B. Frank:


You're the man now, dawg!!

Mine too. ;) Not all of them, but some.

Benjamin Franklin tops them all.  He did an amazing amount for one life, quite the rennaisance(sp?) man. He founded the first volunteer fire department in the U.S. I believe, as well as one of the firsts hospitals.  If not perhaps THE first hospital.  He also opened up the first public library, I believe.

In edition, I think he was known for expressing some abolitionist views, in a time where noone really did.  He also published a book of sayings which is where alot of traditional American sayings actually come from.

To top it off he was quite the womanizer, in a time where sex was believed evil/vile.  Hey, I think that counts for something.

Infact, here is something cool I found.  Its a letter he wrote to someone he knew, in which he advocates older women. LOL!

http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/mistress.html

Read it.  It's quite interesting..




TJ had a thing for black girls.

TJ had a thing for black girls.


His slaves. ::)

Most of history's heroes were jerks to somebody or other. The thing is, they were the jerks that *won*, so they got to write the history books.

There's no question that these were intelligent men, but as to their character I believe many of them had serious moral deficiencies by today's standards. I've read essays by Thomas Jefferson in support of salvery that employed pseudoscience and cruel stereotypes beyond belief. I'm sure Washington was no different in his beliefs.

Franklin was an intelligent man, and self made. I don't see him as a classist at all because he was a poor journeyman for much of his life. His brilliance sets him apart from the rest.

The English monarchs were bastards to the fullest degree, without question. I have no admiration for them whatsoever. I have a certain respect for the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms simply because they weren't imperialistic colonisers. Their business was supporting themselves and fighting further invasion (although they themselves had won the land from the native Brythonic Celts thanks to invasion). But the period between the William the Conquerer (who incidentally was known as William the Bastard before 1066) and the firm beginnings of the modern Westminster-style constitutional monarchy (parliamentary democracy) I have no respect for. What did they do besides conquer and subjugate the Scots, Irish, and Welsh nations, brutally colonise North America, and engage in silly continental wars with the French? Well, they did lay the foundation for the American and Canadian nations, but that doesn't mean I respect those activities for what they reall were: imperialism, racism, classism....all the bad -isms.

(although they themselves had won the land from the native Brythonic Celts thanks to invasion).


My ancestors.  Welsh represent! ;D

But the period between the William the Conquerer (who incidentally was known as William the Bastard before 1066) and the firm beginnings of the modern Westminster-style constitutional monarchy (parliamentary democracy) I have no respect for. What did they do besides conquer and subjugate the Scots, Irish, and Welsh nations, brutally colonise North America, and engage in silly continental wars with the French? Well, they did lay the foundation for the American and Canadian nations, but that doesn't mean I respect those activities for what they reall were: imperialism, racism, classism....all the bad -isms.


Over the course of history, we've done some horrible things to one another while taking care of number one. I think that's just human nature at work. I hold out hope that we've become somewhat enlightened since the colonial era. The question is, where would we be today without imperialism? Is it realistic to establish a new nation (or further extend one) *without* it? I'm just curious.

But the period between the William the Conquerer (who incidentally was known as William the Bastard before 1066) and the firm beginnings of the modern Westminster-style constitutional monarchy (parliamentary democracy) I have no respect for. What did they do besides conquer and subjugate the Scots, Irish, and Welsh nations, brutally colonise North America, and engage in silly continental wars with the French? Well, they did lay the foundation for the American and Canadian nations, but that doesn't mean I respect those activities for what they reall were: imperialism, racism, classism....all the bad -isms.


Even going into the twentieth century, most of the leaders we usually admire were really far from perfect. Winston Churchill was an authoritarian imperialist who wanted to continue Britain's tyrannical rule of its overseas empire. And Franklin Roosevelt didn't do anything to stop the practice of segregation in the United States.

Even going into the twentieth century, most of the leaders we usually admire were really far from perfect. Winston Churchill was an authoritarian imperialist who wanted to continue Britain's tyrannical rule of its overseas empire. And Franklin Roosevelt didn't do anything to stop the practice of segregation in the United States.


Nobody's perfect. What's for dinner?  ;)

In hindsight, segregation seems to have been the elephant in the room that everybody wanted to ignore; you knew it was there, but why rock the boat? Racial attitudes that begat segregation were around for a long time before the civil rights monvement. Kennedy might have made great strides in the civil rights arena, but even his administration had its failings.