February 22
...serving up your daily dish.
Today is George Washington's real birthday. At the least the one the Baby Boomers celebrated when they were kids. Actually... his birthday was Feb. 11 in the Julian calendar (the calendar in use in the colonies at the time he was born) and Feb. 22 in the Gregorian calendar.
George Washington was born in Virginia on February 11, 1731, according to the then-used Julian calendar. In 1752, however, Britain and all its colonies adopted the Gregorian calendar, which moved the calendar ahead 11 days and made January the first month of the year instead of March. The new calendar placed Washington's birth on February 22, 1732.
Bonus points for anyone who can calculate their own birthday in the Julian calendar.
February 22, 2006 in Barista Does the Math | Permalink
Ah, another chance for tattler to emerge from his/her den to excoriate "the indispensable man" in the cause of PC. There may also be some grumbling from tattler that the Gregorian calendar is all a Papist plot, of course, an overthrowing of the pagan gods who gave us life.
Nonetheless, today turns out to be the feast of St. Margaret of Cortona.
Posted by: cathar (8T) | Feb 22, 2006 10:06:15 AM
Did they change the Zodiac months too?
Was that Gregorian calendar guy the same one with the chants?
Posted by: Uncle Tonoose | Feb 22, 2006 10:06:20 AM
tattler,
please don't spoil Pres Washington's birthday
Posted by: The Iceman(*8T*) | Feb 22, 2006 10:06:56 AM
Hmmm. I wonder if there's a calendar out that that will actually make me a few years younger.
Posted by: Miss Martta (8T) | Feb 22, 2006 10:08:30 AM
Uncle Tonoose, Pope Gregory XIII, while responsible for the Papal Bull (what a great term, wish I had one to stampede through Red Cheetah some night) that promulgated calendrical changes, was not the one whose name is linked to those chants. That was an earlier Greg.
Posted by: cathar (8T) | Feb 22, 2006 10:17:21 AM
tattler, St. Margaret of Cortona is a saint of special use to penitents. You may thus wish to ask for her intercession to slow down the frothing coming out of your mouth, lest others mistake your version of speech for rabies.
And why not lash yourself? In some church circles, a little self-mortification is said to do wonders to clear the mind.
Posted by: cathar (8T) | Feb 22, 2006 10:20:27 AM
Why are you "patriots" so ticked off when we put historical figures in proper context? Don't expect people who are the son's and daughter's of slaves or people who recognize the injustice present and past to applaud a man who oppressed and crushed many people.
Posted by: lasermike026 | Feb 22, 2006 10:32:18 AM
I've seen with my own eyes the actual St. Margaret of Cortona.
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Feb 22, 2006 10:35:12 AM
Laser,
it only ticks me off when 'you' put them in the 21st century perspective. we can't change history or make them into something they weren't. In hindsight many of our 'heroes' had flaws that in our current perspective leave them lacking. But in their world they made significant contributions.
Posted by: The Iceman(*8T*) | Feb 22, 2006 10:56:55 AM
In reply to the "non-patriots" I suppose lasermike represents, by no means do they ever place genuine patriots like General Washington in the proper context. Instead, they seize on one aspect of his background as if that somehow justfies their anger and verbal intemperateness, all in the name of some vaguely defined "injustice."
As for specifics in this matter, however, who indeed, lasermike, did Washington "oppress and crush?" I also doubt very much that the "son's and daughter's of slaves" are with us anymore. Unless, of course, you're referring to citizens in such charming nations as Yemen and the Sudan.
And yes, I do bloody expect people like yourself to applaud genuine heroes like Washington, Jefferson and the various Adamses. (If only by way of intelligent contrast to phonies like Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore.)They took considerable risks for their own freedom that led to yours.
Posted by: cathar (8T) | Feb 22, 2006 10:57:16 AM
"Bonus points for anyone who can calculate their own birthday in the Julian calendar.
The Russian Orthadox Church still uses the Julian Calender. Russian Christmas was January 7 on the Gregorian Calender so just do the math.
Posted by: Bitpusher | Feb 22, 2006 11:03:09 AM
It is interesting to me how similar the far left is to the far right. Laser and Tattler will seek the "sins" of Washington to justify their obvious antipathy towards more mainstream political views. It is really not much different from a religious conservative being "against" an otherwise good and reasonable politician because he's "godless". It is a kind of moral extremism.
