Category Archives: Project #2

Criterion for New York Monuments

Leave a reply

Monuments have been erected for over a century in honor of someone, a group or an event. Many respectful and influential individuals have had monuments built to honor them for their beliefs, progress they’ve made fighting to solve a controversial issue but they are also others whose monuments are controversial in today’s day and age. Some monuments that have sparked debatable topics as of late are the confederate monuments of confederate generals like Robert E Lee and abolitionist and orator Henry Ward Beecher. Confederate monuments are being removed around the country under pressure from those who say they honor a regime that enslaved African-Americans. The pace has increased, however, in the wake of the deadly confrontation at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. These figures were known for their valiant efforts but they also committed disgraceful acts and represent hate and oppression. This is the reason why there is such a huge controversy on whether these monuments should remain or be taken down and destroyed. But to remove or keep a monument some criteria must be taken into account. These criteria will determine whether to remove a monument or take elsewhere. It should be taken into consideration the back-story of the person or event the monument is erected to celebrate or commemorate the surrounding influence, and the economic standpoint of the monument.

A monument shouldn’t be taken down because its illustration have been taken out of context or have been misinterpreted. An example is the Henry Ward Beecher monument in Brooklyn. Henry was an individual who was known for supporting the abolition of slavery. However his monument portrays an African-American woman kneeling at his feet to lay Palm fronds before him. This proved troublesome seeing as some who might not know of Henry and still some who do regards this as a message of white supremacy. Knowing this it would be beneficial to add a plaque next to the monument giving some info on the individual and what the monument portrays. This would provide some insight on the statue to those that doesn’t know about the monument, which would give no confusion and cause to removing the monument. Living in New York, I know how hard it is to move around, especially with tourists. Tourists go around New York City looking for these monuments, trying to understand our history. Other that dislikes these monuments stand in the way of the tourists trying to take photos, to get that perfect shot so they can remember the day they visited that monument.

If a Monument have an equal standing on whether it should be removed and destroyed or remain then it should be taken into account of any alternatives. One of such is the monument being taken elsewhere to a less populated environment or private property. The monument could be taken to a museum where those that appreciate, support and uphold the monument can visit it without any disturbances and the others that are offended by the monument are also satisfied with it being away from the public eye. Some monuments have been supporting there communities with the wide range of tourists they attract. This is an important fact in determining whether a mother should remain but with slight modification or be removed altogether. If the economic value of the monument is too great then the monument should remain with some adjustments made to smooth the disagreeing party that doesn’t support the monument. Everyone is different and entitled to their own opinion and views. This is why there is always a disagreement; we can’t change others beliefs, opinions and religion developing so much conflict.

In conclusion, these criteria will ensure a fair exhibit of monuments in New York. This criterion will see to it that there will be an equivalent representation of opinions and beliefs. I trust these criterion because it will allow many New Yorker’s and others around the country to be tolerant of the many options that exist. If any other criteria could be used to ensure a non bias judgment it I believe these criterion cover it. History has taught us that when bias types of criteria are utilized, violence is always used by the objecting party. We don’t need any more violence especially after the many violent actions that have risen since this argument began. We need peace; however we don’t want to ignore an old reoccurring problem such as ignorance. This criterion covers the most important thing, the safety in a community while determining the outcome of a monument. I trust if Bill de Blasio uses my criterion the populous of the state of New York and will benefit tremendously.

Citation:

Dubenko, Anna. “Right and Left on Removal of Confederate Statues.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Aug. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/politics/right-and-left-on-removal-of-confederate-statues.html.

“PRO AND CON: Should Confederate monuments be removed?” Richmond Times-Dispatch, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 16 May 2017, www.richmond.com/opinion/their-opinion/pro-and-con-should-confederate-monuments-be-removed/article_494c851c-34b2-11e5-8ec1-9b24a8cc97e6.html.

Watkins, Shannon. “Should the Confederate Monuments Stay or Go? — The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.” The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, 27 Aug. 2017, www.jamesgmartin.center/2017/08/confederate-monuments-stay-go/.

 

Criteria For Monuments

Leave a reply

There are so many monuments all over the world that represents a significant event or a tribute to a person.Also monuments can portray a message or powerful meaning. However, some monuments may cause controversy against people personal beliefs or portray a racism and hate.In the reaction of these controversy people start protesting to have these monuments removed but there should be a criteria that benefits the reason why such actions should be taken inconsideration

The first criteria for a monument is if a monument is portraying a racist or a hate belief to an ethnic group it should be taken down.Today there is a lot of racial injustice still going on and these monuments represents these issue which we shouldn’t be looking back on.For instance confederate monuments such as Robert E Lee in Charlottesville, Virginia there was a violent protest against this monument to be removed because of its racist history of minorities.White Supremacist were violently protesting for the monument to not be removed because it was part of them. The result in this protest ended life of many or injured some.Also is New York more plaques that honored Robert E Lee were removed after threats from people. Removing all Robert E Lee monuments would stop portraying his racism and hate towards minorities.

Another criteria for monuments is do it portray a positive message or negative.Monuments usually represents positive influencers or message which people find it interesting.For example the Christopher Columbus monument which is located in Central Park, people painted his hands red to symbolize the genocide and slavery he committed against the Native Americans.People usually look at Christopher Columbus for discovering “America” but don’t know about his negative actions.He captured a lot of natives and brought them back to Spain and sold them.With that being said this monument should be taken because it’s doesn’t symbolize any good of Christopher Columbus.It might be history but it doesn’t show any positive message or sympathy towards natives.

