The Issue: Ben & Jerry’s call for the US to return land to indigenous people, starting with Mount Rushmore.
Ice cream moguls Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield want the United States to return Mount Rushmore, featuring the carvings of four of our greatest presidents, to the Lakota Indians because they say these four figures destroyed some indigenous cultures (“Cold war on Fourth of July,” Piers Morgan, July 6).
Such wholesale revisionist history is extreme and totally ignores the sacrifices these four leaders endured to ensure victory over enemy forces and preserve our way of life.
Ben & Jerry’s should stick to spooning out ice cream instead of building a political sundae topped with untruths and massive exaggerations.
Ray Starman
Albany
Unlike Bud Light with Dylan Mulvaney and Target with selling LGBQT children’s wear, which became national news, Ben & Jerry’s has expressed anti-semitism and anti-Americanism pretty much off the radar, and thus there has been little impact on ice cream sales.
If the Anti-Defamation League or some pro-American PAC ran some public service spots with the actual comments, sales would plummet.
John Brindisi
Manhattan
When is Ben & Jerry’s going to end its illegal occupation of the land of the Abenaki Indians, where its Vermont factory now sits? The Abenaki people lived on the land for over 12,000 years prior to Ben & Jerry’s illegal occupation.
Led by Anuradha Mittal and the rest of her toadies on the Ben & Jerry’s board of directors, the company is occupying the stolen land of the Abenaki people in South Burlington, Waterbury and Saint Albans.
What goes around comes around. Has anyone seen moving trucks at Ben & Jerry’s in Burlington?
Richard Sherman
Margate, Fla.
The New York Post’s editorial reaction to Ben & Jerry’s July 4th post seems to ignore the real fact that the United States exists on land taken from the indigenous people who lived here before Europeans arrived.
It’s very unlikely that land will ever be returned, by Ben & Jerry’s or anyone else. But that doesn’t excuse how poorly the land’s former owners have been treated.
Charles Ryan
Woburn, Mass.
After reading about Ben & Jerry’s tweet, I am wondering if there will be more calls to boycott.
If there are, I don’t think they will work. Here is why: The boycotts of Bud Light and Target succeeded because each offended their base of consumers.
Ben & Jerry’s customer base is different. It’s far more aligned with the left. Many of them likely read the tweets and approve of them.
I’ll bet the average guy doesn’t buy many of Ben & Jerry’s overpriced products. I was happy to see The Post calling for them to be the first to hand over what they have. I hope others follow suit. Maybe that would deter these pompous nabobs from their endless virtue-signaling.
Chris Plate
Waterloo
Ben & Jerry’s is correct to point out that our federal government is ready, willing and able to commit horrific acts of violence and terror against whomever is currently out of favor — black Americans, Japanese Americans, American Indians or German Americans. Perhaps tomorrow it will be the readers of this paper.
And let’s not forget what can happen in places like Vietnam.
So how does Ben & Jerry’s suggest we protect ourselves from a government wild with authority? A government that might send US troops to bring us to a train station?
Can’t say it hasn’t happened before. Can’t say it won’t happen again.
John Dumary
Duanesburg
Want to weigh in on today’s stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to [email protected]. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy and style.
