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/.

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