Not only monuments can cause controversy but it can affect people commute or invade public space.Yes, people may love a monuments that catches an eye but it may cause a distraction such as crowds which could delay someone from getting where they suppose to.Big monuments that invade public space should be moved to a museum where people go view them,especially tourists because there mostly the ones that are amused about monuments and it’s meaning behind it.Moving monuments to museums would benefit people commute and for the monument itself because some people don’t care about monuments.

In conclusion these are some criteria that best fit the status of whether a monument should be taken down or moved to a different location.A monument should be taken down if it is portraying racism to any ethnic group of people.Also if a monument is portraying a negative message or history it should be taken down.Some monuments that interrupt people commute or public space should be moved to a museum where people can go visit interests crowding sidewalks.

Cite:

1) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/16/us/confederate-monumentshttps://     

New York Times

2)  www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/updates/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments-removed.html

 

Controversial Criteria

Leave a reply

Monuments essentially represent a leader or a historic event that was significant to their time period. Centuries have past or they’re sometimes deceased when they’re finally recognized for what that represented or wrongfully acquired. This is why we argue if their monument or statue should be removed. Those who feel insulted have the right to speak out but not deface or dismantle the monument. Those who honor the statue have the privileges to praise but if their way is offensive, it must be put to a halt.
Righteous monuments have impacts on cities and states where both sides fall out in racial or nationality disputes. Just like in the years 1861 to 1865 when the North and South brutalized each other because of the differences between the free and slave states of the nation. Later starting the beginning of an indivisible country. Nationality can emerge an intense controversial argument because there are a variety of races, cultures, and ethnicities. Those that belong to different groups follow a different accordance. Whether they share beliefs with the monument or the statue his or herself. Those fortunate to live in an upper social class or in an area of a specific nationality believe in different rights that better them but often infringe others. Where as those who aren’t as fortunate may need the assistance of others. This is why if the statue is offensive to a nationality or a race it should be removed after the right approval so there are no legal actions necessary to be taken.
Should an individuals beliefs and practices reconfigure or spoil others for their own justification or does it take an entire organization to get the point across.
According to Huron Daily Tribune, Justice Moore put the monument in the rotunda of the courthouse in the middle of the night two summers ago. “He was sued by several lawyers who said the monument infringed on their religious freedoms”. I agree with the last sentence from the excerpt because freedom can be taken for granted and be portrayed as a different idea. For example the lawyers who sued used the ability to take Moore to court instead of violent actions. For the convenience of the chief, the middle of the night was in his best interest but it contradicts with the principles. If the statue is intimidating or unlawful to an individual or group it shall be removed through official criteria for the state. It should be approval from a senate member or state legislature that then sends for proper removal or replacement of the statue. This person would be labeled as the overseer for their state on monuments. In Baltimore they removed statues of Robert E Lee and Thomas J Stonewall Jackson in the middle of the night after the violent weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia. “The former Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake announced the creation of a special commission to review all of Baltimore’s Confederate statues and historical assets in June 2015.” I agree with the former mayor on reviewing all confederate statues and the other states that removed or relocated their confederate monuments after considering intensity in Virginia. For people whom suffered and were killed in battle or in sacrifice for their liberty, their monuments are placed to hold eternal value. They should not be affected, defaced or removed from its original site. However, if over time their legacy has changed because of truths that were told or political views weren’t obvious the statue should be reviewed. The history that makes the statue or monument significant is usually the reason for the controversy. But no actions can be taken unless approval from state. Symbols of hate, and leaders of hateful, and racial groups are direct causes for monuments being vandalized across the country. According to CNN, “Protesters gathered Monday around the Confederate Soldiers Monument at the old courthouse in Durham as one person climbed a ladder and tied a rope to the top of the statue while the crowd chanted, “We are the revolution”(Jackson). The protestors began to celebrate on live video how the felt when the statue of the nonspecific confederate soldier was brought down. I acknowledge Christopher Columbus and his monument in the city and what his conquest resulted in.
In a 2017 NY Times article, “ If you disagree with what Christopher Columbus symbolizes, you have the right to do that,” the governor added. “Don’t march in the parade. Go outside and hold a sign, God bless you. But no one, no one has the right to attack or deny our celebration or our pride of our great heritage.” I support what the governor said because that is the free will we have. Doing what you feel or want and think is right to do. According to NY Daily News Mayor de Blasio gathered a team of censors for the statues on city land that indicates racism. I agree with Blasio’s idea of reviewing statues before just removing because that shows consideration to everybody but to further pursue the removal of the statue they should consider using a state representatives approval and a faculty to store the monument. Causing less controversy in the state.

Works Cited

Jackson, Amanda. “CNN.” CNN, Cable News Network, 16 Aug. 2017, www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/confederate-statue-pulled-down-north-carolina-trnd/index.html.

Eisinger, Dale W., and Graham Rayman. “Protesters Call for an End to Columbus Day, Removal of NYC Statue.” NY Daily News, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, 9 Oct. 2017, www.nydailynews.com/new-york/protesters-call-columbus-day-removal-statue-article-1.3551324.

Grierson, Jamie. “Baltimore Takes down Confederate Statues in Middle of Night.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 16 Aug. 2017, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/16/baltimore-takes-down-confederate-statues-in-middle-of-night#img-1.

“Ala. Judge Loses Ten Commandments Appeal.” Huron Daily Tribune, www.michigansthumb.com/news/article/Ala-Judge-Loses-Ten-Commandments-Appeal-7333036.php.

