Trump Has Dismantled More Monuments Than Any Protest | HuffPost

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  steve-ott  •  2 weeks ago  •  93 comments

By:   Chris D'Angelo (HuffPost)

Trump Has Dismantled More Monuments Than Any Protest | HuffPost
The president is threatening 10-year prison sentences for anyone who vandalizes a monument. He has destroyed four himself, including one honoring Native ...

He has destroyed four himself, including one honoring Native American cultural heritage.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


The president is threatening 10-year prison sentences for anyone who vandalizes a monument. He has destroyed four himself, including one honoring Native American cultural heritage. By Chris D'Angelo

Amid a national uprising for racial justice and a deadly pandemic that's disproportionately impacting Black, Latinx and Native communities, President Donald Trump is promising lengthy prison sentences for anyone who destroys or dismantles a monument to a slave-owning president or leader of the Confederacy.

At a Saturday campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Trump came to the defense of Confederate leaders like Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, whose statues have been defaced and removed in recent weeks. "The unhinged left-wing mob is trying to vandalize our history, desecrate our monuments ― our beautiful monuments," he said, adding that "they want to demolish our heritage."

And after protesters attempted to topple a statue of slave-owning Trump hero President Andrew Jackson near the White House on Monday, Trump announced on Twitter that he had "authorized the Federal Government to arrest anyone who vandalizes or destroys any monument, statue or other such Federal property in the U.S. with up to 10 years in prison." Effective immediately, he added, but "may also be used retroactively for destruction or vandalism already caused."

But it is Trump who has done the most damage to national monuments, dismantling or desecrating four federally protected land and water sites with significant cultural, archeological and natural resources.

Those rollbacks include carving more than 2 million acres from a pair of protected national monuments in Utah — Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante ― in December 2017. The boundary of Bears Ears, a 1.35 million-acre landscape that several tribes consider sacred, was cut by 85%. Nearby 1.87 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante , the largest land national monument in the country and rich in both archeological and paleontological resources, was cut roughly in half. This month, Trump signed a proclamation to greenlight commercial fishing within Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, a vast protected site off the East Coast ― a move that goes against the very purpose of designating a marine sanctuary.

512

Kim Raff for HuffPost The Sand Island Petroglyph Panel was originally part of the Bears Ears National Monument, but President Donald Trump's proclamation in 2017 cut it from the protected site's boundary.

The administration has also bulldozed and blown up Indigenous cultural and burial sites within Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, a UNESCO biosphere reserve that is also home to endangered species, to make way for Trump's wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Ned Norris Jr., the chairman of the Tohono O'odham Nation, has compared construction of the wall on sacred burial sites to desecrating Arlington National Cemetery.

The Interior Department has floated additional cuts at several other protected national monuments.

In the case of Bears Ears, five Native American tribes had come together to petition for the creation of the monument to honor and safeguard their cultural heritage. The Obama administration protected the site, named after a pair of buttes, which is home to thousands of Native American archeological and cultural sites.

When Trump traveled to Salt Lake City to sign the proclamation gutting Bears Ears, he said nothing about the tribes' yearslong fight to secure monument status for the area. Instead, he railed against "far-away bureaucrats" in Washington, D.C., and boasted that he was ending "another egregious abuse of federal power" and opening up protected areas to "tremendously positive things," namely potential energy and mineral development.

The rollback was widely viewed as an illegal assault on tribes, tribal sovereignty and tribal culture. The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition — a group of the five tribes with ties to the region — called the move "a slap in the face to the members of our Tribes and an affront to Indian people all across the country." The coalition is among several groups now suing the administration in an effort to restore the monument's original boundaries.

Trump and his team barely engaged with tribal leaders on the issue. Then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who also has a history of defending Confederate monuments, even scolded and shook his finger in the face of a Navajo woman when asked why he hadn't spent more time talking with tribal leaders as part of his review of the site.

But when anti-racist protesters target monuments honoring U.S. leaders with racist and genocidal legacies, Trump becomes a forceful defender of American history. The president "will not allow rioters to dismantle our cultural heritage," the White House wrote in a Twitter post that included a video of Trump blasting the protesters who targeted the statue of President Andrew Jackson. Along with owning more than 100 slaves, Jackson oversaw the deadly Trail of Tears that forced tens of thousands of Native Americans off their ancestral lands.


Last night, law enforcement stopped vandalism taking place in Lafayette Park.
President @realDonaldTrump will not allow rioters to dismantle our cultural heritage. pic.twitter.com/tNVuDTb1SD
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 23, 2020

"The president showed no concern for our 'heritage' when his Interior Department was decimating Bears Ears, land that is sacred to Native history and culture," Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said via email. "President Trump's decision to sell off lands that are treasured by Tribes for development reveals that the president is not concerned with 'heritage' but rather dividing Americans in ways he thinks will benefit him politically."

Trump's dismantling of Bears Ears and quick defense of symbols upholding white supremacy shines a clear light on how his patriotism and perception of cultural heritage serves one demographic over all others, said Alastair Bitsoi, a member of the Navajo Nation and spokesman for Utah Dine Bikeyah, a nonprofit organization working to safeguard Bears Ears and other ancestral lands. Bitsoi noted that there are more than 100,000 cultural and archaeological sites within the original monument boundary ― ancient rock art panels, granaries, burials and well-preserved cliff dwellings ― that were significant to Indigenous communities long before people like Andrew Jackson came along. The Trump rollback cut an estimated 74% of the known archeological sites out of the monument.

