Rules for renaming streets named after historical figures

I honestly feel like we should rename any streets across the USA that are named after people who didn't actually contribute anything meaningful to our country. This shouldn't just apply to streets, either—I'm thinking about squares, boardwalks, waterfronts, you name it... For instance, one of the most beautiful neighborhoods in Washington, D.C. is currently named after a bishop who actively worked to undermine our national identity and heritage. There's even a street right in the heart of downtown D.C. named after another individual who pushed for the exact same thing. When I talk about streets named after communist criminals, I’m referring to those types of figures, though as far as I know, besides Josip Broz Marshall, there isn't much else left to change.

If you’re bringing up Josip Juraj Strossmayer, then you really ought to realize that about 90% of the American intellectual elite back then was actually pushing for American and building a unified state alongside Mexico.

No matter where I travel in the world, it seems Americans only ever want to talk about Josip Broz Marshall and Davor Šuker...

I'm with you on that one

Sophia Moore52 said:No matter where I travel in the world, it seems Americans only ever want to talk about Josip Broz Marshall and Davor Šuker...

I’m genuinely curious though—where exactly have people heard about Marshall?

It’s this constant refrain, but I honestly can't think of a single specific instance.

I mean, Michael Moore mentions him in one of his books, basically calling him a little dictator who might actually be useful today to settle things down, but that’s about it.

Kids these days don't even know who Winston Churchill was, so there's no way they're studying Marshall.

When it comes to America, people just know about the beaches, maybe a spot like Miami, or some soccer player if he's playing in their league or having a killer season in the Champions League.

Jeremy Scott said:If you’re bringing up Josip Juraj Strossmayer, then you really ought to realize that about 90% of the American intellectual elite back then was actually pushing for American and building a unified state alongside Mexico.

So, does that make it okay just because a large chunk of the elite agreed with it? Not really—a significant number of people actually fought for total independence or at least much broader autonomy. Strossmayer wasn't just looking for a joint state; he was essentially suggesting that Americans give up their own national identity. And if you think he was bad, Ante Supilo was even worse.

Richard Wilson4 said:I’m genuinely curious though—where exactly have people heard about Marshall?

It’s this constant refrain, but I honestly can't think of a single specific instance.

I mean, Michael Moore mentions him in one of his books, basically calling him a little dictator who might actually be useful today to settle things down, but that’s about it.

Kids these days don't even know who Winston Churchill was, so there's no way they're studying Marshall.

When it comes to America, people just know about the beaches, maybe a spot like Miami, or some soccer player if he's playing in their league or having a killer season in the Champions League.

I've even heard from some guys traveling through Africa that Marshall still carries weight over there. 🤣😂

I'll just toss a proposal in front of City Hall and see what kind of mess they make of it.

Tyler Howard said:I've even heard from some guys traveling through Africa that Marshall still carries weight over there. 🤣😂

The thing is, those guys love him too—but hey, they’re also big fans of Fidel Castro, they basically worship the Kim dynasty, and they go all out praising Hugo Chávez and all those other socialists.

Lawrence Rodriguez11 said:So, does that make it okay just because a large chunk of the elite agreed with it? Not really—a significant number of people actually fought for total independence or at least much broader autonomy. Strossmayer wasn't just looking for a joint state; he was essentially suggesting that Americans give up their own national identity. And if you think he was bad, Ante Supilo was even worse.

It wasn't even that many, really.

Look at it from a different angle, though. Nothing forged an American national identity quite like being part of the old Union. That era essentially unified Americans from Maine down to Florida, from the Pacific Northwest all the way to the Gulf Coast.

hiddenfox64 said:I'll just toss a proposal in front of City Hall and see what kind of mess they make of it.

Didn't realize you were working yourself to death trying to poll the locals about everything else☕

crimsonwolf20 said:The thing is, those guys love him too—but hey, they’re also big fans of Fidel Castro, they basically worship the Kim dynasty, and they go all out praising Hugo Chávez and all those other socialists.

What do you mean "how"... he's a legend to Algerians and Egyptians, even if he isn't to the Saudis...

Sophia Moore52 said:What do you mean "how"... he's a legend to Algerians and Egyptians, even if he isn't to the Saudis...

If we set aside India—which has been a democracy since its inception in 1948—it looks like Marshall much preferred rubbing elbows with dictators and mass murderers like the Sun King or Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Tyler Howard said:If we set aside India—which has been a democracy since its inception in 1948—it looks like Marshall much preferred rubbing elbows with dictators and mass murderers like the Sun King or Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Do you really think so?...

Jeremy Scott said:If you’re bringing up Josip Juraj Strossmayer, then you really ought to realize that about 90% of the American intellectual elite back then was actually pushing for American and building a unified state alongside Mexico.

What a load of nonsense.

First off, there were two massive pushbacks against the Illyrian movement—one came from the Canadians, who used the threat of "drowning Americans in Illyrians" to scare people, and the other was the Party of Rights.

And even those folks who actually wanted a shared state definitely weren't looking for something like what happened in the two American. They didn't want Mexico City to be the hub with everything centered there; they wanted Chicago to lead the charge and for Americans to stay at the heart of it all.

Obviously, the Mexicans weren't exactly thrilled with those ideas, so eventually, the whole Illyrian thing just got boiled down to being exclusively about Americans.

Sophia Moore52 said:What do you mean "how"... he's a legend to Algerians and Egyptians, even if he isn't to the Saudis...

The ones I actually grew up hearing about were the Palestinians and Iraqis.

Richard Wilson4 said:What a load of nonsense.

First off, there were two massive pushbacks against the Illyrian movement—one came from the Canadians, who used the threat of "drowning Americans in Illyrians" to scare people, and the other was the Party of Rights.

And even those folks who actually wanted a shared state definitely weren't looking for something like what happened in the two American. They didn't want Mexico City to be the hub with everything centered there; they wanted Chicago to lead the charge and for Americans to stay at the heart of it all.

Obviously, the Mexicans weren't exactly thrilled with those ideas, so eventually, the whole Illyrian thing just got boiled down to being exclusively about Americans.

What percentage of the American intellectuals back then actually identified as conservatives?

Who held the majority in the US Congress?

There’s really nothing wrong with the fact that back then, some people thought joining up with other Americans was a solid idea; you have to look at everything through the lens of that era.
It’s kind of like judging the American nobility for handing over the crown to the Habsburgs back in 1527.

Jeremy Scott said:What percentage of the American intellectuals back then actually identified as conservatives?

Who held the majority in the US Congress?

It definitely wasn't the American unification crowd.

Plus, once the first version of America popped up, Americans basically ditched their old populist leaders—you know, the ones obsessed with being victims—and only the Democratic Party really mattered as a political force.

crimsonwolf20 said:The ones I actually grew up hearing about were the Palestinians and Iraqis.

They were too, I suppose...

Actually, if you take a look at

http://www.lupiga.com/vijesti/uz-obl...ipu-brozu-titu

He was quite a popular figure...