What do statues represent

The losing side gradually put up statues to the figures representing the cause that lost the Civil War as a way of symbolizing that the social order remained in line with the ideology of the Confederacy. In other words, the losing side gradually put up statues to the figures representing the cause that lost the Civil War as a way of symbolizing that the social order remained in line with the ideology of the Confederacy. The placing of the monuments accompanied the curtailment of rights of African Americans through Jim Crow laws and segregation.

Nothing symbolizes better the continued inferior social status of African Americans in the United States than a statue of a wise-looking Jefferson Davis or a thoughtfully posed Robert E. Lee in a public square of an American city. Some may argue that statues to political leaders of the Confederacy may be difficult to justify but that statues of Confederate generals like Lee, Stonewall Jackson, or Jeb Stuart celebrate the far-reaching military skills they demonstrated, thus they are celebrated for their contributions to the U.

The argument is invalid, because the Confederate generals demonstrated their military skills for a cause—the retention of slavery—that was immoral and widely seen as such already in the midth century. As an analogy, German generals in World War II, such as Erich von Manstein, Heinz Guderian, and Erwin Rommel, demonstrated impressive military skills but they fought for an odious cause and there are no monuments to them in Germany today.

Military historians can argue about the tactical skills of Rommel or Jackson, and military officers can learn from the battlefield maneuvers that Rommel or Jackson conducted, but neither one deserves a monument in a public space. Retaining of monuments of figures who fought to keep African Americans subjugated is divisive and impedes progress in race relations.

Especially when the legacy of the cause of the Confederacy remains in the United States to this day and is evidenced by the social and economic disparities between African Americans and Americans of European descent, retaining of monuments of figures who fought to keep African Americans subjugated is divisive and impedes progress in race relations in the United States. Other countries have dealt with these issues and emerged for the better. Germany offers an example.

Proponents of retaining controversial monuments have suggested that to remove them would be to efface a part of history. They argue that statues should be preserved because they teach people about the past. But is viewing a statue actually an effective way of learning about history? An insightful way of answering this question is to examine the attitudes of past societies to their public monuments. Developments in 19th-century Europe, in particular, have the potential to unlock a fresh vantage point onto this contemporary issue.

In that era, many political communities pursued state-building programmes that involved appropriating history to serve interests in the present. Nations devoted substantial energy and resources to commemorating heroes from the past in monumental form. These monuments continue to shape the fabric of European cities. During the Second World War, the monument was encased in protective cement. Beginning in , the DDR authorities relocated it several times.

It was only after the reunification of Germany in that Frederick was returned to his original location. The ways in which monuments were used in 19th-century Belgium aptly illustrate wider European trends and attitudes in that era. Belgium was founded through revolution in and its political elite spent the next few decades consolidating its newly won independence. As part of a multifaceted programme intended to forge a new national identity, political authorities drew extensively from the past with the aim of legitimating Belgian nationhood in the present.

In contrast to more venerable nations such as England and France, Belgian state-builders could not point to continuity through long-standing institutions and structures that had existed for centuries. Instead, they had to harness the legitimating power of history in a different way. Thousands of years ago, a mysterious process called life gave birth to humanity. As far as science can measure, humans represent the highest creation on this planet.

Moreover, modern psychology reports that human potentials stand unlimited, which promises an enlightened, grand future. Humanity must mature and realize that every individual has a right to life, liberty and freedom. No race ranks higher than another, but only differs in qualities, attributes and characteristics.

Engaging in violence only creates more violence and escalates more conflict that never ends. For instance, there may be a monument to the animals who died in two world wars, but the suggestion in that a mosque should be built in London to commemorate the thousands of Muslims who were then fighting and dying for Britain was roundly dismissed.

No wonder only 22 per cent of the public appreciate that Muslims fought for Britain in those conflicts. Monuments, by their emphases and absences, distort history as much as they inform it. The narratives they intrude into the Present about power structures, values, and too often violence need to be challenged.

Featured image credit: Photo by James Eades on Unsplash. Your email address will not be published. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email. Search for:. On statues and history: The dialogue between past and present in public space 1 comment 22 shares Estimated reading time: 5 minutes.

Interesting article, I would be grateful if you could share any sources you consulted for this. Leave a Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published.