Tag Archives: Monuments

The Truth Behind These Monuments.

Leave a reply

A monument is a statue, building, or structure dedicated to someone important in history. It can also symbolize someone’s success and historical background. However, over the years, monuments have become less relevant to the public, but it struck societies interest when New Yorker’s wanted the statue of Christopher Columbus removed. Therefore, after researching, I have come to conclude that certain monuments should be removed. Should we as the people, glorify those whom oppressed and hated a group of selected individuals based on race, or ethnicity?
Currently, all monuments across state/city wide are being reviewed.
Some monuments are reminders of the untold truth of what happened in history. Mayor Bill de Blasio has announced a 90-day review on public monuments; this may be good for the society because it gives us a chance to reevaluate the good and bad side of the statues history. Therefore, before removing any monuments, or historical statues, a review must be conducted by the Commission.
Although, Mayor Bill de Blasio wants a 90-day review of all the New York City monuments, there are also people that believe this review will cause division amongst the people of New York City. For example, Nicole Malliotakis stated “She believes the mayor issued a press release on a 90-day review to help himself politically, yet he really didn’t think it through; now he has created massive division between the people of the city.” she wanted him to release the monuments before the election. Thus, Nicole feels as mayor he should have issued a review before the election, but by doing so now he potentially put all monuments at risk or danger of being removed or knocked down.
In this case, using my criteria for the 90-day review issued by Mayor Bill de Blasio, he and the commission would be able to identify which monument within all boroughs of the city are displaying violent, or hate crime towards people of all ethnicity groups. One of my criteria from my list is, what was the foundation that lead to that person’s historical empowerment? This is one of the questions that should be asked when conducting the review. now was this historical figure empowered because of slavery, bad conduct, or good-hearted actions and good deeds to our nation. A full background check should be done when doing these kinds of reviews. All truth about this monument should be displayed to the commission. Historical public figures should be held responsible for any wrong doings in the past because some of us use them as inspiration, and ideals; therefore, if I was the government I wouldn’t miss lead our good people in thinking otherwise.
Another criteria is, are tax payers money going into the maintenance of the monuments? During the past month it was confirmed that tax dollars were used to maintain the vandalized monuments. One article stated that $5,000 was used to cover up monuments and install no trespassing signs. This is illegal because the legislation states, “no federal funds may be used for the creation, maintenance, or display, as applicable, of any Confederate symbol on federal property.” However, all the monuments will have to be removed out of every state if the land is not private. This mean that the maintenance of these monuments are illegal and tax payers should not be paying to upheld monuments of people that oppressed any minority.
This leads to the following question does the monuments lead to any economic benefits of the environment? Yes, monuments help the environment economically and help establish it as a commercial area. It creates jobs, but most importantly tourism. With tourism it creates lodging, restaurants, and transport which helps flourish an area. For example, in for years a location can make up to 7.1 billion dollars with just visitors.
Even though, a monument can economically benefit a location, it still should not be worshiped. A monument of a person that invaded and killed other people is wrong. Why should someone be in support of a monument of a person that helped build the foundation of slavery. Why would anyone want to know that their taxes are being used to maintain a monument when there are more important things money to be used for? Why waste it to maintain a monument? Therefore, I believe that Bill Di Blasio should use my criteria to look into the removal of the monuments and see if he to can relate to New Yorkers.

 

Cesario , Anthony. “Charlottesville Officials Forced To Waste Taxpayer Money As Vandals Won’t Give Up.” Charlottesville Officials Forced To Waste Taxpayer Money As Vandals Won’t Give Up, Conservative Daily Post, 22 Sept. 2017, conservativedailypost.com/charlottesville-officials-forced-waste-taxpayer-money-vandals-wont-give/.

Neuman, William. “Ordering Review of Statues Puts De Blasio in Tricky Spot.” Ordering Review of Statues Puts De Blasio in Tricky Spot, The New York Times, 30 Aug. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/nyregion/ordering-review-of-statues-puts-de-blasio-in-tricky-spot.html.

Repanshek , Kurt. “National Parks Traveler.” Is There Economic Value to National Monument in Your Backyard?, Nationalparkstraveler.org, 17 Mar. 2010, www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2010/03/there-economic-value-national-monument-your-backyard5531.

