In Written in Stone, Stanford Levinson looks at a variety of ways in which historic figures are remembered in the public eye and some of the surrounding controversy. Discussing a range of examples from a typical monument or statue to even street names and flags, Levinson points out the different ways that such controversies are handled and discusses methods to perhaps find that happy medium.
Levinson first notes how statues from Russian regimes are regularly removed or torn down following a successive regime. Similarly, Albania attempted to erase any history related to Enver Hoxha. Scholarly debates are abound over keeping monuments. One solution is to construct a current monument in contrast to one already in place so as to show both sides of a debated event. The sensitivity over such issues is certainly validated. An immediate impression of monuments is that they serve not only to stand as a reminder of an individual or an event, but do so in a glorified statement. Indeed, that is its definition.
The discussion over the Confederate flag dominated Levinson's book and rightfully so as it is a topic for debate even today. But memorializing the Confederacy extends beyond just flying the flag; monuments play a key role in how the Civil War is remembered. The monument in Texas, for example, is understandably controversial especially in regard to its rather skewed plaque which claims Southern failure on overwhelming numbers instead of the Confederate's own shortcomings.
One solution to questionable monuments is incorporating accurate explanations of the atrocities committed onto the plaque of said monument. Another method used by Hungary involved placing statues of Communist figures in a centralized location for visitors to come and learn about them. I feel this is the best solution as it allows the history to remain and be learned from while "de-glorifying" it. I would argue that one of the best ways to get a true understanding for the impact an individual had on history is to see that as a consequence of his actions, he was important enough to have a statue built in his honor by his followers. This drives home the point that such a figure was once highly revered and teaches the lessons which are so important for historians to drive home--to learn from the past.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You make a very good point concerning the need to know the actions and consequences of an individual before erecting a monument in his/her honor. Although he/she may have had a strong or direct imapact on a society, this does not necessarily mean that it was of a positive nature. Secondly, your argument that in order to avoid controversy of a particular monument or memorial, would be to show both sides of the event is a great start to showing equality and fairness while still attempting to stick with accurate historical facts. Though things are never so black and white in society, it would be a good attempt to include opposing viewpoints in order to gain a better understanding of the event or figure, as opposed to only representing a one-sided belief.
Post a Comment