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 ...
OK, let me look back and see if I can find one. If I can then I'll try and refute it.
And yet that's all you seem to have to lean on.
Defending the indefensible doesn’t last forever and TRUTH has a way of finally revealing itself.
To most people. Others revel in their own blind bigotry and hatred.
When you talk about the generosity of the northern people after the war, I assume you are referring to the carpetbaggers who generously helped themselves to the property of Southerners and brought it back north.
I am talking about the fact that you could search history far and wide and I defy you to find a people who lost their rebellion yet were accepted back into government and power as quickly as the Southern states were. But by all means if you have an example of that then please post it for us.
American. I don’t have a single ancestor who wasn’t already here when the nation was founded.
Time's a-wasting. Here's a fact for you to refute: Grant was a drunk.
Refute it.
If we accept the dictionary definition of a drunk as one who habitually drinks to excess then Grant does not likely fall into that category. His period of insobriety were not that frequent during the rebellion and they did not interfere with his success as an army commander.
Now the problem with this, of course, is that it's subject to opinion. My opinions on the frequency of Grant's drinking issue occurring and whether or not it impacted Grant's abilities as a commander are not shared by you. Which is fine, but was also the reasons why I placed your "Grant was a drunk" claim in the "nonfactual" category.
“The Jews, as a class having violated every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department [of the Tennessee] within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.”
We going to play this all day? We’ve already established that you think I’m a dope and I think you’re a moron. What more is to be gained by prolonging these...pleasantries?
Was Ulysses S. Grant drunk when he expelled all the Jews from Tennessee, Mississippi and Kentucky or was he sober, in your esteemed opinion?
Answer that and you and I will be done with it, Doodledawg.
They lost a war. They weren't enslaved. Not even "almost."
And it's complicated with the Indians, too. Some of them were scouts for the Army. Some moved peacefully to reservations. Or they made war, and then realized they couldn't win and threw in with the Whites. And the tribes that we remember as the most warlike and opposed to the settlers were often those who conquered and dominated their Indian neighbors.
We're done already.
Quitting so soon? You have the opportunity to choose between Grant merely being an antisemite or a drunken antisemite, but decline to answer. As you wish, carry on.
And I'm sure you will do the same.
Well, at any rate, the North is glad it was 150+ years ago...
If it was today, with all the gun restrictions and liberals up North, we’d kick y’alls butts....LOL
Doodle, Doodle, you’re done. Get a grip, lol.
What, you’re not going to indulge the moron’s “when did you stop beating your wife?” strawman?
You seem to be just the moron to indulge. So, was Ulysses S. Grant drunk when he issued his Order #11 expelling all Jews from Mississippi, Tennessee and Kentucky? Or just merely antisemite?
Nah, I'll let him play with himself for a while. There's a Mark Twain quote that seems appropriate when dealing with unpleasant people like him.
“Surely they do not want our game of cowboys and indians to play out to the logical finish.”
I’m up for cowboys v. statue wreckers.
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.