vcczar

A Better Presidential Response

62 posts in this topic

Thought I'd share my thoughts on Trump's reaction to Charlottesville, and similar episodes.

A great president would have responded quickly to the tragedy, focused his/her attack on the white supremacists, made it clear that he/she is aware of the problem, that he/she empathizes with the counter-protesters and will do anything he/she can to address this tension so similar instances don't occur.

This done, the president can then state, that while sympathizing with the counter-protesters, that violence on either side is not the way to handle this, since we are not an anarchic country.

The president then should blame himself/herself for anything that he/she has personally done to directly or indirectly embolden white nationalists, and that he/she will work with Civil Rights organization and other similar organization to better address domestic tension so that similar violent episodes don't occur again.

The president should then ask the people for their help in healing a divided nation.

Finally, the president should reemphasize which side his/her heart is with, and then reiterate strongly that he/she will make this issue a top priority, and end with an apology.

After the speech, the president should immediately get to work, setting up meetings, and a promising plan of action. Meanwhile, he should give an executive order removing all Confederate statues from Federal Property immediately, and calling on the nation's governors, mayors, and local governments to do the same (perhaps including the statue removal order in his speech, actually).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also add that Antifa is giving the white supremacists and neo-Nazis the attention they want. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I'd also add that Antifa is giving the white supremacists and neo-Nazis the attention they want. 

So is the press.  This "big rally" of neo-nazis from all over the country drew about half the number of people that attend an average WNBA game.  They're as fringe as fringe can be, but the networks handed them a giant megaphone for no discernible reason.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"he should give an executive order removing all Confederate statues from Federal Property immediately"

Do you think this is what the U.S. government should do, regardless of this event? Also, more generally, do you think it should unequivocally and completely reject its Confederate heritage? Also, do you think Obama should have done this during his terms?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

"he should give an executive order removing all Confederate statues from Federal Property immediately"

Do you think this is what the U.S. government should do, regardless of this event? Also, more generally, do you think it should unequivocally and completely reject its Confederate heritage? Also, do you think Obama should have done this during his terms?

Yes, yes, and yes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the U.S Govt. could have a lottery for the statues? It'd serve as a good fundraiser.:lol: 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

"he should give an executive order removing all Confederate statues from Federal Property immediately"

Do you think this is what the U.S. government should do, regardless of this event? Also, more generally, do you think it should unequivocally and completely reject its Confederate heritage? Also, do you think Obama should have done this during his terms?

To answer your three questions:

1. Yes. This should have been done awhile back. I disapprove of protesters destroying the statues or taking them down on their own. I think the statues should be relocated to Museums, Confederate Cemeteries, and to any private (non-public) individuals or organizations that want to purchase those that aren't taken by Museums or cemeteries. 

2. The US government was never any part of the Confederacy, so the nation hasn't the heritage. However, the descendants and some of the Southern states do. I think they should reject it similarly to the way that Germany rejects its Nazi path. To be fair, I think Russia should reject its Soviet path. This isn't the same as burying it. It's disavowing it and removing any public structure that honors it. The Confederacy and its heritage will still be discussed in schools, colleges, message boards, books, museums, etc. Those wishing to learn more about it can go to those areas. To be fair, I'd accept the removal of conquering Yankee statues from former Confederate states, considering some of the awful total warfare that took place in their respective states. 

3. Yes. Barack Obama should have done a lot more. I think he was more hesitant than a usual Democratic president would be in regards to racial tension considering he is half-black. I think every president at least since LBJ should have done more to remove statues from federal property. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Maybe the U.S Govt. could have a lottery for the statues? It'd serve as a good fundraiser.:lol: 

