No, don't remove it, but along side it have an equally impressive set of sculptures showing the Native Americans trudging from their confiscated lands to Oklahoma in the Trail of Tears. Show the dead they left along the way. While the land run participants were pioneering because they wanted to and were motivated to get free land, the Native Americans were forced to make a much longer journey because the land they already occupied was taken from them, and then the new land they were given was taken away to give to these noble pioneers.

I'm sort of torn. At the end of the day, I gain no value from a land run monument, nor do I think I or anyone else is harmed in any way by removing it. I see it as just an impressive art installation as much as anything else, but if it needs to be modified or removed, then go for it. It affects me in no way period.

That being said, the trail of tears and the land run are two separate (albeit somewhat related) events. I don't think the land run monument purports to be an all encompassing statement of Oklahoma's history, and I'm not sure I agree with a line of thinking that everything has to be all inclusive. If someone had a monument to a gold strike that had a statue of a miner, does that also require a second statue since any gold rush in the US would have been on what once was native land. What about the public schoolhouse in Edmond? Can you celebrate the first schoolhouse in Oklahoma without having a second exhibit right next to it showing a native family being dragged to Oklahoma? To me, the two events (the trail of tears and the land runs) while both relating to the concept of westward expansion and native history, are still separate events (and decades apart). Contextually, a trail of tears monument alongside the land run monument doesn't even make sense, unless you're trying to build a "history of Oklahoma" monument.

I agree with the statements that native history is regularly silenced and ignored, and I think we should build more statues and monuments, and certainly we should do a better job educating on the more complex history of Oklahoma, and also be brutally honest with ourselves on our collective history. But I don't agree with inserting the trail of tears into every historical event of this state. Regardless of the events that happened in the years and decades leading up to it, the land run was a significant and historical event which absolutely defines much of Oklahoma to this day. I feel like a placard giving some context would be sufficient.

the land run lands were taken because of who those 2 tribes sided with in the civil war

But the guys who actually took up arms and killed members of the US Army were rewarded with statues and tributes. Frankly I am skeptical of your reasoning.

No, don't remove it, but along side it have an equally impressive set of sculptures showing the Native Americans trudging from their confiscated lands to Oklahoma in the Trail of Tears. Show the dead they left along the way. While the land run participants were pioneering because they wanted to and were motivated to get free land, the Native Americans were forced to make a much longer journey because the land they already occupied was taken from them, and then the new land they were given was taken away to give to these noble pioneers.

Just curious the name of the OK History textbook they studied from. Would like to read the accounts. Not doubting that your children are able to assuredly ascertain that they were given the whole and balanced truth of history based on their read and teacher's subsequent explanations, so I would like to see the truth as being told to our kids.

There is a much, much more impressive native american museum and 120+ acre complex going in not a mile from there that will tell the entire story from the Native American's perspective and there actually is a pretty nice native american monument further up the canal that goes into detail about the indian removal act and trail of tears so I don't really understand this line of thinking at all other than making an overly conscious effort to please everyone. Demanding that the city build another statue to offset this monument when there is one right down the canal and a massive museum complex going in nearby rings hollow and just screams virtue signalling. They have no good argument other than not liking the monument...which isn't a good reason to make any decision regarding it or building another one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickasaw_Plaza#/

I'm sort of torn. At the end of the day, I gain no value from a land run monument, nor do I think I or anyone else is harmed in any way by removing it. I see it as just an impressive art installation as much as anything else, but if it needs to be modified or removed, then go for it. It affects me in no way period.

That being said, the trail of tears and the land run are two separate (albeit somewhat related) events. I don't think the land run monument purports to be an all encompassing statement of Oklahoma's history, and I'm not sure I agree with a line of thinking that everything has to be all inclusive. If someone had a monument to a gold strike that had a statue of a miner, does that also require a second statue since any gold rush in the US would have been on what once was native land. What about the public schoolhouse in Edmond? Can you celebrate the first schoolhouse in Oklahoma without having a second exhibit right next to it showing a native family being dragged to Oklahoma? To me, the two events (the trail of tears and the land runs) while both relating to the concept of westward expansion and native history, are still separate events (and decades apart). Contextually, a trail of tears monument alongside the land run monument doesn't even make sense, unless you're trying to build a "history of Oklahoma" monument.

