The Garden of American Heroes?
#1
I admit this skirts between news and history but I thought it was interesting. 

https://apnews.com/amid-furor-over-monum...c867c5b89e

"WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has a vision for his second term, if he wins one, of establishing a “National Garden of American Heroes” that will pay tribute to some of the most prominent figures in U.S. history, a collection of “the greatest Americans to ever live.”

While it mentions an initial list it seems the proposed list so far is here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_G...ed_statues

I'm not against the Garden in itself. I'm not iconoclastic enough for that. I do however feel there's a lot of proposals so far and some I feel are politically biased or too much recency bias (no offense to Justice Scalia who for me fits both). I also feel that while it's great to have a diversity of people who accomplished great things in multiple fields I think this list needs to be narrowed down and give more of a focus I guess? I feel if President Trump is going to have this built it needs to look to sites like France's Pantheon to get a good idea of how to select people and design it in a way where it feels special and that any person placed there has an undoubtably good reason to be there. I also have to wonder about location. It seems kind of pointless to place this in Washington DC when many of the people likely to be inducted immediately already have monuments.
Click here to ban slooroo
Quote

#2
Yeah, I'm with you on this one. I don't have a problem with the idea of a "Garden of American Heroes" - but, knowing Trump, I suspect his idea of who qualifies as an "American Hero" would be quite different from my own. (Heck, I'm relieved that he hasn't included himself on a list of candidates - because I certainly wouldn't put that past him -_- !)

With that being said, I also think there are a couple of traps for the far left here. If they either oppose the concept of a "Garden of Heroes", or start opposing overwhelmingly popular figures for reasons that most people wouldn't agree with (for example, arguing that "The Founding Fathers shouldn't be included because they owned slaves") - then, they aren't going to win much sympathy.
[Image: CJTrain.gif]
Board Information and Policies
Affiliation | Coffee Credits | Ranks and Awards | Name Changes
Account Deletion | BBCode Reference


Moonface (in 'Woman runs 49 red lights in ex's car')' Wrote: If only she had ran another 20 lights. :hehe:

(Thanks to Nilla for the avatar, and Megan for the sig!)
Quote

#3
Well, William F Buckley Jr. and Christopher Columbus definitely don’t belong! While it’s preference, James Fenimore Cooper is more deserving than Samuel Clemens “the Slanderer.”
Quote

#4
(01-30-2025, 05:58 PM)JHG Wrote: Well, William F Buckley Jr. and Christopher Columbus definitely don’t belong! While it’s preference, James Fenimore Cooper is more deserving than Samuel Clemens “the Slanderer.”

I agree that William F Buckley Jr doesn't belong - he's only a hero to conservatives. As for Columbus, I think he'd be more contentious: his inclusion would upset some people, but I suspect there would be more people supporting his inclusion than opposing it.

Perhaps an independent/bipartisan group should be established to pick the heroes to be included? Most of the obvious, uncontroversial candidates (like Neil Armstrong and Martin Luther King Jr) would be included - but if any more contentious ones do get through, then they at least shouldn't be too biased towards any one side.
[Image: CJTrain.gif]
Board Information and Policies
Affiliation | Coffee Credits | Ranks and Awards | Name Changes
Account Deletion | BBCode Reference


Moonface (in 'Woman runs 49 red lights in ex's car')' Wrote: If only she had ran another 20 lights. :hehe:

(Thanks to Nilla for the avatar, and Megan for the sig!)
Quote

#5
(01-30-2025, 06:17 PM)Kyng Wrote:
(01-30-2025, 05:58 PM)JHG Wrote: Well, William F Buckley Jr. and Christopher Columbus definitely don’t belong! While it’s preference, James Fenimore Cooper is more deserving than Samuel Clemens “the Slanderer.”

I agree that William F Buckley Jr doesn't belong - he's only a hero to conservatives. As for Columbus, I think he'd be more contentious: his inclusion would upset some people, but I suspect there would be more people supporting his inclusion than opposing it.

Perhaps an independent/bipartisan group should be established to pick the heroes to be included? Most of the obvious, uncontroversial candidates (like Neil Armstrong and Martin Luther King Jr) would be included - but if any more contentious ones do get through, then they at least shouldn't be too biased towards any one side.

