TOW #24- Hollywood Preservation

        For such an affluent, populous area like Hollywood, California, it would seem like a no-brainer for money to be dedicated towards the building of new neighborhood plans. Fresh artists, actors, entertainers, and companies are reintroduced to the city on the regular, and new buildings are meant to take their place along with them. Written to New York Times editor William Bergmann, it is believed that "Hollywood suffers from too many people trying to keep it 'as is,' or as they wish it were," but the reality of the situation is that cities are designed to be continuously expanding, and this natural process of growth must never be hindered.
        In many cases, the dreaded "zoning areas" and other construction sites that many natives complain about have actually benefitted the city greatly- showing significant improvement from 25 years ago when traffic and building control seemed hopeless. It is rare that no one would ever find something to complain about in an area so vast and buy, but it is also important to be reminded of the positives, and to not let temporary aggravation overshadow them.
        These projects are created in order to serve the general public and better the lives of cities surrounding. Improvements are always appreciated in the end, for they not only improve the streets and towns but they also improve the status of individuals living within them, overall positively affecting the way they function on a day-to-day basis. To preserve "Old Hollywood" would be a grave mistake, it is much more of a necessity to channel the popular influences and patterns of the 21st century and alter the city to meet the needs of all these demands and concerns.

TOW #23- Stop Shaming Women into Voting for Hillary

        As Hillary Clinton, the nation's first female-running presidential candidate, steps into the spotlight, more and more women are advocating for her success. Hillary as our president, however, is not in the interest of all women in America, and certainly should not be forced upon them purely for the sake of supporting their own sex. This logic, expressed by Nancy Cohen in her article titled "Why Women Should Vote for Women," is nowhere representative of how society should function today. As great as it would be for the next president of America to be a woman, it is obvious that not all female politicians are good advocates for women- and because of this they should not necessarily receive the votes of females across the country just for the pure intent of a woman being elected.
        The truth is that the majority of women are more interested in candidate Bernie Sanders, but are shamefully being forced to conceal their admirations and direct them towards the female candidate, Clinton. Sanders has worked for civil rights, women's healthcare, and equal pay- doesn't this make him just as much as a feminist as any other woman who advocates for their own gender? Voting for Sanders doesn't mean women are betraying themselves or their dignity as a population, it simply means they support the same views and policies as him. Being a male politician should not take away from their credibility as a potential advocate for women's issues, unless there is a right to believe they are gender biased and do not support equality in the slightest sense.
        Voting for a candidate comes down to one decision and one decision only- whether he or she shares the same values as you. Nothing else must be influenced by this determination, especially gender or race, because if a candidate supports the same ideas as you then that is all that is necessary in order to ensure the potential leader of this nation has a good head on their shoulders. Supporting an individual just to support our own sex is not a correct way to base any decision, especially one that determines the future of the nation.

TOW #22- Why Slaves' Graves Matter

        What happens when connections with past relatives are taken away? Memories and names disappear and the only thing left is a label of their roles in society? Sandra A. Arnold, of the New York Times, is no stranger to this type of prejudice. As a descendant of slaves, Arnold has a direct tie to the immense strugglers of the 19th century. Born into the normalcy of referring to her great-grandparents simply by their names, as opposed to their status as slaves, it is shocking to see that by visiting a slave cemetery the names of these brave men and women are nowhere to be found. No longer is there a "Grandma" or "Papa" to the children of past slaves, instead it's simply just a mass label placed upon the burial ground: "born as slaves". 

         Cemeteries, graveyards, and memorials are visual areas erected for the purpose of honoring deceased loved ones- ones who lived fearlessly and honorably. They exist because the people buried within them have worth, and are never intended to be forgotten. But what happens when those you love are not given the proper respect in cases such as burial? And their lives are simply marked by the laying of a regular, gray rock, as opposed to a special gravestone with their names? This is what possessed Arnold to take a stand and create the National Burial Database of Enslaved Americans- a way to finally ensure that these men and women receive the recognition they deserve, and are in no way forgotten or "tossed aside." 

        In the ethical argument for preservation, there are countless reasons as to why burial grounds are valuable resources, both for family members and scholars or historians, using them as road maps for research and discovery. The implementation of these figures allow for a greater sense of understanding and appreciation, and a real grasp at the history of our nation. Slaves received little sense of humanity in the past, but today there is no reason as to why they do not deserve the same type of burial as any other American. Our country must explore the ways in which it can preserve the public memory of enslaves individuals, and never let their sweat and preservation dry from this earth.