Mayor Bowser and renaming or removing monuments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole report is such an unforced error. Provided no historical explanation for any of it. And how blind do the authors need to be to not see the page on federal monuments as completely tone deaf. Take care of your own business before trying to run the federal government. Focus on local schools and parks. How hard is that?

DC is just beginning to get respect as a potentially independent state and then they go and do something stupid like this. As a DC resident and taxpayer I am sooo frustrated. This is going to set back the statehood efforts by years.

I believe the recommendations regarding the federal properties are no longer in the report. Not sure, though. But people can relax—it’s quite unlikely the Washington Monument is going to come down.

[Anonymous]

The mayor said on Monday that she was worried a “race war was brewing.” And then on Tuesday her report comes out recommending a fairly radical program of removing the names of only white people from dozens of city properties. So that’s awkward.

[Anonymous]

What authority does Bowser have to do any of this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I filled out that survey and support making changes.

I don't know enough to discuss particular statues, but I should think that contextualizing a statute of someone with real contributions to society would be putting up a plaque to say, "this person is honored for X but also did Y, which had Z lasting harmful impact." Otherwise, only X is part of the discussion, and Y and Z are ignored.

So... here is my question.
Who gets to decide what to put and which monuments or buildings to put these "contexts" on?
Do we include MLK in this contextualizing? Or, Malcolm X?

Bottom iine.... humans are human. Nobody is free from sin. Which sins to we put in context and which do we ignore?

That was the goal of the survey.

[Anonymous]

Bowser has no authority to change the names of federal monuments on federal land.

One wonders during a pandemic, with thousands of D.C. folks unemployed or underemployed, was this the best way to spend D.C. tax dollars?

Bowser did this to raise her national profile. And, no, 2300 people do not reflect any type of majority of DC residents.

[Anonymous]

This idiotic report could raise $100 million for Republicans a cross the country. Couldn’t it have waited eight weeks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This idiotic report could raise $100 million for Republicans a cross the country. Couldn’t it have waited eight weeks?

I applaud the honesty.

Let people decide on the importance of this issue weighed against and with education, unemployment, business regulation, parks/libraries, traffic, public safety, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I filled out that survey and support making changes.

I don't know enough to discuss particular statues, but I should think that contextualizing a statute of someone with real contributions to society would be putting up a plaque to say, "this person is honored for X but also did Y, which had Z lasting harmful impact." Otherwise, only X is part of the discussion, and Y and Z are ignored.

Some statues in DC (many of the white men on horses) haven't made any obvious positive societal contributions, and I would like them moved elsewhere so that more women and people of color could be publicly celebrated.

Monuments are part of how communities reflect on their shared histories and experience, and I would like those stories to be more inclusive. I would also like to honor a more diverse group than just soldiers and statesmen.

So... here is my question.
Who gets to decide what to put and which monuments or buildings to put these "contexts" on?
Do we include MLK in this contextualizing? Or, Malcolm X?

Bottom iine.... humans are human. Nobody is free from sin. Which sins to we put in context and which do we ignore?

NP, but ultimately we do, as a society through our democratic control of the government. That process is inherently going to produce results that some people don't like and that will probably be inconsistent, but that's just living with how people making choices. You're right that no human being is free from sin, but there's also no objective standard for who gets to be honored with a public monument or naming of a public space. We elect people who represent us and they figure out standards for who gets those honors, the same principle applies to whose monuments get moved, removed, or recontexualized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hope that this doesn't get leaked too bad. It'll radically hurt the Democrats and their election chances.

Actually, it will have no effect on that. Biden is all but guaranteed to win the popular vote by seven to nine points and crush Trump in the key battleground states, running up an electoral college landslide.

lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This idiotic report could raise $100 million for Republicans a cross the country. Couldn’t it have waited eight weeks?

"Let's keep our true intentions secret until after the election."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This idiotic report could raise $100 million for Republicans a cross the country. Couldn’t it have waited eight weeks?

I applaud the honesty.

Let people decide on the importance of this issue weighed against and with education, unemployment, business regulation, parks/libraries, traffic, public safety, etc.

Which Dems also have plans for and are talking about. It's not like a given government can't do more than one thing at one time, and Bowser isn't in charge of the whole Dem party and she isn't running for national office. It's a report, it's not even a decision. The people who seize on this issue and freak out were never going to vote Dem anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yet another example of why DC should never become a state.

Do you live in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hope that this doesn't get leaked too bad. It'll radically hurt the Democrats and their election chances.

Sadly, you are right. This will only give us more fuel to trump supporters.

So we are not even allowed to talk about ideas?

[Anonymous]

To the PP who said: "Some statues in DC (many of the white men on horses) haven't made any obvious positive societal contributions, and I would like them moved elsewhere so that more women and people of color could be publicly celebrated."

You do realize that many of the "white men on horses" in the District of Columbia are Union generals who fought to end slavery? Sheridan, Farragut, Sherman, Logan, McClellan, Meade, Grant, Scott - to say that they did not made any obvious positive societal contribution is deeply ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the PP who said: "Some statues in DC (many of the white men on horses) haven't made any obvious positive societal contributions, and I would like them moved elsewhere so that more women and people of color could be publicly celebrated."

You do realize that many of the "white men on horses" in the District of Columbia are Union generals who fought to end slavery? Sheridan, Farragut, Sherman, Logan, McClellan, Meade, Grant, Scott - to say that they did not made any obvious positive societal contribution is deeply ignorant.

Whoah whoah, whoah. Hold it there a second buddy. Don't you dare step in the path of placing all the faults of the world squarely on the shoulders of white men.