re: Vermin going after George Washington

quote:

---

the male gaze of other biographers has distorted our impressions of the first president

---

I remember the first time I heard this term, at LSU in the late '80s.

A chick I knew heard her prof use it and she started parroting him

This painting was placed on the ceiling of the Capitol rotunda in 1865.



“The Apotheosis of Washington.”. Literally, “The Elevation of Washington to Godhood.”

The vast majority of historical work regarding Washington was written while looking through that lens.

There is nothing wrong with attempting a more objective analysis. He will still be a great man and patriot ... just more human.

Yawn, people have warts.

Other biographers have covered Washington extensively, they didn't just write...."OMG, greatest guy ever, he's perfect, he's Jesus in America!"

This woman just wants attention for probably a shitty book that's just about to come out.

quote:

---

There is nothing wrong with attempting a more objective analysis. He will still be a great man and patriot ... just more human.

---

Absolutely. But I don't know if this is that book. The article mentioned that Chernow's book on Washington had no direct citations with regards to Washington's mother. If that is true, and the book does have citations which can complicate and explain that relationship, that is an ultimate good. But depending on what view the historian takes can color a lot of that relationship, which is where the predisposed ideology of the author comes into play. My view is that this book is attempting to make "history" fun, which is a terrible way of introducing people to the process by which history is written. There are multiple ways you can explore a historical topic, but if the aim is specifically with an ideology in mind, then it makes it difficult to approach any historical topic, as the lens by which the source documents are interpreted are colored by concerns which are fashionable for a period, but don't make for good works of history.

I've read many works by historians who do lots of good work pointing out the biases in source documentation, about how much we can trust that documentation, and to what degree a source is dependable in its point of view. From reading this article, this book doesn't give me the impression that it will be a dispassionate analysis of that documentation, but rather will attempt to paint a portrait which says more about the author and time period than it does about the historical artifact in question.

quote:

---

George Washington risked life and all that he owned, he left his wife and his farm in order to deliver the nation from a demanding European overlord. The list is short indeed when naming people who have done more than George Washington for the USA.

---

His gorgeous farm, you might say. Mount Vernon is in a beautiful location high above the Potomac.

I am surprised after the success of the statues in New Orleans, they have not moved on to street names and former President Jackson.

Just run a search for this woman's name and it's headline after headline of pubs promoting this shite.

CNN: Nearly everything you thought you knew about George Washington is wrong

Boston Globe: In ‘You Never Forget Your First,’ Alexis Coe offers a fresh look at a president without precedent

Inside Hook: Alexis Coe Knows George Washington Isn't Getting Canceled

Time: New George Washington Biography Aims to Change 'Dad History'

Smithsonian: A New Book About George Washington Breaks All the Rules on How to Write About George Washington: Alexis Coe’s cheeky biography of the first president pulls no punches