Good. Stop deifying a very select group of people and start emphasizing different perspectives about American history in public spaces. Removing a statue isn't "cancelling" Thomas Jefferson. You can't cancel a dead person anyway. What does that even look like? Jefferson will get fired from his job? Banned from Twitter for a month? He will need to make an apology video before his comeback? The dude is dead. History will always be there, and Jefferson isn't the one being excluded from the history we teach. We all know who is actually excluded. This is a choice about now and the future, specifically what values they want to honor in a public space. Why not make a deliberate choice about that, instead of just relying on the default of what was there before? And it seems like a good choice to me. A fundamental problem in America is white supremacy, and it is deeply tied to the "founding fathers" mythology. How can we expect things to change if we can't change our cultural values and education? Maybe put the statues in a park as a memorial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek_statues
Canceling has two varieties: 1. Holding people in power to account, in a way similar to a boycott. 2. Publicly shaming regular people for having political beliefs different than yours. Both are intended to make consequences for that person, i.e., they have to be alive. (The first definition is the original. It was appropriated from black culture and twisted into the second one, just like the term "woke".) The main point is: who or what we choose to honor in a public space is a choice, maybe even an important choice. Why does it have to be Jefferson? Or even a person? Are people not supposed to reason about who and what we should be honoring?
"All men are created equal" was a time-worn concept by the time Jefferson included it in his draft of the Declaration of Independence. Hell, Milton had written almost the exact same phrase back in 1649, and throughout French history (prior to the French Revolution) similar phrasing and sentiments were common.
I disagree with what seems to be a reductionary view of history that led them to that choice. IMO it'd be better for them to put a plaque on it that said something like: "As an individual, Jefferson was a slave-raping piece of shit. However, ironically, the ideals that Jefferson fought for led to the emancipation of slaves in the U.S., and many of the rights that we possess as citizens today." We are probably all future pieces of shit.
"Hello women, people of color, indigenous Americans, Asians, immigrants, the disabled, and everyone that is not a white man. Welcome to our building. Remember the slave owner who accidentally gave you rights he never believed you should have, due to poor wording on his part. Genuflect before the statue of this imperfect man, rather than living his words and ideals better than he ever did." The founders of this country were just men. They had some good ideas. Let's run with the ideas, and leave the men as they were; imperfect humans with moments of brilliance. Carrying the baggage of the human being along with their ideas is pointless and destructive to the actual numerical majority of Americans.
Ironic that those good ideas allow us to choose what to do with the statue. I disagree. We all have baggage and the lens of history will increase its impact. We factory farm and eat patented seeds and fly in planes and heat our homes with coal and wear clothes made by poverty stricken peoples in serfdom and use phones made in factories with suicide nets made with materials mined by children and the list goes on and on and we don't care enough for our descendents.Carrying the baggage of the human being along with their ideas is pointless and destructive to the actual numerical majority of Americans.
For it to be irony, the statue itself would have to express the good idea... which it does not. It presents an idealized image of a man (created close to 200 years after his death) to commemorate a completely different thing. The piece was commissioned to recognize Jefferson's defense of religious freedom ... which even you, in defending the statue, have failed to equate it with. A far more powerful and appropriate statue would have been a ring of religious symbols with Jefferson's face in the center of them... arranged around his head like a constellation. That would at least demonstrate the idea the man is being recognized for. So even on an artistic basis, this plaster cast of the real bronze statue fails to live up to even it's most basic purpose and intent of its creator.
> I disagree with what seems to be a reductionary view of history that led them to that choice. Doesn't seem to be a fair or charitable interpretation of their case, but an assumption. These points are addressed by the people proposing the change in the video of the city council meeting. And they still provide a good case for removing it from that particular spot in city hall.