That's not a bad idea. I think the proceeds should go to a charity dealing with racial issues. I also think that the statues should not be sold to anyone that intends on destroying them, since many of them have historical value and should be in a Museum, even if its a Museum of Shame or Museum of American Traitors, or whatever. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd buy the statues if I could. I also claim Confederate heritage. Both sides are bad. I lean left generally but the left has become more ridiculous than the right at this point.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JDrakeify @willpaddyg @daons @LegolasRedbard @Prussian1871 @wolves @SirLagsalott @michaelsdiamonds @victorraiders @Patine @Falcon @jnewt @President Garrett Walker @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @SeanFKennedy @vcczar @jvikings1 @harveyrayson2 @lizarraba @TheMiddlePolitical @CalebsParadox @MrPrez @msc123123 @NYrepublican  @RI Democrat @servo75 @koneke  @Presidentinsertname  @ThePotatoWalrus @Sunnymentoaddict @TheLiberalKitten @Quebecois @avatarmushi @Sami

 

My opinion is this is part of a bigger issue, a huge one in fact, that's really bugging me. I am against CENSORSHIP of history, even unpleasant and unflattering history and history that offends certain groups of people, and the censorship of the images of the leaders and symbols of regimes considered "offenders" in this regard. This is NOT just Confederate images and symbols in the U.S., but the policy of Germany and other Central and Eastern European countries to fully censor Nazi images and symbols in any sense or usage, and some (though not all) for Soviet and Warsaw Pact nations censoring Soviet images and symbols, and there are other examples in the world today. I do not hold this opinion because I at all support or endorse these old regimes or what they stood for, did, or believed in the least, and I do not believe they should be romanticized or glorified, either. As an avid armchair historian, I personally believe that deliberate historical censorship and revisionism (and there seems to be real race in the modern world, down the political spectrum, to engage in such activities) is a crime against humanity in and of itself, albeit a non-violent one, and SHOULD be viewed, treated, and punished, as such, but, alas, isn't remotely so. I think it would be much more productive and worth our while as a whole species to focus on making a better future rather than dedicating so much effort to making our ancestors look better than they were or older times look more sanitized than they were, in a past, frankly, we cannot change.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine pretty much summed up my view

 

 

Also, those who believe in removing statue from federal land, what about statues that are on Civil War battlefields?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Patine said:

@JDrakeify @willpaddyg @daons @LegolasRedbard @Prussian1871 @wolves @SirLagsalott @michaelsdiamonds @victorraiders @Patine @Falcon @jnewt @President Garrett Walker @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @SeanFKennedy @vcczar @jvikings1 @harveyrayson2 @lizarraba @TheMiddlePolitical @CalebsParadox @MrPrez @msc123123 @NYrepublican  @RI Democrat @servo75 @koneke  @Presidentinsertname  @ThePotatoWalrus @Sunnymentoaddict @TheLiberalKitten @Quebecois @avatarmushi @Sami

 

My opinion is this is part of a bigger issue, a huge one in fact, that's really bugging me. I am against CENSORSHIP of history, even unpleasant and unflattering history and history that offends certain groups of people, and the censorship of the images of the leaders and symbols of regimes considered "offenders" in this regard. This is NOT just Confederate images and symbols in the U.S., but the policy of Germany and other Central and Eastern European countries to fully censor Nazi images and symbols in any sense or usage, and some (though not all) for Soviet and Warsaw Pact nations censoring Soviet images and symbols, and there are other examples in the world today. I do not hold this opinion because I at all support or endorse these old regimes or what they stood for, did, or believed in the least, and I do not believe they should be romanticized or glorified, either. As an avid armchair historian, I personally believe that deliberate historical censorship and revisionism (and there seems to be real race in the modern world, down the political spectrum, to engage in such activities) is a crime against humanity in and of itself, albeit a non-violent one, and SHOULD be viewed, treated, and punished, as such, but, alas, isn't remotely so. I think it would be much more productive and worth our while as a whole species to focus on making a better future rather than dedicating so much effort to making our ancestors look better than they were or older times look more sanitized than they were, in a past, frankly, we cannot change.

This

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

@Patine pretty much summed up my view

 

 

Also, those who believe in removing statue from federal land, what about statues that are on Civil War battlefields?

I'm okay with them remaining on Civil War battlefield. I consider those museums. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm okay with them remaining on Civil War battlefield. I consider those museums. 

