argument top image

< Back to question How do we think about removing controversial statues in the US? Show more Show less

Throughout the US, activists are calling for the removal of controversial statues, which most often depict individuals with slavery or colonization ties. These statues have long been a subject of debate, but the American public’s renewed attention to systemic, racially-motivated violence has brought this conversation into the forefront of public discourse. According to those in favor of removal, these monuments glorify individuals who supported racist institutions. They stand as relics to white supremacy and racial terror. Others argue that these statues must remain because they are a part of our story. Although this is a heinous aspect of our past, removing these statues would be an attempt to whitewash America’s history. So, what are the opinions around this debate?

"We must remove these statues!" Show more Show less

These monuments support white supremacy and racial terror. They propagate a false version of our nation's history by romanticizing slavery, the Confederacy, and colonialism.
(1 of 5) Next position >

These statues venerate people who supported the dehumanization of others.

These statues depict people who supported horrific institutions. We should not honor them in our public spaces.
(1 of 4) Next argument >

Vote

Not sure yet? Read more before voting ↓

Proponents


The Argument

Activists calling for the removal of controversial statues have a good reason to do so. These statues depict individuals who openly supported racist ideologies, or fought for racist institutions. For example, a statue of Robert E. Lee in Richmond, Virginia has drawn significant backlash, because he was a commander of the Confederate Army, which fought to preserve slavery. Another prominent example of this includes Fort Benning, a famous U.S. army post. This post gets its name from Henry Benning, a Confederate general and supporter of slavery. [1] Although these people supported treasonous, horrific institutions, they still hold a place of honor in public spaces. Although these are only two examples, they illustrate the basis of criticism toward controversial statues. These people supported racist institutions. They do not deserve places of honor in our public spaces. Furthermore, it is wrong to venerate people who supported the dehumanization of others. For this reason, we should remove their statues.

Counter arguments

Statues do not necessarily honor the individuals they depict- they simply portray them. In this way, they serve as impartial, innocuous reminders of our history. It is irrational to argue that we honor problematic figures through preserving statues of them.

Premises

[P1] Controversial statues depict people who supported racist institutions. [P2] Statues honor the individuals they depict. [P3] Thus, these statues venerate people who supported the cruel and horrific treatment of fellow human beings. [P4] It is wrong to venerate people who supported such morally reprehensible institutions because they don't deserve this honor. [P5] Therefore, we should remove controversial statues.

Rejecting the premises


References

  1. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/us/racist-statues-controversial-monuments-in-america-robert-lee-columbus/index.html

This page was last edited on Monday, 13 Jul 2020 at 01:10 UTC

Explore related arguments