Not that I mean to excuse slavery or Washington's culpability in holding slaves. My point is that you cannot hold people of the past to the standards of behavior today, because, simply, no one holds up.
I'll bet almost every single male abolitionist of the eighteenth century expected his wife to cook, clean, bear children, and have no political or "career" ambition. Does their "sexism" void their good work? No.
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Feb 22, 2006 11:22:51 AM
Most abolitionists were Quakers which was a religion that pioneered feminism.
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/fem1.htm
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_000200_abolitionist.htm
http://www.quakerbooks.org/get/0-9620912-9-4
Posted by: Krys O. | Feb 22, 2006 11:33:01 AM
Ahh, but I bet they ate meat, Krys!
Also, many abolitionists were Evangelical Christians, so perhaps only their sexism negates thier good works?
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Feb 22, 2006 11:40:47 AM
p.s. Of what eighteenth century feminism do you speak. I'd honestly be interested.
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Feb 22, 2006 11:44:38 AM
Krys O. you're absolutely mistaken in your assertion that "most abolitionists were Quakers." While virtually all Quakers in the 1850's were abolitionists (anti-slavery is a key tenet of Quakerism, after all), the Quakers were at the time, have always been, very much a minority sect. The New England Congregationalists, to cite a "rival" religious body preaching abolition, mounted real numbers.
And to cite Wendy McElroy as a neutral or even a vaguely informed source? No such thing, save perhaps to the gang of diehards and Buchananites down at LewRockwell.com. My own experiences in graduate school also taught me to automatically discard any document where the amount of space allotted to scholarly references is approximately the same as that given over to text.
Posted by: cathar (8T) | Feb 22, 2006 11:48:06 AM
That's all fine and good. But since we are discussing the application of modern mores to people of a different time, even the 1850's don't count.
Washington died in 1799.
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Feb 22, 2006 11:51:47 AM
And Krys O., if you really wish to investigate a religion that "pioneered feminism," I suggest Shakerism, since Shakers eventually came to accept Mother Ann Lee's assertion that she was the very reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
Rightly or wrongly, however, since that declaration, it's basically been downhill ever since for the "Shaking Quakers." Last time I checked, there were but 4 Shakers still alive, although Mother Lee did also prophesy that alll America eventually would come to accept her teachings. (Even if that doggoned requirement of absolute celibacy for all members looms as a potential snag.)
Posted by: cathar (8T) | Feb 22, 2006 12:02:56 PM
whew -- i'd read all the above posts but i'm too busy honoring Washington’s birthday by beating my slaves who tried to run away to be with their families.
ps -- knowing slavery is immoral WAS an 18th century mindset. just not the 18th century mindset of racist slaveowners.
Posted by: tattler | Feb 22, 2006 12:39:50 PM
"Bonus points for anyone who can calculate their own birthday in the Julian calendar."
I'd rather work in Julian fries ;-)
Posted by: Uncle Tonoose | Feb 22, 2006 1:28:26 PM
Tattler, that was ever so sweet of you to claim spiritual kinship with Simon Legree. When will you similarly admit to a certain physical resemblance to a section of Mr. Ed?
Posted by: cathar (8T) | Feb 22, 2006 2:55:14 PM
just so you know -- sarcasm: witty language used to convey insults or scorn
i don't actually own slaves, cathar. i'm not a former president after all! however, mr. washington did own slaves, so perhaps you should save your scorn for him.
Posted by: tattler | Feb 22, 2006 2:58:32 PM
One might, perchance, more profitably focus on the word "witty" in the definition rather than "insults" or "scorn" or, as in this case, "used".
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Feb 22, 2006 3:05:09 PM
Just so you know, tattler, I know the definition of sarcasm. Also of the word "irony." I merely despair that you won't go away, that you keep chewing through your scold's bridle. You know, and repeat forever, one fact bout Washington. That fact hardly taints his accomplishments to most others. What part of that progression don't you get? The part where your views get shunted aside by the wider-thinking majority because of the absolute orneriness with which you propound them?
Slink away, tattled, do yourself a favor, especially given your still-shameful remarks about "white people" dying on 9/11.
Posted by: cathar (8T) | Feb 22, 2006 3:08:46 PM