This

58 minutes ago, Patine said:

@JDrakeify @willpaddyg @daons @LegolasRedbard @Prussian1871 @wolves @SirLagsalott @michaelsdiamonds @victorraiders @Patine @Falcon @jnewt @President Garrett Walker @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @SeanFKennedy @vcczar @jvikings1 @harveyrayson2 @lizarraba @TheMiddlePolitical @CalebsParadox @MrPrez @msc123123 @NYrepublican  @RI Democrat @servo75 @koneke  @Presidentinsertname  @ThePotatoWalrus @Sunnymentoaddict @TheLiberalKitten @Quebecois @avatarmushi @Sami

 

My opinion is this is part of a bigger issue, a huge one in fact, that's really bugging me. I am against CENSORSHIP of history, even unpleasant and unflattering history and history that offends certain groups of people, and the censorship of the images of the leaders and symbols of regimes considered "offenders" in this regard. This is NOT just Confederate images and symbols in the U.S., but the policy of Germany and other Central and Eastern European countries to fully censor Nazi images and symbols in any sense or usage, and some (though not all) for Soviet and Warsaw Pact nations censoring Soviet images and symbols, and there are other examples in the world today. I do not hold this opinion because I at all support or endorse these old regimes or what they stood for, did, or believed in the least, and I do not believe they should be romanticized or glorified, either. As an avid armchair historian, I personally believe that deliberate historical censorship and revisionism (and there seems to be real race in the modern world, down the political spectrum, to engage in such activities) is a crime against humanity in and of itself, albeit a non-violent one, and SHOULD be viewed, treated, and punished, as such, but, alas, isn't remotely so. I think it would be much more productive and worth our while as a whole species to focus on making a better future rather than dedicating so much effort to making our ancestors look better than they were or older times look more sanitized than they were, in a past, frankly, we cannot change.

I don't get how removing statues that glorify traitors who fought against the United States and for the ability to keep human beings as mere property is censorship or rewriting history. People still learn about the Confederacy in schools and can look them up on the internet or in encyclopedias. There just aren't monuments to their "greatness" in public spaces.

Catherine Pugh, the mayor of my city of Baltimore (which just removed 4 statues last night), was on CNN this morning discussing this topic. She stated that the statues will be moved to Confederate graveyards (which is also fine by me) and that placards should be placed at those statues former locations, and at other Confederate states around the city, clarifying that the City of Baltimore does not support the Confederacy and adding context to the statue's existence.

Maryland Governor Larry Hogan has also had a change of heart and has called for the removal of the Roger Taney (the Chief Justice and Maryland native who authored the Deed Scott opinion) status from the State House, though it's up to Boyd Rutherford, Mike Miller, Busch, and the head of the MD historical society as to whether that will happen. I'm not sure if this is entirely necessary, partially because they also erected a statue of Thurgood Marshall, Maryland native and (IIRC) the first African American Supreme Court Justice, very close to the Taney statue, and partially because Taney was not a Confederate and thus did not active root for the downfall of this nation and the establishment of what would effectively have been an ethnostate where non-whites were subordinate at best and enslaved or dead at worst.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, President Garrett Walker said:

This

I don't get how removing statues that glorify traitors who fought against the United States and for the ability to keep human beings as mere property is censorship or rewriting history. People still learn about the Confederacy in schools and can look them up on the internet or in encyclopedias. There just aren't monuments to their "greatness" in public spaces.

Catherine Pugh, the mayor of my city of Baltimore (which just removed 4 statues last night), was on CNN this morning discussing this topic. She stated that the statues will be moved to Confederate graveyards (which is also fine by me) and that placards should be placed at those statues former locations, and at other Confederate states around the city, clarifying that the City of Baltimore does not support the Confederacy and adding context to the statue's existence.

Maryland Governor Larry Hogan has also had a change of heart and has called for the removal of the Roger Taney (the Chief Justice and Maryland native who authored the Deed Scott opinion) status from the State House, though it's up to Boyd Rutherford, Mike Miller, Busch, and the head of the MD historical society as to whether that will happen. I'm not sure if this is entirely necessary, partially because they also erected a statue of Thurgood Marshall, Maryland native and (IIRC) the first African American Supreme Court Justice, very close to the Taney statue, and partially because Taney was not a Confederate and thus did not active root for the downfall of this nation and the establishment of what would effectively have been an ethnostate where non-whites were subordinate at best and enslaved or dead at worst.

