Statues and landmarks tend to honor important events, individuals, or turning points in history. However, in light of recent events statues honoring malevolent individuals are being vandalized. These vindictive acts against historical monuments are considered corrections; shaming those once deemed honorable for their senseless acts. While many call for complete removal of these monuments others believe history should remain untouched. Furthermore, New York City holds several monuments honoring the unjust, Jackson Square Park being one of them. Jackson Square Park is an urban park located in the Greenwich Village historic district in Manhattan; it is notably one of New York City’s oldest parks. The park is fairly small and uniquely triangular …show more content…
On May 28, 1830, Jackson signed the Indian removal act, “the law authorized the president to negotiate with southern Indian tribes for their removal to federal territory west of the Mississippi River in exchange for their lands.” Recently there has been a lot of controversy throughout the nation with statues and landmarks recognizing and honoring those who have oppressed and distressed people of color, such as slaves and natives of America. Where is the outrage in one of the most diverse and liberal cities in the U.S. for naming a park after another perpetrator? After all, Jackson did call for an ethnic cleansing. According to the NYC Parks Jackson Square park was built and honored after a “national hero.” After Jacksons battle in New Orleans he was no longer a hero, he was an oppressor. Unsurprisingly, Indian Americans came to New Orleans aid and defense; those 4,500 men were not only black and white men. Yet Andrew Jackson forced removals carried out by various government authorities, killing more than 4,000 Cherokees members and forcing 90,00 to depart. Jackson square park should no longer honor Andrew Jackson because he isn’t a hero, he didn’t protect all Americans, hence the Native Americans. It’s 2017 and statues of oppressors should no longer be
...convince us Indians that our removal was necessary and beneficial. In my eyes, the agreement only benefited Andrew Jackson. It is apparent that Jackson neglected to realize how the Indian Removal act would affect us Indians. When is the government justified in forcibly removing people from the land they occupy? If you were a Native American, how would you have respond to Jackson? These questions need to be taken into consideration when determining whether or not Jackson was justified. After carefully examining these questions and considering both the pros and cons of this act, I’m sure you would agree that the removal of Native Americans was not justified under the administration of Andrew Jackson. Jackson was not able to see the damaging consequences of the Indian removal act because of his restricted perspective.
An extraordinarily ordinary man, a “democratic autocrat, an urbane savage, an atrocious saint” Andrew Jackson provided the means for Americans to better understand themselves (Parton PBS). Over time the perception of Jackson and his demeanor has been changed. As one historian stated, “at one time, [when they looked at Jackson] they saw the frontiersmen, the poor boy made good, the classic self-made man” (Feller PBS). In modern times, Jackson has become a more unsavoury figure; namely due to his reputation for displacing Native American tribes and repurposing their land for American settlements and communities. Still, the debate over who Andrew Jackson was, or perhaps is, can be described as a contemporary one. Nonetheless, his actions, and vociferous reactions, make Jackson a very divisive figure in American politics. Cogently stated by historian “He is an inescapable American, but of what kind?” (Feller PBS).
The Indian Removal Act drove thousands of natives off their tribal lands and forced them west to new reservations. Then again, there are those who defend Jackson's decision stating that Indian removal was necessary for the advancement of the United States. However, the cost and way of removing the natives was brutal and cruel. The opposition fails to recognize the fact that Jackson’s removal act had promised the natives payment, food, and protection for their cooperation, but Jackson fails to deliver any of these promises. Furthermore, in “Indian removal,” an article from the Public Broadcasting Service, a description of the removal of the Cherokee nation is given.
Three specific ways in which American expansion shaped the Jacksonian period was through the advancement of technology, by way of slavery, and the Indian Removal Act. Jackson used any political and economic means necessary in order to see American frontier regions expand across the nation. Jackson’s Indian Removal policy had some of the most important consequences and paved the way toward American expansion. In the beginning of the Jacksonian era, colonial Americans’ settlements had not yet extended far beyond the Atlantic seaboard, partly because bad roads and primitive technology limited their ability to expand, and because both hostile Indians and British imperial policy discouraged migration beyond Appalachian Mountains. However, all of this changed after Jackson was in office and American expansion was well underway.
