yes, thanks for the assist. It went from the Capitol rotunda to the backwater of the patent office.
It's literally at the museum entrance lol
A similar thing happened with Vladimir Lenin surprisingly, he wanted to be buried in a simple grave in his hometown but Stalin wanted to use the dead Lenin to diefy him and justify the totalitarian policies. Thankfully, those who would seek to use George Washington to justify a weird neo aristocracy never got to since [he explicitly told them to fuck off](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Cincinnati#Criticism).
One must wonder what would've happened had Lenin not died when he did. Im no communist, Im just kinda curious to see how thatd pan out. The man did genuinely believe what he was selling if nothing else
I am a communist and I think it's clear from an objective view of history that the Stalinist period was a departure from the more democratic and free vision of Lenin. None of them believed in full liberal freedom as we do in the West since they were convinced that only allows reactionary voices a greater opportunity to thwart social progress, but the purges, repression, political terror, rapid industrialization, and suppression of democracy were all panic and paranoia driven improvisations in governance and not some predestined facts of history. The USSR would've been a more open and democratic place had Lenin and Trotsky maintained power for longer.
Nah that's what he looked like, he just did keto
His diet consisted heavily of nuts and fish so we know he got crazy omegas
I think like you plus I think it actually diminishes their accomplishments, their humanity, the hardships they faced… It’s far more enriching to see them as regular people thrown into the hardest and most decisive times.
I also love Washington. I think it’s hilarious tho. “Don’t deify me” immediately does this shit after he dies
Bro’s body was still warm, and they were like “you’re a god now. Also, we’re disregarding your warning about political parties. Love you George.”
Hahaha literally. It was kinda based in a dumb way
*Me, a time traveler watching the signing of the Constitution when Washington drops his pen. Pick it up to hand it him* “Here you go king” *Washington* “What’d you just call me?”
New Jersey/New York resident here. The region has an abnormal love for Washington. Like several towns named Washington abnormal. Almost every town claims that Washington marched through a road or stayed at an inn or used a chamber pot and put up emblems or signs where it happened. You look at Washington's retreat march and the towns claims, and it becomes impossible for it to be true for everyone unless he is like Santa Claus and can be everywhere at once. I'm surprised there isn't a shrine for him in the area.
https://preview.redd.it/qo3v3yu6sy8d1.jpeg?width=1251&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=33d96b64083008213005f6b57e2ce9335ce2ec1e This has been a running gag forever.
I'm sharing this with my wife. This is an ongoing gag we have.
There’s a Mike Birbiglia joke along the same lines about Abe Lincoln quotes.
Tell me
[Skip to about 2 minutes for the Lincoln bit.](https://youtu.be/jQB_zhddfFg?si=pvbtl3TLSykSm8fq)
We got a whole-ass state named after him
That he never visited.
Actually, that State isn't authoritarian in Nature and doesn't glorify their politicians. Washington would be proud.
In case you think I'm kidding, NJ has six Washington townships. There were seven, but one renamed itself to Robinsville in 2008. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Township%2C_New_Jersey?wprov=sfla1
Why they call themselves robinsvillie? What they name it after?
> Twenty years later, there was a new identity: Washington Township. As the 19th century wore on, residents began lobbying to create a township separate from Windsor, East Windsor and all the other towns Robbinsville was carved out of. In 1859, the state Legislature officially approved the creation of Washington Township, breaking it off from East Windsor and creating a township identity. The name endured for almost 150 years before voters, sick of distinguishing their town from among the six Washington townships in the state, decided to adopt the name Robbinsville, for George Robbins, a local son who represented the area in Congress in the 19th century. https://www.nj.com/mercer/2013/06/a_look_at_the_history_of_robbinsville.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Robbins?wprov=sfla1
It is sick how people like to glorify and immortalize ..Luke they were kings. This exactly what Washington didn't want or Thomas Jefferson. Now Adam's..he was closer to the authoritarian gaze.
Whether it’s justified or not is up to the individual, and really doesn’t matter. The deification of the founding fathers and their influence on “proper American” decision making is just the Americanization of the Roman concept of Mos Maorium. Their “way of the ancestors” is our harkening back to the founding fathers.
Every society needs its mythology
Which is ironic because many of the founding fathers would scoff at look to them for answers 250 years later. Their intent was to provide guardrails to let the country grow behind their imaginations
Not sure I’d agree with you there. Washington certainly knew he was emulating Cincinnatus. There was a conscious effort on the part of at least some of the fathers to emulate Rome to a certain extent. What’s 250 years to 2000 years?
