This upsets me. I am from Concord and have deep respect for that spot on the Milldam where the sign appears. I was reminded in several different ways over the last week that Concord has nothing to be ashamed of with respect to the Native Americans. The town tried hard to protect them during the King Phillips War before the Indians were forced to go to Deer Island in Boston harbor.
In addition, there were religious people in Concord (Bulkley?) who were devout and respected for it by the Indians. I just read (I already forgot where) it is the reason Concord was never attacked during the War.
Then, on the level of everyday American politics, I have to wonder about this "woke" initiative from Concord's current selectmen. They talk about being respectful to Native Americans but I simply do not believe they are responding to an actual complaint from an actual Native American. It is a thinly idealistic theoretical "respect". It does not play with a love [and respect] for history and I would be glad to know if there exists a real, local, Native American who is uncomfortable with the fact that Concord was purchased "from the Indians".
3 comments :
Covering up that sign is just plain stupidity. The people pushing for it should be ashamed of themselves.
My family is also from Concord, buried there, and some day so will I be.
History is history. If the selectpersons can't deal with the sign, then their therapy is out of their pocket.
Are they planning on going back to Concord's original name, Musketaquid as well?
For me the signs as written are valuable historical artifacts in themselves. How about forming a Quatercentenary committee to compose and attach addendums which express our current sensibilities, and to continue doing so every 100 years going forward?
Alan
Post a Comment