Category Archives: Project #2

Criteria for monuments

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/.

Criteria for Future Monuments

Leave a reply

As of recent events, an interesting topic of discussion has been gaining popularity among many people throughout the United States. That topic is the relevance and need for keeping confederate statues up or removing them entirely. As a result, in order to have these issues not arise again there should be come rules when thinking about erecting statues or monuments, there are many things that one should consider before doing so. In today’s society many things are deemed “offensive” and in an effort to please everyone some things that may be considered are things such as the history behind the person or event, the impact it may have on the area it is implemented in and location where it is situated along with the cost of upkeep for the given monument.

One piece of evidence to support this claim would be about the statue of Christopher Columbus we have right here in New York City. To some people, this statue is a symbol of exploration, discovery and Italian pride. While to a vast majority of people, it is a constant reminder of the genocide, rape, pillage and straight destruction of a whole group of people. Having this statue up is a constant reminder to these people about their history and what was done to their people and their ancestors. Therefore things such as this may be a reason for not putting up more statues in the future. There are many other people who made great advances for their nation, yet their actions caused a genocide of people for reasons such as their race or religion, yet these people are not given statues.

Something that also has to be considered is the location of the monument. Placing a monument in a high density area is not a good idea as it can disrupt the flow of both regular traffic and foot traffic. Having statues in some areas of New York City causes people who are visiting to flock to these destinations to take pictures and to be able to claim that they have visited that location, but it then causes a large disruption for people who actually live or work in the area because they now have to try to get around all the tourists or flat out just avoid that area in general. It then becomes worse when the statue is put in the center of an intersection which causes it to become a roundabout. This slows down not only the people who are walking but then also the drivers which can lead to large scale traffic jams.

Lastly something that should also be spoken about if indeed the city wants to put up a statue that may be considered controversial or offensive, is the cost of upkeep for that monument, If a monument is constantly defaced or destroyed it may end up costing the taxpayers more money than the actual monument is worth. If someone does not like the message a monument is sending, they may deface it with a whole array of things from spray paint to removing parts of the monument or even the entire thing itself if they’re really up for a challenge. If the monument has to be regularly cleaned or fixed, it may not be a good idea to even keep the monument up at all because it would just be a waste of money.

There are many things that can be considered monument, many of which will hold some kind of negative background as none of human history is without negative. There are always going to be some kind of negative background for every single person or building that could be otherwise considered an excellent candidate for remembrance. If there has to be monuments it should only be things that are naturally made by nature as it is a testament to what was, is and always will be here before and after humans have ever been on this planet and will still be here long after the human species is no longer around.