How monuments should be critiqued: Project #2

Leave a reply

Monuments hold up so much importance in today world, there is so much controversy surrounding the statues and the history built around them. Many just claim to want to tear down the monuments rather then put them up on a Museum because of the person’s actions in the pass before they became known to the world and others say that it laid the foundation of the world we live in today. the events of Charlottesville have impacted the country in a way where tensions have risen. Mayor Bill Deblasio has stated the monuments being a “symbols of hate” and would like to build guidelines on how a monument should be critiqued. His criteria for evaluating these said monuments is crucial for the fate of all monuments in New York City. I believe if the person should truly has a good history and send a message to mankind to evolve our civilization in the best possible manner. The mayor should take in consideration both sides to determine the state of the statues in the future. 

The tearing down of monuments is not new to history. Many have been taken down whether it be the end of a dictatorship or the people unhappy with what the monument symbolizes or what it was originally men to be shown as a historical achievement. one-way Mayor Bill Deblasio should critique monuments is if they have any oppressive, racist, morally wrong history to them. They convey that the monuments of terrible people should stay up. one example I can give is the famous memorial of Thomas Jefferson. Early years he was seen as a historical figure who has brought wisdom and help lead the foundation of America but now that we have the convenience of the internet we can find more background information on him. He has been known now for being a horrible slave owner who would not only own and abuse his slave but use to kill the dogs of the slaves because of his hostility towards dogs. It should be known that if a monument used to show or become some sort of oppressive symbol throughout the years their monument should be taken into consideration of being torn down. 

The message behind a monument should be one of that to show that humanity is stepping into the right direction. in some cases, it may be a message to remember those who have passed away over a tragedy or send of message of hope and resilience maybe of one person who has made a huge step or rebellion like the Taino rebel Enrique. who stopped Christopher from eradicating his race from history. the events that Enrique caused was a symbol for people who they think have lost it all. their families and friends and to show that we as a group must fight against the oppression and to rise above to show that we as people can overcome and move forward. I for one would enjoy a monument dedicated to Enrique in New York. a monument that sends a message of positivity should be what people want to see. not one that conveys a negative message and be glorified over the tragic events that the person is responsible for, that is when people start getting agitated and start riots or fights. a message that everyone can get along to. 

If a monument is causing controversy and unhappiness towards a majority of people it should be ether taken down or moved to a new location where people who do enjoy what the monument symbolizes so both sides can get what they want. After the events of Charlottesville people from both sides on whether it should stay up or be torn down has gotten really violent. Mayor Bill Deblasio should take into consideration of both sides and see what he can make up of the situation. This keeps both party’s happy, stopping the controversy by not making it a public monument by moving it to a library or Museum. That way if people did wish to see the said monument they could visit their local location that shows research of said person for all their accomplishments and short comings. this would also be an ideal situation to keep everyone safe. 

Monuments should be remembered for the accomplishments of mankind rather than a memory of negativity and hate. The ones that should be displayed publicly are ones that send a good message for people from all around the world rather than one that might be used to cause discomfort to some. Mayor Bill Deblasio should use some criteria that will benefit not only one but both sides to ensure the safety of his people and the future for other monuments. 

source : https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/nyregion/columbus-statue-de-blasio-monumentmoncommission.html

https://holy77spirit.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/remember-enrique/

Statue Criteria

Leave a reply

On August 11th-12th, a ‘Unite the Right’ Rally took a violent turn after white supremacist groups clashed with counter protesters ranging from members of Antifa, an anti-fascist group that is dedicated to “supporting oppressed people” and fighting “the amassing of wealth by corporations and elites” (Jessica Suerth, CNN.com) and ordinary civilians when a car plowed into a crowd of counter protesters. The incident left a woman dead and over a dozen injured. What were the groups fighting over? A statue. After the incident, Bill De Blasio, the mayor of New York City, said on Twitter, “After the violent events in Charlottesville, New York City will conduct a 90-day review of all symbols of hate on city property.” With this action, a question has been in the minds of many Americans: What about the person, group, or ideal should be taken into consideration when creating a new statue or monument? The person’s impact on a certain event in American or world history should be taken into consideration when statues in America are being created. The individual(s) should also be relevant to the area that their statue/monument will be placed. A final piece of criteria would be taking into consideration why an individual may be celebrated by different people.

Every monument or statue dedicated to someone or a group has some sort of historical or religious significance. The statues that don’t represent people will usually represent a certain ideal. For example, the Statue of Liberty, a gift from France, was a symbol of democracy, enlightenment ideals, and the abolishment of slavery in America. But, as with many monuments, the meaning and story behind quite a few statues are interpreted differently by many. For the majority of those 14 million immigrants that entered America between the years of 1886 and 1924, the Statue of Liberty represented not democracy and the abolishment of slavery, but a sign of ‘welcome’ that told them they were about to begin their new lives. It’d be quite difficult to argue that the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of hate, so we’ll mention a famous controversial symbol: the Confederate Flag. The Confederate Flag is seen by many Americans as a symbol of hate. Conversely, Americans in the south see it as simply part of American (specifically in the south) history and a form of southern pride. What is called the Confederate Flag is a battle flag, it is what confederate troops marched to, fought in the name of, and died alongside during the Civil War. Some southerners celebrate the flag to pay homage to their ancestors that fought for a cause they believe in whether the cause was just or unjust, and that’s reason to celebrate in itself. (Ben Jones for NYpost) It is, however, important to explicitly state that modern American values are not that of the values of the Confederacy. What should be supported is the spirit of fighting for a cause and the celebration of ancestors, not the archaic philosophies that have proved to be outdated and generally looked down upon. The Confederate flag can not only serve as historic symbolism, but an ode to revolution. The Confederate flag is significant to American history and there’s no denying that fact. Though the symbols may still be flown in support of unjust and immoral actions or beliefs, keep your mind open as to what else the flag may mean to others.