"If he thinks that people who are destroying national monuments across America should go to jail and he is not restoring Bears Ears monument, then he should go to jail himself," Bitsoi said. "I'm just following his logic."

In response to a request for comment, the White House sent an off-the-record statement. Officials did not include anything HuffPost could actually use in this article.

SAUL LOEB via Getty Images President Donald Trump signs a proclamation shrinking Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments at the Utah State Capitol in Salt Lake City, Utah, in December 2017.

Trump said this week that he is readying an executive order to better protect national statues and monuments. NBC News reported Wednesday that Trump instructed Interior Secretary David Bernhardt to re-erect a statue of Gen. Albert Pike, the only Confederate monument in Washington, D.C., after protesters tore it down and set it on fire on Juneteenth, the day commemorating Black emancipation from slavery.

"We will protect these monuments and we will do it with dispatch and severity," Bernhardt said in a Tuesday night interview with Fox News. "Every time a monument is destroyed or damaged," he added, "that's an injury against all of us."

The administrative effort and upcoming executive order are unlikely to benefit the Indigenous cultural and spiritual sites that have lost protections and been desecrated during Trump's tenure.

"The Trump Administration fails to acknowledge the incredible cultural history of indigenous people on this continent," Rep. Deb Haaland (D-N.M.), one of the first two Native American women to serve in Congress, wrote on Twitter. "The President's defense of white supremacy is incredibly insulting and his actions reflect his lack of respect for Tribes."

CORRECTION : An earlier version of this article erroneously included Jefferson Davis in a list of Confederate generals.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Steve Ott
1  seeder  Steve Ott    2 weeks ago

Yes, please. Lets discuss destroying monuments.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Steve Ott @1    2 weeks ago

Trump instructed Interior Secretary David Bernhardt to re-erect a statue of Gen. Albert Pike, the only Confederate monument in Washington, D.C., after protesters tore it down and set it on fire on Juneteenth

He better get the statue mass produced because as soon as one goes up, it will come down.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
1.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Steve Ott @1    2 weeks ago
"may also be used retroactively for destruction or vandalism already caused."

Does that not also make Trump liable, or is he protected due to his position?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.2.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.2    2 weeks ago

He is until he leaves office I believe.  But after, I hope they can go after him.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.2  Krishna  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

He is until he leaves office I believe.  But after, I hope they can go after him.

IIRc that's correct. Once he's no longer president he is no longer protected.

Of course there are some people who think even if he loses the election he'll claim it was rigged and refuse to step down! (Trump does seem to see dictators and various third-world despots as role models...

But that's a bit off topic here.

 
 
 
devangelical
1.3  devangelical  replied to  Steve Ott @1    2 weeks ago

great seed spotlighting the monumental hypocrisy of the white supremacist jerk-off that temporarily occupies the white house.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
1.3.1  seeder  Steve Ott  replied to  devangelical @1.3    2 weeks ago
white supremacist

He didn't hear the 'white power' yelling.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.4  Krishna  replied to  Steve Ott @1    2 weeks ago

Yes, please. Lets discuss destroying monuments.

Wait a minute! Are you saying that Trump's a hypocrite! A hypocrite and a liar!

I am shocked-- shocked I tell you!

 
 
 
Steve Ott
1.4.1  seeder  Steve Ott  replied to  Krishna @1.4    2 weeks ago

If the glove fits, you can't acquit.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.4.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Steve Ott @1.4.1    2 weeks ago

when the hell is Trump gonna be convicted of aquiting on our country, as he has sold it out long ago, and is treasonous trash, that the GOP let ride, and because of their pussy foot in actions, Trump has thoroughly lowered our world standing as our whirled standing has been flushed as the liter(Except in Covid ) as we have a treasonous cheater Dividing the United States, for he puts HIMSELF, above any and all, and has kissed Putins' ass and fat tail, , denigrated our allies without fail, and asz he tweets of WHITE POWER, LIES about a pandemic KILLER, and his biggest worry is about fckn monuments, while our AMERICAN TROOPS have bounties on their heads, and Trump and Pence, Dumb est and Dumber, didn't feel it was worth mentioning to Putin, think on that , though I'm pretty sure about all Americans have a little bit, it's disgusting and sick, and the GOP has allowed a mental midget moron to remain this countries leader, they are SCUM, and deserve to go to Hell, as far as I'm not concerned, cause I'm not, but damn, those fckers suck

 
 
 
Steve Ott
1.4.3  seeder  Steve Ott  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.4.2    2 weeks ago
when the hell is Trump gonna be convicted

Just as soon as the GOP grows a spine.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.4.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Steve Ott @1.4.3    2 weeks ago

Crustaceans one and all, with Romney the exception. They are treasonous fcks 

 
 
 
Ronin2
2  Ronin2    2 weeks ago
Amid a national uprising for racial justice and a deadly pandemic that's disproportionately impacting Black, Latinx and Native communities, President Donald Trump is promising lengthy prison sentences for anyone who destroys or dismantles a monument to a slave-owning president or leader of the Confederacy.

Trumps law also applies to all Federal War Memorials; which the leftist radicals have also vandalized and attempted to destroy. Hey the race card played, and a complete and utter lie all in one line. Great start to the article!

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @2    2 weeks ago

tRumps law?

That's telling.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ronin2 @2    2 weeks ago

Ronin,

Either all our monuments are national monuments worthy of protection or none of them are. So you claim it's the race card being played, well then please tell me why only some monuments are worthy of saving. 

