Is Mount Rushmore Next?

[Terraceth]

Complaints about Mount Rushmore are a bit different than the other monuments. The controversy comes far less from the monument itself and far more from the land it's on. The Lakota Indians signed a treaty with the US guaranteeing that non-Indians wouldn't settle on the Black Hills and it would be part of their reservation. But then there was a gold rush in the Black Hills and the US decided it wanted the land after all and essentially grabbed it by force. Ever since the Lakota have wanted it back, asserting the seizure of it was illegal. And it's in the Black Hills that Mount Rushmore was built.

So the conflict isn't really about Mount Rushmore itself, but where Mount Rushmore is, as its presence is kind of a symbol of their view that the US wrongfully took their land and hasn't given it back. If Mount Rushmore had been made someplace else, or the US gave them back the Black Hills (even with the US retaining some kind of ownership over Mount Rushmore itself), this controversy wouldn't be much of a thing.

[Leonhard]

The same thing can be said about the Buddhas of Bamyan

[ATTACH=CONFIG]46241[/ATTACH]

I kinda thought of that, but isn't Rushmore way bigger? You'd need to do a lot of climbing and drilling to place the explosives.

[rogue06]

I kinda thought of that, but isn't Rushmore way bigger? You'd need to do a lot of climbing and drilling to place the explosives.

To completely eliminate them, yes. To irreparably damage them...

[Leonhard]

To completely eliminate them, yes. To irreparably damage them...

We can both agree that either would be a tragedy. Though as a substantial monument aren't they under some kind of surveilance?

[seer]

Complaints about Mount Rushmore are a bit different than the other monuments. The controversy comes far less from the monument itself and far more from the land it's on. The Lakota Indians signed a treaty with the US guaranteeing that non-Indians wouldn't settle on the Black Hills and it would be part of their reservation. But then there was a gold rush in the Black Hills and the US decided it wanted the land after all and essentially grabbed it by force. Ever since the Lakota have wanted it back, asserting the seizure of it was illegal. And it's in the Black Hills that Mount Rushmore was built.

So the conflict isn't really about Mount Rushmore itself, but where Mount Rushmore is, as its presence is kind of a symbol of their view that the US wrongfully took their land and hasn't given it back. If Mount Rushmore had been made someplace else, or the US gave them back the Black Hills (even with the US retaining some kind of ownership over Mount Rushmore itself), this controversy wouldn't be much of a thing.

Didn't the Lakota originally take that land after conquering the Cheyenne?

[rogue06]

Didn't the Lakota originally take that land after conquering the Cheyenne?

IIRC they seized control in the 1780s after migrating from present day Minnesota and Wisconsin but I'm not sure if it was from the Cheyenne or the Arikara (a.k.a., Mandan). But some of the other tribes who once held claim to the area include the Crow and Pawnee.

[seer]

IIRC they seized control in the 1780s after migrating from present day Minnesota and Wisconsin but I'm not sure if it was from the Cheyenne or the Arikara (a.k.a., Mandan). But some of the other tribes who once held claim to the area include the Crow and Pawnee.

What I read it was the Cheyenne around 1776. The point is there were stealing land from each other long before the white man came.