Why does the US treat its founding fathers like they were gods? I dont think even the best of monarchs in European history aside from antiquity got this treatment

Most of it comes from the Reconstruction era and Gilded Age where wealthy industrialists wanted to project America as some shining city on a hill and a new Rome. Part of it was to help support a sense of unity post-civil war but in some cases it was done as an expression of white supremacy and in other cases they were just utopian ideals

Ancestor worship IE "The past was populated by giants" is an extremely common thought pattern in humans.

>>17810267 (OP)
When imperialists took over the US they started putting their faces on all the money like they were Roman emperors. It's silly when you think about it

>>17810267 (OP)
>the US treats its founding fathers like gods
it doesn't, never has, and never will. you can kill yourself now, and stop posting threads trying to make your retarded propaganda happen.

>>17810267 (OP)
>tfw peer pressured into President Franklin of Columbia's 15th Americanist intervention against the savage Anabaptist kingdoms of P*nnsylvania

>>17810267 (OP)
We have nice statues of them. That's about it.

>>17810289
>imperialists
I have an actual Confederate One Dollar Bill dated 1864 and it features the face of Clement C. Clay on it
This tells me the so-called "imprialists" didn't even start this but also what the Confederates did was almost more weird because their currency just featured the faces of then-living Congressmen. At least notes depicting the founding fathers have more symbolic value

>>17810299
Amish chariots are no joke

>>17810305
Greenbacks had salmon p Chase's face on them.

>>17810267 (OP)
It was like what Revolutionary France tried to do with religion but less autistic.

>>17810309
>You stand on the lands outside a town once called Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The great walls of the capital of Deitscherei loom before your regiment of pikemen. The Judge of your battalion shouts a prayer to Roosevelt the Soft-Spoken to wield his Big Stick against the Anabaptist heathens. A rumbling echoes in the distance as a stream of Amish war chariots roll in from the horizon on your left flank. The year is 2670. You will die on this field.

>>17810335
The US couldn't promote a secular religion like France tried doing with the Cult of the Supreme Being because of the seperation of church and state clause of the Constitution, what they instead did was start Civic Religion, which is like a Secular religion but it's only implicitly deist instead of explicitly deist and focuses more on a framework of rituals and social contracts that allow people to fill in the blank regarding the question of the nature of God himself

>>17810267 (OP)
Because they were. The only truth to religion is that
>Paganism is correct and based
>The US is literally the earthly domain of the pagan gods
>Many prominent figures in US history were avatars of pagan deities
For example, did you know that George Washington was the avatar of Zeus, that Benjamin Franklin was the avatar of Hermes, or that Thomas Jefferson was the avatar of Apollo?
Hail Zeus-Washington

>>17810477
Oh and btw, anti-Americanism of any kind is blasphemy against the gods and lands you a spot in Tartarus when you die. To all anti-Americans; enjoy your afterlife with Cronus, the titan who ate his own children

>>17810477
>>17810478
You're taking the American Civic Religion too seriously. It was more about Deism than Paganism

>>17810267 (OP)
because they gave us our freedom (tm)

>>17810341
for duty and humanity!

>>17810267 (OP)
>Why does the US treat its founding fathers like they were gods?
We don't. They just have cool statues and conservatives get a bit pissy when you point out unflattering things like some of them owning slaves.

>>17810267 (OP)
>Why does the US treat its founding fathers like they were gods?

I don't personally know, but they should have kept doing it.
The American veneration and deification of their most prominent political figures was very charming.

>>17810279
>white supremacy

Hi Mr shitburg

>>17810649
>Calling a spade a spade makes you a Jew
Are you saying white supremacy is good or bad? I honestly don't know

>>17810341
>Total Amerimutt death

>>17810267 (OP)
Greco-Roman larp

>>17810267 (OP)
Because these guys were some of the biggest Gigachads in Western History and everyone - even Europeans - realized this until like the last eighty years.

When Washington died, Napoleon Bonaparte ordered all flags in his Empire at half-mast and a 21-gun cannon salute in Paris.

Americans have been desensitized by all kinds of things and inculcated with an unhealthy level of self-criticism. Europeans talk a lot of smack because they resent American hegemony, sometimes for good reason.

Go read some literature closer to the period and really understand the era and just how incredible Early American history was to the rest of the world, especially in the scope of recent centuries of history.

We're incredible and the sad thing is I think that some day some foreigner is gonna know more American history, political philosophy, art and such and hero-worship American historical figures harder than any American today. Sort've how lots of American guys into history look literally anywhere but their own nation.

>>17810878
The problem is you're trying to make it sound like Americans of the past were unfairly biased when in fact they weren't. Rather, it is the mainsteam today if anything that is displaying pretty strong bias. They are trying to offset this bias by rewriting history to make white people out to be evil historically and demonized. Stuff like the 1619 project, and so on. It's an attempt at maoist revisionism of history.

>>17812254
>The problem is you're trying to make it sound like Americans of the past were unfairly biased
No I'm not. The person who carved Mount Rushmore was a member of the KKK. This is a historic fact and does not in and of itself carry positive or negative connotation, you're the one injecting emotion into it when it just isn't there.

>>17812271
The person who founded Seaworld was accused of being in a politically incorrect group, therefore California is based on expressions of oppression. I trust you understand the logic, anon.

>>17812291
No, I don't. If you read my original post, I didn't say all Gilded Age were because of white supremacy, I said some of it was, but for the most part it was about projecting a sense of unity and utipoan ideals.

>>17812300
>all Gilded Age were
*all Gilded Age Monuments I mean

>>17812300
>I didn't say all Gilded Age were because of white supremacy
Is this an admission that when you use this term and when you used it in the previous post, it's a synonym for oppression? You seem to have connected it by analogy to where I said oppression.

I just want to be clear we're on the same page here. Yes/no, would you say white supremacy, as you use the term, is equivalent to oppression?

No judgement, just want to know which side of the fence you fall on here.

>>17812320
>Yes/no, would you say white supremacy, as you use the term, is equivalent to oppression?
It can be, but I don't think a monument is equivalent to oppression just because a white supremacist made it. Monuments and symbols can be reappropriated without having to have a shit fit and tear them down

>>17812329
>It can be,
Ok, I understand. Earlier, when you wrote, "Part of it was to help support a sense of unity post-civil war but in some cases it was done as an expression of white supremacy and in other cases they were just utopian ideals", you were saying that in some cases statues were consciously built to express a consciously oppressive movement, something akin to "we have to keep those minorities down."

For example, you bring up Mt Rushmore as an example where historical Americans built a monument as a conscious expression of this oppressive ideal. Not just that people later interpreted it as representing oppression, but the actual designers and people who funded the project in the 1920s wanted to express an ideal of oppression against minorities.

That's what you were saying by tying some of this historical (pre-1960s) activity to your definition of what white supremacy means? Or did this go wrong somewhere?

>I don't think a monument is equivalent to oppression
No, but what you said earlier could be true, that it's still an "expression" of an ideology of oppression. Or are you denying that here?

>just because a white supremacist made it.
Ok, two things here. Are you implying that the people responsible for designating Mount Rushmore were oppressively white supremacists, in the sense that you believe that term (white supremacy) means? If so, don't you think that carries a negative connotation? Oppression as I understand it is behavior that is unfair disadvantaging, or worse, toward subsets of the population -- and that is absolutely a negative connotation.

You still don't think what you originally said was implying any kind of negative connotation toward these historical Americans, such as those, for example, who designed Mount Rushmore? I'm honestly just trying to understand here. You said white supremacy "could" be oppression, and you also said that historical Americans were expressing it -- but you also denied making any negative connotations.