Criterion for New York Monuments

Leave a reply

Monuments have been erected for over a century in honor of someone, a group or an event. Many respectful and influential individuals have had monuments built to honor them for their beliefs, progress they’ve made fighting to solve a controversial issue but they are also others whose monuments are controversial in today’s day and age. Some monuments that have sparked debatable topics as of late are the confederate monuments of confederate generals like Robert E Lee and abolitionist and orator Henry Ward Beecher. Confederate monuments are being removed around the country under pressure from those who say they honor a regime that enslaved African-Americans. The pace has increased, however, in the wake of the deadly confrontation at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. These figures were known for their valiant efforts but they also committed disgraceful acts and represent hate and oppression. This is the reason why there is such a huge controversy on whether these monuments should remain or be taken down and destroyed. But to remove or keep a monument some criteria must be taken into account. These criteria will determine whether to remove a monument or take elsewhere. It should be taken into consideration the back-story of the person or event the monument is erected to celebrate or commemorate the surrounding influence, and the economic standpoint of the monument.

A monument shouldn’t be taken down because its illustration have been taken out of context or have been misinterpreted. An example is the Henry Ward Beecher monument in Brooklyn. Henry was an individual who was known for supporting the abolition of slavery. However his monument portrays an African-American woman kneeling at his feet to lay Palm fronds before him. This proved troublesome seeing as some who might not know of Henry and still some who do regards this as a message of white supremacy. Knowing this it would be beneficial to add a plaque next to the monument giving some info on the individual and what the monument portrays. This would provide some insight on the statue to those that doesn’t know about the monument, which would give no confusion and cause to removing the monument. Living in New York, I know how hard it is to move around, especially with tourists. Tourists go around New York City looking for these monuments, trying to understand our history. Other that dislikes these monuments stand in the way of the tourists trying to take photos, to get that perfect shot so they can remember the day they visited that monument.

If a Monument have an equal standing on whether it should be removed and destroyed or remain then it should be taken into account of any alternatives. One of such is the monument being taken elsewhere to a less populated environment or private property. The monument could be taken to a museum where those that appreciate, support and uphold the monument can visit it without any disturbances and the others that are offended by the monument are also satisfied with it being away from the public eye. Some monuments have been supporting there communities with the wide range of tourists they attract. This is an important fact in determining whether a mother should remain but with slight modification or be removed altogether. If the economic value of the monument is too great then the monument should remain with some adjustments made to smooth the disagreeing party that doesn’t support the monument. Everyone is different and entitled to their own opinion and views. This is why there is always a disagreement; we can’t change others beliefs, opinions and religion developing so much conflict.

In conclusion, these criteria will ensure a fair exhibit of monuments in New York. This criterion will see to it that there will be an equivalent representation of opinions and beliefs. I trust these criterion because it will allow many New Yorker’s and others around the country to be tolerant of the many options that exist. If any other criteria could be used to ensure a non bias judgment it I believe these criterion cover it. History has taught us that when bias types of criteria are utilized, violence is always used by the objecting party. We don’t need any more violence especially after the many violent actions that have risen since this argument began. We need peace; however we don’t want to ignore an old reoccurring problem such as ignorance. This criterion covers the most important thing, the safety in a community while determining the outcome of a monument. I trust if Bill de Blasio uses my criterion the populous of the state of New York and will benefit tremendously.

Citation:

Dubenko, Anna. “Right and Left on Removal of Confederate Statues.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Aug. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/politics/right-and-left-on-removal-of-confederate-statues.html.

“PRO AND CON: Should Confederate monuments be removed?” Richmond Times-Dispatch, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 16 May 2017, www.richmond.com/opinion/their-opinion/pro-and-con-should-confederate-monuments-be-removed/article_494c851c-34b2-11e5-8ec1-9b24a8cc97e6.html.

Watkins, Shannon. “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/.

 

Criteria For Monuments

Leave a reply

There are so many monuments all over the world that represents a significant event or a tribute to a person.Also monuments can portray a message or powerful meaning. However, some monuments may cause controversy against people personal beliefs or portray a racism and hate.In the reaction of these controversy people start protesting to have these monuments removed but there should be a criteria that benefits the reason why such actions should be taken inconsideration

The first criteria for a monument is if a monument is portraying a racist or a hate belief to an ethnic group it should be taken down.Today there is a lot of racial injustice still going on and these monuments represents these issue which we shouldn’t be looking back on.For instance confederate monuments such as Robert E Lee in Charlottesville, Virginia there was a violent protest against this monument to be removed because of its racist history of minorities.White Supremacist were violently protesting for the monument to not be removed because it was part of them. The result in this protest ended life of many or injured some.Also is New York more plaques that honored Robert E Lee were removed after threats from people. Removing all Robert E Lee monuments would stop portraying his racism and hate towards minorities.

Another criteria for monuments is do it portray a positive message or negative.Monuments usually represents positive influencers or message which people find it interesting.For example the Christopher Columbus monument which is located in Central Park, people painted his hands red to symbolize the genocide and slavery he committed against the Native Americans.People usually look at Christopher Columbus for discovering “America” but don’t know about his negative actions.He captured a lot of natives and brought them back to Spain and sold them.With that being said this monument should be taken because it’s doesn’t symbolize any good of Christopher Columbus.It might be history but it doesn’t show any positive message or sympathy towards natives.