And please take this from someone who believes that 90% of our monuments have a proper place. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
3  bbl-1    2 weeks ago

At the conclusion of WW2 in Europe all monuments, public works, names of roads/bridges that had any connection to the defunct Nazi regime were destroyed except for some which were placed in museums to assure the public remembered.

I will comment on one statue in Layfette Square.  Andrew Jackson, the architect of 'The Trail of Tears.'  The reason he is honored would be----what? 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1  Nerm_L  replied to  bbl-1 @3    2 weeks ago
I will comment on one statue in Layfette Square.  Andrew Jackson, the architect of 'The Trail of Tears.'  The reason he is honored would be----what? 

Andrew Jackson was a founder of today's Democratic Party and was the first Democratic President.  Now you know why Andrew Jackson is honored.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1    2 weeks ago
Andrew Jackson was a founder of today's Democratic Party and was the first Democratic President.

Now I know I might piss off a few Dems here, but the party he stood for was one that stood for slavery. In fact, he was not only a slave owner, but also a slave trader. He also was involved in ethnic cleansing of the Indians. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.1.2  bbl-1  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

Nobody is 'peed' off.  Your statement is factual.  But times have changed.  The party has changed.  The democratic party even had to undergo an exorcism of sorts with the Dixiecrats.  As far as the Dixiecrats-----they migrated elsewhere into the American political system.  Where was that 'elsewhere.'  Dare to 'peed' off anyone on that?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1    2 weeks ago
Andrew Jackson was a founder of today's Democratic Party and was the first Democratic President.  Now you know why Andrew Jackson is honored.

Total nonsense.

Andrew Jackson is Trump's personal hero.   And you think Democrats admire him? lol. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

Of course Democrats admire Jackson, their party’s founder.  Jackson Jefferson day has until 2015  been the Democratic Party’s Biggest annual fundraising celebration.

of course if you are arguing the Democratic Party of 2020 bears no relationship to the Democratic Party of say 2008, I might agree with you. The Democrats should probably change their name. Maybe the “new stalinists” or “the racialist party” would be more fitting.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.5  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    2 weeks ago
Total nonsense. Andrew Jackson is Trump's personal hero.   And you think Democrats admire him? lol. 

Donald Trump did not place the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Square.  And I do not know if Andrew Jackson is Trump's personal hero.

I do know that Andrew Jackson was one of the founders of today's Democratic Party.  And the Democratic Party honored Jackson's role in the history of the Democratic Party until recently.

The Democratic Party will hide its past by making superficial changes.  But those superficial changes won't change history.  Today's Democratic Party is the result of over 200 hundred years of political power in the United States.

What do you think systemic racism is about?  Do you really think the Democratic Party making superficial changes to hide its past will address systemic racism?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.5    2 weeks ago

Nerm,

And one can say the same thing about the Republican party. It was a progressive party. Do you think that it is still that same party? I think not. 

Time changes everything, including parties. To me, parties are nothing more than a consensus ideology of the time, something I am not interested in. I think it's time for people to think for themselves, and stop being told what to think. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.7  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.6    2 weeks ago
And one can say the same thing about the Republican party. It was a progressive party. Do you think that it is still that same party? I think not.  Time changes everything, including parties. To me, parties are nothing more than a consensus ideology of the time, something I am not interested in. I think it's time for people to think for themselves, and stop being told what to think.

After the end of slavery, which was main reason the party had been established, the Republican Party emphasized industrial and economic progress.  The Republican plan for reconstruction was to industrialize the South to create jobs.  The Republican Party was making plans for a transcontinental railroad while the Civil War was being fought.

The Republican Party has always believed that industry and business provided the means to achieve progressive results.  That shouldn't be surprising since the Protestant work ethic was a prominent characteristic of the North when the Republican Party was founded.

Unfortunately the Republican Party did go off the rails in the late 19th century.  Republicans began rewarding private excess rather than pursuing progressive results.  Theodore Roosevelt did attempt to bring Republicans back to their founding principles of pursuing progressive results but did not succeed to any significant extent.  Franklin Roosevelt established the founding Republican progressive principles within the Democratic Party.  FDR did have better success than Teddy Roosevelt but the Democratic Party remained entrenched in racial politics.  The Democratic Party has twisted the Republican progressive principles into a system of redistribution justified by racial politics.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
3.1.8  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.6    2 weeks ago

people tend to forget that there was Jeffersonian democracy , then jacksonian democracy , and a Roosevelt democracy,  lastly I would say would be Clintonian / Obama democracy In my view one evolved from the other to cover specific years and the actual true father of what passes for the democrat party today Would be B. Obama.

Now I can see from history jacksonian democrats were indeed racist , they spawned the likes of men within their party to dawn masks and hoods to terrorize their communities to conform to their wishes with threats of violence and destruction.

Interestingly enough , I see the same things happening today.

 And that perrie , is how to piss people off , state the truth and the history factually..

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @3    2 weeks ago
e reason he is honored would be----what? 

um...He saved the Union for starters. Sort of a big deal.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2    2 weeks ago
He saved the Union for starters. Sort of a big deal.