Bill de Blasio Here is your criteria

Leave a reply

Monuments have been put up for many years and its purpose is to explicitly commemorate a person or event. Many figures in history have had monuments dedicated to them however, many controversial figures such as Christopher Columbus and Robert E. Lee have sparked protests. Although these men were known for their leadership they were also known to represent oppression and hate to minorities. Many Americans believe figures who represent hate and murder should not be given a monument. Nevertheless, we cannot take down a monument simply because we hate it there needs to be a non biases criteria that has a more concrete justification to remove it. The objective of this criteria is maintain stability and safety in the community if a monument fails to do so it must be taken down and moved to a local museum.
A monument cannot be taken down because we don’t like it there has to solid justification for its removal. The criteria I have created is meant to be non biases, fair, and promote safety. My the first part of my criteria involves investigating “who” this individual is. A monument cannot just go up because he was a nice guy. This monument has to have relevance to the community and its local history. Research of the foundation of this persons empowerment or historical significance is important in order to promote safety. Regardless, if the person has negative or positive background this investigation would allow us to see how the community may react and their reaction will allow to know if this monument would negatively affect safety.
The second part of my criteria refers to the safety and stability of the community because there are many lives involved. In a neighborhood, there should be no need for those who pay rent and live there have an additional burden. Controversial monuments such as the confederate statue of Robert E. Lee has spiked a lot of violence and even death. The people of Charlottesville had to have their daily routines interrupted because of police patrol and media coverage. This affects the traveling to work, school and simple daily activities therefore, this monument should not be put up. An additional, part of this criteria involves the proper maintenance of these monuments. If the statue is making the neighborhood look bad it should be removed.
The last part of my criteria helps prevent biases opinions. Everyone is entitled to look up to any individual they wish to. We cannot change people’s beliefs and opinions which is why we have so much conflict. For example, there are white supremacists in America and they look up to those who the confederate states. On the other hand, there are people that are liberals and believe these monuments of confederate leaders glorify hate and racism. To create a peace of opinions, monuments that are controversial will have a plaque that states the good as well as the bad they did. This is what makes this criteria very efficient because this criteria takes in consideration everyone’s opinion. We acknowledge the good and bad these individuals did which helps take away some of that glory they would have if the bad wasn’t stated.
During our presentations, a lot of my classmates had interesting points in their criteria. Some interesting points included how much was the cost to maintain a monument because the weather affected it.I think this is a good point because it would be a burden to continuously have to repair a monument. After evaluating the statues and one fails to meet then requirements it should be taken to a local museum. The statue would be better there because a museum acknowledges history and its place we cant condemn displays. These displays represent our history and deserve to be held there so future generations can learn from them.
In conclusion, this criteria will allow a fair display of monuments in New York. This criteria will allow there to be equal representation of opinions. I believe this is important because it will allow many New Yorkers to be tolerant of the many options that exist. If another criteria was used there will be biases. Old and modern history have taught us that when this type of criteria is utilized violence arises. We don’t need more violence we need pease but we don’t want to ignore humanities problems such as racism. This criteria covers what’s the most important thing the safety in a community while we spread awareness and tolerance. I believe if Bill de Blasio uses my criteria the people of the state of New York and himself will benefit tremendously.

Work Cited

Neuman, William. “Ordering Review of Statues Puts De Blasio in Tricky Spo.”
New York Times. N.p., 30 Aug. 17. Web.

Silva, Daniella. “Christopher Columbus Statue in New York City Could Be Considered for Removal.”
NBC News. N.p., 23 Aug. 2017. Web.

“City of Chandler Accepting Nominations for Individuals or Groups to Be Honored at Celebration Plaza.”
Lexis Nexis. Plus Media Solutions US Official News, 11 May 2017. Web. <http://www-lexisnexis-com.citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sf&sfi=AC00NBGenSrch>.

Project 2

Leave a reply

Herson Garcia

Professor. Rosen

English 1101

Monuments are reminders of people successes and a tribute people who died or a memorial for people who died in tragedies or of our veterans who were in wars that we fought and war memories or buildings that are historical to that state or place . In New York you’ll find monument in every part of the boroughs which are tributes /memories towards people who did something great passed away or were killed in a tragedy of war or a reminder of a war or building . Not everyone believes or agrees monuments should be out in public and should be put into museums I agree with that statement i believe they should be put into museums.

I believe monuments should be put into museums for many reasons one of them is because museums are where these type of things are usually and people actually go to look at them and learn stuff about our country. People no longer actually go to these memorial sites where monuments are located to learn about it people just go now to take pictures where these monuments are and share them on social media to show their friends where they went not because they actually care. One example is the horse statue outside of central park it has historic meaning to new york but people don’t really care about gaining knowledge about the statue. Meanwhile people go to a museum to learn about what this monument means what it signifies who it is a tribute to. Another reason is people sometime vandalize these monuments show it zero respect throw garbage around it do graffiti on it and it just desymbolizes what the monument means and was put up for. Therefore they should be in a museum where no one can vandalize them and these monuments are kept safe and aren’t desymbolized.

Also monuments should be kept put in museums because some may be considered disrespectful to people and remind people of things they don’t need to be reminded of. There are some things they just want to forget and just leave it behind them or offend people. Yeah they might have historical meanings but that doesn’t mean all historical monuments are of honor and joy. Meanwhile some bring painful flashback or are meant to still be around some just kind of should be placed indoors where people who actually want to see these monuments can see them not out in public where some people don’t want to see them or care to see them. Monuments nowadays are just devalued where no one cares about them or care as to why they are put up and for what they stand for.

