this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
71 points (90.8% liked)

Memes

48447 readers
4069 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Thepotholeman@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago

I mean sure, the ruling men of more then a century ago by our standards were terrible people. But goddamn teddy Roosevelt was a man fighting for shit you're still fighting for today and hell he got you closer to it then compared to you now.... You can lump him in with slave owners and child rapists FFS.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca -1 points 5 days ago

It's easy to pick on "the levels of bad", when you're not the one one enslaved in a priaon, but writing behind a screen.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"Fun fact": Mount Rushmore or Six Grandfathers was a sacred mountain for the Lakota to actively disrespect their beliefs

[–] carotte@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

other "fun" fact: the man who defaced Six Grandfathers, Gutzon Borglum, was a member of the KKK

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Gutzon Borglum

I refuse to acknowledge this is a real name.

[–] rational_lib@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Teddy Roosevelt never said "The only good indian is a dead indian." That quote is typically associated with Philip Sheridan.

A number of sources claim a similar quote (“I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are...") alleged to be from an 1886 speech in New York, but this still goes against how he treated native americans generally and I can't find the original speech so I'm a bit suspicious of this as well.

[–] Cano@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Lincoln also commuted the sentence of 264 other Dakotans that had to be executed the same day. If he didn't intervene the executions would've been 303

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

Yeah. Cherry-picking can be used for good AND evil.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So what's the real dirt on Lincoln? Did he snore or something? :P

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

Honestly the worst thing Lincoln ever did was choosing Johnson as his VP. Even then, I learned recently that he asked a different (better) guy, Benjamin Butler, to be VP but he turned him down. Had he lived to do Reconstruction, we might have more to critique, certainly he'd have done better than Johnson (not a high bar), but since he died he's off the hook for figuring that one out.

You could also criticize him for not being committed enough to ending slavery from the start. But really, other than the mass hangings of the Dakotas (which could've been worse but was still not great), most criticism of him is just Lost Causers whining about "authoritarianism" by freeing the slaves and expanding the scope and power of the federal government as was necessary to free the slaves.

[–] VeryVito@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago (9 children)

I understand the point, but as an exercise, try to find four historical figures without glaring character defects. Eventually, I figure we’ll all be either judged or forgotten in time.

[–] ImmortanStalin@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago

Who here hasn't made dentures from unwillingly donated teeth?

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] bricklove@midwest.social 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not pictured: the giant, shitty looking pile of rubble under them.

They just blasted chunks off the mountain and left the mess behind

[–] DerArzt@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Also not pictured: that the mountain is a spiritual site for the local tribes.

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The history of Washingtons teeth is uncertain. The evidence that those were slave teeth seems to show that the teeth were purchased.

Internet pictures with words are fucking dumb.

[–] Confidant6198@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Washington owned slaves. He was not some moral high ground individual. The only reason why they even got independence from Britain was that Britain wanted to stop the expansion of the territory and the people in the colonies wanted to continue it and kill all the natives.

Edit:

In 1784, Washington paid unnamed “Negroes” for nine teeth. We don’t know the precise circumstances, says Van Horn: “The president’s decision to pay his slaves for their teeth may have been a recognition on his part that teeth were something sacrosanct and personal.” On the other hand, being enslaved meant that any economic exchange was inherently not fair.

He literally took advantage of enslaved people to get their teeth and you consider it as just “bought”. Top tier cracker mindset. I guess that to you it was also fair for him to own his slaves because he “bought” them.

https://daily.jstor.org/were-george-washingtons-teeth-taken-from-enslaved-people/

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I didn't suggest anything about his character, and we could probably have an entirely separate discussion about imperialism.

What is important is how you source information when it comes to dental prosthetics.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cheers_queers@lemm.ee 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm 30 and this is the first I've ever heard about this. my southern Baptist homeschool curriculum told me that his teeth were made of wood and it was never something i thought to fact check as an adult.

gotta love homeschooling 🙄

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

Wait Abe too? Damn

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Just a little reminder that governments have killed more people than any other entity and it isn't even close. You could try to point at religion - and that history is also fucked - but even if you exclude "holy wars" waged by religious government leaders, religious killing still doesn't add up to what has been done by governments where religion wasn't really a factor. The proletariat must not be disarmed. You might trust your current government, but give it a generation (or even an election) and things could be very different.

[–] RedFrank24@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I wouldn't call that a particularly insightful observation. Ever since humanity settled down in agricultural societies there have been governments, and with governments come a monopoly on force, so obviously governments have killed more people than anything else. Any organisation of humans is gonna have at least some threat of lethal force backing it.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

I wouldn’t call that a particularly insightful observation.

I would even say it's incredibly trivial. But even making such observations points to the fact that such person is somehow treating that as apparently undesirable, wanting what, going back to hunting-gathering?

load more comments
view more: next ›