Not only monuments can cause controversy but it can affect people commute or invade public space.Yes, people may love a monuments that catches an eye but it may cause a distraction such as crowds which could delay someone from getting where they suppose to.Big monuments that invade public space should be moved to a museum where people go view them,especially tourists because there mostly the ones that are amused about monuments and it’s meaning behind it.Moving monuments to museums would benefit people commute and for the monument itself because some people don’t care about monuments.

In conclusion these are some criteria that best fit the status of whether a monument should be taken down or moved to a different location.A monument should be taken down if it is portraying racism to any ethnic group of people.Also if a monument is portraying a negative message or history it should be taken down.Some monuments that interrupt people commute or public space should be moved to a museum where people can go visit interests crowding sidewalks.

Cite:

1) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/16/us/confederate-monumentshttps://     

New York Times

2)  www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/updates/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments-removed.html

 

Project 2

Leave a reply

A monument is a form of artwork in reference to either a person or an event, that symbolizes a great significant change on a time period in history. For quite some time, monuments have been a controversial topic. Currently Mayor De Blasio is trying to decide whether or not the people these statues are dedicated to are deserving of a monument and if they should remain due to the controversy some monuments have caused. To be represented by a monument, the person should have a significant impact on the way of life for human beings. Their ideas should have changed history for a greater purpose during that time period, so it could remain as a positive remembrance in the long run. The location of the monument should have a connection to their life and the way they were portrayed. These criterias should be used because they evaluate the meaning behind the monument, the location, and whether the image is portrayed correctly.

A monument should not have had an impact such as the death of many because that seems to cancel out the good that was done. For example, Christopher Columbus, he is known for“ discovering lands” but then in the process of doing so he killed many people and that was often overlooked and is one of the many reasons why the story behind him is so controversial. This is so, because the people would argue the bad he did over the good and why he doesn’t deserve a monument. The idea of the monument being created could cause a problem and upset many, because of the many tragedies that occurred during his adventure.

A monument should have impacted history in a positive way and affected the lives of many positively as well. By doing positive things for the people and  changing lives for the better good would cause less of a problem and hold more of an idea of hope, but that is all based on how people sculpted the monument. The Henry Ward Beecher monument for example was a well deserving monument, because he didn’t have a detrimental impact on the lives of many. Henry Ward Beecher helped to set slaves free and stood up for women during his years. However, the way the monument was sculpted would sometimes cause for concern, he is placed on this pedestal and to the left of him is two kids placing a wreath at his foot and to the right of him is a slave placing a branch at his feet. This does not convey the idea of positivity on the way of how people showed their appreciation for him. By portraying him this way, it doesn’t look as though he was a people person, he looks as though he was above everyone. This would cloud someone’s judgement when looking at the monument before reading about him. While the person who sculpted it, displayed it like this for the sole purpose to see that he was a person who was looked to as a savior. Although monuments have a good meaning and are placed due to their accomplishments that has had a positive effect on the world, the way they are portrayed holds a higher standard. It could have been something people look forward to and something they want to have a remembrance of. If it is portrayed incorrectly then it could cause a conflict and cause the monument to be looked down on. This is because there will be people who do not know the history behind each monument and because they do not know their first idea will probably cause a feeling of disgust instead of happiness.

The feeling and setting of a monument is also a part that determines if the monument should remain or be removed. If the area where the monument is placed has nothing to do with the monument or the idea it holds then that could also cause a controversial outcome or confusion. This is because some monuments would hold a better standard if placed in the museums as opposed to being placed in the out and open so that others can see or in an area where they have no ties to that area. Monuments that cause a lot of controversial behavior should not be placed out in the open because this will raise the price of maintaining the monument. Someone might feel as though the monument does not belong based on their own preference and decide to take actions to prove the idea that they do not belong there and vandalize the monument. By doing so the government would try to fix the monument and the people would continue to cause damage, which would be an ongoing process that doesn’t really get resolved. A monument that doesn’t have a meaning for being where it is, would raise questions as in “why are they here of all places”. If a monument has a relationship with the area though, depending on the monument people would get the feeling of happiness, and awe. They would feel like the history of it all has come together and understand that area more based on the monument and the reading about them. There would be people to argue that monuments are not supposed to be taken down due to history regardless of the people’s feeling and that causes a lot of problems as well, while someone may think a monument should be taken down due to their history some people would look and say that its because of that history that they are where they are today. This was taken from the LexisNexis article which gave an insight on why monuments should stay and how much problems it would cause if removed.

