The topic around confederate war statues is highly debated. There so many articles supporting removal, opposing removal, moving them to museums, or adding plagues historical context. I think my view is mixed among many of the views. Some questions that I thought about while reading include: do we protect the work for the sake of history, do we have a responsibility to the artist to protect their work, and do we have responsibility to community? “For the sake of history,” and “,to learn from the past,” are the most used reasons for why to keep the monuments. For taking them down, the argument is that they are offensive and do not represent us today. In some regards, I do think the monuments are important and destroying them seems extreme in most cases because they are representations of history and destroying them is an act of iconoclasm that seemingly wants to erase the evidence that we as humans have committed horrendous acts to other humans throughout history. Now this is not to be mistaken for supporting what they were originally made to represent. I think what many of the ideas they represent are from the past and are not acceptable today, so what can we remember the past through these things without supporting the old meanings behind them? I found being accompanied by a plaque that gives context is the least that could be done. It preserves the statues that show views from history, art styles like American neoclassicism, and stand as reminders of events and people even if they are from views that are not right. The plaques should explain the time they are from like why it is the way it is, and how they do not represent today’s views but rather our progress from them. I still see a problem with this as I is not condemning the actions and allows the artworks to still show this view. Sometimes a plaque is not enough.
The other side that tugs at me for just removing the statues is depicted in this quote by Kyung Moon Hwan, “Removing outdated and inappropriate public memorials, in other words, is just as historically valid as keeping them in place. If they cannot be transferred to museums, then destruction seems unavoidable.” He also says, “Like many other nationalities in the modern world, South Koreans have become familiar with the sensitivities of such a problem. But they have mostly recognized that monuments, like laws and governments, are living things, originating in the past but continually refreshed with meaning as times and values change and knowledge is gained.”
I think my view is generally that I think it is important to remember the past, but we should also represent our thoughts and views today. I think I favor putting the statues in museums with context and then creating new memorials of which societies may move themselves later when views change again. In this way, we are leaving our views as the past left its views. I think the history in the view of a time period is important to understand (even though they give only bias side) the past so I don’t support destroying every statue we don’t agree with. My view is very mixed in all honesty, but it is not a simple topic.
I would like to propose a few other options that we can be debate that do not destroy the statues just for the sake of debating. Disclaimer: I do not know what I fully agree with personally.
One: We could leave the statues, add the plaques for context. Maybe state what we, as people, learn from the past so we never repeat the mistakes. The next part of this is to add a partnering statues that reveal the other side of the various historical monuments. So we have this View of the past from the past. And then a legitimate memorial that is not representing those biased views. In this instance both are in public spaces so they confront people.
Two: We could move the statues to museums, add context. The next part of this is to add a partnering statues to be with them in the museum that reveals the other side of the various historical monuments. So we have this View of the past from the past. And then a legitimate memorial to victims/ and views of today/ what we think is a truthful representation on an event. In this instance both are in museums in spaces together.
Three: We move the historical monuments into museums where they can be given proper historical context, and make new monuments in the public spaces that they were in. These new monument represent the past in a manner that is a reminder of the past events and we should continue to learn from it. They also do not glorify the bad aspects, but do call us out on the bad.
Alternate 3: We move the historical monuments into museums where they can be given proper historical context, and make new monuments in the public spaces that they were in. These new monument represent modern views. May have a plaque talking about past monument to show how we changed and should continue to learn from past. (I lean towards this option far more than others.)
Four: Leave a plague with context in the place of old statues to serve as public reminders of the past without glorifying individuals or views. Move old statues to museums and provide context.
Some potential problems I thought of: cost of new memorials, Where to put old statues? What would the new memorials be of? Who is permitted to make something about a time none of us were ever a part of? When the past’s view is taken away and we only see our interpretations of the past in public places, are we attempting to hide those horrible views? In the cases of statues honoring people that committed acts we would not approve of today, I think making another monument is somewhat problematic. I don’t know what one would make to either challenge that past view, show today’s progress, or show the truth of those people in order to acknowledge the bad. A possibility might be to make a different figure(s) that is better suited for representing progress for better so we have the past compared to progress.
(These are just ideas I’m sure they all have more problems and even I’m not sure if I really agree with them. They are here for us to debate really.)
I touched on the question of who can make these the monuments, but I did not offer my opinion yet. A good portion of me just wants us to move on from the whole concept of dividing ourselves as we seem to do by skin, sexuality, and/ or nationality. I would like to say that anyone can make any art. I think usually when done right we empathize enough to make art, write stories, and learn; however, I do think experiencing something makes the art more credible. It is difficult to make art on something we have not experienced. In the case of the past, there is a whole additional barrier, Time. I do not know if we can accurately make art about the past without having lived in it. (Maybe making monuments by representing today’s views is better for this reason.) In the case of various discrimination, I can only truly depict what experienced, and I usually believe it is good to try and empathize.