Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Debate, They say "heroes" in the debate, but a "hero"…
Debate
proponent
-
if we hone in on the idea of the "intent" of the statues, we can take the example of how the confederate statues were erected during the civil rights movement. Their intent was very clearly to glorify brutality and even encourage it, not to educate about the past.
when you commemorate instead of educate, that leads to misinformation and stops us from realizing our past, and fixing our future
stories have already been erased (of struggles), and the removal of the statues allows us an oppurtunity to tell more stories and give a voice to those who were left out and left silent
we have to look at biography, story, and history in order to present the full truth of the person we're considering to decide whether they were bad or good, as opposed to commemorative statues
-
think about children that walk past these statues and what they learn from it in comparison to what they would learn by studying the person's history
-
opponent
all history will be scrunitized, but there's a difference between legitimate criticism and always criticizing everything
If this continues, we'll be left with no historical figures or an understanding of our common past
-
it started with justice, by calling for the removal of monuments belonging to people that we acknowledged have done wrong, but it has now come to a point where its difficult to stop
-
even though children will learn that these figures are bad people, it is not a sufficient enough reason to erase those that contributed to our present, for better or for worse
-
They say "heroes" in the debate, but a "hero" is very subjective, and so is a "villain"
when we put up statues, we put them up because the person has done good deeds and remember them for that. Keeping the statues means we continue to glorify them even if they've done wrong
everyone does bad things, especially figures of the past because it was so normalized back then, so if we take down the statues of every person that has done bad, when does it end?
this side of the argument is really just a question of "how do we know who is 'bad' and who is 'good,'" and there's no real way to answer that because morality is subjective
I'd like to believe that young, young children are not conscious enough to understand the horrors of the past, but unfortunately many are very self-aware and understand well about their ancestors
I like the quote "he needs to be studied, not commemorated"
-
statues give the figure a positive connotation, whereas biographies and history show us the full story and then let us decide what wed think
-