April 2, 2018
In an unsurprising turn of events given the urgency anti-white activists have felt since the election of Donald Trump, once timid and browbeaten “Native Americans” have taken time away from slugging moonshine and selling dreamcatchers made in China by the roadside to demand their 15 minutes in the racially aggrieved spotlight.
Arcata was the first U.S. city to ban the sale of genetically modified foods, the first to elect a majority Green Party city council and one of the first to tacitly allow marijuana farming before pot was legal.
Now it’s on the verge of another first.
No other city has taken down a monument to a president for his misdeeds. But Arcata is poised to do just that. The target is an 8½-foot bronze likeness of William McKinley, who was president at the turn of the last century and stands accused of directing the slaughter of Native peoples in the U.S. and abroad.
“Put a rope around its neck and pull it down,” Chris Peters shouted at a recent rally held at the statue, which has adorned the central square for more than a century.
“The Native people here have avoided that square for years,” said Ted Hernandez, chairman of the 620-member Wiyot Tribe, which is based on a reservation about 20 miles south of the city. “Why do we have this man standing in this square where they used to sell our children?”
Hernandez’s tribe is one of more than a dozen whose members showed up in Arcata or sent letters of protest over the months against McKinley.
Shouldn’t they have traditional Injun names like Shits On His Hand or Singing Prick? Actually, taking a look at Mr. Peters it’s clear 23AndMe is probably trolling him:
Compare Chief Fries with Chicken with a real Native American:
The most common smug argument for toppling Confederate statues was “Losers don’t get a statue“; why, then, are the losers in this case allowed to dictate which statues are kept up and which removed? It all reeks of hypocrisy and should be yet another wakeup call to whites in general that we should be united by our race and stand together.
If they had no qualms in cleansing the “problematic” South of its history, why would Northern Americans assume their landmarks and history would be safe elsewhere?