@Patine

I'm going to have to agree mostly with PGW here. As PGW says, it's not like most people are advocating that they be destroyed. They will have their visibility, but at museums, Battlefields, cemeteries and less visible areas where they aren't going to offend people in Southern states which have a high population of African-Americans, and where they won't be in a position of glorification (except in the locations mentioned). Imagine taking your kid to a park centered around a statue of a man that bought and sold your children. Would it not be too much to ask that a local historical figure that benefited everyone replace it? In my opinion this isn't censorship or in any way "white washing", it's basic courtesy and human decency by having statues removed to places that are more appropriate for them to be presented to people. I am a white, Texas-born, Texas-raised Southerner, and these states offend me, both as an American (since the CSA were traitors) and as a human being with the capability of empathizing with a different culture that has been enslaved, bought, sold, whipped, lynched, massacred, raped, segregated, disenfranchised, etc. These statues represent people that fought to preserve this injustice, before, during, and after the war (for the most part).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@Patine

I'm going to have to agree mostly with PGW here. As PGW says, it's not like most people are advocating that they be destroyed. They will have their visibility, but at museums, Battlefields, cemeteries and less visible areas where they aren't going to offend people in Southern states which have a high population of African-Americans, and where they won't be in a position of glorification (except in the locations mentioned). Imagine taking your kid to a park centered around a statue of a man that bought and sold your children. Would it not be too much to ask that a local historical figure that benefited everyone replace it? In my opinion this isn't censorship or in any way "white washing", it's basic courtesy and human decency by having statues removed to places that are more appropriate for them to be presented to people. I am a white, Texas-born, Texas-raised Southerner, and these states offend me, both as an American (since the CSA were traitors) and as a human being with the capability of empathizing with a different culture that has been enslaved, bought, sold, whipped, lynched, massacred, raped, segregated, disenfranchised, etc. These statues represent people that fought to preserve this injustice, before, during, and after the war (for the most part).

I could concede to that. I'm just concerned that in a number of generations, maybe even just decades, or even years, a call for the same level of censorship in the U.S. about everything Confederate everywhere will be made similar to the censorship on Nazi or Soviet imagery or information at all, really, in the countries I mentioned, and the issue around these statues will be used as a foundation to build that upon. Snowball effects socially and politically are not solely of one side of the political spectrum or the other. It's not really the statues now I'm concerned, but the "in for a penny, in for a pound," attitude that could grow from it. If there were some way to ensure such a ballooning of the issue didn't occur, and a full educational and historical view of the era was still openly available to all, it wouldn't worry me at all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Patine said:

I could concede to that. I'm just concerned that in a number of generations, maybe even just decades, or even years, a call for the same level of censorship in the U.S. about everything Confederate everywhere will be made similar to the censorship on Nazi or Soviet imagery or information at all, really, in the countries I mentioned, and the issue around these statues will be used as a foundation to build that upon. Snowball effects socially and politically are not solely of one side of the political spectrum or the other. It's not really the statues now I'm concerned, but the "in for a penny, in for a pound," attitude that could grow from it. If there were some way to ensure such a ballooning of the issue didn't occur, and a full educational and historical view of the era was still openly available to all, it wouldn't worry me at all.

