Should Mt. Rushmore be Demolished or Altered because it is on Native American land? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Should Mt. Rushmore be Demolished or Altered because it is on Native American land?

Yes
1
5%
No
16
84%
Alter it in some way (explain)
2
11%
#15105232
No.

They lost the war.

They get benefits far exceeding those that the rest of us get...

These figures, unlike Lee and other Confederate personages, are shown to represent their contribution to democracy and not to any nefarious purpose. Slave ownership alone does not forever damn a person to obscurity.

The constitution that Jefferson wrote became the instrument with which slavery was ended.

I think that with age one becomes more inclined to forgive a lifetime of moral wins and losses. I remember someone saying, "I don't care how someone gets into Harvard Medical School, but I care a great deal what they get out of it".
#15105247
Pants-of-dog wrote:1, Not all indigenous people are the same. Saying they owned slaves is a huge and incorrect generalisation.

True. Just like saying white people owned slaves.

So you are agreeing that the USA is built on racism, slavery, colonialism, and genocide. You are then going on to say this is perfectly fine because you can imagine a world where other people may also have done it.

Those are things were involved in the building of the USA yes of course.

I'm not saying they're fine, they're obviously bad things which is why they were stopped, except for racism since there's no law that can make 100% of racism go away unfortunately.

I think these are complex issues, that have to be looked at through a historical lens. I think colonialism in general was an unstoppable process, though different cruel behaviours that happened during colonialism weren't necessary, like breaking treaties and slavery.
#15105249
Pants-of-dog wrote:Why did you quote that text?

To show the estimates of how many natives died, and to show that it was mostly due to disease.
#15105258
wat0n wrote:Not necessarily. Mount Vernon is actually private property.


Public ownership of heritage sites (as well as roads, parks, etc.) is pretty common though, so your argument that public ownership equates to a "sanction" of anything is mystifying.

But this is just hair-splitting on your part. Regarding any structure, it's going to rely on the intent of its construction. Chief Vann's house was built to house Chief Vann. Similarly its historical site designation is intended to preserve the structure for the public's educational consumption, not for anything else.


But more importantly: Why would the house be of any importance if it's not about the importance of the people who owned it? Just how many Native Americans are remembered in the same way?


It's not out of the ordinary for the homes of historical figures to be have some kind of heritage or preservation status. It may even include public heritage designation of privately owned historical sites as well.
#15105273
Donna wrote:Public ownership of heritage sites (as well as roads, parks, etc.) is pretty common though, so your argument that public ownership equates to a "sanction" of anything is mystifying.

But this is just hair-splitting on your part. Regarding any structure, it's going to rely on the intent of its construction. Chief Vann's house was built to house Chief Vann. Similarly its historical site designation is intended to preserve the structure for the public's educational consumption, not for anything else.




It's not out of the ordinary for the homes of historical figures to be have some kind of heritage or preservation status. It may even include public heritage designation of privately owned historical sites as well.


If you somehow don't like this example (I don't quite agree with this interpretation to be honest), there is also a monument or two honoring John Ross - who fought against the forcible removal of the Cherokee under the Indian Removal Act, initially stood by the Union during the Civil War and, well, also owned slaves. Statues honoring Ulysses Grant were torn down over his ownership of slaves, so my point still stands.
#15105275
wat0n wrote:If you somehow don't like this example (I don't quite agree with this interpretation to be honest), there is also a monument or two honoring John Ross - who fought against the forcible removal of the Cherokee under the Indian Removal Act, initially stood by the Union during the Civil War and, well, also owned slaves. Statues honoring Ulysses Grant were torn down over his ownership of slaves, so my point still stands.


Which point are you referring to? All I did was ask if there were any monuments to Native American slave owners and you made this all very confusing by using a heritage building as an example.

I'd say John Ross monuments should definitely come down, though something like that should probably come from intersectional dialogue and I'd like to see the Cherokee take an initiative on that.
#15105280
Donna wrote:Which point are you referring to? All I did was ask if there were any monuments to Native American slave owners and you made this all very confusing by using a heritage building as an example.

I'd say John Ross monuments should definitely come down, though something like that should probably come from intersectional dialogue and I'd like to see the Cherokee take an initiative on that.


My point regarding Black-Native American solidarity. It just doesn't compute generally.

I'd be surprised if they decided to take monuments honoring the leader who fought most intensely against Indian Removal down. The Cherokee actually recently removed Confederate monuments from close to their Capitol, but the Cherokee was the only Native American nation where there was a real division between Unionists and Confederates
#15105358
wat0n wrote:I justified my claim above. And yes, I realize they are two different peoples, and I also explained why my point is still relevant.


Sure.

I am now dismissing your argument as unsupported and incorrect and irrelevant.

————————

Drlee,

Who lost the war? What war?

————————-

Unthinking Majority wrote:True. Just like saying white people owned slaves.


The percentage of white people owning slaves is far higher, and then there is w the whole thing with whites running the government and society.

Those are things were involved in the building of the USA yes of course.

I'm not saying they're fine, they're obviously bad things which is why they were stopped, except for racism since there's no law that can make 100% of racism go away unfortunately.

I think these are complex issues, that have to be looked at through a historical lens. I think colonialism in general was an unstoppable process, though different cruel behaviours that happened during colonialism weren't necessary, like breaking treaties and slavery.


Then you should support ending the colonial relationship between Washington and the indigenous people of the USA, including respecting the treaties and court orders dealing with giving the land back.

