Mount Rushmore's future

[American2020]

Discuss about the future of Mount Rushmore.

[Left Wing]

Let the Sioux Nation have the Black Hills as long as they agree not to deface Mount Rushmore as it is a historical monument.

[NewYorkExpress]

Let the Sioux Nation have the Black Hills as long as they agree not to deface Mount Rushmore as it is a historical monument.

The Sioux Nation is never going to agree to that. They want Mount Rushmore gone, and I agree with them.

[SWE]

Give it back to the Sioux to do what they want with.

[Former President tack50]

Keep it as a historical monument. It is one of the big emblems of the US tbh, probably like top 10 things people think about when they think "stuff in the US"

[7,052,770]

Recarve Washington, Jefferson, and TR into Obama, Biden, and AOC.

[John Dule]

Give it a makeover.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Recarve Washington, Jefferson, and TR into Obama, Biden, and AOC.

Are you being sarcastic

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Dynamited by 2040.

[HillGoose]

need to put Ellron Hubbard on it

[TDAS04]

Keep it the way it is, give most of the profits to the tribe.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I'm assuming this is because of the Gorsuch decision?  The Black Hills are ours.  We took them from the Sioux by conquest in the Great Sioux War and the Sioux have no legal right to them.

The Great Sioux War is one of the most morally dubious actions in U.S. history.  While most Native American stories are far more complex and morally gray than the "U.S. bad, natives good" version of history that gets taught today, this one really is pretty black-and-white.  We gave the Sioux the hills, told them they could stay there, then discovered gold and said "just kidding, give them back or we'll kill you."  In the federal government's defense, we put a lot of effort into diplomacy before resorting to violence, and policed the area pre-war to kick out miners on the Sioux's behalf.  But the Hills belonged to the Sioux, as did the gold, and that should have been that.

If we want to do right by history, we could give them back, but it's kind of pointless now.  The Black Hills of 2020 aren't what they were in 1876.  The Sioux today would never be able to reclaim the lifestyle they lived in 1876.  In fact even in 1876 their pre-expansion lifestyle had nearly ceased to exist as the buffalo herds, on which they depended for sustenance, were rapidly thinning.  Returning the Black Hills would just be an expensive and painful token gesture.

The better solution, if you want to go there, is some kind of official apology for the Great Sioux War, compensation for the stolen land, and maybe some compensatory land somewhere else.  Or give them back the rest of the Black Hills, since Mt. Rushmore is only a small part on the far east end and can easily be carved out.

That said, the federal government taking this action would create a very slippery slope.  A lot of American territory has come from wars of conquest against weak foes, wars that are easy to caricature as "greedy America vs. poor weak little guy" even though the contexts for those wars can be exceedingly complex and morally ambiguous.  If we're going to apologize for the Great Sioux War and compensate the Sioux, why shouldn't we apologize for the Mexican-American War and compensate Mexico?  It's a case that requires more thought and historical knowledge than the average American is capable of.  This kind of reasoning is exactly why America and so many other nations refuse to apologize for obvious historical sins -- once you apologize for the obvious ones, where do you draw the line before everyone who was ever shafted at some point in history starts demanding an apology?

[DINGO Joe]

Apparently it requires a surprising amount of maintenance to keep the sculptured parts intact.  If left to the elements Washington's nose would have fallen off by now.

[Sumner 1868]

If we're going to apologize for the Great Sioux War and compensate the Sioux, why shouldn't we apologize for the Mexican-American War and compensate Mexico? 

Because Mexico is among the most developed nations in Latin America and is also guilty of indigenous genocide?

[AtorBoltox]

I'm assuming this is because of the Gorsuch decision?  The Black Hills are ours.  We took them from the Sioux by conquest in the Great Sioux War and the Sioux have no legal right to them.

The Great Sioux War is one of the most morally dubious actions in U.S. history.  While most Native American stories are far more complex and morally gray than the "U.S. bad, natives good" version of history that gets taught today, this one really is pretty black-and-white.  We gave the Sioux the hills, told them they could stay there, then discovered gold and said "just kidding, give them back or we'll kill you."  In the federal government's defense, we put a lot of effort into diplomacy before resorting to violence, and policed the area pre-war to kick out miners on the Sioux's behalf.  But the Hills belonged to the Sioux, as did the gold, and that should have been that.

