The monument will protect places that are central to the story of Till's life and death at age 14, the acquittal of his white killers and his mother's activism.
How is it beneficial? They don’t get any money or power out of it. They just memorialize something that needs memorializing and, because it’s federal, taxpayer dollars go to its upkeep to ensure it stays looking good and doesn’t get trashed. There’s also the matter of protection. Considering a sign memorializing Till was shot, federal protection sounds like a good idea to me.
The monument for Emmett Till is very important. Children and Grandchildren of those that did the lynching are still living there.
I thought the president is being paid for his work. Is he not? Then again I wasn’t talking about monetary benefit. The current staff in the White House could have made all this possible without themselves being mentioned or present. But they are being mentioned and are present because it’s beneficial for their careers (that’s how they earn their Dollars and Influence and Power).
I love that apparently absolutely nothing in the world can ever be done out of altruism or a sense of right, or even be good.
National monuments require presidential approval. Normally, the president or his press secretary announces this because virtually nothing in the White House gets done ANYWAY without someone in the press knowing about it in our modern age. So yes, maybe they are doing it for influence or donor money. But can we not just say “this is a good thing” and move on with our fucking lives? Can ONE SINGLE GODDAMN THING be good without qualifiers?
How exactly do you arrange that on a national level without the president being involved? Especially if you want a permanent memorial?
So you only honor historical events if your president allows it? All your monuments are there because someone in White House allowed it to happen?
Yes, that’s how national monuments work.
That’s quite beneficial for the people in power. So, you as a nation are also very selective when it comes to historical events you want to preserve?
How is it beneficial? They don’t get any money or power out of it. They just memorialize something that needs memorializing and, because it’s federal, taxpayer dollars go to its upkeep to ensure it stays looking good and doesn’t get trashed. There’s also the matter of protection. Considering a sign memorializing Till was shot, federal protection sounds like a good idea to me.
The monument for Emmett Till is very important. Children and Grandchildren of those that did the lynching are still living there.
I thought the president is being paid for his work. Is he not? Then again I wasn’t talking about monetary benefit. The current staff in the White House could have made all this possible without themselves being mentioned or present. But they are being mentioned and are present because it’s beneficial for their careers (that’s how they earn their Dollars and Influence and Power).
Beneficial for his career? He’s already president. You can’t get higher than that.
No? Imagine being high on Airforce One? That’s like being double high.
I love that apparently absolutely nothing in the world can ever be done out of altruism or a sense of right, or even be good.
National monuments require presidential approval. Normally, the president or his press secretary announces this because virtually nothing in the White House gets done ANYWAY without someone in the press knowing about it in our modern age. So yes, maybe they are doing it for influence or donor money. But can we not just say “this is a good thing” and move on with our fucking lives? Can ONE SINGLE GODDAMN THING be good without qualifiers?
Ya. This monument is a good thing. A very important thing. I never said otherwise…