By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rackas333 on 31 August 2015
Edit Thread
spurgeonryan said:
LuckyTrouble said:

Yeah, um, if you had read the article, you'd understand that we forcefully changed the name to begin with, and basically took a dump all over the heritage of the native Alaskan people for a president hardly anybody actually talks about. I mean, why did a mountain in Alaska need to pay tribute to a president from Ohio? Because it was something we hadn't forcefully seized in a show of imperialism yet?

To me, this is a long overdue move that shouldn't be even remotely controversial. And I swear, if people start using the slippery slope argument, they're getting a slap.

Ok, yeah...Saw that on the news. If we go back and change everything we "forcefully" changed or stole we would change everything. I don't need to be bullshitted.  According to your logic, we should be able to send African Americans back to African and be allowed to give them their land back that we stole them from. Or maybe we should just give California back to Mexico? Or lets not stop there! Lets force all South Americans to stop speaking Spanish and go back to their native language, since their rights were stolen from them long ago.

 

The past is the past. Sorry we had slaves, but reparations are over. Sorry we bombed Japan twice, but shit happens and their government was craxy back then, sorry Mexico lost half of America to us, but it is ours now.


The United States never stole land from Africans, California was called California by Mexico when it was a territory of it, and the United States has nothing to do with South America speaking Spanish along with Portugese, Dutch and French. The people of Alaska where the mountain is located always called it Denali and wanted it to officially be called as such. Where is the problem?