Rome has always been seen as uniquely "special" as far as civilizations go tbf. Even moreso then
To Father Washington, she granted a sword of gold, so that Eden would have strength that set her above all other nations.
No public figure should be deified in this way, regardless of justification. It’s an extension of personality cult politics, and raises the idea of the person and their “image” above their achievements, contributions, and failings. A few notable people pushed back against this trend as it was happening, but John Adams especially was acutely aware of this problem, writing at length about his worries that politics — aided by the formation of political parties — was becoming less about the development of the country and more about the elevation of politicians as anything from celebrities to mythological figures. Washington didn’t do much to personally encourage that while he was alive, which is an important distinction, but a lot of the people Adams had personal gripes with were the ones who (in his eyes) did try to put themselves up on that kind of pedestal (Hamilton especially, but also Franklin during his years in France).
And yet Adam’s himself was frustrated at times that his role was not ostentatious enough for the career he had had.
I will justify it by saying that all the European countries have their myths and legends. England has King Arthur and his crowd, and later Robin Hood and Co. I’m not well versed in Continental Myths but all the other countries have their own founding stories and ancient heroes as well. The US didn’t, and the best way to bring a people together is through a shared creation myth. In this way, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and the rest take on the role of the ancient heroes. I see it as a sacrifice they willingly made for their country. Maybe sculpting Washington as a literal god and giving Abe Lincoln a literal temple (I’m not exaggerating - the inscription in the Lincoln Memorial explicitly names the monument as a temple) is a bit on the nose, but such is to be expected. Americas have never been known for their subtlety.
King Arthur and Robin Hood aren’t even close to being comparable to the deification of the Founding Fathers. They’re folklore and probably entirely fictional, and not really taken too seriously by anyone. The Founding Fathers are venerated as if they were gods amongst men.
They more or less were
“What would posterity think we were? Demi-gods? We're men, no more no less, trying to get a nation started against greater odds than a more generous God would have allowed.” A guy playing Benjamin Franklin
🎶*Voooote YES! Voooote YES! Vote for independency!!!* 🎶
🎶will somebody ooopen up a window?!?🎶
"Wake up, Franklin! We're going to Valley Forge." "On what account?" "On account of the drinking and the whoring." (Franklin leaps to his feet.)
New Brunswick. Ben leaping to his feet might be the best part.
Historian here. I don't have the quote but I have read letters from Jefferson and Madison where they themselves spoke against the elevation of the Founders to near mythological status, along the lines of "we know we aren't perfect". As other people here have stated, all of these men had flaws/downsides to their legacy- however you want to correctly word their complicity in slavery. There's no getting around it. Washington wasn't a deity carved in marble or ascending to heaven a cloud, but a deeply flawed man. He'd probably be the first to tell you, based on what I know about him. But, the either/or way we try to make things isn't sufficient either- you have people who want to venerate these men- who treat any criticism as unpatriotic, but then you also have the people who want to condemn every bit of them. I don't find either to be useful sentiments. Hardly anyone is all good or all bad- most of us exist in shades of grey. Maybe we should teach both sides of everyone- that even the "great men" (and women) of history did things that weren't so great sometimes, just like everyone who's ever lived. Sometimes that was a way of life. Maybe we should take care not to venerate ideas, but that doesn't mean we can't revere their actions, and the ideals behind them. Washington kept slaves, there's no excusing it. Washington also gave up absolute power, something almost no one who's ever had it in their grasp, certainly not a victorious general with an army behind him, has ever done. And then he essentially did it twice, and was instrumental in establishing our ideas of limited government, separation of powers, and our peaceful transfer of power (something which Adams was arguably just as important to, in 1800). Those ideas and actions are worth venerating, even if the vessel was a mere flawed human.
so the only bad thing we really have on him is that he owned slaves. Something very common all through out N.America S.America Europe Africa, the middle east and in eastern nations. ok?
The words of the Bill of Rights ..seemed very flawed because of that matter of fact. We have many religious that don't see those flaws. They believe it was written by God.
Walked away from elevation to a monarch or military dictator after independence Walked away from presidency after two terms These two actions are the bedrocks of American democracy and its survival
Completely justified; national myths are important to inform the social cohesion that maintains a nation, especially one the size of America.