The removal of statues in America isn’t a new phenomenon. Jacey Fortin from the New York Times claims that “just five days after the Declaration of Independence was ratified…soldiers tore down a gilded statue of King George III in Manhattan.” The toppling of the statue was in the name of defiance to an old ruler. With that statue destroyed, the patriots felt a bit freer.  Another statue is at risk of being toppled. At the center of national controversy is the Robert E Lee statue in Charlottesville, Virginia. Lee was a general in the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy and was widely known for his military expertise. Some believe that Robert E. Lee is undeserving of a monument because of his position on slavery (in support of it) during the Civil War and because of that, he is a symbol of hate. Because he is considered a hate symbol for some, he is one of many controversial figures facing threats of the toppling of monuments and the renaming of places that were previously dedicated to and named after him. Because of the fact that we as humans have emotional impulses, I believe it is very important to look at what history an individual brings to a specific place. For example, Robert E. Lee was a prominent figure in the Civil War, and he was known for being from and representing Virginia during the Civil War. Residents of southern states are usually proud of the statues they have, not just because of the aesthetics of the monuments, but because the monument makes the state of Virginia – and in this case Charlottesville, VA – historically significant.

When it comes to monuments being divisive, the only “fair” way to deal with a statue is to keep it where it is or to either transfer it to a museum or destroy it. So, in light of the recent events, many polls were done to assess how Americans felt about Confederate monuments. A poll done by Marist College found that 44 percent of African Americans, 65 percent of Latinos, and 65 percent of white Americans believe that the Confederate monuments should remain as they are for the sake of historic symbolism. Eleven percent of African Americans said they’re unsure while 40 percent said to remove the statues. Twenty-four percent of Latino Americans and twenty-five percent of whites said that they could be taken down, respectively. While that poll was done after a racially fueled incident in 2017, another poll was done by CNN on the 26th-28th of July 2015, 10 days after the Charleston church shooting by Dylan Roof. After the shooting, images of Dylan Roof posing with a gun and the Confederate circulated on the internet, portraying the flag in a very negative light. Despite this, the poll found that 57% of Americans oppose “redesigning state flags that feature Confederate emblems or symbols to remove references to the Confederacy”. This shows that even today most Americans, in the face of a demoralizing situation would still allow the flag to be flown or for statues to remain because of not only their historical aspects, but because of what they main mean to those in the south.

In all, the historical importance, the location of a monument relative to their impact on an area, and how a certain symbol can be interpreted should be criteria when evaluating statues. One cannot simply think about all of a person’s faults in their evaluations because then one can argue that Martin Luther King Jr. doesn’t deserve a statue because he cheated on his wife and is therefore an immoral figure. I say that the person’s historical impact, be it by way of discovering land like Columbus, fighting for civil rights like MLK, or even by creating military strategies like Robert E. Lee, is the most important thing to pay attention to when considering these statues and monuments for removal. It’s also just as important to have the location of the statue/monument coincide with the person’s historical endeavors (areas they were known for occupying or where they were born) as it wouldn’t make much sense for there to be a Henry Ward Beecher statue in Montana if he never impacted that area. Finally, how someone interprets a symbol is important. Yes, people use the confederate flag when committing acts of violence, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a symbol that only incites violence. For some, the American flag represents unity and freedom; for others, it represents the very evils that corrupt this world such as greed and narcissism. In cases like this, it’s just a matter of perspective.

 

Works Cited

“Americans take a stand: Leave ’em up.” The New York Post. (August 18, 2017 Friday ): 167 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2017/10/10.

Blasio, Bill de. “Charlottesville.” Twitter, Twitter, 16 Aug. 2017, twitter.com/NYCMayor/status/897926610271166464.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Standford University, kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_federal_bureau_of_investigation_fbi/.

Jones, Ben. “The New York Times Company.” The New York Times, The New York Times,www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/19/does-the-confederate-flag-breed-racism/the-confederate-flag-is-a-matter-of-pride-and-heritage-not-hatred

Randall, Amber. “POLL: Most Black Americans Don’t Want Confederate Statues Removed.”The Daily Caller, The Daily Caller, 17 Aug. 2017,  dailycaller.com/2017/08/17/poll-most-black-americans-dont-want-confederate-statues-removed/.

“Robert E. Lee.” Civil War Trust, Civil War Trust, www.civilwar.org/learn/biographies/robert-e-lee.

Suerth, Jessica. “What Is Antifa?” CNN, Cable News Network, 17 Aug. 2017, www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html.

 

“The Immigrant’s Statue.” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, www.nps.gov/stli/learn/historyculture/the-immigrants-statue.htm.

Prime criterion for evaluating monuments

Leave a reply

Brandon Casimir

English 1101

 

Monuments are a symbol of a remarkable point in history and should be glorified due to the positive impacts they withheld. Monuments should remain an explicit way of commemorating a specific person or event. There are many monuments all over the world that reveals a great significance, however some remain a symbolism of hate and can target a specific ethnic group, race, and or sexual preferences. Monuments with such characteristics should be removed.

