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 17th-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 English. With this question, you may use American English or British English, but you must be consistent throughout.

In the following excerpt from the article “Political Rage Over Statues? Old News in the Old World” (The New York Times, August 17, 2017), Rick Lyman looks at how some of the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe have dealt with their controversial statues:

***

Recent episodes of rage and bloodshed over the removal of Confederate status in the United States have a familiar ring [não soam estranhos] for Europeans, who have been battling over their historical narratives and tearing down statues of noxious former leaders since the Bronze Age — and probably before.

“There are some similarities between what is happening in Poland and what is happening in the United States,” said Antoni Dudek, a contemporary historian and board member at Poland’s Institute of National Remembrance, created after the fall of communism to document the totalitarian crimes of the past.

“The argument about monuments, which should be resolved mostly between historians and citizens, has become a substitute for everyday political fights,” he said. “The same goes for the United States now that President Trump has joined the debate. Suddenly, the argument got much more intense.”

Under legislation passed in June, Poland’s right-wing government has given local officials and landowners just one year to remove all public monuments and memorials that “pay tribute to persons, organizations, events or dates symbolizing communism or other totalitarian systems.” About 500 have been identified, almost all from the Communist era as the Soviets had already removed Nazi ones.

Battles over public monuments are a regular feature of life on a continent whose national boundaries have frequently shifted under wave after wave of migration, ideology and military might [força, poder], sometimes leaving former ethnic rivals struggling to live together within new borders or finding their former nation splintered [estilhacado].

Take the Czech Republic, for instance.

After World War I, statues from the vanished Hapsburg Empire were quickly taken down and replaced by Czechoslovakia’s new, democratic heroes, like Tomas Garrigue Masaryk, its first president. After World War II, Communists erased [apagaram] Masaryk from public tributes, but he was put back in place after that system collapsed. One statue of Masaryk in the small town of Holesov was taken away and re-erected five times, said Zdenek Lukes, a historian and architect in Prague.

Mr. Lukes opposes the removal of such statues, but he said that in some cases a little historical context must be added. “I like the solution they used in the town of Litomysl,” Mr. Lukes said. “Instead of removing a statue of the Communist minister of culture, they placed a plaque there explaining who he was and what he did.”

***

According to the information in the article, why were statues removed during the Communist period and the post-Communist period? How do those reasons compare to the reasons that led people in Bristol, England to remove Edward Coston’s statue and in the United States to remove the statues of Confederate heroes? In what ways could the motives of the people in Eastern Europe and of the people in England and the U.S. be similar? Considering the historical context of each region and what the groups in those regions have been protesting, how would you describe a fundamental difference between the reasons that statues have been removed in Eastern Europe and the reasons they have been removed in the U.S. and England?

Last, the articles from The Economist and The New York Times have mentioned four possible ways of dealing with a so-called offensive statue: (1.) leave it where it is and do nothing, (2.) put a plaque there explaining who the person was and what he or she did – both good and bad, (3.) place it in a museum, where it can serve an educational/historical purpose, and (4.) throw it away.

What is your opinion of these four options? Could any of them be considered the best way – or at least the most practical way – to deal with a controversial statue? Why or why not? In answering, you should present clear, well-balanced, and specific reasons for your point of view.