Don't Surrender Your Cities to Mobs

...so now the South Philadelphia statue of Christopher Columbus is being removed, due to several days of fighting between those who want to tear it down and those who want to leave it up.

Many people recognize that Columbus has a checkered history, but tearing down monuments does nothing to help people learn about the nuances of one's achievements and sins. 

It's not only Christopher Columbus and Confederate generals. Recently defaced was a statue of Matthias Baldwin, a 19th-century abolitionist. Elsewhere, "activists" are stating aloud their plans to tear down Emancipation Memorial, a Washington, D.C. statue funded by former slaves, depicting President Lincoln helping a newly liberated slave to rise off his knees.

If any changes are to be made to our landscapes with respect to murals, statues, and other monuments, they should come after long, careful, well-reasoned discussion, and not in reaction to vandalism and mob violence. Thoughtful conversation is how a civilized society should be operated; one should never reward criminal behavior with positive reinforcement or capitulation. Unfortunately, the precedent has now been set.

Protesters or Criminals? Not That Hard to Tell the Difference

The grotesque killing of George Floyd at the hands knee of (now former) Officer Derek Chauvin seemed to unite Americans -- if for only about 24 hours -- in condemnation against this callous, horrific act. I've yet to find anyone of any race or political affiliation who has attempted to justify Chauvin's decision to have his knee upon Floyd's neck for eight minutes and forty-six seconds.

That unity has seemed to disintegrate in the week or so since then, as peaceful protests are being overshadowed by the blatant, criminal actions of rioters and looters, which have led to the deaths of even more people, destroyed businesses, and have created images of America that most of us can't recognize.

Sarah Silverman denounced critics of the rioters for, well, referring them as "rioters" in the first place, arguing instead that they're mere "protesters." In doing so, she pretty much announced that she can't tell the difference, herself.

I remember during the 2016 DNC debates, candidates condemned Republicans for criticizing "radical Islam," saying that a religion is the enemy. When the moderator, to his credit, pointed out that Republican candidates explicitly said "radical Islam," not all of Islam, Democrats such as Hillary Clinton merely repeated the assertion that it was an attack on a religion.

Here's the deal: if you refuse to condemn those who blow up buses in Tel Aviv or murder their own teenage daughters in "honor" killings because that amounts, in your mind, as an attack on ALL of Islam, then you are the one who is lumping all Muslims together, not your political adversaries.

Likewise, Sarah, if you see Antifa goons throwing bricks at the Secret Service, and looters wrecking a Rite Aid pharmacy, and you describe that as political speech protected by the First Amendment, then you are the one who can't distinguish protesters from criminals.

See the people assembling with locked arms, or holding signs, singing "We Shall Overcome," and NOT breaking the law? Those are protesters.

See the people climbing out of a broken glass door at Target, with a flat-screen TV and five pairs of sneakers they didn't pay for? Those are criminals.

The former group is marching for a cause. The latter group doesn't give a damn about George Floyd, and merely sees an opportunity to act lawlessly.

-- and, while it's heartening to see how many people are in the first group, it's equally dispiriting to see just how many are gleefully willing to be part of the second.