Mich Landrieu’s speech that he delivered to the public on May 19th, 2017, was a beautiful speech written and expressed by him about the removal of the four monuments within the city of New Orleans. This message was given by the Mayor due to racist comments of these statues and Landrieu expressed in his speech the true history of the city. For some of the people of New Orleans, they thought these statues were the identity of the city and a celebration of confederacy, however, African Americans took offense to the statues. The mayor effectively uses logos, pathos, and ethos to persuade his audience that taking down these confederate monuments is what needs to be done. Confederacy and the widespread demonstrations found many in other southern states as well discussing different monuments and their meanings. .Bill Golash, a gentleman interviewed from Richmond, Virginia said “I love the city of Richmond and I want to see us grow” (Raddatz). This statement reaches out to many of the issues being faced with decisions of change and Golosh echoing we can’t change
Washington, DC is a spectacular place. This being my first time in DC, I was in awe of everything and all the historical places I encountered. The presence of the monuments and history is what made the capitol so magnificent. Having only read about the Lincoln memorial, I never had the chance to experience the sensation of being inside such an honorable place of importance. The imposing white marble walls of the memorial and the many people surrounding it could be seen from afar. Arriving at the location, an unknown feeling came over me. I was experiencing history in a whole different level. When I think about a memorial, the term remembrance comes to mind. Seeing the statue of Abraham Lincoln brought pieces of memories from history class and evoked thoughts of what it might have felt like to be in his shoes. I was astonished by the statue’s enormousness and how grand Abraham Lincoln looked in his chair. The size of the statue compared to pictures from books and elsewhere was surreal. Abraham Lincoln was a very “powerful and prominent individual” in the history of our nation, the statue’s design and size reflected upon that. Looking around me, I wanted to know what the others thoughts were on seeing his statue and how they felt in that building. I finally had the courage to ask one or two people what they thought; they all had the same appreciation as me. Hearing about an important person or learning about them in a history book gives you vast knowledge but it doesn’t evoke the feeling of utter appreciation as the memorial does. When Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, many people wanted to build a memorial in honor of him. They wanted to be able to show how important he was to shaping our nation and to “honor his existence”. Ce...
America’s history-both good and bad-has much to teach us. Taking down, destroying these monuments is erasing, rewriting the physical symbols of the nation. This type of cultural whitewashing is inglorious. We can treat these monuments as a cautionary tool to remind ourselves what we are and what we are not. The cost forebears paid for the freedom of the nation should be remembered; therefore, people should retain these statues to remind of themselves what these monuments represent.
To specify, monuments of historical figures who were in favor of slavery are in jeopardy of irreparable destruction. To put the above issue into perspective based on the warrants given in favor of historical significance: if someone were to erect a monument of a historical figure who supported such unethical morals today, there would inevitably be reasonable grounds to demolish such a statue. Even so, these monuments that activists want to destroy are a part of our history and it has been aforementioned that we have changed and grown as a society since those historical figures lived and these monuments were built. The morals that date back to these historical figures’ times on earth are much different than our general societal morals today. We need to recognize our history even if it means leaving a monument we disagree with
The construction of Stanley Park is important to the environmental history of Canada as it shows how we valued nature in the past and possibly in the present. The building of the park was meant to help with the health and mental wellness of the people of the country, however, it did not take into account the value of the ecosystem itself. This can be an indication of the stance that was present about nature at the time and how it was only seen for the value that is visible, but not the invisible services it provides. This point can be further proved by the fact that many aspects of the park were actually altered by humans and yet called “pristine”. The building of the roads, causeways, and seawalls all changed the ecology and landscape of the park and all these changes were for the benefit of the people that were using the area.
American politician, Henry Waxman once said, “Memorials become relics if they do not stir our modern conscience.” Americans take great pride in winning intense battles and celebrate these victories in several different ways. Sometimes Americans show pride and gratitude is creating large statues dedicated to important figures or events in history. These statutes and or museums take a lot of dedication and effort to look well established and portray an heroic message. While a group or agency is considering creating a memorial or monument for an event or person, they should remember to consider who this memorial or monument effects, what it represents, and if it is a good task to start in the first place.
Jackson’s name is a motif. It is a repetition of the same name. His name is extremely significant. The Indian Removal Act was passed while Andrew Jackson was president. This signifies Jacksons search for himself. He is given a name of somebody that displaces his people. His name symbolizes the displacement of identity and his journey to find
On September 9th, 2017 at approximately 7 p.m., I went to Gracedale Public Park to carefully conduct my observation on the individuals, who were at the park and their specific activities in the one hour of time. When I got there, the weather was beautiful with soft winds, a clear sky and with some dim sunlight. The park was full of people of all ages. Though, there were more kids than adults and some teenagers. There were many bicycles and strollers parked beside the tree I sat under. After a couple of minutes, the park filled up with more and more individuals and everyone seemed busy doing their own actions.
Many people feel a strong sense of patriotism and nationalism when they view a monument. Pride in one’s country is a great feeling. Monuments help bring out those feelings of nationalism. Homeland monuments such as the Statue of Liberty and Madison Square Garden makes one feel special. Millions of people from all over the world come to where you call home to view something that is special to you. We take such things for granted too often.
Statues help us reflect upon everything satisfactory or unacceptable that has ever happened in U.S history. The removal of these statues is a complete injustice not only in my opinion ,but I feel it's an injustice to the country. My reasoning behind this is people can’t say let's take a statue down on the grounds that it hurts them historically. Throughout history there have been multitudinous moments that have been depressing; BUT that does not mean that you should affect the whole country about it. So the best way I believe to handle this problem is to ask not the government, but ask the people,which statues should be put up ad which should be taken down. So just like electing the president everyone gets a fair say and nobody feels left
I choose to research what I observed in the park. I noticed that many of the school age children were playing with each other even though they were making fun of each other faults. Playing games allow children to make decisions and to develop problem solving skills that they can use later on in life. Playing also affects the children emotionally. It allows them to control their emotional states, and thus they find joy and happiness during play. When they are interacting with their peers, whom they considered to be their equal counterparts. Socializing with each other helps children to improve their mental health.