No that was Lincoln. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.2.2  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2    2 weeks ago

He died in 1845.  He didn't even save the Alamo.  He committed genocide against the Native Americans.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

1860 wasn’t the first time South Carolina threatened to secede. Jackson’s deft management of the nullification crises saved the union 30 years before the civil war.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @3.2.2    2 weeks ago

Look up the nullification crises.

and he didn’t “commit genocide”  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.4    2 weeks ago
and he didn’t “commit genocide”  

Depends on who's telling the history, doesn't it?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
3.2.6  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.3    2 weeks ago

A lot of people are forgetting the New England states were on the verge of seceding during the War of 1812 and going to throw in with nova scotia , even had a convention to do so scheduled , the war ended before the convention could convene, their reason was economic s and how the war was costing those states money.

Until after the civil war , the idea of any state leaving the union was an open question that had yet to be answered 

One of the mass delegates to the constitutional convention when asked about it pretty much stated that if at any time a state or its people felt that belonging to the union was detrimental to the state and their well being , they of course would have the right to vote to leave the union, it was never put into the actual constitution though, which is why it was an open question for the time until the Civil War, That delegate was Rufus King. 

It was one of the ways he talked a couple of delegates from southern states  into signing the constitution, when the issue of slavey was being discussed then. 

I found those discussed in his personal papers kept at the Boston Historical society when I was a wee yonker.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.5    2 weeks ago

Well, no, it’s the definition. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.7    2 weeks ago

So what do you call the death of 16,000 people because according to wiki:

The act has been referred to as a unitary act of systematic  genocide , because it discriminated against an ethnic group in so far as to make certain the death of vast numbers of its population. [4]  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
3.2.9  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.2.6    2 weeks ago

Good stuff Mark.... Thanks.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.10  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.2.6    2 weeks ago

Mark,

Always informative and thoughtful. Thank you! 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.8    2 weeks ago

You should look up the definition of genocide, it's requires deliberate killing.  The very fact that the Act exists nullifies the idea that Jackson was trying to simply liquidate Indians. 

The Indian Removal Act was designed by Jackson as as an attempt to save the Indian and their way of life by giving them lands away from settlements.  That the execution of the act didn't live up to its ideals doesn't turn into genocide.  Intent matters.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.2.6    2 weeks ago

he idea of any state leaving the union was an open question that had yet to be answered 

For sure, and prior to Andrew Jackson, the default answer both north and south was that it was legal. It's was Jackson's genius to counter that assumption with one of the most important proclamations ever issued by a President.  His argument that the Union was perpetual and secession illegal was so compelling and sound that Lincoln in 1861 and the Supreme Court in 1869 when formally announced secession was illegal simply followed it. 

Without Jackson's strong defense of the Union and his dismantling of the legal basis for secession, the Union might have ended in 1832 without a shot fired. America is very lucky he was President, and not someone like Buchanan.

Here's his justly famous proclamation asserting the eternalness of the Union:

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=011/llsl011.db&recNum=816

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.13  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.11    2 weeks ago

Sean,

Maybe you should look up what the Turks did with the Armenians during their genocide. They made them march endlessly for hundreds of miles till they died. We call that a genocide. The Nazis did the same thing with the Jews. 

Tell me how is the Indian Removal Act any different from Hitler's Lebensraum. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.13    2 weeks ago

Again I am using the definition, you are not. You can call anything a genocide if you Want to, but the dentition is what it is.

you should probably read up on what happened in Armenia.  The Turkish government intentionally killed Armenians and tried to exterminate them, much like the Germans with the Jews.   The American government did not try to eradicate the Indians, it  tried to Save them by removing them to the west, which any person who has studied the era knows. 

but by all means provide any evidence that Jackson intended to eradicate the Indian race.  The evidence that he didn’t is overwhelming. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.15  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.14    2 weeks ago

You can say whatever you want, Sean, but history says it all, no matter what Jackson called it, his actions say it clearly. 

The law required the government to negotiate removal treaties fairly, voluntarily and peacefully: It did not permit the president or anyone else to coerce Native nations into giving up their land. However, President Jackson and his government frequently ignored the letter of the law and forced Native Americans to vacate lands they had lived on for generations. In the winter of 1831, under threat of invasion by the U.S. Army, the Choctaw became the first nation to be expelled from its land altogether. They made the journey to Indian Territory on foot (some “bound in chains and marched double file,” one historian writes) and without any food, supplies or other help from the government. Thousands of people died along the way. It was, one Choctaw leader told an Alabama newspaper, a “trail of tears and death.” https://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/trail-of-tears

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.14    2 weeks ago

Here’s an excerpt from Jackson’s award winning biography, written by the foremost expert on Jackson, dr. Robert Remini:

. “His objective was not the destruction of Indian life and culture. Quite the contrary. He believed that removal was the Indian’s only salvation against certain extinction. Nor did he despoil Indians. He struggled to prevent fraud and corruption”

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.17  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.16    2 weeks ago

Well, isn't that nice revisionist history. These are Jackson's own words:

One of the most bitterly debated issues on the floor of Congress was the Indian Removal Bill of 1830, pushed hard by then-President Andrew Jackson. Despite being assailed by many legislators as immoral, the bill finally passed in the Senate by nine votes, 29 to 17, and by an even smaller margin in the House. In Jackson’s thinking, more than three dozen eastern tribes stood in the way of what he saw as the settlers’ divinely ordained rights to clear the wilderness, build homes and grow cotton and other crops. In his annual address to Congress in 1833, Jackson denounced Indians, stating, “They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race… they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere [before] long disappear.”
https://www.history.com/news/native-americans-genocide-united-states

So please explain to me how by his own words his intent was not to eradicate Indians. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.15    2 weeks ago
You can say whatever you want, Sean,

I'm just using words properly. You aren't. Genocide has an actual definition that you can't satisfy.. 

ut history says it all,

It absolutely does, which is why I cite it and you don't.  Again, where is the evidence Jackson intended to eradicate the Indian race through his removal policy? you accuse someone of genocide, you should have the decency to provide actual evidence to support your claim.  No one is disputing things did not go according to plan, which is all you can claim. That, of course, doesn't come close to the intent necessary to justify a claim of genocide. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.17    2 weeks ago

plain to me how by his own words his intent was not to eradicate Indians

You should probably read that again. If you still need help, I'll provide it, because it actually means the opposite of what you seem to think it means.  It might help if you read it in context as taking  isolated quotes  from biased sites can lead you astray if you don't read carefully.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.20  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.18    2 weeks ago

Sean,

It absolutely does, which is why I cite it and you don't. 

