Recently, I have been interested in why certain memorials are created and others not. We have read how there can be extreme controversy over the simple question of constructing a memorial or not, and I am interested in understanding more of the politics that occurs in the determination of the design and construction of sites. In particular, the memorialization of Christopher Columbus intrigues me. Though we have firsthand accounts that document his oppressive actions against the indigenous people of the New World, he has been commemorated throughout both the US and Spain.
I understand that if we only commemorated flawless individuals than our statues would solely be of Jesus and the Buddha and similar individuals without sin, but where do we draw the line? This connects with the adoration of George Washington and Robert E Lee at W&L. For our university these men were critical to our survival and current success, but should these achievements be overlooked since they were both slaveholders? Similarly, what should come of the Dean at VMI who is portrayed with a Bible and a diploma, but certifiably advocated for the continuation of slavery? Clearly, some individuals are more controversial than others, but I am interested in how some honored individuals are being criticized and how this will change in time.
In addition, even if some individuals, who may have complete villainous pasts, begin to be denounced, can these condemners truly change the hearts of current admirers? Figures like Robert E Lee clearly have strong supporters and criticizers at the moment, but would people, if informed about Columbus’s true actions, immediately renounce him as an influential figure, worthy of praise? Or would there be people, possibly Spaniards, who would emphatically maintain his importance as a pivotal leader in their history. Lastly, we saw the effect of taking down statues in Russia, but is this how all now-censured figures would be remembered?
No comments:
Post a Comment