Skip to main content

Changes to Mount Rushmore to Remove Slave Owners


KEYSTONE, SD – In response to the removal of statues of slave traders, imperialists and Confederates, plans are underway for a major face-lift at Mount Rushmore.

Recognising that both Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, their removal reflects the new awareness of public sensitivities. 

While the actual re-carving of will be a lengthy process, the early signs are that choosing who should replace the two disgraced presidents could take even longer.

Wilbur Johnson of the National Parks Service commented, “Back when the original statues were carved, there was scant regard for health and safety procedures. Today, sophisticated scaffolding on a massive scale is needed for the work to be compliant.”

There aren’t many companies who could do this, but a leading contender would be  Eiffel Constructions métalliques  which already has connections with American monuments, having done the internal structure of the Statue of Liberty.

Among the proposed replacement presidents are Barack Obama, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman.

Nancy Pelosi commented, “FDR is doubtful as a replacement as he was a cigarette smoker and wealthy before he took office. William Howard Taft is out because he was obese and a Republican, so the search continues.”

Debi Mitchell of the American Federation of Vegans added another candidate. “While we’re at it, we should take the opportunity to remove the bear-shooting Teddy Roosevelt, too. Since he is already wearing spectacles, Woodrow Wilson would be a good replacement.”

The project is estimated to cost $750 million and take 15-20 years.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: Humphrey and Jack by Ian Thomson

It’s almost impossible to write about Humphrey and Jack without giving spoiler alerts every two sentences, so closely are plot, character and theme woven. So, after this, there are no further alerts. The plot is deceptively simple: an embittered retired lecturer befriends a semi-delinquent youth and both are redeemed. However, the character and social shading of the book are remarkable, and readers are treated to 300+ pages of Thomson’s elegant writing. And here lies part of the skill of the novel: the characters reveal themselves and evolve through action and dialogue, not through the author’s narrative and commentary on the psychological aspects of what is going on. This makes the reader think about what he is reading, which many readers will find too great an effort – but then, they don’t deserve the rewards. Readers are seduced into cosy cynicism with the early encounters with “the Evangelists” a group of grumpy old men who meet in a pub and have ritual rants abou

Was Scrooge Conned?

It would be interesting to trace the tradition of the Christmas ghost story beyond the superficial (see below). I am sure it is related to the darkness and cold of the year and people huddled around a fire for comfort and warmth, but the association with Christmas and ghosts is incongruous - or is it? Yes, there were pagan mid-winter feasts, but it's hard to see why they would emerge in the 18th and 19th centuries when ghost stories rose in popularity. Dickens is, of course, associated with the genre and wrote the quintessential Christmas ghost story. Ironically, given its Christmas theme, God barely gets a look in in A Christmas Carol . There are only a dozen mentions of God - mostly in passing "God bless you"s or the singing of God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen. There is no mention of Christ, Jesus, or Saviour, and no one is seen going to church. So, what we have is a ghost story trading on a secular commercial Christmas so that Dickens and his publisher can sell a few

Repetition, Repetition

I heard the hymn "Love Divine All Love's Excelling" the other day and, once again, the genius of the line in the final verse struck me: "Changed from glory into glory. . . ." The meaning of this repetition is neither readily apparent nor easily understood, yet it makes immediate impact. Why? I have thought about this on and off for a number of years and the best reasons I can come up with are: 1. It's unexpected 2. It presents us with a mystery And that's the point. The line is alluding to something we cannot begin to comprehend. The glories we can imagine in our human forms do not come close to those we will experience on admission to Heaven. It will be a transfiguration that is total, and unknowable to us as mortals. This interpretation fits with the concept of a Divine love that excels all others. I suspect the individual words themselves had more power in the days before hyperbole was literally overused. [That's an example of irony,