In her commentary ("Tubman statue would help write women back into history," March 10), Lynette Long began well by mentioning the obvious attributes and accomplishments of Harriet Tubman, who is certainly an historical figure to be honored. She mentioned the opportunity to change the statues in the U.S. Capitol. Then she went downhill on a rant about how this was necessary because of racial and gender equality, that women and girls would be forever scarred if this wasn't accomplished.
What a bunch of hooey.
First of all, most young girls and, unfortunately, young students don't know about Harriet Tubman or John Hanson because of our politically correct educational system doesn't teach them our American history, rich as it is. More unfortunately, fewer will probably be known about John Hanson because he has the terrible disease of being a white male.
Rightly so, the statues represent key moments in our history (per Ms. Long). It just happens to be that most of the events in that era and for many decades after involved that male species. There are nine women in the statuary collection. Considering our history and its evolution, that's quite good, perhaps not sufficient for Ms. Long and others with such an obvious agenda, but not bad.
Perhaps there are others that would be better choices for replacing Hanson, but I would hope that there would be more significant attributes than being a black female and the force behind it more than politically correct, gender equality trying to rewrite history. The gender ceiling is being broken every day, and young girls certainly have more relevant figures to emulate than Harriet Tubman, accomplished though she may have been. Perhaps Ms. Long herself would be a better figure.
A statue in Washington will have little effect on this and future generations of young women and has little reason besides the insidious political correctness in our present system.
J.C. Gordon, Baltimore