Question

Read Mitch Landrieu’s speech on pp. 1093–1101 of your textbook, and read Lawrence A. Kuznar’s op-ed in PDF or word-processing format. Present your position on the issue by addressing a counterargument. Use evidence to demonstrate that all or part of the opposing position or claim is untrue or invalid. Use transitions appropriately to shift between ideas. Your response should include three paragraphs: one for introducing the issue, one for the rebuttal, and one for the conclusion.

For full credit, be sure that your response does all of the following.

Sufficiently addresses all parts of the prompt and incorporates your learning from the lesson (from 0 to 60 points)
Provides supporting evidence from the text or resource as requested in the prompt (from 0 to 20 points)
Uses correct grammar and mechanics (from 0 to 20 points)
Please note that point values are wide-ranging and approximate, as prompt specifications vary from lesson to lesson.

Answer 1

The issue of Confederate monuments has been a topic of discussion in recent years. Some argue that these monuments are an important part of American history, while others believe that they should be removed due to their association with slavery and racism. Mitch Landrieu’s speech on pp. 1093–1101 of your textbook provides a compelling argument for the removal of these monuments. However, Lawrence A. Kuznar’s op-ed in PDF or word-processing format presents a counterargument that suggests that these monuments should remain in order to preserve American history.

Kuznar argues that Confederate monuments should remain because they are an important part of American history and should not be erased. However, this position ignores the fact that these monuments celebrate a dark chapter in American history. Landrieu’s speech points out that these monuments were not erected to honor the history of the Confederacy, but rather to celebrate white supremacy and intimidate African Americans. In fact, many of these monuments were erected during the Jim Crow era as a way to assert white dominance over black citizens. By removing these monuments, we are not erasing history, but rather acknowledging the harm that they have caused and taking steps to move forward.

Furthermore, Kuznar’s argument ignores the fact that these monuments can be seen as a form of hate speech. As Landrieu points out, these monuments send a message that some people are not welcome in our communities. They serve as a reminder of the oppression and violence that African Americans have faced throughout history. By removing these monuments, we are sending a message that we do not tolerate hate speech and that we are committed to creating a more inclusive society.

In conclusion, while some argue that Confederate monuments should remain in order to preserve American history, this position ignores the fact that these monuments celebrate a dark chapter in our history and can be seen as a form of hate speech. By removing these monuments, we are acknowledging the harm that they have caused and taking steps to move forward.