I agree with the statements that native history is regularly silenced and ignored, and I think we should build more statues and monuments, and certainly we should do a better job educating on the more complex history of Oklahoma, and also be brutally honest with ourselves on our collective history. But I don't agree with inserting the trail of tears into every historical event of this state. Regardless of the events that happened in the years and decades leading up to it, the land run was a significant and historical event which absolutely defines much of Oklahoma to this day. I feel like a placard giving some context would be sufficient.

Agree with most of this especially the bold part.

the land run lands were taken because of who those 2 tribes sided with in the civil war

So, let me see... are you okay with then discrediting all the others who fought for the south? Or do you still defend the rebel flag, confederate soldier honoring, etc. Which is it? Everyone who fought for the south should have everything taken away? Guess we need to start taking away the lands of the south from the plantation owners, their families, etc. Reparations. Or does this just apply to the Native Americans?

So, let me see... are you okay with then discrediting all the others who fought for the south? Or do you still defend the rebel flag, confederate soldier honoring, etc. Which is it? Everyone who fought for the south should have everything taken away? Guess we need to start taking away the lands of the south from the plantation owners, their families, etc. Reparations. Or does this just apply to the Native Americans?

when have i ever defended the rebel flag ?? and if you can't see where these Sovereign nations losing this land (really being forced to sell it ) in a treaty is different then US citizen land owners in the south i don't know what to tell you

The folks who ran in the land run were not the oppressors. They were people who showed up to take advantage of an historically unique opportunity. This land went from being a desolate prairie to hosting multiple town sites, a future capital city, and brought hope to a lot of folks desperate for a new life.

I think we can also acknowledge how the government genocided Indians. We can walk and chew gum. It's a pretty cool monument, we spent a lot of money on it and it should go nowhere.

The folks who ran in the land run were not the oppressors. They were people who showed up to take advantage of an historically unique opportunity. This land went from being a desolate prairie to hosting multiple town sites, a future capital city, and brought hope to a lot of folks desperate for a new life.

I think we can also acknowledge how the government genocided Indians. We can walk and chew gum. It's a pretty cool monument, we spent a lot of money on it and it should go nowhere.

Nailed it.

when have i ever defended the rebel flag ?? and if you can't see where these Sovereign nations losing this land (really being forced to sell it ) in a treaty is different then US citizen land owners in the south i don't know what to tell you
Interesting twist of logic.

The folks who ran in the land run were not the oppressors. They were people who showed up to take advantage of an historically unique opportunity. This land went from being a desolate prairie to hosting multiple town sites, a future capital city, and brought hope to a lot of folks desperate for a new life.

I think we can also acknowledge how the government genocided Indians. We can walk and chew gum. It's a pretty cool monument, we spent a lot of money on it and it should go nowhere.

^^^^^^

And, for the umpteenth time, an incredibly promising Native American Museum that is infinitely larger, should be highly funded, promoted and supported will open just down the river. With all the land available, an equally or more impressive diorama of Native American statues should be erected

The folks who ran in the land run were not the oppressors. They were people who showed up to take advantage of an historically unique opportunity. This land went from being a desolate prairie to hosting multiple town sites, a future capital city, and brought hope to a lot of folks desperate for a new life.

I think we can also acknowledge how the government genocided Indians. We can walk and chew gum. It's a pretty cool monument, we spent a lot of money on it and it should go nowhere.
If you buy something that was stolen, and you find out it was stolen, do you give it back to the owner or just look the other way? Seems world courts are returning art and other items that the Nazis stole from the Jews to their rightful owners even though most of the subsequent buyers actually purchased the ill gotten items, most without knowledge it was stolen. We don’t praise the purchasers just because they worked hard and earned money to buy the stolen loot.

If you buy something that was stolen, and you find out it was stolen, do you give it back to the owner or just look the other way? Seems world courts are returning art and other items that the Nazis stole from the Jews to their rightful owners even though most of the subsequent buyers actually purchased the ill gotten items, most without knowledge it was stolen. We don’t praise the purchasers just because they worked hard and earned money to buy the stolen loot.

By that argument we should tear down the Statue of Liberty and give New York back. I imagine celebrating immigration is really just celebrating native genocide to a lot of folks.