I dunno how to say this other than "popularity is a bad reason to like something; Just look at Catcher in the Rye" but contentious is really soft on Columbus: https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2018/1...umbus-day/
Accidentally entering Arawak land that's now the Dominican Republic(note I failed to include the United States) is hardly enough to redeem someone with a rap sheet able to make Homelander sick.
-Enslaved Arawak and overworked them to death.
-Mutilated whoever failed to bring enough gold.
-Bragged about curb stomping the Arawak with superior technology like so: “They have no iron or steel, nor any weapons; nor are they fit thereunto; not because they be not a well-formed people and of fair stature, but that they are most wondrously timorous… such they are, incurably timid… They are artless and generous with what they have, to such a degree as noone would believe but him who had seen it. Of anything they have, if it be asked for, they never say no, but do rather invite the person to accept it, and show as much lovingness as though they would give their hearts…
…Their Highnesses may see that I shall give them as much gold as they may need, with very little aid which their Highnesses will give me; spices and cotton at once, as much as their Highnesses will order to be shipped, and as much as they shall order to be shipped of mastic… and aloe-wood as much as they shall order to be shipped; and slaves as many as they shall order to be shipped.” Great for you Columbus but try that on samurai and you'll be the one getting stomped.
-Engaged in child sex trafficking.
-In general, ran his colony to the ground and had a revolt on his hands(the few times he faced adversaries of equal technology.)
-Had someone beaten up and flogged in public just for insulting him.
He's nowhere near as good as people think and would SO lose to Khalid ibn al-Whalid, William the Conqueror, Yue Fei, Baibars, Babur, Ackbar, John Smith, Uncas, Blackbeard, James Wolfe, Red Cloud, John Brown, John Pope, George Meade, and Lawrence of Arabia.
Dang, forgot that I hope Andrew Carnegie the founder of museums and universities and critic of colonialism is the one honored and not Carnegie the evil corporate executive who would make King Krab proud.
Quote

#6
Interestingly the US already has a cousin to this idea which is the National Statuary Hall in the Capitol building (I've seen it in person in fact) where each state donates two statues plus there's a few special statues (such as ones to Jefferson and Hamilton as well as a series of Civil Rights figures). Why I bring it up is it has had and still does have some eye raising statues. Several Confederate generals like Robert E. Lee statues that were replaced but statues to Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens are still there today. So I'm curious if this Garden is built who exactly gets to pick who gets to enter? In the case of Christopher Columbus it's likely he would be added regardless of his controversies (in fact President Trump made it clear there can be exceptions for figures that don't follow under the standard rules) and in fact Columbus and the Marquis de Lafayette were noted as two major figures the exception was made for. I would even say Winston Churchill could possibly end up in such a Garden on the same exemption (since Churchill in fact has a monument in the Capitol.) I am curious though if there's any disqualifications that will be considered. How controversial will be too controversial? For example the proposal list has Henry Clay but I notice it leaves out the other Triumvirates Daniel Webster and John Calhoun. Webster is a safe entry but Calhoun is rather controversial for his political work towards the arguments of slavery and secession even if he did far more than that. How about Confederates? How about US military figures in sketchier moments of history like Custer? I would like to see a theoretical criteria for what makes someone an "American Hero"
Click here to ban slooroo
Quote

#7
(01-31-2025, 01:28 AM)JHG Wrote:
(01-30-2025, 06:17 PM)Kyng Wrote:
(01-30-2025, 05:58 PM)JHG Wrote: Well, William F Buckley Jr. and Christopher Columbus definitely don’t belong! While it’s preference, James Fenimore Cooper is more deserving than Samuel Clemens “the Slanderer.”

I agree that William F Buckley Jr doesn't belong - he's only a hero to conservatives. As for Columbus, I think he'd be more contentious: his inclusion would upset some people, but I suspect there would be more people supporting his inclusion than opposing it.

Perhaps an independent/bipartisan group should be established to pick the heroes to be included? Most of the obvious, uncontroversial candidates (like Neil Armstrong and Martin Luther King Jr) would be included - but if any more contentious ones do get through, then they at least shouldn't be too biased towards any one side.

I dunno how to say this other than "popularity is a bad reason to like something; Just look at Catcher in the Rye" but contentious is really soft on Columbus: https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2018/1...umbus-day/
Accidentally entering Arawak land that's now the Dominican Republic(note I failed to include the United States) is hardly enough to redeem someone with a rap sheet able to make Homelander sick.
-Enslaved Arawak and overworked them to death.
-Mutilated whoever failed to bring enough gold.
-Bragged about curb stomping the Arawak with superior technology like so: “They have no iron or steel, nor any weapons; nor are they fit thereunto; not because they be not a well-formed people and of fair stature, but that they are most wondrously timorous… such they are, incurably timid… They are artless and generous with what they have, to such a degree as noone would believe but him who had seen it. Of anything they have, if it be asked for, they never say no, but do rather invite the person to accept it, and show as much lovingness as though they would give their hearts…
…Their Highnesses may see that I shall give them as much gold as they may need, with very little aid which their Highnesses will give me; spices and cotton at once, as much as their Highnesses will order to be shipped, and as much as they shall order to be shipped of mastic… and aloe-wood as much as they shall order to be shipped; and slaves as many as they shall order to be shipped.” Great for you Columbus but try that on samurai and you'll be the one getting stomped.
-Engaged in child sex trafficking.
-In general, ran his colony to the ground and had a revolt on his hands(the few times he faced adversaries of equal technology.)
-Had someone beaten up and flogged in public just for insulting him.
He's nowhere near as good as people think and would SO lose to Khalid ibn al-Whalid, William the Conqueror, Yue Fei, Baibars, Babur, Ackbar, John Smith, Uncas, Blackbeard, James Wolfe, Red Cloud, John Brown, John Pope, George Meade, and Lawrence of Arabia.
Dang, forgot that I hope Andrew Carnegie the founder of museums and universities and critic of colonialism is the one honored and not Carnegie the evil corporate executive who would make King Krab proud.

