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.
|
Actually Spurge, no reporations took place. They were proposed, however Republican's pulled back from that pledge made by either Lincoln or Grant.
Let's consider Alaskan history. Alaska was a part of Russia, which the US ended-up purchasing from Alaska. Generally speaking, Alaska was some place no-one cared about until gold was discovered in the Klondike. Then, not long after that, it was forgotten again until oil was discovered there. The only people that have ever given a shit about Alaska have been the people that lived there. That includes both native and non-native people.
As for Mexico, we fought a war against Spanish Mexico after Texas, which was a Republic at the time, was annexed. Mexico, which had refused to acknowledge the right of Texas to cede from Mexico to for a Republic, was further incensed when the US annexed Texas. The annexation of Texas, however, was nothing more than political gamesmenship by President Tyler in a failed bid to win another four years as president. Texas, at the time, was a failing state, which had few beneficial resources that anyone wanted. Nevertheless, Texas was annexed, and not only did the US aquire Texas, but New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California.
The argument for Expansionism within the continential 48 states region has never really been questioned. But look at the Spanish American War, and you'll see a different tune. We annexed Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawaii, and the Philippeans, as well as other islands. While some of these territories have remained as US Territories over the years, others such as Cuba and the Philippeans became independent countries. So, yes, we have given back lands to their original native people. Heck, we paid Spain for the Phillipeans even though we beat them in a war that ended the Spanish Empire.
Your assumption is we came to a land that wasn't inhabited. The reality of it is, our forefather's came to a land that a native population of people inhabited. While they didn't have the same type of governments we had, while they didn't see the world in terms of property, wealth, exploitation, and gain, they did have working economies that stretched across the country and east to west.
To put it another way, our forefather's didn't happen upon an empty canvas, and start painting the world they wanted to see. They happened upon a painting, and took it, then they painted over it and put their signature on it and said it was theirs.
Does that mean I believe we can go back and right every wrong? No, but honestly I would rather have the mountain named Denali than McKinnely. Hell, I would rather our stadiums and bowl games aren't named after commercial sponsors. I remember when the Sun Bowl was just that, not the Tostidos Sun Bowl.
I'm fairly certain that there is a large hill in Ohio that someone can name after McKinnely. It would certainly be more fitting for a president that served 19 days and really did nothing in those 19 days of note or accomplishment.