I have cited every comment I have made here. What are you talking about?

The man actually said " “They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race…   they must necessarily yield to the   force of circumstances and ere [before] long disappear.” 

https://www.history.com/news/native-americans-genocide-united-states

That is the very definition of eugenics and genocide. 

Not only that, but he also went against SCOTUS on this:

In 1830, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Worcester v. Georgia that Jackson was wrong. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the majority opinion that the Constitution gave to Congress, not the states, the power to make laws that applied to the Indian tribes. Despite this clear court victory for the Cherokees, Jackson openly refused to enforce it, and the Southern states ignored it.

Georgia settlers, gold miners, and land speculators swarmed onto Cherokee lands, often seizing or destroying Cherokee homes and other property. In 1832, Georgia ran a lottery to distribute Cherokee land.

https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-21-1-c-indian-removal-the-cherokees-jackson-and-the-trail-of-tears.html#:~:text=In%201830%2C%20the%20U.S.%20Supreme,applied%20to%20the%20Indian%20tribes.

Defending this man's actions would be as bad as defending the English actions to the Irish during the "potato famine". 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.20    2 weeks ago

t is the very definition of eugenics and genocide. 

You need to read that quote again. You don't understand it, at all. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.22  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.21    2 weeks ago

No Sean, I'm afraid you are in denial. I read English quite fine. The goal was the genocide of a people he deemed less than. I mean it wasn't dubbed the "Trail of Tears" for no reason".  But let's leave it here and let the readers decide for themselves. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
3.2.23  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.12    2 weeks ago

Sorry Sean , but Jacksons proclamation was simply an act of closing the barn door after the horses had already bolted in my view . His policies of westward expansion and manifest destiny of the country had already set the die, on how others would be treated . 

 He is to me the actual father of manifest destiny policies and ideas that ran through this country at the time and continue to be used to this very day . Living on a reservation , I see it every day and deal with the results , every day.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.22    2 weeks ago

No, let's read what he actually said. Words matter. You don't get to push your own opinions on words that mean the opposite. 

"It is to be hoped that those portions of two of the Southern tribes, which in that event will present the only remaining difficulties, will realize the necessity of emigration, and will speedily resort to it. My original convictions upon this subject have been confirmed by the course of events for several years, and experience is every day adding to their strength. That those tribes can not exist surrounded by our settlements and in continual contact with our citizens is certain. They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear.

Such has been their fate heretofore, and if it is to be averted -- and it is -- it can only be done by a general removal beyond our boundary and by the reorganization of their political system upon principles adapted to the new relations in which they will be placed. "

Words matter. He's saying in plain English that if tribes are left in states, subject to state laws, they cannot survive. Removal is the only option that will allow  Indian tribes and their culture to survive.  It doesn't get any plainer than that. 

Again, this is exactly what I've been saying.Jackson saw removal as the way to save the indian tribes as opposed to being subsumed in American culture. You can't distort his words enough to support your claim.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.25  Sean Treacy  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.2.23    2 weeks ago
lamation was simply an act of closing the barn door after the horses had already bolted in my view

I honestly  don't understand your point. Are you claiming Jackson was trying to exterminate the Indian race? Again, if you have proof of that I'd be interested in seeing it. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.26  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.25    2 weeks ago

Sean,

Do you not get what was being done? He broke treaties with these Indians. He went against SCOTUS. He by force, removed entire Indian populations from their homeland and put them on a forced march of almost a 1000 miles with no supplies, and actually says:

They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear.

And you don't think that is a genocide. Those words could have come out of Hitler's own mouth. 

Yes, words matter as do actions.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
3.2.27  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.25    2 weeks ago

Jackson simply took what was already being done , and put things on steroids so to speak, by using the color of lawful actions to cover what most would consider theft from those that at that time had little to no constitutional protections because they were not white and not considered citizens of the nation.

 And yes I think jacksons actions accelerated the idea of manifest destiny, and the actions that accelerated AND allowed the Native American genocide that followed.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.28  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.26    2 weeks ago
ou don't think that is a genocide. T

Of course genocide  has a  definition other than "racist."  Different words means different things. 

Let's review. I asked for any evidence that Jackson tired to  exterminate the Indian race(the actual definition of genocide) To explain his attitude towards removal, I quoted the foremost Jackson scholar who said "his objective was not the destruction of Indian life and culture. Quite the contrary. He believed that removal was the Indian’s only salvation against certain extinction. Nor did he despoil Indians. He struggled to prevent fraud and corruption.”

You then called the scholar's opinion "revisionist history " and then provided a quote from Jackson that made Dr. Remini's exact point, apparently without understanding  you were doing so. 

Those words could have come out of Hitler's own mouth. 

