What do monuments represent

For critics, in removing these statues we are in danger of symbolically removing distasteful aspects of history which allow us to understand the present. In the case of the Rhodes statue at Oxford, some attempt to place the monument in its historical context, and note that Oriel College was founded in , and as such, its statues serve as a repository of history, good and bad.

It is an echo in stone of a different time. Why do people want to remove them? Advocates of removing statues of controversial figures, suggest that these monuments represent individuals whose actions and legacies should not be celebrated or memorialised. It follows that altering how we present the past through commemorative symbol is not ahistorical…on the contrary, it represents a more thorough coming to terms with the past and legacies, a refusal to forget.

Re-writing history? Which in turn means that the individuals and events of the past are legitimate parts of the narrative and fabric of history.

It is crucial for debaters to have read the articles in this section, which provide essential information and arguments for and against the debate motion. Students will be expected to have additional evidence and examples derived from independent research, but they can expect to be criticised if they lack a basic familiarity with the issues raised in the essential reading. Why is Cecil Rhodes such a controversial figure? BBC News 1 April The trouble with people who lived in the past David Mitchell Guardian 16 March Must Rhodes fall?

A public monument commemorates a person or event, generally reflecting the sentiment of the individual or group that commissioned it. But opinions and values change over time.

Many of the communities and individuals that erected celebratory statues of Confederate heroes in the 20th century did so in resistance to the loss of the Civil War, with the intent of bolstering a racist social structure centered on white supremacy and Jim Crow laws.

As local and national values evolved, these statues have become unacceptable to their communities, and the country as a whole. The decision to remove them reflects prevailing local and national values, and yet it has emboldened hate groups, who claim that history is being rewritten. We have seen the alteration, removal, and destruction of monuments time and time again, throughout history. We need to look at these statues and symbols as things that have divided America since their unveiling.

Demleitner and Perez agree that using the Veterans Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act to prosecute people suspected of vandalizing monuments would prove exceptional, especially considering the narrow circumstances the law covers. But whether statues fall through legal procedures or by the hands of activists, their removal from the public sphere does not end their life as symbols.

Perez shares the story of a Robert E. Lee monument which was taken down in a Dallas park in Afterward, the statue was privately sold to the highest bidder and installed in a golf resort by the Rio Grande in Texas as an obvious political statement just a few yards from the U. Seeing monuments as objects of mutable meaning is something that Paul Farber, cofounder of Monument Lab, an independent public art and history studio based in Philadelphia, is used to. As a curator and historian, he guides the organization in researching the meaning of public spaces and organizing artistic interventions to "facilitate critical conversations on the past, present, and future of monuments.

Farber and I last talked almost three years ago, when we were working together on a proposal for the redesign of Paine Plaza in Philadelphia—a brutalist public space which, until a few weeks ago, was the home of a statue commemorating Mayor Frank Rizzo, a figure well-known for brutal policing policies that targeted Black people in the city.

The statue was recently taken down by the current mayor, Jim Kenney, after pressure following recent protests during which the statue was painted red and vandalized.

For Farber, there is no such thing as a neutral public space. He also describes the long history of iconoclasm in public art, emphasizing how, more often than not, the right to alter public symbols is concentrated in the hands of the state, with a trend toward upholding existing structures and stifling change.

For Farber, monuments serve a critical educational purpose as "touchstones" that connect citizens to their past, but also as propaganda for systems that have the means to uphold them. It reflects the ever-changing nature of its neighborhood and represents the nature of monuments as constantly transforming objects.