I oppose white-washing uncomfortable parts of history in education. The full greatness and crimes of our country should be clearly known to our students in the most transparent and accurate way. Opposing view points on every issue should be presented. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me the relevant question is what, for example, Robert E. Lee ought to stand for? Does he stand for, say, loyalty (to his government and fellow citizens), war brilliance (a great General), and against tyrannical overplay of Federal power (including abuses by the North during and after the Civil War)? Or does he stand for, say, traitors and slavery? If you opt for something like the latter, it seems something like what VCCzar is articulating (with regard to moving Confederacy statues) is reasonable. If you opt for something like the former, then it's not.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"where they aren't going to offend people in Southern states which have a high population of African-Americans"

@vcczar

Do you think statues (or public anythings) in general should be removed if they offend a significant percentage (say more than a few percent) of a local population? If other people in that local population are highly attached to the statues, does that mitigate or even outweigh the concerns? Do you think statues of, say, Robert E. Lee are fine in areas of Southern states that don't have significant percentages of African-Americans?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

"where they aren't going to offend people in Southern states which have a high population of African-Americans"

@vcczar

Do you think statues (or public anythings) in general should be removed if they offend a significant percentage (say more than a few percent) of a local population? If other people in that local population are highly attached to the statues, does that mitigate or even outweigh the concerns? Do you think statues of, say, Robert E. Lee are fine in areas of Southern states that don't have significant percentages of African-Americans?

 

56 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

It seems to me the relevant question is what, for example, Robert E. Lee ought to stand for? Does he stand for, say, loyalty (to his government and fellow citizens), war brilliance (a great General), and against tyrannical overplay of Federal power (including abuses by the North during and after the Civil War)? Or does he stand for, say, traitors and slavery? If you opt for something like the latter, it seems something like what VCCzar is articulating (with regard to moving Confederacy statues) is reasonable. If you opt for something like the former, then it's not.

1. The statue of RE Lee could have been placed for a variety of reasons. I think, that unless the statue was placed for service other than his role in the Confederacy, that it shouldn't be kept. I think a statue of RE Lee as president of Washington & Lee University should stand. The Civil War statues of RE Lee, regardless of what they stand for, should be removed to museums, battlefields, Confederate cemeteries or private land that is not federal or public property (except those stated).

2. I think across the board, the statues should be removed from Federal land. I think if a town is overwhelmingly white--90%+--then it makes slightly less sense to remove them, even though it's still insulting to African-Americans and those opposed to racism, bigotry, Confederate heritage within the state.  

But look at this. Here's the African-American population in % for some Southern cities:

Jackson MS 80%

Birmingham AL 74%

Memphis TN 64%

New Orleans LA 61%

Montgomery AL 57%

Savannah GA 57%

Baton Rouge LA 59%

Orangeburg SC 75%

Augusta GA 55%

Richmond VA 51%

There are too many to list them all, but they mostly have significant numbers of African-Americans, if not the majority of the city. They have to see these statues of people that fought to keep them enslaved, and thought of them as inferior people. 

If you look at the state populations, which would include all the small communities that might be overwhelmingly white, you still notice that the former Confederacy has the highest % of African-Americans. The top 3 states are Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia. In total 8 of the top 10 states with the highest AA population are in the former Confederacy. Texas has the lowest % of the Confederate States (not counting Missouri, Oklahoma and Kentucky, as they weren't fully functioning states within the Confederacy). Texas is also the only former Confederate state with an AA % below the national average. 

But I think we are making a mistake making this issue exclusively about race, exclusively black vs. white, or North vs. South. It's human rights issues, and specifically traitors to the United States that fought to defend human rights injustice. We now have Robert E. Lee V approving of the tearing down of his great-great grandfather's monuments. This isn't white vs. black. It's not about color, because people of all colors and regions are supporting their removal/relocation. The issue is human rights and human decency. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, vcczar said:

There are too many to list them all, but they mostly have significant numbers of African-Americans, if not the majority of the city. They have to see these statues of people that fought to keep them enslaved, and thought of them as inferior people. 

I think Robert E. Lee can also be an exception given that he opposed slavery albeit silently.

Should we remove statues and monuments to everyone people might find objectionable?

Should we remove all statues of FDR (executive order 9066),Wilson(His well-known pro-Klan views),Jefferson,Washington(Both of whom owned slaves),Andrew Johnson (Who opposed Civil rights and reconstruction only happened because of overwhelming Republican support) and Teddy Roosevelt (Brownsville affair)?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar

NYRep seems to have a good point. When you say

"They have to see these statues of people that fought to keep them enslaved, and thought of them as inferior people."