 Being a racist isn't the same thing as committing genocide. In fact, it should be obvious but  if Jackson had actually wanted to exterminate the Indian race he wouldn't have adopted an Indian orphan and raised him as his own son. Did Hitler adopt any Jews?

Did Hitler try and save the Jews by removing them from the danger of close contact with the Nazis? No, he actually tried to exterminate them!  How can you compare the intentional murder of six million Jewish people with a misguided attempt to save Indians and their culture through the flawed process of removal? It boggles the mind. 

Intent matters. You still have provided zero evidence that Jackson's removal Act was designed to intentionally murder Indians. In fact, the only evidence you did provide demonstrates the exact opposite, namely that Jackson viewed removal as the only chance for Indian tribes their only chance to retain their separate identity.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.29  Sean Treacy  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.2.27    2 weeks ago
and put things on steroids so to speak, by using the color of lawful actions to cover what most would consider theft from those that at that time had little to no constitutional protections because they were not white and not considered citizens of the nation

Jackson inherited a very messy situation.  John Qunicy Adams had supported removal for the reasons expressed by Jackson, but never got around to doing anything. States were not happy with independent, sovereign entities within their borders and certainly also coveted their land. Indians did not feel their rights were being respected.  As you mentioned earlier, the national government did not have the power it subsequently attained and Jackson had to worry about a state seceding if he was seen to overreach. 

So Jackson had to walk a thin line. To leave the Indians to the states would have meant the end of the tribes. If he projected federal force, he ran the risk of provoking a state to secede and almost certainly failing in the attempt.. From Jackson's pov, removal offered the best chance to protect the Indians without provoking a possible civil war. 

cksons actions accelerated the idea of manifest destin

I don't think the concept of manifest destiny really drove Jackson. First, he was presented with a problem that Presidents had been ducking for years and being who he was he decided to solve it and wasn't considering any implications beyond the terms of the act. Second, Jackson was more likely driven by military motivations than anything else. he was profoundly bothered by the concept of hostile nations being able to work with the British and strike at the heart of the country. He wanted the Indians pushed west to remove that threat. 

 allowed the Native American genocide that followed.

Again, that certainly wasn't his intent, and there is no evidence to suggest that 's what he wanted. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.30  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.29    2 weeks ago

Sean,

You have no idea of his intent. Neither do I. I only have his actions. 

Btw.. what do you think were the British intent was during the potato famine? There are a lot of way to get to your ends. Walking thousands of people without food or shelter with just the clothes on their backs, for hundreds of miles was not doing them a favor, especially since it was against their will. I think that speaks to his intent.

And for the record, I didn't call the man Hitler. I said that it sounded like something Hilter would say. I don't think I am wrong about that either. Jackson got what he wanted at the time he wanted it. It only cost thousands of lives. No, he didn't wipe out all the Indians, he just wiped out the ones that were inconvenient to him and put the few that were left far away from where he had to look at them. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
3.2.31  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.29    2 weeks ago

Can anyone name any president that has not "inherited " a messy situation  from a preceding administration?

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.32  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.2.31    2 weeks ago

Every republican president since Bill Clinton.  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
3.2.33  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.32    2 weeks ago

well tess, that's only 2 Bush and trump . 

 and I would beg to differ , bush inherited the dot com bubble pop from Clinton in the economy , and that little fiasco of appeasement of Saddam in Iraq and bin laden with limited responses to outright thumbing of a nose .

 As for trump , my opinion is he inherited the most divided  nation , incapable of supporting itself by means of its own  production , since the civil war, the nation had the lowest GDP growth and highest unemployment rate until recently ( last few  months ) in a couple generations with both going up until recently ,now I am of the thought that preceding admins only have an effect on an incoming one for the first year of a new admin, by that time the new admins policies and directives are in place 

So I think about the only president that has not inherited a mess or crisis was Geo Washington, and even then I think HE even stepped into office with a mess to clean up.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
3.2.34  seeder  Steve Ott  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.14    2 weeks ago

The Indian Removal Act was signed into law on May 28, 1830, by United States President Andrew Jackson . The law authorized the president to negotiate with southern Native American tribes for their removal to federal territory west of the Mississippi River in exchange for white settlement of their ancestral lands . [1] [2] [3] The act has been referred to as a unitary act of systematic genocide , because it discriminated against an ethnic group in so far as to make certain the death of vast numbers of its population

Call it what you will Sean, you are the only one not calling it genocide. But hey, be strong my man.

Jackson was famous for lots of things, the least known of which was his lawlessness. The Act called for negotiations. Jackson did no such thing. He simply ordered that the indians be rounded up and herded several thousand miles west. If they died, tough shit. The Indians had a name for Jackson, 'Sharp Knife', for his merciless killing of natives.

Applying what you call the 'definition' of the word, even the Nazis didn't commit genocide.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.3  Krishna  replied to  bbl-1 @3    2 weeks ago
At the conclusion of WW2 in Europe all monuments, public works, names of roads/bridges that had any connection to the defunct Nazi regime were destroyed except for some which were placed in museums to assure the public remembered.

But..but...but..

How could they do that-- after all, the Nazi Regime was part of their history!

And if they destroy those monuments, no one will remember their history!

And in any even the Nazi soldiers fought bravely to protect their homes and country... and the  values they believed in . . .

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.3.1  bbl-1  replied to  Krishna @3.3    2 weeks ago

Of course all of that is true.  But------------'Work will make you free' and all the rest forced a regret of the past and a change for the future which the vast majority of Germans embraced.

