Gil Dobie wrote:President McKinley Statue, non-confederate monument to be taken down. Offensive to Native Americans.
Link
The debate culminated in February during a long and anger-filled City Council meeting, when dozens of residents packed City Hall to testify on both sides of the issue. In the end, the council voted 4 to 1 to get rid of the statue.
"Is there a difference between honoring McKinley and Robert E. Lee?" the mayor, Sofia Pereira, who was part the majority, said in a recent interview. "They both represent historical pain."
The land that is now Arcata was once inhabited by the Wiyot Tribe. Then in the 1850s the logging boom began — and pioneers seeking wealth began rapidly grabbing tribal lands. In 1860, settlers massacred dozens of Wiyots, whom tribe members still mourn today. Wiyot children were commonly abducted and forced into servitude.
McKinley, a Republican who was president from 1897 until his assassination in 1901, never set foot in the region. But after his death dozens of memorials to him popped up across the nation.
Sure there's a difference between McKinley and Lee - McKinley actually fought for the Union in the war (entered as a private).
While some people could be concerned about McKinley's reasons for getting into the Spanish-American War, I don't get why the Native Americans in the Arcata region would have any specific issue with McKinley - did he do anything there? The statue in question was erected in 1906, not all that long after he died (as opposed to the Lost Cause Confederate statues that propped up 50 years after the fact) and considering McKinley was an enormously popular President at the time, erecting a statue seemed like a good idea to those who did it. In this case, though, is this anything other than not liking the statue of an old white dude?