Monuments are controversial people believe they should be taken down and gotten rid of meanwhile others believe they shouldn’t be destroyed and should be kept. It’s a debate that’s never ending and all it does it create big protest and a huge headache for the police department and the city because they need to make sure it doesn’t get out of hand or oversize. One example are the confederate monuments. According to the article “We need to move,not Destroy Confederate Monuments” ever since the Robert Lee confederate statue incident all around the world people have been looking for things that symbolize hate and could stir up problems.Robert Lee was a confederate soldier who fought in the civil war and had slaves and people at that time period viewed as a hero and believed slavery was alright we are now in a different era we no longer are believe in the things we believed in back then and don’t believe in slavery and to certain people they still respect and honor him but to certain other group they are disgusted by him and believe having this statue as a insult. Another example are tribute statue or paintings. Earlier this year during the Whitney Biennial a British Artist, Hannah Black, called for the destruction of a painting of the Martyred Emmett Till which was painted By Dana Schutz According to The article “We need to move,not Destroy Confederate Monuments” on the website Nytimes. Emmett till was a young African american killed by a group of white people because supposedly he harassed and made sexual advances towards a white lady and dumped off in a river to some people they can view this as a tribute to Emmett till but to others they made believe it is an insult to Emmett till. So to save the headache and end the debate might as put it in a museum where it’s not in public where people don’t want to see it but at least its not destroyed so that people who do believed it shouldn’t be destroyed or gotten rid of can still see it.

Now others believe they shouldn’t be placed in a museum and should be kept where they are and outside but why? We live in a different era nowadays not everyone cares about these monuments as much as people did back then. People nowadays are attached to their phones and walk by them without noticing or caring about them.What they symbolize or mean so why not put them somewhere where people actually care about learning what they mean symbolize or the history about these monuments but hey that’s just my opinion…

Work cited:

Cotter, Holland. “We Need to Move, Not Destroy, Confederate Monuments.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Aug. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/arts/design/we-need-to-move-not-destroy-confederate-monuments.html.

Project#2: Controversial monuments should be in museums!

Leave a reply

Monuments are statues, plaques and any other kind of physical medium used to commemorate a specific person or grand event that happened in time. There are numerous national monuments all around the United States, landmarks or statues that are protected by law. Monuments exist to establish a feeling of wonder, ‘why is this here?’ and ‘what has happened for this physical representation here’. It is those kinds of thoughts that makes one think about the overall historical background of a certain monument and then prods the question, ‘is this offensive to anyone?’. Personally, I think monuments should just be moved into a museum were history is remembered and learned from without bias of any kind.

There are a lot of confederate monuments being petitioned to be removed, the confederate flags and all things to do with confederacy makes a significant amount of people very uncomfortable and uneasy because of the history it represents. Gregory Smithers from washingtonpost states that “the removal of confederate monuments would quite literally, erase an unsavory, but important, part of our nations history”(Smithers Washingtonpost). I am inclined to agree with this because our nation is built upon the enslaving of many, many people. It should be necessary to see and learn about the thoughts of the people living in the past and learn from them because since then times have changed, nobody likes talking about it but in order to learn from past mistakes the nation must face the mistakes and collectively and effectively correct them.

These monuments have been posted up for years, I find it a bit odd that the statue situation is only now causing an outrage despite the many, many times numerous people has walked past them and has not said a word about it until now. These days people are all about political standing, resistance and opposition of the current system. While it is good to stand ground against the many injustices and flaws the government has, mob mentality has people jumping in on the bandwagon without having a shred of knowledge on the matter and I think that’s exactly whats going on with the conversation of removing statues. Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire argues that, “confederate statue removal is a local issue, not a national one…if we’re going to have a real debate about confederate statue removal, lets do it. But lets not lump all statue supporters or opposers into the realm of the saints or the devils. That’s dishonest identity politics.”(Shapiro DailyWire). Shapiro makes a very strong claim by saying that confederate statue removal is a local issue which I agree with, all things confederate is mainly a southerner problem rather than a national problem because of the history that has taken place specifically in the south. Every argument has become some kind of subjective good vs. bad conversation and that should not be the way to go about the political issues. The keeping or removing of these statues are in no way a “step forward to equality” because of the stigma about them, while I agree that these statues shouldn’t be up because of the history behind them I also think that they should just be put in a museum where people can find out and learn more about the statues in an area that’s for all people by all people protected by the law and public.