If we want to do right by history, we could give them back, but it's kind of pointless now.  The Black Hills of 2020 aren't what they were in 1876.  The Sioux today would never be able to reclaim the lifestyle they lived in 1876.  In fact even in 1876 their pre-expansion lifestyle had nearly ceased to exist as the buffalo herds, on which they depended for sustenance, were rapidly thinning.  Returning the Black Hills would just be an expensive and painful token gesture.

The better solution, if you want to go there, is some kind of official apology for the Great Sioux War, compensation for the stolen land, and maybe some compensatory land somewhere else.  Or give them back the rest of the Black Hills, since Mt. Rushmore is only a small part on the far east end and can easily be carved out.

That said, the federal government taking this action would create a very slippery slope.  A lot of American territory has come from wars of conquest against weak foes, wars that are easy to caricature as "greedy America vs. poor weak little guy" even though the contexts for those wars can be exceedingly complex and morally ambiguous.  If we're going to apologize for the Great Sioux War and compensate the Sioux, why shouldn't we apologize for the Mexican-American War and compensate Mexico?  It's a case that requires more thought and historical knowledge than the average American is capable of.  This kind of reasoning is exactly why America and so many other nations refuse to apologize for obvious historical sins -- once you apologize for the obvious ones, where do you draw the line before everyone who was ever shafted at some point in history starts demanding an apology?

Mask off moment

[lfromnj]

If we're going to apologize for the Great Sioux War and compensate the Sioux, why shouldn't we apologize for the Mexican-American War and compensate Mexico?

Because Mexico is among the most developed nations in Latin America and is also guilty of indigenous genocide?

And?
Mount Rushmore belonged to other tribes before the Sioux.
Edit: also pretty sure the Average Sioux American makes more than the average Mexican.

[Hope For A New Era]

Apparently it requires a surprising amount of maintenance to keep the sculptured parts intact.  If left to the elements Washington's nose would have fallen off by now.

Just let the elements have at it, then. No need to dynamite it in 2040. Just say "hey, visit it while it's still here."

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

given Rushmore provides a lot of tourists, I don't know why people are assuming the Sioux would necessarily get rid of the thing (as horrendously tacky as it is). Even one the demands I saw from the protesters was that Rushmore itself employ more Sioux, presumably a demand incompatible with dynamiting it.

[VPH]

Leave it alone.

[dead0man]

There is no obvious correct answer here.  "blowing it up" is stupid.  I say we give it back to the natives and let them decide what to do with it.  Sell it to "patriots" for an ass ton of money?  Keep it in and charge admission to "patriots"?  If they want to blow it up, I wouldn't bitch about it, but I doubt they'd do that....though I wouldn't be surprised if independent idiots try at some point in time, but they wouldn't be able to do much damage.

So I say give it back to the Lakota, seems like the least bad option.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Leave it alone.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Take Jefferson off and put LBJ on it. Washington was a slave owner but Jefferson had 200 slaves. Likewise, with Teddy, he wasnt supportive on jim crow, leave him alone

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Take Jefferson off and put LBJ on it. Washington was a slave owner but Jefferson had 200 slaves.

Yeah, Washington only had 199, so he should stay.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Take Jefferson off and put LBJ on it. Washington was a slave owner but Jefferson had 200 slaves.

Yeah, Washington only had 199, so he should stay.

He won the Revolutionary War against the British and in an era of no anesthesia and without Tanks. Lincoln likewise won the Civil War

[7,052,770]

Take Jefferson off and put LBJ on it. Washington was a slave owner but Jefferson had 200 slaves.

Yeah, Washington only had 199, so he should stay.

As far as I know, Washington wasn't a serial rapist like Jefferson.

I mean, he might have been, lots of slave owners were and we as a country never really talk about it, so anyone please correct me George was. But assuming he was not, it makes Jefferson far more despicable than Washington.