 

One way a monument is used is by honoring fallen soldiers that have fought in passed wars. While venturing the Cadman Plaza area of Downtown Brooklyn I came across a park named Korean War Veterans Plaza. An alluring granite monument to fallen Brooklyn soldiers who fought in the war. The Korean war was North Korea’s desperate attempt to take over South Korea and have just one Korea. In efforts to stop this The United States sent troops from all over to help and fight. The monument was created to pay tribute to the soldiers that lost their lives. Tourists who view this monument can pay homage to the soldiers and never forget the people who once served the country so that the people of the future can live better lives. “In 1987, the Korean War Veterans Memorial Committee was formed to raise money to build a monument to commemorate the soldiers of the “forgotten war.” Honoring the people that fought for us in the past should be a prime example of what criterion should be used for evaluating monuments.

 

Monuments were also used to honor specific people that led a great change to the world. One of these monuments would consist of Robert F. Kennedy. After finding the Korean War Veterans Plaza, I did more surveying of the area and came across a statue of Robert F. Kennedy. Brother of the 35th president, Kennedy served as U.S Attorney General. Soon after his brother’s assassination he launched a successful campaign for the United States Senate in 1964. Kennedy also spoke out against the war in Vietnam. “America in the mid-1960’s was in the thick of the Vietnam War abroad, and grappling with civil rights at home.  Robert Kennedy as U.S. Attorney General in the early 1960’s, had become directly engaged in the civil rights struggle…” This is just one of Kennedy heroic deeds to bettering the U.S. It also includes, “Following the assassination of his brother in 1963, and by 1965 as a U.S. Senator, RFK continued his political metamorphosis, gradually becoming a more vocal and aggressive champion for minority rights for African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and immigrant groups.”  If a monument is created for a commemoration for an event or a person who positively impacted the world t should stay relevant.

 

Although monuments are created to honor the good that has been done from a certain event or specific person, there are monuments that hold negative incentives and should be removed. An instance in where a monument should be removed is if that monument glorifies hate or prejudice towards another race or ethnicity. An example of this type of monument would be the statue of Benjamin Tillman located in South Carolina. Although the plaque on the statue state” life of service and achievement” his beliefs on race were not apparent. ” Tillman moved on to the U.S. Senate in 1895, apologetically defending until his death in 1918 his post-Reconstruction tactics to restore white rule in the then-majority-black state by killing any black who tried to vote.” This prove that Tillman was a white supremacist that did not want to see African American citizens prospers. This statue is a symbol of racism and hate towards African-Americans and should not stand any longer. That was only one example as where Tillman committed many other heinous acts to instill fear into African Americans. Another example is shown in the line. “The purpose of our visit was to strike terror,” he said in the Senate in 1900 about the so-called Hamburg Massacre of 1876, where his militia killed black Republicans. “And the next morning when the Negroes who had fled to the swamp returned to the town the ghastly sight which met their gaze of seven dead Negroes lying stark and stiff certainly had its effect.” A person that committed such acts should not have a monument build in his favor therefore it should be removed.

 

In conclusion, there are some criteria that should be considered before a monument should be  upheld. Although we live in a time where monuments mainly get attention from tourists and newcomers they should still be recognized as a symbol of honor and commemoration to a specific event or person in time. Monuments should stay relevant for the reasons of hopefully soon all the monuments that promotes the negative aspects of the dark past of the United States will be removed and forgotten.

 

Works Cited:

Larimer, Sarah. “Why a Vitriolic Jim Crow Advocate Is Still Memorialized on S.C. Statehouse Grounds.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 9 July 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/09/should-this-controversial-s-c-governors-statue-be-included-in-the-debate-over-confederate-symbols-on-statehouse-grounds/?utm_term=.92cf9c52c406%2C%2Bit%2Bstates%2C.

 

Dicks, J.D. J. “John F. Kennedy Statue.” The Pop History Dig, Pop History, Aug. 2016, www.pophistorydig.com/topics/tag/robert-f-kennedy-history/.

 

Antiquities, Art N. “The Battery.” The Battery Monuments – New York Korean War Veterans Memorial : NYC Parks, NYC Parks, 2015, www.nycgovparks.org/parks/battery-park/monuments/1930

Project 2

Leave a reply

A monument is a form of artwork in reference to either a person or an event, that symbolizes a great significant change on a time period in history. For quite some time, monuments have been a controversial topic. Currently Mayor De Blasio is trying to decide whether or not the people these statues are dedicated to are deserving of a monument and if they should remain due to the controversy some monuments have caused. To be represented by a monument, the person should have a significant impact on the way of life for human beings. Their ideas should have changed history for a greater purpose during that time period, so it could remain as a positive remembrance in the long run. The location of the monument should have a connection to their life and the way they were portrayed. These criterias should be used because they evaluate the meaning behind the monument, the location, and whether the image is portrayed correctly.

A monument should not have had an impact such as the death of many because that seems to cancel out the good that was done. For example, Christopher Columbus, he is known for“ discovering lands” but then in the process of doing so he killed many people and that was often overlooked and is one of the many reasons why the story behind him is so controversial. This is so, because the people would argue the bad he did over the good and why he doesn’t deserve a monument. The idea of the monument being created could cause a problem and upset many, because of the many tragedies that occurred during his adventure.

