Probably because they’re not burning down an AutoZone. I listen to people who have rational actions. I’m almost 100% Irish. If there were them: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ir...-of-confederate-statues-send-in-the-irish.amp
So much for the “Nobody wants to take down Mount Rushmore” defense
- Thread starter FAUlty Gator
- Start date
I can be angry or appreciative towards everyone at once. It’s a talent many here do not possess.
You apparently didn’t realize that the US government illegally took that land where Mt. Rushmore stands nearly 150 years ago. The Lakota refused a monetary award and continue to this day on insisting they want their land back. Give it to them then the NA can just charge admission to the white devils. I could care less about Rushmore. To me it’s equivalent to graffiti art. Five minutes there and I’m ready to move on to something more interesting.
I’m not “deflecting.” It’s just too stupid to dignify.
Don’t use “logic” in sentences anymore. You don’t grasp it. Not when you use absurd slippery slope fallacies like “you must want to tear down MLK statues.”
Last edited:
We are all living on land taken from the natives.
But the vast majority isn’t on land prescribed under a US treaty that was then subsequently broken illegally by our federal government.
A whole bunch of treaties were broken and ignored. In fact over 500.
Dude...you’re defending the desires of idiots who want to tear down the memory of the man who freed the slaves. Quit acting like MLK would be a leap for you to defend. But that’s the point. No way in hell you would use your same LOGIC for that. You’d argue 100% in the other direction. Making your “You can still learn about Lincoln” argument sooooo goddamned stupid.
Lazy historian takeaway from Wikipedia:
The large and powerful Arikara, Mandan, and Hidatsa villages had long prevented the Lakota from crossing the Missouri. However, the great smallpox epidemic of 1772–1780 destroyed three-quarters of these tribes. The Lakota crossed the river into the drier, short-grass prairies of the High Plains. These newcomers were the Saône, well-mounted and increasingly confident, who spread out quickly. In 1765, a Saône exploring and raiding party led by Chief Standing Bear discovered the Black Hills (the Paha Sapa), then the territory of the Cheyenne. Ten years later, the Oglála and Brulé also crossed the river. In 1776, the Lakota defeated the Cheyenne, who had earlier taken the region from the Kiowa.[citation needed] The Cheyenne then moved west to the Powder River country,[11] and the Lakota made the Black Hills their home.
The large and powerful Arikara, Mandan, and Hidatsa villages had long prevented the Lakota from crossing the Missouri. However, the great smallpox epidemic of 1772–1780 destroyed three-quarters of these tribes. The Lakota crossed the river into the drier, short-grass prairies of the High Plains. These newcomers were the Saône, well-mounted and increasingly confident, who spread out quickly. In 1765, a Saône exploring and raiding party led by Chief Standing Bear discovered the Black Hills (the Paha Sapa), then the territory of the Cheyenne. Ten years later, the Oglála and Brulé also crossed the river. In 1776, the Lakota defeated the Cheyenne, who had earlier taken the region from the Kiowa.[citation needed] The Cheyenne then moved west to the Powder River country,[11] and the Lakota made the Black Hills their home.
So, poor ethics by all. For much of humanity I imagined we existed in a near state of nature where you "took the land if you could"
You see this with primates today. That's where we came from.
Where battles for resources were common. We didn't live under the same ethical paradigm we live under now. The framework wasn't well built or widely disseminated. (and the interesting question here is this: did the world existing as it did during that period validate and necessitate such behavior? What undergirded the rise of the ethical framework we operate under now -- was it just a philosophical consideration?)
So … were early American settlers really much worse than some of these tribes ethically? Or were they just much more successful?
You see this with primates today. That's where we came from.
Where battles for resources were common. We didn't live under the same ethical paradigm we live under now. The framework wasn't well built or widely disseminated. (and the interesting question here is this: did the world existing as it did during that period validate and necessitate such behavior? What undergirded the rise of the ethical framework we operate under now -- was it just a philosophical consideration?)
So … were early American settlers really much worse than some of these tribes ethically? Or were they just much more successful?
Last edited:
Since BLM now has an international component, should the Great Pyramids be on the chopping block? After all built with slave labor for the ultra wealthy Pharaohs...
It's a national treasure.
The Roman Colosseum and the London Tower had histories of human suffering and abuse, but they remain for history.
Mt. Rushmore has no such baggage, but it is a remarkable structure to serve as a marker for this still young nation.
The Roman Colosseum and the London Tower had histories of human suffering and abuse, but they remain for history.
Mt. Rushmore has no such baggage, but it is a remarkable structure to serve as a marker for this still young nation.
If you are a person who wants to tear down Mt Rushmore I suggest you might be better served evaluating how you got to the point you are in life.
The only thing I want to see with all of these statues and monuments is that I want it to be part of a debate/discussion and if removal is decided, I want it decided by the right group of people. If it's a local statue and the locality wants to pull it, awesome. If it's something like Mt. Rushmore and we decide as a collective whole? Fine.
The thing I don't want to see are the groups going out and pulling things down on their own. We've already seen one guy absolutely destroyed by a statue. Let's take them down safely and maybe even put into storage. The pendulum swings. Sometimes it swings too far and we might decide later to put some statues back.
Do these folks really think they are going to topple the current system? If not they need to figure out a way to get past it, no way in hell should that monument come down.
The problem is the people who want to deconstruct the U.S. won't stop until all history is erased. They believe they are the most pure and righteous to ever walk the earth. Eventually they will be coming for MLK.
I was just speaking to your question. Do they enjoy seeing it? No. Would they rather see it be gone? Sure.
Now I'm sure that doesn't characterize all their opinions. But I wouldn't call it an unreasonable opinion.
Some of this stuff.... there is no making up for. It's forever an open wound. Something that can always be mined.
All that said, no, I don't think tearing down the monuments is a concession America has to make. And lots of these concessions don't fix anything much. The wound remains.
About the best you can do is to create a new future in which we all participate and enjoy as close to equally as possible.
About the best you can do is to help create a world that Native Americans might thrive in today.
And yes, I suppose, in a way, that's just pulling focus off the past. That's an interesting question, what to do with that sort of past. The best I can come up with is a better future.
I think you want the past to die.
The problem is the people who want to deconstruct the U.S. won't stop until all history is erased. They believe they are the most pure and righteous to ever walk the earth. Eventually they will be coming for MLK.
I guess I'd just say.....so? Just because people say they want it gone doesn't mean it will go away. Just because we knee jerk in the moment doesn't mean we can't restore something back again if we take it back in an orderly way.
I hate the argument that we're "erasing" history. The Germans made the Nazi party and the last name Hitler illegal and outside of museums, have wiped Nazi symbolism, statues and relics from the face of the earth. All of this happened before I was born in 1974, yet here I am with a firm understanding of who the Nazis were, how they came to power and how they used their power.
Because if it did and then they tore it down, no one would know about Bobby Kennedy today.
You weren't carrying textbooks in your backpack when you were in school, you were dragging around 5 ton hunks of granite with Hitler's likeness. That's the only way we can know about history. Otherwise, it's been erased.
Excellent.
Everything I learned about history came from 12x12 plaques on statues.
That's why Auschwitz is still standing today. Sometimes people need physical buildings, statues and monuments to be reminded of evil and greatness.
What if the jews wanted to take it down?
(now they wouldn't, because they're a rather intellectual lot, nevertheless...)
Similar threads
