View Message

This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

Re: Washington's lack of usage in the US
Perhaps because George Washington owned slaves?
vote up1vote down

Replies

QuotePerhaps because George Washington owned slaves?
So did Thomas Jefferson, and yet his name has remained relatively popular in the United States (always within the top 1000 and never fell out of use):https://www.behindthename.com/name/jefferson/topAs such, I personally doubt that the name Washington fell out of use because George Washington was a slave-owner. Perhaps the reason is something much more "mundane" (for lack of a better term), such as the name being quite a mouthful with an awful flow (unlike names like Jefferson and Lincoln).
vote up3vote down
But Jefferson is recognisable as a common patrynomic surname. So it fits in with modern surname as first name and -son ending trends. It can also serve as a more unique and less dated variant or way to honour Jeffery. (That being said if you name your son Jefferson I am going to assume you're a white supremacist until proven otherwise).Whereas Washington is pretty much inseparable from the president. It's not a common surname except among African-Americans whose newly-emancipated ancestors chose it in honour of George. The only reason it ever got semi-regularly used as a given name was because of the US's ridiculous founding mythology, which thankfully most people see through now. Also what do you think makes a better nickname or element: Jeff or "Wash"? 😄 While Wash/Washing might not be the worst common noun to be named, to me at least the association is pretty strong and weird to think of as a name (although tbf I'm sure there are now many little Drydens running around).
vote up0vote down
Not only that, but while they're all long names, "Jeff" and "Linc" are good nicknames, but "Wash" is not.
vote up6vote down