A monument should have impacted history in a positive way and affected the lives of many positively as well. By doing positive things for the people and  changing lives for the better good would cause less of a problem and hold more of an idea of hope, but that is all based on how people sculpted the monument. The Henry Ward Beecher monument for example was a well deserving monument, because he didn’t have a detrimental impact on the lives of many. Henry Ward Beecher helped to set slaves free and stood up for women during his years. However, the way the monument was sculpted would sometimes cause for concern, he is placed on this pedestal and to the left of him is two kids placing a wreath at his foot and to the right of him is a slave placing a branch at his feet. This does not convey the idea of positivity on the way of how people showed their appreciation for him. By portraying him this way, it doesn’t look as though he was a people person, he looks as though he was above everyone. This would cloud someone’s judgement when looking at the monument before reading about him. While the person who sculpted it, displayed it like this for the sole purpose to see that he was a person who was looked to as a savior. Although monuments have a good meaning and are placed due to their accomplishments that has had a positive effect on the world, the way they are portrayed holds a higher standard. It could have been something people look forward to and something they want to have a remembrance of. If it is portrayed incorrectly then it could cause a conflict and cause the monument to be looked down on. This is because there will be people who do not know the history behind each monument and because they do not know their first idea will probably cause a feeling of disgust instead of happiness.

The feeling and setting of a monument is also a part that determines if the monument should remain or be removed. If the area where the monument is placed has nothing to do with the monument or the idea it holds then that could also cause a controversial outcome or confusion. This is because some monuments would hold a better standard if placed in the museums as opposed to being placed in the out and open so that others can see or in an area where they have no ties to that area. Monuments that cause a lot of controversial behavior should not be placed out in the open because this will raise the price of maintaining the monument. Someone might feel as though the monument does not belong based on their own preference and decide to take actions to prove the idea that they do not belong there and vandalize the monument. By doing so the government would try to fix the monument and the people would continue to cause damage, which would be an ongoing process that doesn’t really get resolved. A monument that doesn’t have a meaning for being where it is, would raise questions as in “why are they here of all places”. If a monument has a relationship with the area though, depending on the monument people would get the feeling of happiness, and awe. They would feel like the history of it all has come together and understand that area more based on the monument and the reading about them. There would be people to argue that monuments are not supposed to be taken down due to history regardless of the people’s feeling and that causes a lot of problems as well, while someone may think a monument should be taken down due to their history some people would look and say that its because of that history that they are where they are today. This was taken from the LexisNexis article which gave an insight on why monuments should stay and how much problems it would cause if removed.

To decide whether a monument is to remain or be removed is based on a few couple of things. The person or thing the monument is dedicated to should not have caused a massive amount of lives, because then the person did not care about the lives that passed during their time. They should have turned history itself for the greater good and allowed people to remember them positively. They should be portrayed properly, if they are portrayed incorrectly then it could change the feeling people get when seeing the monument.The setting of the monument is important as well, because if the setting has nothing to do with the monument the feeling people get would bring bad vibes towards the neighborhood. All of these requirements should determine the decision for a monument, because a monument holds a significant standard and to make a decision of staying or going you have to look more than just what the monument holds. But the area surrounding the monument and how the monument would be portrayed. 

 

               

Work Cited

Biography editors. “Henry Ward Beecher.” Biography.com ,              www.biography.com/.amp/people/henry-ward-beecher-9204662

 

Adrienne Jones. “Why The Confederate Monuments Need To Come Down.” LexisNexis.com,  www-lexisnexis-com.citytech.ezproxy.cuny.edu/hottopics/inacademic/?verb=sf&sfi=AC00NBGenSrch

 

We should review the removal of monuments critically

Leave a reply

     Monuments have been around ever since 1890, which was a hundred year after the United States are founded. Some monuments are statues that were builded by our society and some are naturally formed. Monuments held a specific meaning behind each one of them which makes the monument more unique. In the past hundred years, the amount of monuments raised rapidly which occurred controversy between the communities. Every monuments has a purpose of being where it is regardless if it’s just for show or not. With that thought, there is no reason for the monument to be removed due to someone’s opinions about the monument meaning. When we review a petition of a monument being removed, we should review it critically and if it’s reasonable enough.

     Ever since monuments existed, the debates between whether it should stay or being removed gave the society a big question mark. Since each monument have an individual meaning, the thought of it being removed should be carefully determined by the government. On the other hand, if a community can not thought of a good reason for it to be take down, then it should not be proceed. If the government wants to build a new monument statues, the project should be view critically base on the background meaning, area which mean the community and cost to prevent conflicts. One reason why monument should be kept is because it teaches us lessons of the past. In an article call Why we shouldn’t pull down all those confederate memorials by Alfred L. Brophy, it states “Primarily, there’s a danger that we’ll forget the connections of past racial crimes to correct racial inequality.” If we get rid of the statues, how can we learn about the mistakes or the achievements we have in the past? Think back to Grade school, we have field trip to many different types of statues for a better understanding of the lesson we have. One important thing  people forgot about is that removing a statues cost money, who’s going to pay for the expense?

     Many people acknowledge facts that some monument statues are inappropriate for the public to be seen. They claim that some statues reminds everyone America’s dark history. It’s such a big debate because some citizen agrees that its distributing however some state that  remembering our history reminds us not to make the same mistake again. One dark history I’m really interested in is the discrimination of African American. It was a dark age for all the African Americans, they were force to bought on ship and being sold in the market. Theres no education being provided for them and the only place they get to eat, live in is their master’s house, who they work for and who bought them in the market with money. The situation change when Martin Luther King interfere telling the world everyone should be treated equally, because of his action, protesting started to happen, slavery was slowly dying out. In honor of Martin Luther King, the African American community builded a statues to remind the next generation who gave new lives to the race, however, I’ve seen lots of comments and posts wanting the statues to be removed.