Today, there are museums in Germany with many Nazi artifacts.  One is in Augsburg I think which has an extensive gallery of Nazi propaganda art.  Many of the paintings are beautiful, well done, dwelling in Aryan Mythology---all with a clear message and all contracted by the Nazi regime. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.3.2  bbl-1  replied to  Krishna @3.3    2 weeks ago

This too.  My father participated in The Normandy Invasion, June 6th, 1944---Second wave.  Later on he was assigned to a unit handling and interrogating German prisoners.  He told me when I was about ten years old that the regular army German soldiers weren't any different than the Allied soldiers.  They served their country as ordered, were fortunate not be killed, were captured and were 'Very glad that they were safe and finally---out of it.'

In May 1945 when the German High Command accepted Unconditional Surrender----It was over, friend and foe alike breathed a sigh of relief.

However, the Nazi Regime committed horrendous crimes which had to atoned.  The German people carried that badge of dishonor, in my opinion have atoned for it. 

On an aside, I am deeply disturbed to witness a resurgence of the ( travesty from the past. )  I have seen Nazi flags on our streets next to Confederate and Gadsden flags.  Forgive me. but I do not understand this.  Do you? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

http://www.privacurity.com/prisoner/

Unknown Prisoner?

In the final weekend of my two month long PhD secondment in Germany, I visited the Dachau concentration camp, just north of Munich. It was the first time I’d visited a memorial site of this kind, so was an especially moving experience. Dechau was a uniquely notorious camp, used as a “model” for the other camps that came after, and was the only one to existed throughout the entire war.

Between 1933–1945, the men (and towards the end the women) endured some of the worst treatments ever inflicted on mankind. Whilst walking around the camp, it was difficult to imagine the physical and mental horrors endured. The physical pain from hunger, the constant fear of death and the humiliation from being stripped of ones dignity and identity. They were no longer people with names, they were numbers.

At the end of the guide I was taken to a statue named “unknown prisoner” depicting a frail inmate in prison uniform. Frailty was typical of those imprisoned in these camps, which for many led to their deaths from being purposefully overworked by their captures. However, this prisoner was standing with his hands in his pockets, looking up, instead of down at his feet. Whilst prisoner uniforms in the camp had pockets, their use was strictly forbidden, a form of psychological torment similar in nature to the “work sets you free” sign on the iron gates at the entrance. The hands in the pockets, and head held high indicate this man was no longer imprisoned, either through liberation which came in the form of the American Army on April 29, 1945, or perhaps more sadly, the liberation that came to him through his death. I suspect being titled “unknown prisoner” the latter is most likely true.

unknownprisoner.png?raw=true

I focused on this statue because of the text written underneath, which in German reads “Den Toten zur Ehr, Den Lebenden zur Mahnung” translated “To honour the dead, to remind the living”. To remind the living. To remind me, to remind us all of the events during this period.

After WW1 Germany was one of the leading countries in Europe, progressive in manufacturing and technology, a period known in Germany as the Golden Years. Had you asked anyone then whether Germany would be capable of such acts, the response would have been a resounding, conviction filled no, yet history tells a very different story.

The people who died in these camps wanted to send us an eternal message. They wanted us to remember the events of WW2 to prevent such suffering from ever happening again, to save us from ourselves, and to learn from the shadows of our past.

As we go forward into a future which is unknown, riddled with uncertainties, we should be vigilant of acts that divide us, acts that stem hatred, driven by desires for power at the immense cost to others. We should stand up to these acts of hatred and division, even if they have little effect on us now, they may affect us in the future.

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me”

Poem by Martin Niemöller

Written on May 22, 2017
 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5  Paula Bartholomew    2 weeks ago

He should get ten years per his own words.

 
 
 
Adam_Selene
6  Adam_Selene    2 weeks ago

Perhaps instead of focusing only on the subject of the statue, we might consider that the statue itself was constructed with slave labor.

Not every thing needs to be removed - but at least an obvious marker should proclaim "This symbol of freedom and liberty for some was constructed by an enslaved people ."

 
 
 
Kathleen
6.1  Kathleen  replied to  Adam_Selene @6    2 weeks ago

Okay, I can agree on that. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.2  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Adam_Selene @6    2 weeks ago

Say goodbye to Wash DC then because most of it as layed out by Lafeyette was constructed using slave labor in actual labor or in the procurement of the materials to build with , to include the Capitol dome and The Washington monument. let it revert back to swampland the whole 10 by 10 mile district.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.2    2 weeks ago

Not talking about undoing all the labor that was done.  Undoing the whole district.  Just put up a marker.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.2.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.2    2 weeks ago

Isn't there a push right now to make DC a state?

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.2.2    2 weeks ago

I thought they were made a state?  I put the question mark because I think so, but not sure.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.2.4  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.3    2 weeks ago
I thought they were made a state?  I put the question mark because I think so, but not sure.  

Nope, not a state, and unless and until the US Constitution is amended it never will be.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  XDm9mm @6.2.4    2 weeks ago

[Deleted - don't try to work around the no-reply restriction]

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.2.6  XDm9mm  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.5    2 weeks ago

Removed for context - sandy

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.2.8  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.3    2 weeks ago

No Tess , they were not made a state , they WERE given a non voting member of the house of Reps if I remember correctly.  

And in order for DC to gain statehood , would require a constitutional amendment , since it was set up as a District , of federal government , that was to be beholden to no individual state, being considered a state would defacto create the situation that it would be beholden to itself as a state and not the federal entity .

