For this connect post I read “Monuments for a New Era” and “States Are Using Preservation Laws to Block the Removal of Confederate Monuments.” One major theme that both articles point out is the issue with Confederate Monuments, which they then take to a local level for public opinion. From the people interviewed and the situations brought up in the article it appears that the only people who want the monuments to stay exactly the way they are are those from the “Unite the Right” rally and conservative politicians.
In “Monuments for a New Era” even people who thought the monuments should stay up, wanted some more context added to them. I think the primary issues with these statues is that they are labelled monuments and put up on a pedestal. One of the people interviewed in this article, Kenya Robinson, made the argument that “like textbooks that rename Transatlantic human trafficking the ‘Triangular Trade,” renaming monuments would take away from the struggle for equality. However, I think it does the opposite. By calling the statues monuments it is saying that the city, state, or country holds that person and what they fought for up in high regard. Using a word like memorial to describe it, which has the connotation of death and struggle, would emphasise rather than detract from the fight for racial equality. A major issue in this whole debate, is that even when communities come to a consensus about what to do with the monuments, in many cases replace them, they are blocked by the legislature. According to “States Are Using Preservation Laws to Block the Removal of Confederate Monuments,” in Alabama, an extremely conservative state, the community decided they wanted to replace a statue that was hit by a car. However, the state legislature, right after this decision was made, passed a law that prevented statues older than forty years from being replaced. In my opinion this lack of consideration for constituents by the politicians representing them is disheartening. I can understand a divided town leaving them up, but when the town has made the decision it goes against the public will to pass laws solely for the reason to block the decision. In all honesty if a state or district wants to preserve the public art when the public is against it they should give it to a museum that can use it as a learning tool as opposed to ignoring the people.
2 Comments
Marina
1/10/2019 06:00:57 pm
You make a very interesting point about the people that want to leave the statues up and how they block those in their community through legislature. I also agree that it is upsetting that the politicians that should be representing these communities are the ones that are pushing so that the monuments remain up. However, you also mentioned how adding context to the monuments would be beneficial to educating the public yet do not want to change its status as a monument/memorial. Do you think, if they do not alter the monument itself, the legislature should add more signs or descriptions to try and help show the negative connotations of the described statues? What do you think about Kenya Robinson's idea of having the African parrot sanctuary surrounding the Lee monument? Is this--which would attract interest from the public--a good use of calling something a monument or memorial and putting it on a pedestal?
Reply
Eileen
1/10/2019 07:27:55 pm
I totally agree that these figures cannot stay exactly where they are without further violence and controversy. A museum seems the logical place to preserve what is purely history at this point. You also brought up the distinction between a statue and a memorial. What role does a name have in giving context and making a first impression on the viewer? And how would the alt-right react to their 'heritage' being put in a museum? Would museums even want the monuments and the racist pasts they have? There are so many questions as to what to do next, as long as preservation laws are not in place.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Mia
|