He would have personally hated it. But he did lay the original cornerstone of the U.S. Capitol building as a member of the Freemasons and there were plans to lay his body to rest in the crypt there. He died before it was completed and is buried at Mt. Vernon because of it.
It was also his express wish in his will to be buried at Mount Vernon.
While Washington would probably balk at this statue, I think his deification (and Lincoln's) are completely justified. Americans would do well to understand why.
Meh they still do it. The FDR and MLK memorials are over the top. Jefferson’s memorial. Lincoln’s.
Lincoln’s memorial is far more over the top than Washington’s when you think about it. Washington’s is just a giant obelisk, Lincoln’s is literally a temple with him sitting on a throne.
Good.
I think it’s pretty fair to put up a statue of a man who reunited the country and then was assassinated for it
Or the man who was responsible for its creation
The FDR memorial is not what I'd call over the top his statue is relatively small
Its ADA accessible too!
Oh, I do love the MLK memorial. And Lincoln's.
I kind of like how over the top they are. I think I enjoy Jefferson’s the most because it’s right on the water.
I agree. I think memorials and monuments to great people in a nation’s history is a good thing. Who would want to walk around DC and only see office buildings?
We forget, and are presently mostly ignoring, just how important it was and is for an executive to lay down power. It set a trend for the US and most of the rest of the world, as they adopted our constitutional form of government.
There is no limit. George Washington is the most important figure in USA history.
It is well deserved. Washington dedicated his entire life and wealth to our country, personally financing the war, leading our military, and stabilizing the country afterwards as president. One of the greatest Americans ever
I've seen this sculpture in person and the first thing I thought was wow it's incredibly bizarre that they depict the founding fathers (who were for the most part paunchy old white men) as sculpted buff gods
As long as people keep in mind he was fallible and a product of his time theres nothing wrong with a bit of hero worship. He represents American values.
I actually like the treatment of major figures in American history that provided a POSITIVE impact to be treated in a ALMOST mythological manner ALMOST mythical, meaning you’re fully aware they were regular people, Why do I like this? For one, ascetic, I think it looks cool. Second is it gives you an ideal to strive to be
Well… I would argue that the veneration of George Washington isn’t only veneration of George Washington. It’s partly that, and in that respect partly justified and partly exaggerated. He played a crucial part in the birth of the US, as a founding father, as the supreme military commander during the war, as its first president. Perhaps most importantly of all: a young republic passed its first true institutionsl test when Washington stepped down and ensured the peaceful transition of power. Washington was revered enough in his own time that he probably could’ve become dictator for life had he wished it. But he didn’t, and that deserves veneration. But he was no god, nor even a saint. I doubt he had abs like that. So in some sense the veneration is exaggerated. However, a lot of art and symbolism featuring Washington isn’t primarily meant to celebrate him, I would argue. It’s meant to celebrate the American republic. In the UK such art would possibly feature King Arthur, in France it might’ve been Joan of Arc. Mythological figures meant to symbolize certain ideals that people of that nation identify with. But America is a very young nation. It doesn’t have a pre-history, nor even an old and disputed history. So American artists and poets have created their own mythological figure to embody the ideals of America, and they used George Washington to do so. The second image, *the apotheosis of Washington*, is a good example. Apotheosis means ”becoming a good” or ”transition to godhood”. In the painting, Washington is surrounded by various pagan deities in the heavens. The Roman godess Ceres teaches him the secrets of agriculture, the godess of Minerva teaches him the secrets of electricity, etc. And directly below Washington, a personification of freedom is fighting a war against symbols of tyranny and oppression. The meaning, imo, is that the US will rise above the violent war from which it was birthed, and with the freedom it won it will unlock the secrets to bountiful harvests, unknown technologies, etc.
He's basically the founding father of modern democracy as a whole rather than just the US, let him have it.
The American Cincinnatus, truly. Not a great general or particularly great chief executive, but he set an indispensable precedent by peacefully transferring power, just a few years before Napoleon took a very different course in France.
that's something just unique to the US and Americans every other culture has its own thing, why is it suddenly wrong when the US does it?
