Ya can’t make it up.
Both Fox and Newsmax are reporting on the New York City Council making it their business to re-write history by removing statues of prominent Americans.
NYC to consider removing statues of George Washington, create reparations task force amid budget cuts
The story says:
“As New York City cripples under monumental budget cuts due to a migrant crisis straining public resources, the city council is planning to consider a series of measures that would, among other things, remove statues of major historical figures like George Washington and create a reparations task force.
The items are included in New York City’s council agenda for Tuesday, September 19, 2023. The council’s Cultural Affairs Committee will hold a public hearing on a measure to remove works of art on city property that ‘depict a person who owned enslaved persons or directly benefited economically from slavery, or who participated in systemic crimes against indigenous peoples or other crimes against humanity.’”
Newsmax reports the same: https://www.newsmax.com/
Uh-oh.
If this is the route chosen by New York Democrats are they aware they must change their own name?
Over here at a site dedicated to the history of American states, there is this: https://statesymbolsusa.org/
New York State Name Origin
What does “New York” mean?
Then comes this very interesting history:
“New York was named after the English Duke of York and Albany (and the brother of England’s King Charles II) in 1664 when the region called New Amsterdam was taken from the Dutch. The state was a colony of Great Britain until it became independent on July 4, 1776.”
Hmmm. Move over to the History channel site and one learns this, bold print for emphasis supplied:
“In 1619, some 20 Africans arrived at Jamestown, Virginia, where they were purchased from Dutch privateers to aid in the English colony’s lucrative, labor-intensive cultivation of tobacco. As profits piled up and slavery spread through the American colonies, the British crown decided to exert control over the slave trade in the colonies (and the wealth it generated)
According to theNavigation Act of 1660, only English-owned ships could enter colonial ports. That same year, King Charles II granted a charter to the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading to Africa. Led by the king’s younger brother James, the Duke of York (later King James II), this group had a monopoly on British trade with West Africa, including gold, silver and slaves.
Thanks to England’s war with the Netherlands, the original company collapsed under mounting debts in 1667, reemerging in 1672 with a new royal charter and a new name: the Royal African Company (RAC).
RAC ships sailed from Bristol, Liverpool and London to West Africa, operating from military forts based along some 5,000 miles of coastline from Cape Sallee (in present-day Morocco) to Cape of Good Hope (in what is now South Africa). From 1680 to 1686, the company transported an average of 5,000 slaves per year, most of which were shipped to colonies in the Caribbean and Virginia.
Thousands of slaves arrived in the New World with the company’s initials branded on their chests.”
In other words? New York itself is named for “the king’s younger brother James, the Duke of York”. And the Duke of York “had a monopoly on British trade with West Africa, including gold, silver and slaves.”
Which is to say, New York itself is named after a major league slave trader.
So the obvious question? When will New York’s City Council and other New York politicians who are eager to erase the name of slave holders Washington and others move to change the name of New York and erase the city and state’s ties to one of the worst slave traders of the day?
Hmmm.
