Posted on 04/01/2018 9:05:49 AM PDT by Simon Green
Over the decades, this quiet coastal hamlet has earned a reputation as one of the most liberal places in the nation. Arcata was the first U.S. city to ban the sale of genetically modified foods, the first to elect a majority Green Party city council and one of the first to tacitly allow marijuana farming before pot was legal.
Now it's on the verge of another first.
No other city has taken down a monument to a president for his misdeeds. But Arcata is poised to do just that. The target is an 8½-foot bronze likeness of William McKinley, who was president at the turn of the last century and stands accused of directing the slaughter of Native peoples in the U.S. and abroad.
"Put a rope around its neck and pull it down," Chris Peters shouted at a recent rally held at the statue, which has adorned the central square for more than a century.
Peters, who heads the Arcata-based Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous People, called McKinley a proponent of "settler colonialism" that "savaged, raped and killed."
A presidential statue would be the most significant casualty in an emerging movement to remove monuments honoring people who helped lead what Native groups describe as a centuries-long war against their very existence.
The push follows the rapid fall of Confederate memorials across the South in a victory for activists who view them as celebrating slavery. In the nearly eight months since white supremacists marched in central Virginia to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue, cities across the country have yanked dozens of Confederate monuments. Black politicians and activists have been among the strongest supporters of the removals.
This time, it's tribal activists taking charge, and it's the West and California in particular leading the way.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
In Arcata - subject of the article. Pretty much makes UC Berkeley look like Hillsdale College. :)
He’s have been more at home in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.
Unlike you, I respect the sacrifices they made on both sides. As a side note, I had an ancestor who died at Andersonville.
Godwin’s Law - you lose.
And the same went for the North...
Hate the hate...yeah.
Hate the people...nope.
That's my take,,,,
Oh not hardly. There were several convicted at Nuremburg on less evidence than is available on him for war crimes.
The 1869 Supreme Court decision in White V. Texas declared otherwise.
“So murder and rape are dandy as candy, if you’re on the winning side.” Does being on the losing side make murder and rape as dandy as candy. Men in the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee were tried, convicted and in some cases executed for murder and rape. Just as men were tried, convicted and in some cases executed for murder and rape in the Army of the Potomac, the Army of the Tennessee, the Army of the Cumberland and the Army of the James.
“Actually there were very good economic reasons for the south seceeding and slavery wasn’t the big one.” That is not the case if you will read the Documents supporting the Ordnances of Secession of the first seven states to secede from the Union. Only two states make reference to economic issues other than supporting the production of Cotton. Georgia in their secession documents mentions unfair Government spending in support of Northern states and Texas mentions the lack of Government spending to protect Texans from red skin savages and Mexican banditos crossing the Rio Grande River. Every one of the Secession Ordnance’s lists perceived or future Government interference with slavery as the prime reason for their actions. If doubt exists about the basis of the Confederacy, read “The Cornerstone stone Speech” given by Confederate Vice President Stephens.
What difference to the price of tea in China does it make that New England talked about Secession during the War of 1812. About the same importance as South Carolina threatening Secession in 1832 over tariffs.
If you notice..THAT is the number of slaves...NOT slave OWNERS....
Besides, does this mean you are OK with northern state slave owners??? You didn’t put them in...
In 79 you urged a poster to examine the PRIMARY cause of the Civil War. I responded in 111, “The primary cause, as enunciated by the slaver’s themselves, was the Peculiar Institution. All other considerations took a far distant second place to slavery.”
You responded in 114 that “...the percentage of Americans who owned slaves at just under 5%.” I recognize that your response was a non sequitur but I responded with statistics showing the southern states percentage closer to 33%. The percentage of northern slave holders in a860 was less than 1%.
The south freaked out over an election because they spooked themselves into believing that Lincoln would somehow take their slaves away. The south went to war to protect slavery.
I will take the census statistics over whatever you posted...Sorry...
Mississippi- 791,305 - 49%
Do you actually think its credible that HALF the population of the state OWNED slaves???????
I would say that the “percentage” number shown is the percentage of the state population that were slaves...
Families...Not how many PEOPLE owned slaves...
There could be 10 members to a family...
That again can be skewed...
If one family has three married sons, that would equal four “families” and slaves owned by the patriarch...
That’s a leftist hair-splitting tactic. I’ve shown you using US government statistics that up to half the southern population were slave owners.
No, you haven’t...If half the free population of the state of Alabama owned a slave, that would be 264,560 slave owners...
Congress, the Supreme Court, AND the Executive branch have all proved that to secede is LEGAL by continuing to recognize West Virginia as a separate state from Virginia. Northern California should simply follow West Virginia’s example of forming their own state from within another.
“Slavery was a scapegoat after the war.”
Tell that to John Brown.
What about “Bleeding Kansas”?
Then why, on May 22, 1856, did the US Representative from S Carolina, Preston Smith Brooks, beat US Senator Charles Sumner on the Senate floor so badly he couldn’t work for 3 years?
Is some revising history?
Ther may have been many aggravations.
None but slavery was serious enough to fight over.
John Brown, Charles Sumner, Bleeding Kansas..... All over slavery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.