During his (very brief) time in Congress, Horace Greeley submitted a bill renaming the country to "Columbia". Good thing it didn't pass
Such a proposal would naturally be a non-starter, but I've always found the country being named "America" as a bit generic and bland, while all other American countries (even big ones like Canada and Brazil) have unique names.
what original, brilliant and insightful commentary on modern politics
John may be trolling, but it's a valid question to ask where the line is. For example, I'm against removing memorials to Wilson at Princeton, because it doesn't take under the consideration all the good things he'd done.
The issue of racism has long been ignored or downplayed by the historians of the past generations, but while finally giving it a proper attention, it can't lead to ignoring other factors, like, let's say, all of Thomas Jefferson's great contributions as America's founding father.
That all being said, I must reiterate there are causes and people not deserving celebration, and I disagree strongly with the people saying removing statues is wrong per se. By this logic, Warsaw should still have Felix Dzerzhinsky statue. The Confederate monuments (monuments that were never really celebrating "ordinary soldiers", but the "lost cause" itself) or Ben Tillman's statue are definitively a part of "history", but not one deserving celebration, rather condemnation.
Poll