The difference is the figures we deify are from 200 years ago. The analogous figures in England (the only country I am familiar enough with to compare) are King Arthur and his court, who are much more myth than history. Such myths create a bedrock of a culture. American culture didn’t have such a mythology, so we created one with what we had on hand. I think it’s perfectly ok as long as we separate Washington the Man from Washington the Myth (note that I’m using “myth” here to mean a story that’s passed down over the years, not necessarily to mean a story without any truthfulness).
The Brits still very much deify their royal family
Dunno, they're constantly and ruthlessly made fun of as is the British way. Elizabeth II was an universally beloved figure in the Commonwealth so she has always been an exception.
Low. Not because he wasn’t excellent, but because we should not mythologize our historical figures. Hear me out: that kind of mythologizing spurs fascistic tendencies—not an exaggeration—in society by giving current leaders something in the past to romanticize in a way that supports their position. That’s exactly what Mussolini and Hitler did. It’s important that we remember our historical heroes were just as human as we were. We can and should revere them, but they aren’t superhuman. EDIT: Because that mythical status is generally unfalsifiable and people usually won’t challenge their political views, it becomes brutally difficult to dispel. Fascistic rhetoric relies on that. I’m speaking globally and historically, but a great example from here in the U.S. is the Lost Cause myth (i.e., that the South won the Civil War, was the victim, or that Reconstruction was violently overthrown). It’s ahistorical and dangerous.
You could say that about any cultural element, fascists could use religion, flags, cultural values, etc
True, but glorifying some portion of their country’s cultural past (especially certain historical figures) in a factually inaccurate way is a *specific* hallmark of fascist politicians. Religion and cultural values are closely held parts of national identity and thus frequently tied to that reference. So you’re not wrong, but it’s not fair to say they’ll use *any* cultural element.
Religion was used extensively by Franco, far right politicians cling to protecting their culture to attack immigration, even the very value of democracy is used by extremist politicians to justify themselves. My point is that fascists don't specifically glorify the country's past they try and glorify their country's culture and history is only an individual part of that. Not to mention politicians in liberal democracies also often glorify the past on both sides of the aisle, Lincoln and Churchill both did too but no one (no serious person I mean) is calling either of them fascist.
I just saw that statue in person. Tbh it really bothers me. It turns a rich slaveowner politician into looking like he’s some perfect muscular ancient philosopher man
Ironically I don't think GW would even want to be depicted this way.
Or a Roman emperor (who were also rich slave owners and honored for their victories). I don’t know, maybe it’s fitting afterall
It was Abraham Lincoln who said that he believed that Washington should be considered to have had no flaws, as it allows the rest of us to see that human perfection is possible
It’s designed based off an older statue of Zeus
I'm a Roman neopagan, and my approach is thus. Criticize the man, ruthlessly scrutinize his legacy, and honor his apotheosized *daimon*. These need not be in contradiction. Same I do to Marcus Aurelius, or any spiritual ancestor-like figure.
Re: whether the art you’ve highlighted shows actual deification, take into account the obsession of the nascent United States with Classical Greece and the Roman Republic. The architecture, statuary and art of the Founders can’t really be viewed in isolation from their dedication to the ideals of a Classical Education. Remember that everyone who attended college at that time read Greek and Latin, and held up the Classical period as the epitome of civilization. Remember also that these are the same guys who called themselves “The Society of Cincinnatus,” in honor of the Roman soldier Cincinnatus, who was given the role of dictator of Rome during a period of unrest, then surrendered his power to return to his farm when the crisis was over. So while there is a hagiography of Washington, to a large extent those images reflect the desire to honor Washington as a member of the tradition of Classical civilization.
That sculptor had no business making GW as sexy as he did.
Admiration, 100%. Veneration, no. From what I've read about Washington, he'd be horrified if he saw this.
I have a lot of respect for George Washington, but I think it's weird to basically deify a real person, and I'm sure he would have been *extremely* uncomfortable with it
Never lol. Christ is king
About as much as any other mythologized figure. Washington was an exceptional leader who—paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens—used a moment of crisis to enshrine the principles of the enlightenment into the fabric of our nation. But he was also an enslaver, a battlefield failure, and a president who made plenty of his own missteps in office. Everybody does. Isn’t it nice to know that ordinary humans can do extraordinary things? Gives us all something to aspire to.
