Confederate Statues Essay

In his article “New Orleans Is Wrong to Remove Its Confederate Monuments,” John Daniel Davidson argues that New Orleans is taking down their statues for purely political purpose, instead of inclusion and tolerance. First, Davidson depicts men in black showing up to statues lies with sniper’s ready for any trouble that may arise. By doing so he claims that the Confederate monuments should be kept standing. To support his claim, Davidson brings up many issues that arose from these statues or Confederate symbols is the past such as the mass shooting in South Carolina and many schools in the South taking many steps to rid themselves of any Confederate monument. Next, he reminds us that the only thing keeping some of these statues up is the state

Another issue with the statues are the actual subjects monumentalized. Notable people that are commemorated with having models of themselves publicly displayed are usually figures that the people of America are proud of, like Abraham Lincoln or Harriet Tubman. Confederate statues, however, are the exception; for they are monuments that represent the institutionalization of racism. “Our public spaces should not glorify historical policies of hatred and racism,” argues Kevin Kamenetz, executive and president of the Maryland Association of Counties (Eversley 2017). That single phrase perfectly sums up what people across the country are attempting to convey, and expresses the main issue that many have with these statues. No person who fought for the right to keep humans as property is deserving of modern honor.

There are many monuments in the world and they are all built to honor someone or something that was done by that person. For example, after the Maine Lobsterman was built, the fake bronze statue returned to Maine and spent several decades being moved from city hall to museum to museum. No one seemed to want the man and his lobster. The issue at hand is if the monuments being built are memorializing the person or moment created accurately. Monuments capture legacy and preserve the individual's actions throughout history. Specifically, monuments should consider purpose, location, and size in their creation.

Attention Grabber: Due to the recent events that took place in Charlottesville, North Carolina, the discussion on whether or not the Confederate monuments and symbolism should be removed has come about. In this speech, I will give you some more information on the benefits and disadvantages to both removing and keeping the statues and flags.

First of all, the agency should consider the monument correctly place on what region best fit. Putting history in a random location does not correspond the meaning behind the statue. An example would be meaningful such as a park. For example, the statue of Christopher Columbus, where he is standing tall and proud in Riverside Park, located in Pennsylvania (photo). The agencies decided to place him there because so people can remember him, Christopher of what he accomplished in history. On the other hand, a group of people are deciding whether to place a Holocaust Museum near a shopping mall in Washington D.C. For this reason, that creates controversy and a wrong location to place a devastating moment in history . A supporter says, “would enhance The Mall’s

Ashley states that “statues of the individuals who are symbols of should be removed, but they should also stay because it's a part of history”.

A study conducted this year reported that at least 1,503 Confederate symbols can be found in public spaces in the United States. The Confederate symbols include anything from monuments to flags and all the way to schools named after Confederate generals. This means that for years the U.S. has been honoring men for doing bad things like rebelling against the U.S. and fighting to keep slavery. Although taking down Confederate monuments could be equivalent to trying to erase America’s history, leaving them up cause more problems because people believe that the monuments support the idea of white supremacy and encourages people to embrace violence toward other races.

After the dreadful, unfortunate events at Charlottesville, Virginia, the distinct ideologies over the removal of Confederate statues or monuments have incited a vast debate in the United States. As a result of the great argument, people have developed, expressed, published, and defended the different ideas in the media, events, and marches across the country. Therefore, it is necessary to understand both sides of the predicament before having a concrete opinion on the issue. On one hand, the modern philosopher of art Arthur C. Danto rightfully expresses, “We erect monuments so that we shall always remember, and build memorials so that we shall never forget,” meaning that they serve the purpose of presenting the history of a place. However, what happens if these monuments were raised in a manner that offends the population of a city? That is the most common concern that surges from this argumentation since many people are offended by the portrayal of these Southern generals and leaders of the Civil War. Although the Confederate monuments

To receive a statue in your name and have it placed in an area meant for recognition is an honor, this is given for the highest respect and privilege to those who impacted the society positively and fought for a change. The social and racial equality in America has progressed since the Civil War and the space for bigotry and acrimony for other ethnicities is limited, the society now embraces a broader meaning of diversity and equivalence with gender, sexuality, and ethnicity. In spite of that, a man who believed and fought for the entitlement of slaves was honored with a statue of his own, infamously named the Robert E. Lee statue. How can we let a representation of racial inequality and discrimination

A recent hot-button subject in the media has been what to do with Confederate monuments in the South. After the removal of a statue honoring Robert E. Lee, a general in the Confederate Army considered by many to be a hero for the part he played in the American Civil War, a clear divide has formed over whether it was the right thing to do. Some agree with this choice, calling the statues remnants from a time of racial oppression in the United States. Others are outraged, considering it desecration of their proud history. Still others don't understand either side of the issue, and see it as a pointless feud. It is imperative to understand that to many people, these are more than just statues. Whether their impression is positive or negative, this issue goes beyond physical monuments.

First, removing all these statues and monuments cost a lot of money and take a long time. For example, The cost to remove all the monuments and statues in New Orleans could cost $600,000. Thats a lot of money for one city to pay for, and that money could be used for more important things. Another reason I feel that we should keep these statues and monuments because it’s a part of our history. Yes, the Confederacy did believe in slavery, but it isn’t about honoring slavery. It’s about understanding that this is what we once were as a nation. Keeping this symbolizes how far we’ve come as a country and how much we’ve progressed. Taking these monuments down would be in a way an attempt to erase our

Confederate monuments should stay in public because taking them down goes against the Constitution. The First Amendment gives citizens of the United States the freedoms of speech, expression, worship, and other liberties. Creating and keeping up monuments falls under this because it is symbolic speech towards the Confederacy, the South, and their generals (Nelson). The only way speech is

Also one of reasons it should monuments should come down is that some people litary kill just to keep them up that's a little bit extreme. For example in “new orleans a group of people called the city white league killed law enforcement officers and other citizens”. (Landrew) to continue is that we are kinda basically honoring our darkest part

Arguably, the most important aspect of creating a monument is the worthiness of the person or event in consideration of becoming a monument. While it is hypothetically possible to create a monument to anything, some of the nation’s greatest monuments, including the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial, 9/11 Memorial, and the Lincoln Memorial, were created because the subjects were carefully vetted and deemed worthy. It is hard to find a citizen of the United States that feels the 9/11 attacks do not deserve a memorial, however, there are many monuments today that are up for debate, and most likely should’ve had more consideration of the subject before they were erected. Recent