@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
So why do the statues of slaveholders never have sheir slaves in chains with lash strokes scarring their backs cast in bronze on the statue with them? Those heroic statues you extol are the whitewash.
I'm not going to argue with you there. It seems clear that when someone's estate/heirs donates a large amount of money to a local government to put up a statue in their honor, it's not going to be critical of the person's business.
What I'm saying, however, is that historians/archaeologists can discover such statues when they tour cities and think about how they got there, why they represent history in the way they do; and that is a method for making sense of history and social-economic politics of culture.
Once you remove that statue, no one can encounter it and ask, "why is this statue here?," "what does this statue say about the people and the culture that put it here?" "why/how did the person memorialized in this statue achieve so much worldly success that a statue was dedicated to them?" etc.
Once the statue is gone, all people have are books about the past, and as most critical thinkers should know, books can spin facts and misrepresent history in various ways. That's why it is good to be able to discover artifacts like this on your own and think about what it means for that artifact to be there, and what you can extrapolate about history by reflecting on the broader context of the history of the artifact as well as the history of whatever is represented by the artifact.
When we preserve buildings, monuments, and other artifacts, the world becomes a museum that gives us another way to study history, both the good and bad of it.