I'm not saying I disagree with any of the above: the people who dislike Columbus do have legitimate reasons for it.

Nevertheless, for the purposes of determining who is and isn't an "American hero", I think popularity is probably the fairest way to do it. After all, if I look up a definition of 'hero', what I get back is: "A person who is admired for having done something very brave or having achieved something great". In other words: it's about how they're perceived by other people.

Obviously, every American has their own individual idea of who they consider to be 'heroes'. However, there are certain people who are perceived this way by the vast majority of Americans. I think it's entirely fair to describe such people as "American heroes" (indeed, it's fairer than any other way I can think of: if it's just one person deciding who does and doesn't count, then the list of "American heroes" is inevitably going to reflect the biases of whoever wrote that list!).

With that being said, Christopher Columbus is actually a bit less popular than I thought (albeit more popular than unpopular). According to this YouGov poll, 48% of Americans have a positive opinion of Christopher Columbus, while 30% have a negative opinion. Furthermore, there's a noticeable generational split (with older generations viewing him much more positively than younger Americans do) - so, it's entirely possible that he'll be perceived negatively by a plurality of Americans in the not-too-distant future.

(01-31-2025, 02:42 AM)slooroo Wrote: Interestingly the US already has a cousin to this idea which is the National Statuary Hall in the Capitol building (I've seen it in person in fact) where each state donates two statues plus there's a few special statues (such as ones to Jefferson and Hamilton as well as a series of Civil Rights figures). Why I bring it up is it has had and still does have some eye raising statues. Several Confederate generals like Robert E. Lee statues that were replaced but statues to Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens are still there today. So I'm curious if this Garden is built who exactly gets to pick who gets to enter? In the case of Christopher Columbus it's likely he would be added regardless of his controversies (in fact President Trump made it clear there can be exceptions for figures that don't follow under the standard rules) and in fact Columbus and the Marquis de Lafayette were noted as two major figures the exception was made for. I would even say Winston Churchill could possibly end up in such a Garden on the same exemption (since Churchill in fact has a monument in the Capitol.) I am curious though if there's any disqualifications that will be considered. How controversial will be too controversial? For example the proposal list has Henry Clay but I notice it leaves out the other Triumvirates Daniel Webster and John Calhoun. Webster is a safe entry but Calhoun is rather controversial for his political work towards the arguments of slavery and secession even if he did far more than that. How about Confederates? How about US military figures in sketchier moments of history like Custer? I would like to see a theoretical criteria for what makes someone an "American Hero"

Yeah, I feel like that's another reason not to put the Garden of American Heroes in Washington DC. It's a very similar premise to the National Statuary Hall: and while there might be a place for both, I don't think they belong in the same city.

As for the criteria, I think for someone to be considered an "American hero", I would say that they have to be:

  1. Admired, by a majority of Americans, for something positive that they did for America or the wider world, and;
  2. Not reviled by any significant demographic groups (for example: if somebody is viewed positively by 60% of Americans, but is viewed negatively by 90% of African-Americans, then that should disqualify them). They don't have to be popular with every demographic group, but they should at least be not hated by any demographic group.

I've deliberately left it vague - but, I think it'd mostly pick up the right people!
[Image: CJTrain.gif]
Board Information and Policies
Affiliation | Coffee Credits | Ranks and Awards | Name Changes
Account Deletion | BBCode Reference


Moonface (in 'Woman runs 49 red lights in ex's car')' Wrote: If only she had ran another 20 lights. :hehe:

(Thanks to Nilla for the avatar, and Megan for the sig!)
Quote

#8
Pretty sure a better definition of hero is "doing the right thing for the right reasons to help those who can't help themselves."
Also, is nobody seeing the red flag of the president telling people who to laud rather than letting them decide for themselves?
Quote

#9
(02-05-2025, 12:31 AM)JHG Wrote: Pretty sure a better definition of hero is "doing the right thing for the right reasons to help those who can't help themselves."
Also, is nobody seeing the red flag of the president telling people who to laud rather than letting them decide for themselves?

OK, but the problem is: "the right thing" and "the right reasons" according to whom? After all, if everyone has a different idea of what's morally right, and why it's morally right.

  • If it's one person deciding, then their idea of "doing the right thing" takes precedence over anybody else's (and they could easily end up naming people whom half the population finds morally reprehensible).
  • If we let the people decide, then it goes back to being a popularity contest.

I feel like the independent or bipartisan committee is probably the best compromise.
[Image: CJTrain.gif]
Board Information and Policies
Affiliation | Coffee Credits | Ranks and Awards | Name Changes
Account Deletion | BBCode Reference


Moonface (in 'Woman runs 49 red lights in ex's car')' Wrote: If only she had ran another 20 lights. :hehe:

(Thanks to Nilla for the avatar, and Megan for the sig!)
Quote




Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)