No, mostly just the white supremacist parts.
OK, really, the thing about Social Justice Whingers is that they can’t even agree with each other. It’s not a coherent monolith, and self-described SJW’s (such few as there are) would only buy on to some of your list.
I see this claim made quite often.
I have never seen any actual evidence to support the claim. There are documents and speeches in which “these” is used, rather than “the,” but there are plenty of references using “the.”
Jefferson’s request for funds for the Lewis & Clark expedition (1803) uses “the United States” and “the US.”
Marshall’s opinions in Marbury v Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) repeatedly use “the United States” without ever referring to “these United States.”
The Missouri Compromise (1820) repeatedly uses “the United States” without once using “these.”
Monroe Doctrine (1823): every reference is to “the United States.”
Andrew Jackson’s congressional message “On Indian Removal” (1830): every reference is to “the United States.” . (We cannot even get Jackson to use “these” instead of “the”?)
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848, ending our assault upon Mexico): every reference is to “the United States.”
Compromise of 1850: every reference is to “the United States.”
Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854): every reference is to “the United Staes.”
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857): every reference is to “the United States.”
The Homestead Act (1862): every reference is to “the United States.”
This is not to say that the word “these” was never used as a rhetorical flourish to make a point in one essay or speech or another. However, the claim does not appear to ever make it into an actual government document. I suspect that dividing “these” from “the” was an invention of Shelby Foote, but I have never seen his evidence, either. (I ascribe no malice to Foote; I simply think he found some “these” references and drew an inaccurate conclusion.)
Among speeches, I found one from Frederick Douglass from 1852 in which he uses “these United States.” Although George Washington’s First Inaugural Address uses “the United States.”
Rather in the manner of your claims opposing the removal of statues that were put up long after the Civil War for the purpose of institutionalizing the suppression of black people while claiming that you have not opposed such removals?
(And I accuse you of no lies; I only note that your pattern of argument mirrors that of some vaguely not defined group of people whom you accuse of lying.)
I’ve been pretty consistent on my worry that their taking down will lead other non-Confederate statues being taken down (which is proving to be the case), but I personally don’t believe Confederate statues should exist in public squares.
I have only said that like 1000 times.
But, rejoice dear - you’re winning. Columbus and Peter Stuyvesant are coming down. With luck, you’ll have every monument to every white man born before 1965 down in a year’s time. I suggest you guys go bold, and replace them with statues of Farrakhan and Malcolm X - Those are your heroes after all.
Why be sarcastic, hyperbolic, and presumptuous at the expense of factual accuracy? It makes having a rational discussion rather difficult for no reason and with no benefit to anyone. Literally none is saying the things you are claiming they are. And simply referring to news stories about people who aren’t here and giving your knee jerk reaction doesn’t help either as the people that article is about and the writer of those articles aren’t here to have a conversation with or to dispute your representation.
That would be because “SJW” is a made-up epithet, not a real thing.
Don’t forget Abbie Hoffman. And he was a white guy!
Maybe I missed something, but is the idea that imperialism is evil actually controversial in some circles? My impression is that there is a fairly broad global consensus that you’re not supposed to invade and subjugate other countries and peoples anymore.
So he doesn’t deserve a statue then. He was an evil white cis-gender bad person.