If you buy something that was stolen, and you find out it was stolen, do you give it back to the owner or just look the other way? Seems world courts are returning art and other items that the Nazis stole from the Jews to their rightful owners even though most of the subsequent buyers actually purchased the ill gotten items, most without knowledge it was stolen. We don’t praise the purchasers just because they worked hard and earned money to buy the stolen loot.

what are you talking about there was a war 2 tribes backed the wrong side this is not hard to understand

what are you talking about there was a war 2 tribes backed the wrong side this is not hard to understand

This isn't even accurate. The Creek tribe divided with half backing the north and half the south. All were punished, even Creeks that FOUGHT for the north.

what are you talking about there was a war 2 tribes backed the wrong side this is not hard to understand
So, you are saying the southern land owners should have had their land taken too and been displaced?

By that argument we should tear down the Statue of Liberty and give New York back. I imagine celebrating immigration is really just celebrating native genocide to a lot of folks.

We must assume you have no clue as to the origin or the representation of the Statue of Liberty or are just looking for ridiculous comparisons to try to discredit a point.

So, you are saying the southern land owners should have had their land taken too and been displaced?

They probably could have been. Although since there were blanket pardons, and all southern land owners were citizens of the US, it would not have made much sense.

It's not really a direct comparison, since you're comparing individual land owners and their liberties, with control of territory by a sovereign government. A more direct comparison would have been if the Confederacy was allowed to keep or get paid for any of their lands after they surrendered. It would have been absurd.

We must assume you have no clue as to the origin or the representation of the Statue of Liberty or are just looking for ridiculous comparisons to try to discredit a point.

You'd be wrong (and you might need some help if you're referring to yourself in the royal "we"). Feel free to actually provide an argument, rather than just some attack. In what way is this ridiculous? This should be easy.

They probably could have been. Although since there were blanket pardons, and all southern land owners were citizens of the US, it would not have made much sense.

It's not really a direct comparison, since you're comparing individual land owners and their liberties, with control of territory by a sovereign government. A more direct comparison would have been if the Confederacy was allowed to keep or get paid for any of their lands after they surrendered. It would have been absurd.
Seems like the Native Americans were land owners before the southern land owners. The justifications are mind boggling and the mental gymnastics to justify what happened to one race inflicted by another are used to sooth consciences.

By the way, the south was a sovereign government as they seceded from the US. Under your logic, they should have had all their lands taken away. As the native Americans, the southerners were part of the rebel nation. Please stay apples to apples.

Seems like the Native Americans were land owners before the southern land owners. The justifications are mind boggling and the mental gymnastics to justify what happened to one race inflicted by another are used to sooth consciences.

By the way, the south was a sovereign government as they seceded from the US. Under your logic, they should have had all their lands taken away. As the native Americans, the southerners were part of the rebel nation. Please stay apples to apples.

It was taken from the south, and given to the US. Which lands were left to the confederacy after the war? I'll wait.

And, like I said, they probably could have taken the land from the southern land owners. They didn't. Lincoln wanted reconciliation with the south. But their failure to do so doesn't eliminate their power to do so.

If you buy something that was stolen, and you find out it was stolen, do you give it back to the owner or just look the other way? Seems world courts are returning art and other items that the Nazis stole from the Jews to their rightful owners even though most of the subsequent buyers actually purchased the ill gotten items, most without knowledge it was stolen. We don’t praise the purchasers just because they worked hard and earned money to buy the stolen loot.

There's so much of what you just said which is just wrong. The painting you're thinking about was not awarded by the courts to anyone. In fact, the owner had sued for that painting in various forums and lost every single time. The courts did nothing--there was an out of court settlement which allowed the painting to be shared by the OU museum and a museum in France.
And as far as stolen things being returned, a bona fide purchaser in good faith gets to keep what he bought. There are also statutes of limitations and there's always adverse possession when it comes to land. And we don't even have to go there because the reservation concerning the central Oklahoma unassigned lands was disestablished by a treaty, not stolen. Was it a fair treaty? Nope. But was it theft? Also nope. Was it right? Definitely, also nope. Legal? Yup!

If you can't view the land run statues without appreciating what those brave folks did, showing up to the middle of nowhere, carrying all of your possessions, lining up and waiting for a cannon to fire before going to try and stake a claim, all because of something they read in a newspaper, that's on you.

We can play this grievance politics to the nth degree, but it gets really dumb really fast... I'm Catholic and the KKK was Protestant. I demand that all Protestant churches be dismantled. Of course, Protestants may still smart after those inquisition thingies, so they could probably demand the Catholic church be dismantled. My ancestors were Irish and were treated horribly by the English. I demand England tear down all of their statues of kings and queens. My Gallic ancestors were slaughtered and enslaved by Julius Caesar. I demand that Bella Gallica which whitewashes the murder and enslavement of my people become a banned book and that France be returned to the Gauls.

