@jolliapplegirl
I keep seeing this argument, that destroying statues of evil people is bad because it erases history. But that’s simply not true. The knowledge of their deeds, and how people responded to those deeds (both in said person’s time and beyond), is not gone. Furthermore, since when is history taught by plaques and statues? If you’re worried that people will become unaware of history through the removal of such statues, isn’t that chiefly a problem with the public education system? If the existence and actions of Christopher Columbus are universally forgotten simply because his statues were destroyed, doesn’t that indicate a fundamental flaw with how American history is taught? Same question with literally any other statue, and in any other country. And, conversely, if public education is good enough to ensure that people still know who they are, then what does a statue add? If we’ve decided that they don’t deserve a statue, and we know they’ll be remembered either way, why not tear the statue down?
The other element to this argument, of course, is extreme moral relativism. The last refuge of any person with no excuse for their lack of ethical consistency: declaring morality itself a product of the time period in which it’s practiced, and implying (or outright claiming) that objective standards are nonexistent as a result. Well, first of all, if morality is fundamentally subjective, then why do you care whether statues are torn down or not? See the first paragraph if it’s some hangup about historical preservation. Otherwise, by your own admission, the desire to not see statues torn down is just an opinion, and has no more weight than literally any other opinion. Second of all, if the level of respect commanded by a person was enough to commission a statue in their honor at one time, and has now sunk so low that people are demanding to see the statue torn down, then by virtue of morality being a product of the times, we should always respect the current moral standards and acquiesce to them. In this case, if current moral standards demand tearing the statue down, that’s what we should do. So it’s an unstable argument; everything you’ve built will be at the whims of the next generation, and the one after that, and you can’t argue against what they decide because you yourself decided that morality is fundamentally subjective.
Maybe it makes more sense to say that some things have always been morally wrong, no matter how much people of the past thought otherwise. Maybe culture doesn’t and shouldn’t outweigh justice. And maybe, our moral duty is to resist and repel evil, not make excuses for it. Yes, the people of the past shouldn’t be remembered as monsters by default, but no, that doesn’t make what was done ok. Statues are supposed to be built and maintained as a representation of historical figures that we hold in the highest esteem, that we consider to be among humanity’s greatest representatives. Knowingly maintaining statues of people who are primarily remembered for inflicting immense pain on other people for personal gain is a mockery of human dignity.
Just because someone was important doesn’t mean they should get (and keep) a statue. A history book tells the truth, no feelings attached. A statue conveys a feeling of honor. Evil should not be honored.