     The removal of Martin Luther King’s statues should not be proceed. Behind the monument, it contains meaning of the past our country went through. Other race claim that the monument is “racist” and “offensive” while the statues just placed there to resemble the past. I found a petition online about the reasons why we should removed the statues, the person said “we the people feel that is it honoring and supporting racial hatred towards white people.” Martin Luther King plays a major part in the history, honoring him should be allow. I understand some monument can be offensive toward a specific group of race but it should not be the main reason why a monument can be taken down because of that. There’s not a good reason that’s being given to the public for us to agree it should be removed.

     If the statues of Martin Luther King is taken down due to racism then I believe African American have the right to revolt and start a petition to take down George Washington and Thomas Jefferson’s monument. George Washington is United State’s first president but he’s also a slave owner and so is Thomas Jefferson. In the article call Don’t Take Down Confederate Monuments. Here’s why by Sophia A. Nelson, she states “the people who hated having black classmates at their school didn’t hate us because there were statues of Robert E. Lee or George Washington (our nation’s first president and a slave owner… If we start taking statues down, well, we better go for old Thomas Jefferson (master of a slave who was his mistress and mother of at least four of his children). And lets not forget President Trump’s favorite president, Old Hickory—Andrew Jackson. Another slave-holding Indian-killing president of our nation.” If Martin Luther King’s statues expresses racism towards a specific race then these president’s statues is doing the same thing. African American’s personal feelings of these statues should be the same as the others who wants to removed the Martin Luther King’s statues. If we review the petition, we should ask, if the reason is good enough to convince the community and the government. On the other hand, removing it because some people feel offended, then it should not be process because it’s affecting only a specific group or person, not the whole society.

     Monuments are for the next generation to remember the historical events that happened. If we choose to take some of it down because of some reasons then how should the next generation learn about our past? No matter how negative a historical event can be, we have to learn to face them, not to run away from them. We need to learn our lesson from our past to make our present wiser.

Work cited:

Article: De Blasio’s begging for trouble with his ‘monuments review’

Author: Post Editorial Board

Time posted: September 8, 2017

 

Article: Don’t take down the confederate monument. Here’s why

Author: Sophia. A. Nelson

Time posted: October 9, 2017

 

All Monuments Should Be Put In Museums (Part 5)

Leave a reply

Around the world there are many monuments that mean something. With each monument is a message and sometimes  that message is meaningfully to a group of people or an individual.When looking at a monument comes a good question.What happened, Why is this here, and What does it mean. Knowing that almost every monument has been built to show some type of history it can also offend people or it can not. Everything that has happened in history has been a good turnout and some have not.The question that some people should really consider is whether it offends people, and whether it’s a good idea to place the monument in that area. Monuments can indeed disturb people and people will always have an opinion and try to argue the fact that it’s offensive to them. So instead to avoid conflict all monuments should be put in a museum.

As of today most people don’t really pay attention to monuments. Unless they are going on a school trip and have an assignment on monuments. Where others such as  old people or tourist are usually the ones looking or viewing the monuments. In this case if you live in a state or country you usually aren’t interested in the monuments around your neighborhood.Which brings back to as why it’s a good idea to place monuments in museums. With what has happen in the world there’s a lot of hate and anger which have reflect into violence and possibly war. It has divided people and their beliefs. Since a lot has happen over many years people have established this idea of continuing history by building monuments that have had a big impact in society.

Monuments should be put into museums just for the fact that it can create conflict with other people.If there’s a monument that a group of people don’t agree on or feel strongly about then they will do anything to remove it know matter what the cost is. People will even start to protest just to get their message out. Where instead it will be in best interest to just put all  monuments in a museum and if a person feels strongly about the monument then they don’t have to go to the museum. Even so if it’s in a museum then they won’t have to worry about it at all because of it’s location. It will be better because then it will be surrounded with history. What will happen is  that since people are already protesting for one monument,  they will think it’s okay and will continue to do the same for other monuments. So just to stop the conflict all monuments should be put into museums. For example the statue of Robert Lee in Charlottesville, Virginia  which is a confederate statue, was offensive to a  certain group of  people. Since all Confederate statues are white supremacy people felt that, this monument need to be taken down. Just based on the history behind it and what also happen in 2015 with a man name Dylann Roof who was a white supremacist and actually took action into going into a church and killing 9 black people. So with monuments like this can be offensive and people will take it a certain way where they will feel strongly about taking it down. Where in my criteria when looking at a monument it can  affect people or not and if it does what can someone in charge do about it.  In that case can consider putting it in a museum.

If you really think about it, it’s a great idea. Cause if a monuments is inside of a museum you don’t have to worry about gratified, or even the affects that the monument may have due to the weather. If a monument is placed in a museum then there’s no worry about people vandalizing it. So if the monument was outside what  people can do is  actually do gratified on every Confederate statue just because they don’t want that monument there. Plus if you think about it there would be money wasted on cleaning up the monument where in this case that money can be used somewhere else that is more valuable.To add  having monuments in New York City with the weather we get  can possibly turn it a certain color of have the color faded. With that can cost more money to recolor it. Even so if there’s a monument that is located in an area that has a lot of snow, that bring it to looking like a rusty color where it shows it has not been taken care of.

In conclusion my criteria of looking at a monuments is thinking of whether or not it should be placed there and does it affect people. Where in many cases all monuments should be put into museums. Cause if people in charge of these monuments are concern about the color fading or someone or something destroying the monument of vandalizing it.It will be in the best interest to then put the monuments in a museum so that it’s secure and it safe from anybody destroying it, which once again will save money. To argue that a majority of people will feel some type of relief of not having it in a certain place will help out with conflict. Furthermore to as why monuments will be a great idea to place in museums is so that people can learn about history a little more and with monuments being in museums  people won’t feel the need to protest or have a grudge on that monument. By a monument being in a museum can help others learn and it won’t  offend people because museums are a place to learn about history and the knowledge of how this world came about.