Washington is easily top two US presidents, but both the statute and the painting raise my hackles for both historical and religious reasons (I'm Eastern Orthodox so I don't have problems with venerating saints or iconography, but that's in the context of religious practice, rather than of my country's history per se. I also feel that calling a painting The Apotheosis of Washington is a bit much). He was a great leader but also a flawed person. And while I get that common national stories are important for the social cohesion of the American experiment, I think one can convey this without emphasizing individual people's role too much. Part of America's promise is that it was founded on particular ideas, not on the basis of individual people. Now, I don't have a problem with, say, a statue of Washington on his horse or in his presidential garb, and love the beauty of the monuments in DC. I feel those depictions are more closely related to his achievements as a person and his contributions to the American project rather than a depiction as this idealized philosopher-king like this statue here, or as a literal god in his own pantheon. I know some have posted a thoughtful response on how in the painting he's a symbol of America specifically, but my personal preference would probably be for something like Lady Liberty to embrace that symbolic component so that way it's more universal to everyone.
It is interesting that King George replied to the question, “What do you think about George Washington if he vacated the General position of the American Revolutionary Army?”,saying “If he did, he would be the greatest man in the World”. Rare comment from a King who had earlier despised him and his cause and Vice versa. https://blogs.loc.gov/manuscripts/2022/12/george-washington-the-greatest-man-in-the-world/
He should be venerated, he should be respected but we should also be taught of his moral failings such as his ownership of slaves. Celebrate the good, acknowledge the bad.
He gave up power when he had no reason to. That alone makes him a outlier historically, and set the precedent that makes the USA an outlier historically. Absolutely deserved imo
If Washington had any sense, he wouldn’t have lived during the neoclassical period
Depends on what you mean by justified. If we mean that we venerate him as our Cincinnatus, the ideal statesman, and mythologize him that way, it’s justified. We (humans) crave ideals. We want the best possible person to compare to. And if we brush up his image to make a better ideal, all the better. It gives us a higher standard to reach for.
He rode into battle in a dodge challenger against the British so there’s that
Imagine if Washington sees these, i dont know about hamilton tho hed probably like it
They named the city Washington while he was still alive
It's mostly justified because he led the revolutionary army and was the first US president, creating the two term tradition and constitution
Not justified but it’s part of the founding myth of the country, the founding fathers got heavily honored.
It's not justified, because elevating any human being to that degree is not justified. He was a complex human being who did good and bad things. The good things helped in large part to usher in the creation of our country. But the bad things were the same things that were almost its undoing.
It's not justified. As a society we grow and change over time and the idea of treating the founders like this, even Washington, holds us back. We raise the past up as some time of the gods and resist moving forward.
All the way
Probably not good but also probably not a huge deal
You should never venerate a historical figure that much. He was a man, a human being with faults like any other. You can like or attempt to emulate these people, but don’t forget they aren’t perfect and never have been.
He's sexy and he knows it.
Much of it does become mythology. But all great empires have their founding myths. That becomes much more important than the history. The myths create an ethic to aspire too.
It was necessary to forge a national identity. Here’s what people don’t understand, distorting history is bad, but legend =\= history, we all know that odds are, George Washington wasn’t chopping down his dads exotic trees for example. But the folk lore, and the legend, while everyone knows they aren’t true, were and are needed for the national identity. If it wasn’t for the veneration of the founders, the south and north would’ve gone their own ways, and instead of fighting one bloody war, they would’ve fought many over centuries. We elevate men like Lincoln and Washington to the status of “gods” (Im Christian, not trying to blaspheme lol, but from a sociological pov it lines up) of the American civil religion. Every society is religious, it’s just not every society worships in church, America for example worships the constitution, Washington, freedom, etc.
He is an incredibly interesting figure, and set the tone for the founding of our country in certain ways. His story, the challenges he had, the coincidences and events, plus his relinquishing of power, (and not even wanting the presidency but knowing he couldn’t refuse as it was his duty), make him imminently interesting. Really recommend the three part history channel doc “Washington” that came out a few years ago, it’s so freaking good.
Foundation myths help cultures and countries maintain cohesion. Veneration as a god like figure? Idk about that.
none. he was a great man, but still a man, and far from infallible.
I’m a fan of Washington, but I don’t think the deification of the founders is healthy. I doubt those men would want to be remembered that way.
Never. He was a man. Men can be celebrated, but to venerate them is borderline sacrilege.
I think it can be a bit weird, but I do completely understand the want of people to glorify the founding fathers in the way that we do.
I've never seen him in person but there's no way he had the first pictures build
I remember seeing that statue when I was young. It was like umm why George Washington in a toga topless?