And if that is the case, please note that according to treaty and court orders, the Six Grandfathers (what you call Mt. Rushmore) is Lakota land.
#15105372
Pants-of-dog wrote:The percentage of white people owning slaves is far higher, and then there is w the whole thing with whites running the government and society.

How do you know that? Again, you're trying to paint race A as worse than race B, which is racist.

And yes the US should live up to their treaties and give back land or compensate for it with money.
#15105382
Unthinking Majority wrote:How do you know that? Again, you're trying to paint race A as worse than race B, which is racist.


I know that because I read a lot of history.

The percentage of white people who were rich enough to afford slaves during the slavery era was far higher than the percentage of indigenous people who could also do so.

And slavery was commonplace throughout Europe and its colonies, while slavery was not standard throughout indigenous communities at the time. Many had slavery while many others did not.

Slavery as a business did not exist among indigenous people until colonisation. And the only indigenous communities that did that were those who learnt it from Europeans.

And yes the US should live up to their treaties and give back land or compensate for it with money.


What if the indigenous communities do not want the money? Should they be forced to take the money, instead of getting their land back?
#15105413
Pants-of-dog wrote:What if the indigenous communities do not want the money? Should they be forced to take the money, instead of getting their land back?

I don't know, that's a legal question I guess. What if a big city like ie: Chicago is on native land? Do you kick all of Chicago off the land? What is to be done about the buildings? Do the current landowners get compensated, or forced to pay rent? Or buy the land from the natives? It's a legal mess.

I would think it would be easier to just offer the money, which would be substantial, then natives could buy land wherever they want. Or stay where they are and development those communities with the money. If the land is in the Dakotas and you just have to kick a few rural farmers off then it's easier.
#15105418
Unthinking Majority wrote:I don't know, that's a legal question I guess. What if a big city like ie: Chicago is on native land? Do you kick all of Chicago off the land? What is to be done about the buildings? Do the current landowners get compensated, or forced to pay rent? Or buy the land from the natives? It's a legal mess.


Yes, white settlers created a legal mess.

Should white settlers get to keep the stolen land just because they also made a legal mess?

I would think it would be easier to just offer the money, which would be substantial, then natives could buy land wherever they want. Or stay where they are and development those communities with the money. If the land is in the Dakotas and you just have to kick a few rural farmers off then it's easier.


Since no one is using Six Grandfathers, the US can return that right now.
#15105422
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

If your only reply is to accuse me of being simple-minded and overly sensitive, we are done here.

Have a good day.


Have a good day as well. Tell me if you have any actual arguments to defend the idea that demolishing Mt Rushmore would represent such a huge proof of solidarity between Native and Black Americans :roll:

Let's not even get into the business of the hypocrisy behind supporting the demolition of Mt Rushmore because two Presidents there owned Black slaves while refusing to destroy all monuments to Native American slaveowners the Vanns or John Ross.
#15105451
wat0n wrote:My point regarding Black-Native American solidarity. It just doesn't compute generally.


Well, you're the one who generalized Native Americans here. I only spoke of solidarity between the Sioux and African-Americans because the Sioux are fairly leftist due to their on-going treaty dispute with the US government. I'm aware of the nuances of Indigenous politics and history and how some bands can be considerably apolitical or conservative, depending on the treaty circumstances that shape the interests of their communities.

I'd be surprised if they decided to take monuments honoring the leader who fought most intensely against Indian Removal down. The Cherokee actually recently removed Confederate monuments from close to their Capitol, but the Cherokee was the only Native American nation where there was a real division between Unionists and Confederates


It's entirely possible that the Cherokee Nation will wish to keep it while Cherokee freedmen will support its removal. The former is currently embroiled in a number of racist controversies, including the expulsion of blacks:

Race is another issue. Taylor Keen, a Cherokee Nation tribal council member, said,

Historically, citizenship in the Cherokee Nation has been an inclusive process; it was only at the time of the Dawes Commission there was ever a racial definition of what Cherokee meant. The fact that it was brought back up today certainly tells me that there is a statute of racism.[2]

Cherokee Nation citizen Darren Buzzard, one of the circulators of the 2006 petition, wrote a letter to Cherokee Councilwoman Linda O'Leary, with passages which many observers deemed to be racist and bigoted. Circulated widely on the Internet, the letter was quoted in numerous articles related to the Freedmen case.[32][111]

Oglala Lakota journalist Dr. Charles "Chuck" Trimble, principal founder of the American Indian Press Association and former executive director of the National Congress of American Indians, criticized the Cherokee Supreme Court's August 2011 ruling and compared it to the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision.[112]
(Wikipedia)

So there's definitely a lot of problematic behavior on behalf of the Cherokee Nation, including discrimination against blacks. Obviously none of this can be tolerated in the progressive movement but there is still nonetheless an intersectional situation between Cherokee freedmen and black Cherokee against reactionary elements in Cherokee leadership.
#15105468
Pants-of-dog wrote:The percentage of white people owning slaves is far higher, and then there is w the whole thing with whites running the government and society.

In 1860 1.4% of Whites owned slaves. I can't find the figure for 1860, but it seems that in 1830 just under 1.2% of free Blacks owned slaves.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Election 2020

Wait. Doug. You think it is Facebook and Twitter[…]

Thank Goodness for Sane People

You both haven't noticed yet that politically the […]

Joe Biden

LOL how cute, he thinks that spending 5mins in a […]

You can block the airway without physically damag[…]