Work Cited:

Lopez, German. “The Battle over Confederate Statues, Explained.” Vox, Vox, 16 Aug. 2017, www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/16/16151252/confederate-statues-white-supremacists.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/16/16151252/confederate-statues-white-supremacists

Deblasio’s Criteria Final Draft

Leave a reply

Monuments are constant reminders of events, ideals, commonality, and of notable people. Over time we accumulated many monuments, that have been dedicated to various histories and people. Some of which glorify people with backgrounds in slavery, genocide, and morally unacceptable acts. Which is why some monuments are stirring up a lot of debate on whether or not they should be kept. All over the United States, statues such as Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Virginia are being removed to please protests (Jacy Fortin). This has inspired New Yorkers to protest several statues of our own, causing Mayor De Blasio to step up and assemble a board of directors to oversee removal of statutes. The Board is currently working hard to survey communities to see what type of criteria they should be using to review statutes. I also have a solution to our problem (William Neuman). I feel that no monument should be removed. Instead they should be updated and modernized to teach the youth accurate lessons about the history surrounding the monument.

History has often been skewed by holidays and communities to change the common understanding of monuments and the people they are dedicated to. Although some statues have been made in honor of people whose whole legacy was not taken into account, it is up to the modern people to update them. Every statue is an opportunity to inform members of a community. An example of where history has been skewed is the Columbus statue in Columbus park. Columbus is the famed explorer that “discovered” the Americas. He’s glorified in history books, and they often leave out a very big chunk of Columbus’ legacy. Columbus played a big part in the genocide of Caribbeans and Natives that first settled the Americas. The statue is a constant reminder of the genocide, and offends people of caribbean and native backgrounds. So many citizens want it to be removed. It’s also in discussion that instead of removing the statue, we should add a plaque. A sign that will shine a light on the lives lost due to Columbus’ part in the genocide (Yoav Gonen). Which goes along with my idea of modernizing statues and using them to teach the youth accurate lessons about the history surrounding monuments. Another example of a statue that was dedicated to a figure without their whole legacy being taken into account is the statue of J Marin Sims in Central Park. J Marin Sims was a surgeon that made great strides in the medical world (Zoe Rosenberg).He was praised for years, but it’s come to light that his breakthroughs were made on the backs of black enslaved women. He performed experiments on these enslaved woman against their will, and without anesthesia. Instead of removing the statue in Central Park I believe that we should also add a plaque to inform people about the injustice. To shift the appreciation from J Marin Sims to the black enslaved women he experimented on.

Economically most monuments, big or small, actually bring a lot of economical wealth to an area (Nancy Pfund). For example, the statue of liberty brings a lot of jobs to people operating ferries, and the small tourist shops near the docks. Monuments bring in a lot of tourists who in turn bring economic growth to an area. It doesn’t come at the same magnitude as stadiums like Barclays or the Staples Center, but it’s a considerable amount. Our most recent 9/11 memorial brings a lot of business to the area surrounding it. So if we remove statues, we not only pay to remove them, but take a bit of a hit community wise.

So who will pay for it? No private business or organization will have the resources to pay for such a massive project. There are instances where communities have crowd funded the creation of statues. I believe that these communities should be responsible for updating the statues that they created. However, on the other hand the remaining statues should be updated with taxpayer money. Updating these statues and giving them an educational aspect will pay off in the long run and create a more conscious community. So just like we use taxpayer money for education, we should invest in these statues all the same.

Statues should never be removed. They, like history, is created to be learned from. Statues should be constant reminders of the past, if we remove them we deny that parts of history ever happened. I do agree that they must be updated to properly inform the public about neglected histories.

 

Sources

    1. Neuman, William. “Ordering Review of Statues Puts De Blasio in Tricky Spot.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 Aug. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/nyregion/ordering-review-of-statues-puts-de-blasio-in-tricky-spot.html.
    2. Suerth, Jessica. “Here Are the Confederate Memorials That Will Be Removed after Charlottesville.” CNN, Cable News Network, 22 Aug. 2017, www.cnn.com/2017/08/15/us/confederate-memorial-removal-us-trnd/index.html.
    3. Gonen, Yoav. “Columbus Statue May Get an ‘Explanation’ Plaque.” New York Post, New York Post, 28 Aug. 2017, nypost.com/2017/08/28/columbus-statue-may-get-an-explanation-plaque/.
    4. Gartland, Michael. “De Blasio Says Removing Columbus Statue Is on the Table.” New York Post, New York Post, 25 Aug. 2017, nypost.com/2017/08/23/de-blasio-says-removing-columbus-statue-is-on-the-table/.
    5. Rosenberg, Zoe. “New York Statue of Doctor Who Experimented on Black Women Eyed for Removal.” Curbed NY, Curbed NY, 22 Aug. 2017, ny.curbed.com/2017/8/22/16183626/j-marion-sims-central-park-statue-removal-nyc.
    6. Fortin, Jacey. “The Statue at the Center of Charlottesville’s Storm.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 13 Aug. 2017, nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-rally-protest-statue.html.

Pfund, Nancy. “National Monuments Are an Engine for Economic Growth.” TheHill, TheHill, 19 Apr. 2016, thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/276877-national-monuments-are-an-engine-for-economic-growth.