Honoring those who fought for us . In todays time when racism very much still exists however some people fail to see that racism is still alive today. People tend to think that the word has gotten much better than before which I can not help to disagree on. we all have heard about the incident that happened in North Carolina with the violent “clashes between the white nationalist and Anifa in Charlottesville According to Bret Bart.com.
The criteria I think that Bill de Blaso should use when considering to remove a monument is to look at the history of that person. Was that person controversial in their time . I think he should figure in that time period what was a positive back then. Did this person contribute to America’s history in such a great way. According to Bill de Blaso has ordered a 90 day review of all New York statues and monuments. And what their historical attributes were. I believe that a review would be a great idea but what would be in this review of monuments. would controversy be considered a reason why they remove certain statues. I think that considered controversy as one of the reasons why it should be removed is a great idea because a lot of the things should be considered when evaluating a monument. If a persons monument remains in place even though it is considered controversial why should it remain . Did the mayor evaluate all things when it came to a certain monuments. do this monument depict what’s going on in the world now . Is this monument a good representation in itself.
can people of different backgrounds and historical views agree to such criteria of removal or why one should stay can they agree. If you remove the monument will this affect history in any kind of way . And if you are removing the statues where will these statues be kept, what do we do with them? should the removal of a statue be replaced with some thing else or should another statue be put in its place.is the state responsible for the cost of removing it. For me I think that any positive monuments should remain only why because of the fact that the person was a positive contributor and the things they left to contribute to history was a positive . I think that this criteria should not only be for NY I think other states should adopt this idea also. That each state take the time out to look at the controversial monuments and see what each one represents. was this person a part of racism was this person into slave owning all of this should take place in seeing what criteria we should implement  in why a monument should be consider to be removed .
We as a nation would not want to see a statue up of a person who was so controversial in history we should not want to promote hate with controversial monuments and statues. I know that the monuments that are in place are of those that are for fathers honored. But I don’t think we look at the people that our grandparents look up to the same we don’t look at them as positive today we come from a place where we question do we still honor those people to this day. Can these monuments impact our society so much that we go and have big rally’s against those that we don’t want to see up. Why do we still have monuments in place of people we don’t believe in. Should we take them down do to our own personal beliefs or are their more important facts as in why this monument should stay remain. People believe that the monuments are about history not about hate. I think its more of hate that history into why people want a monument to stay. People Believe that a monument should stay because of its part in history but most of the monuments I see today are of people who was controversial in a lot of ways. According to North Carolina governor Roy cooper in his statement “We cannot continue to glorify a war against the United States of America fought in the defense of slavery these monuments should be removed.
In conclusion what Bill De Balso is doing is a good idea I think that he is implementing some good things in to why or why not a monument should be removed we have to consider what is most important . Is it that of a monument that is so controversial that people are willing to destroy it Do we think that an evaluation of ones monument should be of that persons on background. should we take into consideration what the person contributed to history . Does these monuments we have in place celebrate racism slavery. Does it “Glorify war against the United States” . Did any of these people own slaves in  the past did they work off  the slaves back does that depict a positive image in history what are we considering Criteria when we are evaluating these monuments and who is doing the evaluating of these monuments.
Citations
“Should the Confederate Monuments Stay or Go? — The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.” The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, 27 Aug. 2017, www.jamesgmartin.center/2017/08/confederate-monuments-stay-go/.
Kew, Ben. “Bill De Blasio Orders Review of All NYC Monuments; Considering Removal of Christopher Columbus.” Breitbart, Breitbart News Network, 22 Aug. 2017, www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/22/bill-de-blasio-orders-review-of-all-nyc-monuments-considering-removal-of-christopher-columbus/.
“Debate over Takedown of Controversial Monuments Turns to Columbus Circle.” New York’s PIX11 / WPIX-TV, 22 Aug. 2017, pix11.com/2017/08/22/debate-over-takedown-of-controversial-monuments-turns-to-christopher-columbus-statue-at-columbus-circle/.
