I question, though, the value of learning about the specific failings of historical figures, π±π¦π³ π΄π¦. I am already aware that not-only is no one perfect but anyone has the potential for extremes of both good and evil, sometimes simultaneously. Had Washington not owned slaves I would still not believe that he π€π°πΆπβ¦
I question, though, the value of learning about the specific failings of historical figures, π±π¦π³ π΄π¦. I am already aware that not-only is no one perfect but anyone has the potential for extremes of both good and evil, sometimes simultaneously. Had Washington not owned slaves I would still not believe that he π€π°πΆππ₯π―'π΅ have owned slaves. I am not interested in history as hagiography, but no more am I interest in it as gossip. I don't learn it in order to know whose statues to tear down.
Well said, sir.
I question, though, the value of learning about the specific failings of historical figures, π±π¦π³ π΄π¦. I am already aware that not-only is no one perfect but anyone has the potential for extremes of both good and evil, sometimes simultaneously. Had Washington not owned slaves I would still not believe that he π€π°πΆππ₯π―'π΅ have owned slaves. I am not interested in history as hagiography, but no more am I interest in it as gossip. I don't learn it in order to know whose statues to tear down.