American Indian statues are the next on the offensive removal list...do you agree?

If they offend a majority of the indians. But they don't.

 

A couple things. Just because a statue was once put up, doesn't mean you are erasing history by taking it down. Statues are not the only way we record and learn about history. In fact, most history is recorded and learned about via any method but a statue. So this painting it as erasing history is silly. Statues are actually a means of glorification. We have lots of history that lacks a statue or monument. The ones we did put up were the ones we wanted to strongly agree with. Hence why the south, at every gain of civil liberties for blacks, followed with a rash of statue erections...pun intended.

As for the article, you must never forget that we conquered this country. We took it from people already living on it. Don't deny that fact. As such, it makes sense that there are concerns over statues that represent that past. McKinley was largely aggrandized by his state. As a president, he wasn't much of anything. The real question isn't whether or not they should be offended. They are offended. The real question is what does removing his statue do in the grand scheme of things? Nothing. His entire presidency and life is enshrined in history whether that statue stands or doesn't. If the people who LIVE by the statue don't want it, who are you to tell them to leave it up? Those are more important questions to be able to answer.

 

You realize that Native Americans aren't all the same culturally, right? Like, the natives in Alaska are different than the ones who used to live on the east coast and the plains? They don't speak with one voice anymore than people in general from Alaska do with the people form New York.

 

Human history is butt ugly and dark, all of it. Who makes it into the books? Conquering rulers and their military commanders.

 

No, they all should be removed.

 

We really need to stop giving a s*** about people being offended.

 

Don't forget the Buffalo Runs.

They didn't need bullets because they would drive entire herds off cliffs to kill them, then only carry back what they could and leave the rest to rot.

100% animal slaughter.

 

They were also murderers.

http://www.questia.com/library/book...ertribal-trade-relations-by-george-t-hunt.jsp

Try reading The Wars of the Iroquois: A Study in Inter-tribal Trade Relations. You will see there were inter-tribal wars for territory well before their first contact with the white man. You seem to have this pie in the sky view that the Indians were just sitting around smoking peace pipes all content and happy. You've been watching too many movies. Like any hunter gatherers they competed with each other for resources which often lead to war between the competing tribes. When the settlers arrived, they were just someone to compete for resources with.

As you can clearly see the treaty was broken when Lenape/Deleware Indians chose to take up arms against the Colonists.

 

No it wasn't. It took two generations after slavery for the nation to become truly exceptional. I would say our exceptional Nation and its seed of wealth could only be built on the abolition of slavery.

Slavery is not a way to build wealth. The African continent has practiced slavery for about four millennia and where is all their wealth?

 

Who cares? You choose to take offense people do not do things that cause you to be offended.

 

Someones does apparently, judging by the article in the OP.

 

Less than one person in a thousand held the substantial wealth of the South, those who held more than 100 slaves. Three-quarters owned not even one slave, but could say at least they were some bit better off than a Negro, and they supported the system, hoping to one day acquire a slave, to get "in." Slavery was a bad economic system even for whites, although the Negro bore by far the worst burden. Always been that way, even today many people black and white worship their corporate and Hollywood and government masters, hoping to get a toehold in the system.

But it is true that something is better than nothing, Mama taught you right.

 

The point I was making is that it's stupid to care about it.

If people choose to take offense it is their fault.

 

I don't argue with any of what you said but slavery did not build us any wealth as a nation. If anything it was a detriment to it cost us 620000 of our own people to abolish.

 

I see slavery as having been a losing burden on the nation from beginning to end, also. Only a very few people benefitted for a short duration, and you can pay even now just to tour their homes.

But I wouldn't want those homes torn down, I want the physical record to stand.

And I want people to be free to interpret that physical record, to become curious and think deeply upon what is seen and what can be known.

 

Did you want to make a response to my post?

 

No, you brought the VD to america.

 

Chalk it up to open borders and unrestricted immigration.

 

Well that is what's eating you isn't it, you know how your lot came. Genocide and all.

 

Can you show that if Europeans didn't no one else would have?

 

This^

 

Can we rename roads named after MLK? I swear, if you ever find yourself at the intersection of MLK and Caesar Chavez Blvds, you better haul ass outta there.

 

Don't forget Rocky!

 

Oh no say it ain't so. I sort of liked the Ghandi statues.

 

if the local folk want it moved, then move it, no reason it can't move to a museum or a location that wants it

I do not think the state should be able to force local cities to keep stuff in the center of town, just move it, simple

now if the local people don't care and it's some group from another state or elsewhere, then leave it be, this is a local issue