Megan McArdle has a post which raises the question of drawing lines on statues.
It's interesting. I'd add a question: when you evaluate a statue do you consider the intent of those who originally funded and created the statue, do you look at the current meaning of the life of the subject (if only one), or do you use the popular understanding of the subject? How about artistic worth--is that a consideration?
Who decides--is it majority rule or what's offensive to a minority?
Are all statues fair game, or are some excluded? For example, religious statues; statues from antiquity?
Another issue is how? Must representatives of the original erecting body agree to removal, whoever currently has jurisdiction over the land on which it is erected? Or can an informal group, of protesters or a mob, depending on your affinity for the members, tear it down? How about a symbolic defacing, temporary or permanent?
Did we have a problem in the Iraq War when Baghdad's residents first attacked the statue of Sadam Hussein, later to be assisted by a Marine.? Do we have a problem with those members of the Revolution who tore down George IIi?
How about memorials--those which comprise multiple statues plus additional elements, particularly ones which commemorate events over persons?
Personally, statues don't do much for me,
No comments:
Post a Comment