2 thoughts on “On statues, history and ignorance

  1. “Instead of removing monuments to a racist past, we were commissioning statues to commemorate our city’s abolitionist history, …” Why does it have to be either/or? Why not both? Why honor our nations history of racism with statues commemorating that state of being? People, generally, are not deep thinkers. We tend to see what is only on the surface and draw our conclusions from there. Do you really believe that the general public will understand the message if statues honoring those who supported slavery and the Confederate cause remain in place? Won’t leaving them automatically indicate approval and acceptance? I think that is the more likely scenario. Removing those statues is not erasing history it is just not giving it an honor that it does not deserve.

    • Thanks for your comment, Martha. Our intention with that sentence was not to suggest that Confederate statues should remain in place, anywhere. Instead, we were trying to articulate how the same form (a statue) was raised in Rochester to elevate higher ideals. But I absolutely understand why you read it the way you did; your comment is a good reminder of the value of more editors on a piece!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.