Should Monuments And Memorials Be Changed Over Time Essay

Recently with all the news about confederate statues being taken down, a important question has been brought up: Is it morally right to take down a statute if it is a part of history? To answer this we first have to go through the two types of statues, memorials and monuments. Memorials are made in order to remember an event or person for the better or worse, while a monument is made in order to honor an event or person. However, they can sometimes be interchangeable terms due to the meaning of the statute being changed. Which leads me back to the confederate statutes. Several of these statutes were originally made as monuments, but over time they became more of a part of history than anything else. Like most things, over time they have changed, in this case it's the meaning behind a statute. Now, instead of honoring confederate soldiers, they have become memorials for the civil war and what it represented, but they haven’t changed physically with their meaning. Their original intent is still there, even though it is not meant to be there anymore. This brings up another question: How should monuments and memorials be changed over time? While it is in fact very reasonable to want to take these statutes down due to their evil …show more content…
While many have their own views from their own experiences on the matter of the confederate statutes, the main argument is the meaning behind these memorials. This brings me back to my initial statement of monuments and memorials meanings, while the initial reason is remembered, change with the more time that passes. Although, in the case of the confederate “memorials” they were represented bad intent, instead of destroying them we should changed them. Not just the confederate “memorials”, but all monuments and memorials should be changed with their meaning. In order to preserve history and make sure it doesn’t repeat