Or maybe we just try walking and chewing gum? We can recognize the history of the genocide of our native peoples while at the same time appreciating the experience and endeavors of the 89ers. Trying to call a bunch of wanna be dirt farmers oppressors is just silly. They are something unique and should be celebrated.

There's so much of what you just said which is just wrong. The painting you're thinking about was not awarded by the courts to anyone. In fact, the owner had sued for that painting in various forums and lost every single time. The courts did nothing--there was an out of court settlement which allowed the painting to be shared by the OU museum and a museum in France.
And as far as stolen things being returned, a bona fide purchaser in good faith gets to keep what he bought. There are also statutes of limitations and there's always adverse possession when it comes to land. And we don't even have to go there because the reservation concerning the central Oklahoma unassigned lands was disestablished by a treaty, not stolen. Was it a fair treaty? Nope. But was it theft? Also nope. Was it right? Definitely, also nope. Legal? Yup!

If you can't view the land run statues without appreciating what those brave folks did, showing up to the middle of nowhere, carrying all of your possessions, lining up and waiting for a cannon to fire before going to try and stake a claim, all because of something they read in a newspaper, that's on you.

We can play this grievance politics to the nth degree, but it gets really dumb really fast... I'm Catholic and the KKK was Protestant. I demand that all Protestant churches be dismantled. Of course, Protestants may still smart after those inquisition thingies, so they could probably demand the Catholic church be dismantled. My ancestors were Irish and were treated horribly by the English. I demand England tear down all of their statues of kings and queens. My Gallic ancestors were slaughtered and enslaved by Julius Caesar. I demand that Bella Gallica which whitewashes the murder and enslavement of my people become a banned book and that France be returned to the Gauls.

Or maybe we just try walking and chewing gum? We can recognize the history of the genocide of our native peoples while at the same time appreciating the experience and endeavors of the 89ers. Trying to call a bunch of wanna be dirt farmers oppressors is just silly. They are something unique and should be celebrated.

By the way, lots of paintings and other objects have been returned. Not just from WW2. Ask the Green family.

Secondly, we all do what we do to soothe our consciences and justify what was done in the past that we benefit from, regardless of how it was done.

Third, everything is not binary. No one is asking for the land run statues to be removed. It is just that it glorifies one aspect of the history without recognition of how it was enabled in the first place. Putting context to it in an equally obvious place might be of real value if we want to understand at what cost our early settlers were able to claim the land and who it came from with their costs as well. Context and proportionality is an important part of the truth .... not just snippets of the truth.

We can play this grievance politics to the nth degree, but it gets really dumb really fast... I'm Catholic and the KKK was Protestant. I demand that all Protestant churches be dismantled. Of course, Protestants may still smart after those inquisition thingies, so they could probably demand the Catholic church be dismantled. My ancestors were Irish and were treated horribly by the English. I demand England tear down all of their statues of kings and queens. My Gallic ancestors were slaughtered and enslaved by Julius Caesar. I demand that Bella Gallica which whitewashes the murder and enslavement of my people become a banned book and that France be returned to the Gauls.

Or maybe we just try walking and chewing gum? We can recognize the history of the genocide of our native peoples while at the same time appreciating the experience and endeavors of the 89ers. Trying to call a bunch of wanna be dirt farmers oppressors is just silly. They are something unique and should be celebrated.

I was going to comment on the KKK example.... so I guess you are okay with them being honored with monuments? I would have never associated the land run monuments with the KKK, but so be it. KKK wasn't (officially) an arm of the US government, but if it's the same to you, it's the same.

And, by the way, the US fought for independence from those Kings and Queens whose ignorance, barbarianism, and corruption has been well documented and we don't honor them here either. Not sure how you got to comparing this to the land run monument situation, but oh well.

Also, I didn't call the settlers oppressors, just opportunists. YOU labeled them oppressors by introduced the extreme and false extrapolation of them and the rest of my statements. I haven't suggested the monument be reduced or destroyed, just put in context. It is that context that bothers, I guess. I am the one advocating balance and that apparently makes others nervous or angry.

Third, everything is not binary. No one is asking for the land run statues to be removed. It is just that it glorifies one aspect of the history without recognition of how it was enabled in the first place. Putting context to it in an equally obvious place might be of real value if we want to understand at what cost our early settlers were able to claim the land and who it came from with their costs as well. Context and proportionality is an important part of the truth .... not just snippets of the truth.

