A Counterpoint to President Trump's Mt. Rushmore Remarks

A few brief excerpts from President Trump’s remarks at Mt. Rushmore on July 3, 2020

…And yet, as we meet here tonight, there is a growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought so hard for, struggled, they bled to secure.

Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children.

Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our Founders, deface our most sacred memorials, and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities.  Many of these people have no idea why they are doing this, but some know exactly what they are doing.  They think the American people are weak and soft and submissive.  But no, the American people are strong and proud, and they will not allow our country, and all of its values, history, and culture, to be taken from them…”


“…No movement that seeks to dismantle these treasured American legacies can possibly have a love of America at its heart.  Can’t have it.  No person who remains quiet at the destruction of this resplendent heritage can possibly lead us to a better future.

The radical ideology attacking our country advances under the banner of social justice.  But in truth, it would demolish both justice and society.  It would transform justice into an instrument of division and vengeance, and it would turn our free and inclusive society into a place of repression, domination, and exclusion….”

You can find a transcript of the full speech here. It’s worth reading to understand the evolving rhetorical thrust for President Trump’s case for 4 more years of his presidency.

My Thoughts

I suspect that - apart from discussion about the national public health response to COVID-19 - this will be the dominating debate of 2020 (and probably beyond): how do we shape the narrative our national history, and what does that narrative say about our national/communal values?

To me, what’s striking about this whole speech is not necessarily what is included when Trump talks about the historic figures featured on Mt. Rushmore, but what isn’t included. I don’t believe that to raise concerns or demand caution when framing the legacy of our Founding Fathers constitutes weakness, indoctrination, or defamation.

If anything, our nation should own up to the worst things we’ve ever down - for doing so leads ultimately to redemption and restoration.

A Counterpoint to President Trump from Bryan Stevenson

“BROOKE GLADSTONE: You’ve said many times that ‘no person’ is the worst thing that they've ever done, and yet it seems that we as a country cannot get past the worst thing that we have ever done.
 
BRYAN STEVENSON: I don't think our nation believes that the genocide of Native people is the worst thing we've ever done or slavery is the worst thing we've ever done or lynching is the worst thing we’ve ever done or even segregation. I think we've actually created a narrative that those things weren't that bad. And not only do we not need to recover from that, we don't even need to be remorseful about that. There is no shame.
 
BROOKE GLADSTONE: But it is the worst thing we've ever done.
 
BRYAN STEVENSON: It is, in fact. And, and
I want the nation to have the courage to own up to that, with the knowledge that if they own up to that they won't be condemned by it, that there is something on the other side of it, which is why we do this work. I represent a lot of people who’ve done terrible things and it’s in that context that I've come to understand that we are all more than the worst thing we’ve ever done. We are more than a country that perpetrated the genocide. We’re more than a slave society. We’re more than a lynching society. We’re more than a segregation society. But we cannot ignore that bad thing we did. And there is redemption waiting, there is recovery waiting, there is reconciliation waiting. There’s something that feels more like justice than what we have experienced in America. There is something better waiting for us, without this burden, this history of racial inequality holding us down. But we can't get there through silence, by pretending that the history doesn't exist. We’ve got to own up to it.”

This excerpt is from this audio podcast that looks to answer the question: how do we reconcile our national heritage and what can we learn from other countries that have attempted to deal with their legacies?

An image from the National Memorial for Peace and Justice

An image from the National Memorial for Peace and Justice







Wuhan

I had the privilege of traveling to Wuhan China as a part of a KU Student Housing delegation in March of 2016. Wuhan has been in the news recently because of its association with the Coronavirus. The capital of Hubei province, Wuhan is a river city that sits at the confluence of the Yangtze and Han rivers.

With a population close to 11 million people, I thought I would post some photos of what I observed while spending time at a civic pagoda and a few other urban scenes. My hope is that it might spur someone who visits this site to look beyond the scary headlines and see the city behind the news and photos of law enforcement and face-masks.

IMG_2746.jpeg

Best of California November 2019

I got to spend Thanksgiving Week in northern California with my immediate family. Here are some of the best pictures I captured from Lassen National Park, Whiskeytown Lake, and Shasta Dam.

It's Incredibly Difficult to Make A Life In The U.S. If You AND Your Parents Weren't Born Here

I have been reading “Welcome The Stranger - Justice, Compassion & Truth in the Immigration Debate” and this passage stood out to me:


Elena is a typical example of the millions of undocumented people in the United States who yearn to be on the path to citizenship but a this point are not. She came to the United States for the first time in 1990. Like many others, she came because there were insufficient work opportunities in her home country...

Elena thought about trying to obtain a visa, but with little money she knew that she would be denied a tourist visa, as she would be suspected (rightly) of being a potential overstayer. She would have liked to have immigrated legally as a Lawful Permanent Resident, but there was no accessible legal options for her to immigrate. So, instead, she paid about $600 to a coyote, trekked three days across the desert without food and drink, and eventually arrived to the welcome of her relatives in the suburbs of Chicago. With their help, she secured a false document to work and began flipping burgers at a fast-food restaurant within a month of arrival. She has since married and had two children - US citizens by birth - but she still does not have a green card.

Within the four general processes by which a person can obtain a green card under current immigration law, Elena has no options. Those four options are employment, family, the diversity lottery, or a fear of persecution in the home country....

An understanding of the actual waits and costs implied when we suggest that immigrants wait their turn and immigrate the legal way is helpful. It is equally important to acknowledge, though, that many (probably most) of the people who immigrate illegally to the United States did not even have the option to get in line, because they have no qualifying family member who is a US citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident. Elena is a good example. She chose to come to Illinois because she had family living there - a US-citizen uncle and Lawful Permanent Resident cousins - but they did not have any right to petition for their niece or cousin, respectively. So Elena had no one to apply on her behalf for a family-based visa, and instead she came, as may others have, by crossing the border illegally.

Elena’s son, who was born in the United States and is thus a US citizen, turned twenty-one a few years ago, so he is technically eligible to petition for his mother. Under current law, though, this would not really benefit Elena, because she would have to return to Mexico to apply for the visa-no adjustment of status within the United States would be possible in her case, at least under current law-and the moment she crosses the border, leaving the United States, she would trigger a ten-year bar to legal reentry because of a tough law passed by Congress in 1996. In her circumstance, there is no waiver or exception available, so unless he wants to be separated from her children for ten years, she does not have a particularly good option.
— Welcome The Stranger - Justice, Compassion & Truth in the Immigration Debate

The closer you stare at the Federal Laws that govern our immigration policy the more contradictory and complicated it becomes.

Welcoming The Stranger