According to Merriam-Webster, a monument is a memorial stone or building erected in remembrance of a person or event. Nowadays, many are opposing for some monuments to be taken down, those that glorify the darkest of history, while others are protesting for the exact opposite. I believe that monuments that oppress and remind others of a history that they would rather forget should be removed, especially within a progressive world where ideals are constantly changing to provide a diverse home for many. Imagine yourself walking past a statue or monument of a man who is glorified as a hero, but in your ancestry and history, is the opposite. A sense of unity is necessary for a country to thrive as long as they can, but in this scenario, there
…show more content…
For example, Martin Luther King Jr. cheated on his wife. Should those shadows represent who the person is or what they have accomplished? To this, I answer with my own questions; Have these shadows influenced human society as a whole? While this view differentiate amongst other people, it is clear to see that the answer is no. The morals of the person who is being commemorated is more important when considering if a particular man is genuinely and honestly worthy of a positive legacy, rather than his ‘skeletons’. ‘Skeletons’ are insignificant things that might bring shame, but are irrelevant in history’s perspective. It is clear that Martin Luther King Jr.’s morals were not to commit adultery in every single occasion possible. His morals was to bring equality to everyone, true equality, to every citizen in the United States. In addition, these views should be considered in a more contemporary point of view and mind. These arguments could also be used when debating about the removal of Robert E. Lee monuments in particular. Some use the slippery slope fallacy and argue that if the government is removing the Robert E. Lee statue, then they might as well remove George Washington’s monuments or those commemorating Thomas Jefferson, since they were both slave owners. However, it is easy to recognize that their morals and participation in history was not to defend a right that crippled many; their morals and participations include defending a new nation from tyrannical British
For example, Martin Luther King Jr. cheated on his wife. Should those shadows represent who the person is or what they have accomplished? To this, I answer with my own questions; Have these shadows influenced human society as a whole? While this view differentiate amongst other people, it is clear to see that the answer is no. The morals of the person who is being commemorated is more important when considering if a particular man is genuinely and honestly worthy of a positive legacy, rather than his ‘skeletons’. ‘Skeletons’ are insignificant things that might bring shame, but are irrelevant in history’s perspective. It is clear that Martin Luther King Jr.’s morals were not to commit adultery in every single occasion possible. His morals was to bring equality to everyone, true equality, to every citizen in the United States. In addition, these views should be considered in a more contemporary point of view and mind. These arguments could also be used when debating about the removal of Robert E. Lee monuments in particular. Some use the slippery slope fallacy and argue that if the government is removing the Robert E. Lee statue, then they might as well remove George Washington’s monuments or those commemorating Thomas Jefferson, since they were both slave owners. However, it is easy to recognize that their morals and participation in history was not to defend a right that crippled many; their morals and participations include defending a new nation from tyrannical British