I agree. A forced sale of land is a rather light punishment for treason. The leniency of the Union government is partially the reason we are in this mess. Meigs was very much playing the long game.
The entirety of the Americas is a project on native land. Do we simply excise all European influence? If so which one of the 000s of Native polities takes supremacy? Who gets what? How much native blood does one need to be part of this?Good points. It probably has more artistic merit than most Confedertae monuments, despite being a failed federal project on Indian land designed as a tourist trap; I don't have many defenses against its removal other than budgetary ones. Is the grandeur accidental, or just superficial after all?
Are we arguing against monuments in general or are we arguing over the national myth? Or maybe historical pedagogy? America only works because of civic nationalism, if we don't have a common well to draw upon, we cease being a useful society. That well needs to be more inclusive and has for a long time. Removing these Confederate statues is a first step toward that.
I'm not sure when the end game is.
I mean maybe, we all have our on tastes in aesthetics.Maybe heads carved out of a mountain would be more fitting for Soviet premiers than American presidents.
That would qualify for me. I am unsure how the ACLU feels. The majority of the "left" people at the protest were locals. The people on the right were out of staters with firearms. It was not an equal situation.What about those that are carrying clubs, batons, rocks, brass knuckles or pepper spray?
Bookmarks