I'm sure you know that Lincoln held blacks to be inferior, was a segregationist, and wanted them moved to Liberia. Or that the Emancipation Proclamation was part of a shrewd military policy primarily designed to defeat the South, and didn't even free the slaves under Northern control. So, should statues of Lincoln be removed, as any black who knows that about Lincoln might very well find the statue offensive?

I'm simply trying to get the internal logic of what's happening. I wonder if the main people behind this are just starting with Robert E. Lee, but they want to end up with almost all traditional public statues (and so on) being removed? Or perhaps they're not even thinking about the next step? After Confederate statues are gone, does anyone really believe there won't be a new target?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

I think Robert E. Lee can also be an exception given that he opposed slavery albeit silently.

Should we remove statues and monuments to everyone people might find objectionable?

Should we remove all statues of FDR (executive order 9066),Wilson(His well-known pro-Klan views),Jefferson,Washington(Both of whom owned slaves),Andrew Johnson (Who opposed Civil rights and reconstruction only happened because of overwhelming Republican support) and Teddy Roosevelt (Brownsville affair)?

 

12 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

NYRep seems to have a good point. When you say

"They have to see these statues of people that fought to keep them enslaved, and thought of them as inferior people."

I'm sure you know that Lincoln held blacks to be inferior, was a segregationist, and wanted them moved to Liberia. Or that the Emancipation Proclamation was part of a shrewd military policy primarily designed to defeat the South, and didn't even free the slaves under Northern control. So, should statues of Lincoln be removed, as any black who knows that about Lincoln might very well find the statue offensive?

I'm simply trying to get the internal logic of what's happening. I wonder if the main people behind this are just starting with Robert E. Lee, but they want to end up with almost all traditional public statues (and so on) being removed? Or perhaps they're not even thinking about the next step? After Confederate statues are gone, does anyone really believe there won't be a new target?

i have same opinion of both

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people keep conflating Lee with US presidents?  Lee is only known today because he was the leader of a rebellion in support of slavery.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@NYrepublican @admin_270

These are good questions that I can respond fully to when I get back from NYC. Maybe someone else can fill in for me while I'm out. But briefly, Lincoln was these things, but he was leading an effort that progress the situation of AAs, and worked hard to pass an Amendment to free them nationwide. The Confederate statues stand for a system that maintain an inhumane status quo (or worse), and also of traitors to the United States, and not of the individual merits of some of the individuals.

This is something much larger than the presidents NY Rep is mentioning; although, I think if they offend the population on a similar scale, then it is right to remove them as well; although, I doubt this happens. I think as they didn't turn traitor against our country, I don't think their states should be removed from Federal land unless the people wish them removed. NY Rep forgot Andrew Jackson, who might be the most likely statue to be removed of any president. Personally, I don't see a reason to remove any of these, except in the areas where they can offend--Jackson in a town with a 10%+ Native American population, for instance. The University of Texas removed their Woodrow Wilson statue a year ago, along with the Jefferson Davis statue.

Robert E. Lee was opposed to Confederate monuments, so we honor him more by removing them, http://www.businessinsider.com/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments-2017-8 . As I said, RE Lee V, his gr-gr-grandson accepts removing his ancestor's statues. Admin270 is in correct that Lee is the starting point. Various statues are being pulled down. The media focuses on Lee because people know who he is. 

And when I say remove, I mean relocation to museums, battlefields, cemeteries, private institutions/organizations. I'm not promoting censorship, whitewashing, or destruction, only relocation from federal property (except in the accepted cases I list), and from public areas where they are offensive to AAs and those that find their historical mistreatment offensive. 

I'd like to see the statues replaced with local heroes that stand for something that is more universally loved. There aren't enough statues of working class people, teachers, police officers, writers, activists, innovators, philosophers, coal miners, blacksmiths, computer programmers, doctors, beloved local eccentrics, chefs, fishermen, Musicians, etc. 

I don't think the relocation of statues will lead to a slippery slope or to new targets. This is just something that should have been done a long time ago. It's just an all-too delayed Civil Rights action.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now