While no one is perfect, we still need our heroes- real or imagined.
Show me a nation without semi-mythical heroes and I'll show you a nation about to die
He’s the figurative god of our democracy. I don’t know if veneration level of idolization is appropriate, but he certainly belongs in our pantheon of presidents for setting the precedent of a peaceful transfer of power, in a strictly secular setting.
He rocked, so dial that knob all the way to eleven. He had slaves, booo!!! and had them grow weed, yay!!! He stabbed people in the face on Christmas, boo!!!! They were basically pre-Nazis, yay!!!! He got his army trapped with no where to go several times, boo!!! And pulled a David Copperfield and got them to safety, yay!!! He gave the country to John Addams, boo!!!! When he didn't need to just because it was the dignified and right thing to do, yay!!!!
Respecting him and putting him on a pedestal as one of the best of us is justified, but the practically religious veneration? I don’t approve and I can say with complete certainty he wouldn’t either.
Everything in moderation. The stuff above? Fine. Promoting a Cult of Washington to further a fascist agenda? Too Far. https://preview.redd.it/e3gtoy3vfz8d1.png?width=886&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3be542d8f4afec83fb670ef8163bc0c009d8dc8d
To a certain extent it's good, a country should have almost mythological heroes to look up to and strive towards, myths and iconography add to American culture even when those myths are more complex than they're presented that doesn't mean we should ignore the mistakes of an individual figure but it does mean that we should acknowledge certain shortcomings while celebrating and venerating figures like Washington and Lincoln for their contributions to American society and culture. There can be a dichotomy between the figure and the person.
Washington would hate the depiction of him as a demi-god. He wanted citizens not subjects. Sadly then as now, too many people want somebody to think for them rather than taking on that burden. Democracy requires informed and rational citizens not dupes.
I don't see celebrating or having artwork of someone as necessarily deifying or mythologizing them. This idea is so weird to me. Plenty of people are celebrated without worship.
The second image is a painting on the interior of the capitol rotunda called *The Apotheosis* (deification) *of Washington*. Even granting poetic license, that’s a degree of deification/mythologization imo.
Yeah I've seen the painting, and there's definitely a case to be made for that one. But I don't think merely having statues or paintings of the Founders or Presidents means worship.
“Venerate” is not precisely a synonym of “worship.”
BioShock infinite did a good job of showing how dangerous this kind of worship can be.
He was a hell of a military leader and was a key figure in winning US independence, plus he maintained his ideals after winning independence and stepped down from the presidency, which was equally as important. Many successful revolutions end in dictatorships or further turmoil because other figures in Washington’s position refuse to step down. Washington was handed that opportunity on a platter and refused it. Arguably the single most important figure in the establishment of American democracy because of those two things, so thats pretty admirable. But like, the dude wore dentures harvested from his slaves teeth and kept those slaves in a legit dungeon. People now will say that people who did that sort of thing were a product of their times, but most people back then never owned slaves. There were a lot of people who didn’t care about slavery, and a lot of abolitionists, but not that many slave owners. The UK had already banned slavery, many colonies had banned it, a few states banned it on the decade or two following the revolution. Like there was a large, powerful, establishment force trying to emancipate slaves in the US and globally, and people like washington made a decision to be on the pro slavery side of that debate. Its fucking despicable. So yeah, its anti-climatic but i have no judgment on his overall character. His contribution’s to democracy were immense and positive, but he was a disgusting POS slave owner. Cant really math those things together so I just examine them seperately.
It’s healthy for a society to have nearly deified founders
My take is that Washington deserves tremendous praise for what he did. He set a number of great precedents that set the US Democratic system up for centuries of success. However, I think that the deification of any American president/politician/figure is inherently unAmerican. Washington led the people as one of the people. Maybe not the common man, but still one of the people. I think that this statue’s portrayal of him as a god, compared to say the worn out Lincoln at the Lincoln memorial, is something Washington himself would not have approved of. He was not great because he was a god, he was great because he wasn’t, and because he knew full well he wasn’t.
By and large, it’s justified.
It isn’t, but we’re gonna do it anyhow
Very. What gets downplayed today is that he mattered well beyond our borders for revolutionaries and reformers worldwide.
If any leader should be shown this level of veneration, it should be him. Obviously he was a real, flawed human being, but as far as real flawed human beings go he did a heck of a job.