Uh, yes. Some people ARE demanding that the land run monument be removed.

https://okcfox.com/news/local/spirit-holds-sit-in-calls-for-removal-of-land-run-memorial-in-bricktown

I'm sure the new museum will tell all about the wrongs done.

As a side question, it has been many years since l saw the Trail of Tears statue at the Cowboy Hall. I don't recall what is there that tells the story?

If you buy something that was stolen, and you find out it was stolen, do you give it back to the owner or just look the other way? Seems world courts are returning art and other items that the Nazis stole from the Jews to their rightful owners even though most of the subsequent buyers actually purchased the ill gotten items, most without knowledge it was stolen. We don’t praise the purchasers just because they worked hard and earned money to buy the stolen loot.

What was stolen? They were conquered and instead of just taking it, the US paid them for it. History sucks sometimes and our history with native Americans sucks and was far from fair, but no one just gives back land they gained by conquest. Maybe the US and Mexico should go ahead and give our lands back to Britain and Spain? Then they can give it all back to the tribes? Give Hawaii back to the Hawaiians. Probably should stop celebrating our founders and the American revolution. Let’s just dissolve the US all together because we were so mean when we took it all.

The statue doesn’t celebrate the purchasers (or the ones who stole it as you say) it celebrates the pioneers that legally risked their lives and everything they had to participate in the landrun on land that was opened for settlement not by them, but by the government. It was the single most important and monumental event in the founding of Oklahoma. This isn’t a Benjamin Harrison or Andrew Jackson monument, it depicts pioneers legally rushing to claim land that was opened for them to do so.

Conquered land is not stolen art. That is a false equivalency. Also if you remember correctly, fortunately the Nazi’s lost. Had they won, I bet they wouldn’t have been giving back the paintings they stole nor would anyone they subsequently sold them to. I bet they also would’ve erected a bunch of statues celebrating the central figures who won the war and took everyone’s art and land.

So, you are saying the southern land owners should have had their land taken too and been displaced?

Sure! If the Union had been interested in creating more division instead of reuniting the country, they would’ve been well within their rights to take everyone’s land, kick them off, and do what they wished with it. Everyone who supported the confederacy committed treason and some, like Robert E Lee, did lose their property after the war.

Seems like the Native Americans were land owners before the southern land owners. The justifications are mind boggling and the mental gymnastics to justify what happened to one race inflicted by another are used to sooth consciences.

By the way, the south was a sovereign government as they seceded from the US. Under your logic, they should have had all their lands taken away. As the native Americans, the southerners were part of the rebel nation. Please stay apples to apples.

Yes they were land owners. The US government was stronger then them and took their land. Was it right no, but it happened. They could’ve taken everyone in the south’s land too if they’d wanted but likely decided that restoring the Union was a higher priority. Fair or not (defiantly not), native Americans were the weaker group and got shafted. They are far from the only population in history that’s suffered that fate.

There's so much of what you just said which is just wrong. The painting you're thinking about was not awarded by the courts to anyone. In fact, the owner had sued for that painting in various forums and lost every single time. The courts did nothing--there was an out of court settlement which allowed the painting to be shared by the OU museum and a museum in France.
And as far as stolen things being returned, a bona fide purchaser in good faith gets to keep what he bought. There are also statutes of limitations and there's always adverse possession when it comes to land. And we don't even have to go there because the reservation concerning the central Oklahoma unassigned lands was disestablished by a treaty, not stolen. Was it a fair treaty? Nope. But was it theft? Also nope. Was it right? Definitely, also nope. Legal? Yup!

If you can't view the land run statues without appreciating what those brave folks did, showing up to the middle of nowhere, carrying all of your possessions, lining up and waiting for a cannon to fire before going to try and stake a claim, all because of something they read in a newspaper, that's on you.

We can play this grievance politics to the nth degree, but it gets really dumb really fast... I'm Catholic and the KKK was Protestant. I demand that all Protestant churches be dismantled. Of course, Protestants may still smart after those inquisition thingies, so they could probably demand the Catholic church be dismantled. My ancestors were Irish and were treated horribly by the English. I demand England tear down all of their statues of kings and queens. My Gallic ancestors were slaughtered and enslaved by Julius Caesar. I demand that Bella Gallica which whitewashes the murder and enslavement of my people become a banned book and that France be returned to the Gauls.

