By JONAS MILLER
Opinion Editor
President Obama has somehow found time in his busy day to add three locations to the list of America’s national monuments. Between an ISIS breakfast and Ukrainian conflict lunch, Obama decided to name an internment camp, an industrial town, and a small chunk of river valley to our nation’s list of “important places,” a list which already exceeds 130 locations.
While I’m fully in favor of pretty and important places, in the broadest sense of those terms, I have a few minor issues with the christening of these destinations.
I think I’ll start with the interment camp, because it’s such a cheery subject.
For those of you who might need a history refresher, internment camps were locations that held Asian-American citizens against their choosing after the events of Pearl Harbor in 1941. It was feared that because someone was of Asian decent, more precisely Japanese men, women, and children, they had the same intentions as those that attacked the small Hawaiian island that fateful day in December. Makes sense, right? To hold an entire population of people responsible for the actions of a fraction of militarily-blinded humans similar in culture?
I understand that it’s an important piece of American history, because it represents a mistake made, and shows us that, as a country, the United States overcame that mistake. But, I’ve never been one to dwell on the past, and I feel that such a negative fire should not be re-kindled.
“This historic site will memorialize the strength and bravery of the many Japanese-Americans who faced discrimination…” The words of Senator Brian Schatz, who goes on to say that this landmark will remind our current and future generations that we cannot repeat the mistakes that occurred at the camp, in Honouliuli, Hawaii.
Well, Brian, that’s real great, but what if instead of reminding us how awful our ancestors were, we tear the camp down and oh, I don’t know, move on? Like I said before, I don’t like to dwell, and I just feel as though this idea is full of a whole lot of dwelling.
I’ll my talents back north, Lebron style, and focus now on the next of the three new monuments. The “Pullman National Monument” is what it’s being called. It’s what remains of America’s first industrial town, and it’s located in Chicago, Illinois.
The name Pullman refers to the Pullman Palace Car Co., the origin of which dates back to 1867, though the town was not built until the 1880s.
The importance of the town lies in the fact that a good portion of its workers were African-American, which lead to a key rise in the African-American middle class.
“Pullman workers fought for fair labor conditions in the late 19th century, and the Pullman porters helped advance America’s civil rights movement,” said Illinois Senator Richard Durbin.
So yeah, the town was important, but it’s currently useless. It covers 203 acres; that’s more than 200 football fields of space in Chicago that is being used for absolutely nothing. What if they built something else there, or even made use of some of the buildings for new businesses to move in? Anything that produced some sort of economic positive is better than what is there now.
I just feel like if we, as a country, monumentalize (if that’s not a word, it should be,) every little inch of land that means something to us, we will end up on TLC’s Hoarders because we will be suffocating under a pile of museums and monuments.
Last, and possibly least, comes the Browns Canyon National Monument, located in the state of Colorado. Listen closely, because this one is just too ridiculous to not barrage with sarcasm.
Situated in the upper Arkansas River Valley, near a small town called Salida, is 21,000 acres of land that is now protected by the invisible force field of the United States government.
That is so. Much. Land.
This act will protect the big horn sheep and bald eagles specifically, along with a plethora of other nature things that make the world a better place. But, and this is where it gets interesting, the main purpose of this designation is to, and I quote, “support outdoor human activity such as hiking, hunting and fishing.”
Someone please tell me how the pairing of those two actions makes any sense at all?
Let’s deem this specific 32-square-mile park important so that we can protect the animals while simultaneously allowing humans to come in with their guns and their fires and their trucks to most definitely ruin all of it.
I just feel like someone should have caught how contradictory that is, but, I mean, according to the rule that states that internment camps and the Statue of Liberty are synonymous, we learn from our mistakes, which this certainly is.