My view is that statehood for the district is nothing more than a move of the political powers of the parties to gain numbers for congressional votes.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.2.8    2 weeks ago

'No Tess , they were not made a state , they WERE given a non voting member of the house of Reps if I remember correctly.'  

Yes, I don't need to be told multiple times.  I can read.  I understand

Note, I had a question mark and said that I was unsure?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.2.10  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.9    2 weeks ago

I didn't see someone had already answered , and I was typing my response and posted when I saw someone had already answered .

 
 
 
Krishna
6.2.11  Krishna  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.2    2 weeks ago

let it revert back to swampland the whole 10 by 10 mile district

Hmmmm... that's certainly something to think about!

But ya know...given the current state of affairs in this country...maybe we'd be better off that way!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.2.12  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.3    2 weeks ago

The reason the WH is in DC was so that no state could claim The People's House as theirs.  DC was neutral ground.   It was carved from the states of Virginia and Maryland in 1790.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.2.12    2 weeks ago

Thanks for that information Paula.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.2.14  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.13    2 weeks ago

Anytime.

 
 
 
Kathleen
7  Kathleen    2 weeks ago

I cannot agree with vandalizing these monuments.  

Its not the way to do things.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kathleen @7    2 weeks ago

I agree Kathleen, but then it should be equally applied across the board to include monuments that preceded the Europeans coming here, which has not happened. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
7.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1    2 weeks ago

None of them should be.  It’s actually only a small group of people doing this and no one seems to have the guts to do anything about it. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kathleen @7.1.1    2 weeks ago

Kathleen, the one doing it to our Indian monuments is the President. That is the irony about this situation. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Kathleen @7.1.1    2 weeks ago
It’s actually only a small group of people doing this and no one seems to have the guts to do anything about it. 

I'd like to hear if someone has compiled a list of all the abolitionist and non-confederate monuments that have actually had anyone trying to tear them down or seriously defaced (other than the ones Trump has had removed as mentioned in this seed). There was the one in Milwaukee that was torn down and one in Philadelphia where someone spray painted "colonizer" on it. The rest of the monuments I could find were almost all either confederate monuments or statues of men who arguably committed genocide.

So when you say small group, I have to agree, it is a very small group destroying any honorable monuments while the vast majority of the monuments that have come down or been protested till removed have been removed for a reason. I also agree that no one should be vandalizing any monuments as it is counter-productive and gives ammo to the the confederate monument defenders. They should be protesting peacefully, loudly proclaiming the true vile character behind those supposed confederate heroes, and demand the monuments come down.

 
 
 
Kathleen
7.1.4  Kathleen  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.3    2 weeks ago

I have read that there are around 1500 monuments that have some kind of link to slavery, and anything having to do with the south. That's a lot of monuments that will have to come down. You do know that Mount Rushmore will have to be destroyed too.  Do you agree with this?

I do believe that the monuments having to do with American Indians should not be taken down or disturbed. I never disputed that. 

My point is that there are so many things in our country that have some history about the civil war and that is a lot of things they are going to have to change.  Maybe it is just too many.

 
 
 
Krishna
7.1.5  Krishna  replied to  Kathleen @7.1.1    2 weeks ago
 It’s actually only a small group of people doing this

When it comes to the Indian sites its actually not a small group. In fact its only one person-- Trump!

(Of course he can't do it alone, so he has people who do most of his dirty work.

Indian monuments, burial grounds, holy sites.

(Doesn't Trump claim he's such a big supporter of religion? Well, maybe only some religions that he judges to be worthy-- and certainly not th religion of a non-White race such as the Indians!)

 
 
 
Kavika
8  Kavika     2 weeks ago

Of course, Andrew Jackson's statue should be displayed in a prominent setting in Washington D.C. He did illegally tear thousands of Indians from their homeland and sent them on a horrific journey to present-day Oklahoma when thousands died. He did this to ensure more land for white settlers. That folks is the crux of the matter. The land was much more valuable than the deaths of thousands of Indians. So, to many his statue is a good thing. Regardless of the death and destruction that he caused.  

As for Bears Ears, unlike the Christian religions, we do not build monuments, churches, statutes, and the like to practice our beliefs. In 1978 congress passed the Naive American Religious Freedom Act. After decades of our religion being suppressed by the government that practiced ''religious freedom'' except if you were Indian. We had somewhat of a fighting chance to have our beliefs held equal to the dominant Christian religion in the US. We are for lack of a better term, a ''land-based religion''..To us what the great mystery, what Christian call God, created cannot be improved upon by building a church, or other Christian religious monuments. Bears Ears is only the latest in the ongoing battle to save our religious sites. Bears Ears is highly sacred to many tribes and it is an area of great beauty and architectural treasure trove to study the history of the people that lived, worked, and most importantly gathered plants for medicine and were able to practice their beliefs. 

But it seems that exploiting this beautiful land is much more important than respecting our beliefs and allowing for a piece of living history to remain untouched for all Americans.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
8.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Kavika @8    2 weeks ago

statue should be

Should be or should not be?

 
 
 
Kavika
8.1.1  Kavika   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @8.1    2 weeks ago

Should be, I was being sarcastic. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kavika @8.1.1    2 weeks ago

Well said, Kavika! 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
8.1.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @8.1    2 weeks ago

Oh okay.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

The Magic Eight Ball
Vic Eldred
Ender
dennis smith
Tessylo
Gazoo
Nerm_L
lady in black


71 visitors