To decide whether a monument is to remain or be removed is based on a few couple of things. The person or thing the monument is dedicated to should not have caused a massive amount of lives, because then the person did not care about the lives that passed during their time. They should have turned history itself for the greater good and allowed people to remember them positively. They should be portrayed properly, if they are portrayed incorrectly then it could change the feeling people get when seeing the monument.The setting of the monument is important as well, because if the setting has nothing to do with the monument the feeling people get would bring bad vibes towards the neighborhood. All of these requirements should determine the decision for a monument, because a monument holds a significant standard and to make a decision of staying or going you have to look more than just what the monument holds. But the area surrounding the monument and how the monument would be portrayed. 

 

               

Work Cited

Biography editors. “Henry Ward Beecher.” Biography.com ,              www.biography.com/.amp/people/henry-ward-beecher-9204662

 

Adrienne Jones. “Why The Confederate Monuments Need To Come Down.” LexisNexis.com,  www-lexisnexis-com.citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu/hottopics/inacademic/?verb=sf&sfi=AC00NBGenSrch

 

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.

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.

Why De Blasio should use this 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. This criteria covers what’s the most important thing the safety in a community. I believe if Bill de Blasio uses my criteria the people of the state of New York and himself will benefit tremendously.

Bill de Blasio and the City of Chandler

Leave a reply

This article began explaining Mayor Bill de Blasio struggle for spotlight. Bill de Blasio has been criticized for not being or addressing serious incidents in New York. Due to recent incident Bill de Blasio is not in another tight situation this time about the removal of confederate statues. This is a tight situation for the mayor due to his support for Christopher Columbus. The article mentions his support goes as far to participating in the Columbus Day Parade. However, August 12 led to a turn events after white supremacists and other protesters protested the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, the confederate general. This protest became deadly as one protestor was murdered causing riots across the country. Bill de Blasio condemned the violence and declaring a 90 day review of all symbols of hate on city property. The article continue to mention that Bill de Blasio will have a commission created to listen to ideas and concerns from flow New Yorkers. This commission will create a criteria although, the entire criteria is not finished some recommendations include it additional plaques to provide background info to inform the public about the individual. David Eisenbach made a very interesting point to his support of the statue of Christopher Columbus. Contrary to the belief of many who refer Columbus as a mass murderer, Eisenbach views Columbus as a legendary explorer. He is aware of the horrific things Columbus did which he believes makes his statue better. His bad and good accomplishments according to Eisenbach is a “beautiful thing”.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/nyregion/ordering-review-of-statues-puts-de-blasio-in-tricky-spot.html

The US Official news published an article covering the City of Chandlers nominations for individuals or groups to be honored at the celebration Plaza. The celebration Plaza is known to be a location to honor service organization. Although, many can be nominated there is a review process each nominee will go through. The article includes very specific requirements as part of their criteria. These individuals must have some relevance to the area where they will be displayed. The elected nominees must be endorsed by the community. The individual or group have caused a ,meaningful impact either short or long term to the community. The criteria is specific to what they mean by meaningful impact. For example, the individual or group has improved the quality of life and work to the community.

http://www-lexisnexis-com.citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sf&sfi=AC00NBGenSrch

 

Project 2: Part 3

Leave a reply

reasons to keep the St. James Cathedral Basilica :

  1. Historic part of NYC
  2. church that people of that faith visit
  3. sends a good message for people that is morally good
  4. built in the loving memory of one of the first bishops in NYC
  5. Built structurally beautiful
  6. Is kept in good condition though all of the years

reasons to take down St. James Cathedral Basilica

  1. people are not of that faith
  2. someone may not like the history of NYC
  3. someones personal opinions

 

Project 2 : part 2 summery

Leave a reply

For our article I Picked the St. James Cathedral Basilica because of its beauty and its history as a building and as a monument near our college. The St. James Cathedral Basilica was made by the people of the city made in 1822. this boroughs first bishop  John Loughlin decided to make a new building of worship, made for the 70 diocese as thanks for the support the original building in long island had received, and decided to make this one in Brooklyn. Now of course during this time our college was not around to witness this event happen but it still remained a pleasant sight from it. The death of Saint James was the third to be calmed dead along side Saint Peter, and Saint Patrick in New York City. After his death the Dioceses decided to support the newest one being built. one of the first people to support the newest building was Peter Turner and had this to say:

“In the first place, we want our children instructed in the principles of Holy Religion, we want more convenience in hearing the Word of God ourselves. In fact, we want a Church, a Pastor, and a place of Interment.”

another reason why I chose this article was to send a message. When things are looking down and when times seem rough people will pull through for each other and  help one another for their friends and family, and use the negative energy into something positive.

source: http://www.brooklyncathedral.org/history