Or maybe we just try walking and chewing gum? We can recognize the history of the genocide of our native peoples while at the same time appreciating the experience and endeavors of the 89ers. Trying to call a bunch of wanna be dirt farmers oppressors is just silly. They are something unique and should be celebrated.

You put that much better than I was about to.

By the way, lots of paintings and other objects have been returned. Not just from WW2. Ask the Green family.

Secondly, we all do what we do to soothe our consciences and justify what was done in the past that we benefit from, regardless of how it was done.

Third, everything is not binary. No one is asking for the land run statues to be removed. It is just that it glorifies one aspect of the history without recognition of how it was enabled in the first place. Putting context to it in an equally obvious place might be of real value if we want to understand at what cost our early settlers were able to claim the land and who it came from with their costs as well. Context and proportionality is an important part of the truth .... not just snippets of the truth.
Again, there’s a large Chickasaw monument a short 2 minute walk down the canal that literally spells out what happened to the Native Americans. There is also an elaborate museum and cultural complex covering 120+ acres that will quite literally tell their entire story. I guess since that far outshines the landrun monument and the western heritage museum isn’t right across the street, we should erect and equal pioneer history museum next door to it. Sorry but this argument has reached the point of near stupidity. This is why it sounds like you and those protesting (who are advocating for it to be taken down if nothing is added btw) are arguing just to argue about any issue to make yourself feel good. That’s called virtue signally which is hollow and pointless.

That’s called virtue signally which is hollow and pointless.

Virtue signaling and grievance politics are things which make the Left absolutely toxic--and that's from someone who considers himself, at least for Oklahoma, decidedly left of center.

I am 100% on board with tearing down Confederate statues. I think it has been demonstrated well enough that the purpose of those was to terrorize minorities and assert white dominance. Also, they were traitorous losers and losers don't get statues. I think that's like... a rule--or it at least should be.

This ain't that. This is an example of not knowing where to draw the line. This is exactly where you draw the line.

I was going to comment on the KKK example.... so I guess you are okay with them being honored with monuments? I would have never associated the land run monuments with the KKK, but so be it. KKK wasn't (officially) an arm of the US government, but if it's the same to you, it's the same.

And, by the way, the US fought for independence from those Kings and Queens whose ignorance, barbarianism, and corruption has been well documented and we don't honor them here either. Not sure how you got to comparing this to the land run monument situation, but oh well.

I was trying to demonstrate the logic of this movement as applied to other grievances. I was trying to be ridiculous. That you couldn't tell that is a bit telling. You're actually buying into the idea that it would be reasonable of us to ask the U.K. to tear down all of their royal statues. Yikes.


Also, I didn't call the settlers oppressors, just opportunists. YOU labeled them oppressors by introduced the extreme and false extrapolation of them and the rest of my statements. I haven't suggested the monument be reduced or destroyed, just put in context.

That's fascist AF. Here's some art work I don't like, change it to suit my ideological orthodoxy!


It is that context that bothers, I guess. I am the one advocating balance and that apparently makes others nervous or angry.

Not at all. Most of us just think you're being a self-involved, entitled person who can't allow others to enjoy a work of art without insisting on editing it to satisfy your test of political correctness. I'm with you on health care, civil rights, human rights, tax policy, educational policy. I believe the Earth is not flat and that it is much more than 6,000 years old. I'll also happily call BS when members of my political tribe are reaching. This is a dumb fight to fight and it is why Democrats in this State almost always lose--you alienate moderates with nonsense like this.

I was trying to demonstrate the logic of this movement as applied to other grievances. I was trying to be ridiculous. That you couldn't tell that is a bit telling. You're actually buying into the idea that it would be reasonable of us to ask the U.K. to tear down all of their royal statues. Yikes.



That's fascist AF. Here's some art work I don't like, change it to suit my ideological orthodoxy!



Not at all. Most of us just think you're being a self-involved, entitled person who can't allow others to enjoy a work of art without insisting on editing it to satisfy your test of political correctness. I'm with you on health care, civil rights, human rights, tax policy, educational policy. I believe the Earth is not flat and that it is much more than 6,000 years old. I'll also happily call BS when members of my political tribe are reaching. This is a dumb fight to fight and it is why Democrats in this State almost always lose--you alienate moderates with nonsense like this.

Preach.

[/b]
preach.

amen