The debate has raged on for awhile. But now, it has really been getting the attention it deserved. Since the murder of George Floyd, America has had what my own mother would call a "Come to Jesus" meeting, about race relations, and racism in the United States. Debates about police reform, crime statistics, racism and racists, and law enforcement misconduct, have all been at the forefront of the conversation. And since that is happening, let's toss statues and buildings named about terrible people on top of that.
The Statues.
Throughout our time, we have always had statues of controversial people, like former President Andrew Jackson who forcibly removed Native Americans from their tribes and sent them Westward during his Presidency. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson -also former Presidents- have been targeted for having their statues removed from the public, since they (like many Presidents from their time, including Jackson) owned slaves. There are plenty of people who fit that description of being target for their statue's removal, and here's why we should remove them:
1. It makes little sense to put people on pedestals who have ruined the lives of countless people. For instance, we would not put Adolf Hitler on a pedestal out in public, since he murdered millions of people, and tried to murder millions more, yet we have the statues of several U.S Presidents, Vice Presidents, former cabinet secretaries, etc, who have ruined the lives of countless people, whether it be through unconstitutional wars, destroying civil liberties, killing innocent civilians through drone strikes, you name it. Every American post-World War II President (starting from Harry S. Truman to Donald J. Trump) would be hanged if the Nuremburg laws applied to them, as each one has committed war crimes, among the other atrocities I have listed, and yet, Google "(insert President's name) here" and you will find at least one statue. The same goes with their Secretaries of State, such as Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton, etc. If we are going to be people on statues, let's put up people who did great things, such as doctors, civil liberties groups, etc.
If a U.S President, Vice President, or cabinet secretary, can go through their entire tenure without breaking the law, murdering people, destroying civil liberties, etc, then they can have a statue. And if we are being told to follow the law, than our government officials can follow our lead.
2. It's not SaNiTiZiNg HiStOrY, as some out of touch boomers have lied said. It's not WhItEwAsHiNg hIsToRy... when we put those statues in museums, where they belong. Since they are a part of history, they can go where all other history goes, in museums, not on pedestals. It is not mutally exclusive to teach history, and remove statues. History books still exist, whether on or offline. At this point, I'm calling the claim of "whitewashing history" a flatout lie.
3. If you say "It's just a statue", then that strengthens our case for having it sent to a museum. If it's so trivial, then why are you objecting to a statue being placed indoors?
Renaming The Buildings.
"I think history will show that in the 18th century, in the 19th century, and well into the 20th century, there were many non-Confederate generals, soldiers and others, in both the South and the North who practiced racial discrimination, anti-Semitism and misogyny," Kennedy told reporters. "I don't think we ought to just pick on the South."
Kennedy added: "Sen. Warren's amendment, in my opinion, picks on the South unfairly."
I make the same case for renaming buildings, as I have for removing statues. And keep in mind the Republican hypocrisy of being the party of Abraham Lincoln, yet defending the "legacy" of a non-existant nation that was defeated by the nation they are supposed to be representing. That's like Germany naming their institutions after Adolf Hitler, or other Nazis. Doesn't that sound insanely stupid? This is not picking on the South, when the Confederates wanted to preserve, protect, and defend the institution of slavery, and while there were "non-Cofederate generals, soldiers, and others" who may not have been very forward thinking, they didn't go on the wrong side of history defending slavery and continuing to hold slaves, by the way, the "party that ended slavery" really seems obsessed with defending the legacy of slave owners... for some reason.
It makes no sense for Republicans who have no understanding of linear time to claim that they are the party that ended slavery, yet they defend confederates who fought in the Civil War who wanted to preserve slavery. Referencing Senator Kennedy's "this amendment picks on the South unfairly" talking point: It's a lie. The South is not being picked on by not honoring treasonous scum with being named after military bases. And with the mentioning of "there were many non-Confederate generals, soldiers and others, in both the South and the North who practiced racial discrimination, anti-Semitism and misogyny", that doesn't excuse the garbage that Confederate losers have done. This is an accusiaton of hypocrisy that doesn't work.
In the end, ask yourself: If you were the first President of a certain party, and your fellow party members says that they are the party of (your last name), and they defended an immoral group (who have a history of human rights abuses) that you defeated, would you recognize your own party, anymore?
If someone wants to be on a pedestal in public -or at least be remembered favorably- they better do good things (and be a good person) while they are alive. Chao.
Follow me on Twitter: @SkylerSatterfi1
Support the blog: http://paypal.me/smanspeaks
Succeeded by: "It's Time To Make Puerto Rico, D.C, Among Others, Into States."
Comments
Post a Comment