6.24.20: Washington, Jefferson, Jackson... and Tubman
Plus H1-B visas, coronavirus second (or first?) waves and permanent WFH
June 24, 2020.
Good Wednesday Morning. The questions about statues and monuments elicited some thoughtful feedback and comments, so thank you, as always, for taking the time to share your views.
Over the last few days, many of you have also been sharing your thoughts on President Trump’s Saturday rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma. We haven’t talked about it, but it seems like it’s top of mind for many of you, so there’s one question today about it.
We’ve also got a few user suggested questions, so click on the Let’s Talk button when you’re ready to get started.
Share Tina
Help grow our community and give more people a chance to be heard.
Subscribe
If someone else invited you to this party and it’s your first time here, why don’t you add your name (or email address) to the guest list and we’ll make sure you get the invite every day.
Results from June 23, 2020
Question 1: Would you support or oppose removing statues and monuments of former presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson?
Many of you saw significant differences between Confederate statues and statues of figures like Washington and Jefferson.
This article I read yesterday did a great job of explaining this. As I learned recently from the Seeing White podcast, Jefferson knew how horrid slavery was and tried to hide it from guests from other countries so as not to make them feel uncomfortable (unlike the white washed history many of us learned that "back then" slave owners didn't know it was wrong, it was just a different time etc.). As the linked article points out- there is a difference between monuments of people who built the country (Washington and Jefferson), and monuments of people who actively fought to tear it apart, who lost the civil war (ie. confederate monuments). I don't think the argument to get rid of monuments applies to Washington and Jefferson, because there is difference in what they are being celebrated for, but we need to remember them more fully, flaws and all, and maybe that means contextualizing physical monuments of them with plaques and information as the article suggests.
But others still think the flaws are too problematic.
The more you dig, the more you learn that Washington and Jefferson were pretty morally bankrupt. Their vision for the country was one of agrarian capitalism that was wholly dependent on both the enslavement of African people, and the forced relocation and/or extermination of Native Americans. We should certainly acknowledge that they were trailblazers in their own way, but at what cost?
Some of you see the statues as reminders of the historic progress we’ve made as a country.
We cannot simply erase history by removing these monuments. I know our history isn’t pretty, but it doesn’t just go away. If anything, this helps us recognize how far we’ve come as a united nation. Yes, more monuments can be added to elevate the names of those that played a crucial role in abolishing slavery, but we cannot erase history. Senator Tim Scott addressed this on Fox News this morning (6/23) with these views. I may have summarized poorly, but if you can catch the snippet, I highly encourage you watch.
But others see statues as perhaps something more than just reminders or historical markers.
Regarding statues, I am getting very tired of the “learn from history” argument. Statues do not teach history. I’d honestly be fine with removing statues of “founding fathers” or at least adding plaques admitting their moral failings to those statues. Don’t forget, plenty of people were anti-slavery during the founding, it’s not like nobody had thought of abolition at that time.
And some see the statue issue as only a small part of a much bigger problem.
If the removal of statues would help the cause for Black people who have been dealing with the glorification of people who fought for the freedom of *some* humans, but not them - I'm all for it. (Have you ever gone out just to hang out with a statue? That's what museums and the internet are for.)
Perhaps we could also focus on things that will help Black people's (and others) standard of living past symbolic gestures (though removing statues of these oppressors could improve mental health) - we should be talking and acting more on things like closing the achievement gap between the races at school, improving healthcare and housing access, closing the pay gap, etc. Removing a statue is a start, but there must be follow-through to show we truly want to amend the wrongs from the past.
Question 2: Would you support or oppose proposals to replace former President Andrew Jackson with abolitionist Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill?
Despite the aggregate results supporting replacing Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman, there were some opposed.
Presidents should not be removed from our currency or have their statues destroyed. That is our history- the US was not an outlier with slavery. We recognize the sins of our forefathers and can only grow and learn to be a better nation that truly pushes toward all men are created equal. Soccer is the best!
But a big source of the support for this switch seemed to come from a particular aversion to Jackson.
There's a huge difference between removing Jackson from the $20 bill and removing statues of Washington and/or Jefferson. History has shown that Jackson was not an overly successful President, and his actions relating to Native Americans remain a stain on the nation's history. On the other hand, Washington and Jefferson were Founding Fathers who literally created our nation, and I feel that history has shown their contributions continue to merit our praise and admiration, despite the fact that they were slaveowners. There's a line somewhere, and I'm more than willing to admit that Jackson is over it.
I'm in favor of replacing Jackson basically everywhere. Not sure why we honor someone who went out of his way to commit genocide in direct opposition to a supreme court decision and under the authority of the Indian Removal Act that passed by all of 2 votes in the legislature.
But one of you suggested an entirely new approach.
I think we should just take everyone off our money. Just put wildlife or national parks instead.
Question 3: President Trump signed an executive order yesterday further restricting immigration, including a suspension of new H1-B visas, which allow US employers to temporarily employ high-skilled workers from other countries. Do you support or oppose the United States banning new high-skilled workers from entering the country?
Point:
Why should Trump let highly skilled workers come here? Since our unemployment rate is so high, I would rather see American citizens getting a job first before anyone else.
Counterpoint:
I fully support Encouraging highly skilled laborers to immigrate to the US. I am a Machinist for GE and I’m watching my company switch from manufacturing Gas and Steam Turbine driven Generators (that can power up to 500,000 homes) be made in other countries because we don’t have the Skilled Labor enough to do the job. We also made the product better here too, the company knows it but they are trying to save money despite the loss of quality.
If we could encourage more skilled laborer/manufacturer people to come to the US to improve our export products and help keep jobs from being shipped overseas, then we would actually be making America better. (MAGA, what a joke... I worry about being laid off)
Skilled labor is the trades; Machining, Electricians, Mechanical repair, welders, pipe fitters, HVAC, and plumbers.... these people had to go through formal schooling and apprenticeships that take a few years. I personally had to go get an AOS at a Community College and do my Machinist training on the job.
Question 4: On a scale of 1 (not concerned at all) to 5 (very concerned), how concerned are you about a second wave of coronavirus outbreaks?
Concern is high. That’s an average of 4.1.
Shouldn't we finish the first wave before we start worrying about a second one?
I hate how we are now referring to a second wave of covid - the "first" never ended
Touché.
Question 5: As some companies move to permanent work from home structures, employees can be more flexible about where to live. If you could permanently work from home, would you move?
The pandemic has completely changed the way my company operates. We weren't allowed to work from home in the past, as it was believed we wouldn't be able to perform at the same level. The quarantine was like a forced test-run where we had to figure out how to work from home, and we discovered that we are just as productive as before. We are now discussing more flexible options moving forward, and are even contemplating downsizing our office space. I imagine the pandemic will change work habits permanently moving forward.
Ironically, I’ve been working from home full time for 6 years and have just moved from a big house in the country to a small rental in the suburbs near my family. Couldn’t be happier!
My company just sent out their new office guidelines to follow as they open up. It was pitiful and doesn't put employees health first at all. I'm choosing not to go in, but how long will they let me make that choice?
This will be something to continue to explore: how many companies are forcing their employees to return to the office against their will? (If you shared this quote, I’d be curious to know where you and your company are located.)
Why move from the greatest city on planet Earth? Cleveland rocks!
The Cleveland contingent of the Tinaverse is strong and vocal.
Make it all the way through but forget to answer today’s questions?
Click on the Let’s Talk button below to get started.