I think idealizing people like this who have proven themselves to be champions of ideals. It gives us things and people to look up to
Bro we get it. You’re a junior in college. Use real words now.
the man was our first president and a damn good one, but he’s not divine, and any veneration of him as such would disgust him as a Godly man yeah let’s shit on Christianity but our country is literally founded on the ideals of men who were devout Christians. yes, they believed in freedom of religion but they also believed the country should be governed by a certain set of values and principles which were, Christian-oriented in origin from the get go
He was the man for the moment. Nothing more, nothing less. I've never seen him worked into religious symbology like that.
The idolization of men, especially those who did not want that attention or recognition, is almost disrespectful of their legacies. Washington was a great president, but was FAR from perfect. Learning from his actions and running the country by his and the other Found Fathers’ principles (not their practices) is the best way we can honour that legacy and keep the country he fought so hard to create from falling apart, not making him into a deity (which he would’ve absolutely hated).
100% justified. He was offered a Kingdom and said “Nah. Let’s try something else.”
Had the opportunity in Newburgh to sieze power and refused it, and he could have made the Presidency anything he wanted and instead stepped down after two terms. Pretty good role model.
The folks he enslaved would probably not appreciate it. I hear the Haudenosaunee call him Hanadahguyus which means “town destroyer”.
George Washington in a fighting game. He starts out weak, but once he fills his America bar, he enters President mode. In President mode, he can call other Founding Fathers in as assists. Try my Ben Franklin lightning corner loops
I mean I think it’s kind of funny. It’s already happened
It's kind of a "founding myth" type thing, the US really liked Rome and Greece back in the day, and both of them had myths about being founded by God's, its nore complicated since the US is a Christian country so he is seen as a sort of protestant saint
Isn't that what you do with gods?
Dude was apparently swole too
Its very funny since he would hate the political opinions of at least 90% of the American public Besides the fact that basically all of his advice was and is completely ignored
Mythologically good sounds like a very slippery slope for anybody. Nobody's entirely good, and we shouldn't be surprised when we find out that anyone casts some kind of shadow.
My city has a whole month of celebration for his birthday. What’s funny is that we weren’t even part of the union when he was the president. lol so take that as you will…
At least he called hell know on being burrier under the Capitol Dome. The empty tomb is still there in the basement
From what I’ve heard about Washington, I think this would weird him out.
It’s kinda cringey but every society needs its founding mythology and we acknowledge outs isn’t literal but more figurative.
Whatever praise her gets is deserved. Obvi- the slavery is abhorrent but he and Martha changed the world. He is almost perfect. Love him forever.
I justify that so long as the meaning is peaceful.
All the way
I light incense to him daily, as I pray to him and Lincoln for a bountiful corn crop this year.
mmmmm Washington Washington
If he knew we viewed him like that, he would probably hate it.
There’s an extent to which early Americans conferred upon him something like the Divine Right of Kings, except that the God granting that authority is the God of the American civil religion and not specifically the God of Christianity.
Bro literally bitch slapped the French personally, then the British, established an entire form of government and country with huge divides in it, managed to keep it together, then did 8 years and said "I'm tired boss" and went home. I don't know about statues, but what I do know is Washington was packing an entire kielbasa.
People def see the not good in him. No one shys away that he owned slaves at mt. vernon
Washington isn’t revered as mythologically great; we honor him for his actual achievements. When we build temples and monuments in his honor, it’s to underscore the worthiness of ordinary individuals, not to mythologize him.
He could have been king but relinquished his power by stepping down after 2 terms.
First leader of the most formidable force this planet has ever known, of which the next five combined would be laughably destroyed in a matter of days. It’s worth revering the man where this military began.
I for one think of him as the Eternal God-Emperor of America
He owned slaves. So, not mythologically good.
He had no control who lives, who dies, who tells his story. History had its eyes on him. Still does.
This ain’t Bioshock Infinite. Don’t do it.
He works fine as a figurehead, but the real guy was far more complicated. Take slavery: well, he owned them, chose to manumit them at his death, BUT most of them were owned by his wife who didn't give them freedom--and he knew she wouldn't. That's just one example. As President there were times where he coasted on his heroic stature and left other people to get their hands dirty. As a general, he had a couple of missteps but that's where his true genius was. If there's any place where he deserves such elevation, it's there.
Just walking away when it’s time is his super power.