Museums are put up so that people may learn from the past and experience what kinds of circumstances the world had that lets us all have the future we have now. There are different kinds of museums, museums for art, nature, science and history as well. Which is why I propose that all these controversial monuments that are being taken down should be put in a historical museum so that both the people who are for or against monuments being put up can come to a compromise. Despite the various horrendous events that has happened in the past, history is a concept humans cannot change which is why removing or destroying a monument all together would be like erasing history. Putting them in a museum would also solve the problem of people worrying when will criteria for monument removal should stop.

In conclusion, I think that people should be more open minded about the topic rather than engaging in the social mine field territory that is ‘good’ vs ‘bad’. Monuments are just statues, plaques or any other kind of physical representation of a person or an event that has happened, any kind of monument that sends a message that is racist or potentially threatens a certain group of people should be removed and placed in a museum where the public can observe it in a place where learning and knowledge takes priority over everything else.

Works Cited

Website Title: Richmond Times-Dispatch

Article Title: SMITHERS: A Historian’s Plea for the Removal of Confeder[…]

Electronically Published: July 27, 2015

Date Accessed: October 03, 2017 Author: Gregory D. Smithers

Website Title: Daily Wire

Article Title: Why Are We Really Talking About Removing Confederate Monumen[…]

Publisher: The Daily Wire

Electronically Published: August 17, 2017

Date Accessed: October 03, 2017 Author: Ben Shapiro

Sources

Leave a reply

Source#1:De Blasio’s begging for trouble with his ‘monuments review’ commission

Source#2: Don’t Take Down Confederate Monuments. Here’s why.

Sources#3: Right and Left on Removal of Confederate Statues.

Project 2: Sources

Leave a reply

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-et-cm-confederate-monuments-20170818-htmlstory.html

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=806fdfe2-dd66-47fa-b846-9ba5b84f9162%40sessionmgr4010&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=124897207&db=a9h

Ashley

Derick

Brandon

Project #2 Peer Review

Leave a reply

Answer for your peer review partner(s):

Thesis Statements

Is my thesis statement clear?
do you know where I’m going from reading my thesis statement?
How can my thesis statement be clearer?
can you put my thesis statement in your own words?

Support

do I write about criteria to support my thesis statement?
am I specific enough? too general?
have I convinced you?
have I chosen evidence from articles that supports my argument?
is there better evidence to include?

Requirements

did I do everything I need to do?
is this long enough?
does it have a thesis statement?
does it include criteria
does it cite sources?
does it have a Works Cited list? is it in alphabetical order according to the first letter of each citation?
is it proofread? (at the end)

Project 2 Part 2

Leave a reply

First Article:

To start off certain monuments can offend people and people will take it a certain way. So instead of making the situation worst it will be best to not create more conflict. Where in this case a monument that really offended people was a statue of Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Virginia. The main point of this article is that people feel some time of way towards this monument. In fact since it’s a confederate statue people knew that, that meant white supremacy. With what happen in 2015 where a man name Dylann Roff who was a white supremacist decided to go in a church and shoot 9 black people. Which created more conflict and for a lot of people even the Mayor. In the article German Lopez wrote it states “The Confederacy fought to maintain slavery and white supremacy in the United States, and that isn’t something that the country should honor or commemorate in any way.” With this being said people as of today still question ever confederate statue and decide whether or not it should be there anymore.

Second Article:

Christopher Columbus sailed across the world to discover America in 1492 but in the year 2017 it appears he is being sailed out of New York city. New York City mayor Bill de Blasio plans on removing the great Christopher Columbus statue as part of the removal of most New York city statues that are being removed around the boroughs. At a democratic Mayoral debate De Blasio stated that “everything has be looked into not gonna say any names”. Sal Albanese is opposing Blasio in the removal of historical figures rom public spaces. He believes Confederate statues should be removal because they are a reminder of slavery and racism but the Columbus statue and the Jefferson Statue shouldn’t be removed. The debated started after the events in Charlottesville over the confederate statue removals. Mayor Bill de Blasio has said to have a 90 day period to review over all hate symbols across New York city.

lexusnexus.com article_ New York might Send Columbus Packing Calgary sun

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/16/16151252/confederate-statues-white-supremacists