Primer: Controversial Monuments and Statues

One of the most hotly debated topics in recent memory is what to do with controversial monuments and statues. The white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017 began as a protest over the planned removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. New York is debating about removing statues for people who benefited from slavery, which would include figures like George Washington. Another example of this debate is around Christopher Columbus. Many groups are calling for his statues and monuments to be removed, while others strongly oppose this. So, on Columbus Day, Northwestern’s Political Union is debating the following resolution:

Controversial monuments and statues in the US should be removed. 

Here are the arguments for the pro and the con. 

The first argument for the pro is that these monuments and statues are promoting historical people who did bad things, signaling that we can ignore these atrocities. Christopher Columbus enslaved and killed thousands of Indigenous Americans. Confederate generals, like Lee and Stonewall Jackson, fought for the preservation of slavery in the Civil War. By removing these statues, we would send a clear message that in our modern society, we recognize these people did bad things and we are not alright with that. Second, some argued that the harm of these figures continues with their monuments. When New Orleans had a statue of Robert E. Lee, residents felt that it was glorifying racism and oppression. With these harmful statues and monuments remaining where they are, they continue to cause harm. Finally, the pro side argues that statues of other, less controversial historical figures would be better suited in the place of controversial monuments. In the Capitol building, a bust of the Supreme Court Justice who authored the Dred Scott decision was replaced with Thurgood Marshall. In addition to taking away a controversial figure’s monument, a statue to the first African-American Supreme Court justice was able to take its place. 

The arguments for the con are also convincing, however. By taking away these monuments of historical figures, some argue that we are erasing our own history. Even though our history might be messy, it is necessary to remember it and not forget it through monuments. Former President Trump said that it is “censorship” to take down these monuments, going as far as to say that taking away these monuments would “demolish our heritage.” By ignoring the pressure to take down these monuments, the con side argues that our history would be preserved. Another argument for the con is that if we take away any statues, it could snowball into taking away any monument that has some hint of controversy with it. Figures like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson founded our nation, but also were deeply entwined in slavery. Abraham Lincoln had very complex views of African Americans, many of which are seen as unacceptable in today’s world. If we set a precedent to take away statues, it could grow until we don’t allow any statues to stand that have any controversial aspects to them. The final con argument to consider is whether the statues are causing any actual harm. If these statues are not to glorify historical misdeeds but to instead know our history, then people wouldn’t feel harm from the statues. The modern danger of racism, as argued in this blog post, is not inspired from statues but current sources. Focusing our attention on removing controversial statues does not give us the best chance to fight or solve our problems of today. 

I hope that you will come to our debate in Scott Hall, 201 on October 9th, 7pm! 

"California-05832 - Coit Tower & Christopher Columbus" by archer10 (Dennis) is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Previous
Previous

Opinion: Term Limits

Next
Next

Opinion: In Defense of Shutdown Season