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.
