MARBLE MONSTERS

In 1895 the burghers [burgueses] of Bristol in southwest England, swept up by the Victorian fervor for celebrating city fathers, were casting about for a big historical figure of their own. They settled on Edward Colston, a 17^th-century merchant who had endowed charities that have lifted innumerable indigent Bristolians out of poverty and educated hordes [multidões] of its young citizens over the centuries. But, by modern standards, they picked the wrong guy: Colston made his money largely through the Royal African Company, which shipped slaves from Africa to the West Indies. On June 17^th protesters chucked [arremessaram] his statue into the city’s harbor.

Statues become flashpoints [pontos de inflamação] at times of social change because they honor values, and reflect hierarchies, of the times in which they were erected. What some in one era celebrate, others then and later often reject – hence the battles over statues of Confederate heroes in the southern United States, many of which were put up long after the Civil War, which lasted from 1861-1865 and in which the South tried to secede from the United States and set up a new country – the Confederate States of America – based on white supremacy and the perpetual slavery of African-Americans. Yet statues also provide a record of a country’s past, and the desire to respect and understand that history of commemoration argues against dismantling them. It is these conflicting urges that make this area so tricky [complicada].

It would be foolish to throw overboard all those figures who have in any way offended modern morality, just as it would be to preserve every bronze villain just because he’s ancient. Great figures should have a place in public spaces, even when their record is tarnished. As a rule, someone whose failings were subordinate to his or her claim to greatness should stay, whereas [ao passo que] someone whose main contribution to history was malignant should go.

These guidelines would allow most of those about whom Britain is now arguing to remain where they are. Colston doesn’t deserve such consideration. Oliver Cromwell, by contrast, caused terrible suffering in Ireland, but his role in democracy’s development justifies his presence in Parliament Square – he established in England the republican regime known as the Commonwealth, which lasted from 1649 to1653. Cecil Rhodes is a harder case. He was not the worst imperialist, but he drove many black Africans off their land. He left a huge, grubby [suja, imunda] fortune to charity. As his statue is the property of Oriel College, Oxford, it ought to put him in a museum.

America honors many people who happened to be slave owners – and so it should, in the case of such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, known chiefly for their contribution to their country. But the pressure for change is forcing America to reassess its statuary. Many Confederate leaders have been removed in the past few years, and more should go, including Ben Tillman, a white supremacist still honored outside South Carolina’s state house; and Nathan Bedford Forrest, a brilliant Civil War general – but also a slave trader and, after the war, a founder of the Ku Klux Klan – whose bust is in the state capital in Tennessee.

Yet it matters not just that the undeserving are taken off their pedestals, but also how they go. The indignation of those who brought down Colston may have been righteous [justificada, virtuosa], but they were wrong to topple [derrubar] him themselves. Statues should be taken down, just as they ought to be put up, by social consensus; and even if the authorities dither [vacilar, perder tempo] for years – as Bristol’s city council has done over the erection of a plaque explaining Colston’s sins – that is no excuse for the mob [populacho, multidão desordenada] to take charge.

Prosecuting the topplers [os que derrubam] would not, however, be a good use of the state’s resources; nor should Colston be reinstated. He has been dredged out of the river, and the Bristol City Council is planning to put him in a museum.

_{Adapted from The Economist, June 13^th 2020.}

Introduction

This article from The Economist examines an increasingly widespread and polemical act, the removal of controversial statues from public spaces. In its analysis, the article offers guidance on how such removals could be justified and on what to do with statues that have been removed. Read the text and answer the questions below. You are advised to read the questions carefully and give answers that are of direct relevance. Remember: Your answer to this Question must be written in Portuguese.

(This question tests your understanding of the text, as well as your ability to identify and paraphrase the relevant pieces of information. Your answer, to be written in the space provided, should comprise approximately 180 to 300 words.)

To memorialize a past considered notable, it is an ancient practice for governments, both national and local, to erect public statues of historical figures. But times change, and interpretations of history change as well: yesterday’s heroes can become today’s villains.

The article from The Economist offers a look at some examples of popular anti-statuary action motivated, in large part, by growing outrage at the enduring phenomenon of racism against Black people. Therefore, in your own words, describe what has happened in Bristol, England and in the United States, and explain why it has happened.

In answering, you should consider the following:

• Who exactly was Edward Colston? What made him at first such an object of admiration among the citizens of Bristol, and, later, such a target of indignation? Why were the people who removed his statue right or wrong to act as they did? How have the city officials of Bristol responded to what happened?

• Why do you think the statues of Confederate heroes have become so controversial in the United States? Why does the author of the article in The Economist distinguish George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from the Confederates? Since all those men were, in one way or another, involved with slavery in the United States, why do you think this distinction is justified or unjustified? In your opinion, should statues of the Confederate heroes be taken down? And what about statues of Washington and Jefferson?

In supporting your arguments, you may take into account legal, ethical, moral, political, and practical considerations, but please try to be as objective as possible.