On the eve of Juneteenth, a group of protestors removed the statue of George Washington in Oregon Portland. The photo depicts the image of George Washington Statue lying face down on a pathway. It signifies the implications of slavery to modern times. The essay argues out the importance of monuments and if they add value or not when erected. Prior to the removal, the memorial stood aloft from the 1920s as a remembrance of the United States’ first President. The pull-down was the finale of 22 days of protests after the death of George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man killed by a white police man on 20th May 2020. After his death, a hot debate came upon the authenticity of some historic statues. Some states like New Orleans voted for the removal of some controversial monuments like Robert Lee and Jefferson. A campaign on the removal of the Rhodes statue ignited in the Oxford University. The supporters argued that any progress to fight racism got diluted by the controversial monuments.

Nonetheless, a group of opponents undermined the debate on the grounds of national heritage. They argued that the iconic personalities played a significant role and deserved acknowledgment. The US president reprimanded the act and deemed it disrespectful to the country forefathers. All in all, the argument lies within the relationship with the past. The removal of the monuments either appraises previous mistakes or helps people forget a contentious part of history.

From time immemorial, monuments had played a substantial role in society. Most of the have a political interest, but their primary purpose is to appraise an individual for his service contribution. As time passes by, values and norms change as well. As a result, a person considered a hero gets deemed otherwise in the future. The process of evaluating historical statues gets repeated after a duration of time. It requires viewing the icons, not as meaningless images but those of objects of integrity. It is not easy to judge an icon based on modern integrity. Most of these iconic people lived in a different century when slavery was nothing out of the ordinary. The opposers argue that judgments made on such a basis may not depict fairness. They insist that allowing the statues to stand does not uplift slavery but gives a story about the country. In George Washington’s case, people appreciated his role as the foundering father, But his role in slavery surpass the great work.

To make matters worse, Washington knew very well the effects of slavery on his innovative ideas. In public, he portrayed himself as a passionate ruler. But in reality, he was ruthless to his slaves. Most of them suffered his wrath, including the aged, disabled, and crippled. As a president, he would travel away for months serving the nation. As a result, his plantations estate suffered greatly due to the absence. Even in his absence, he would send angry letters to overwork the Negros for higher yields. Washington had all the power to set free his slaves, but hundreds of them were still working in his property by the time he died. The irony if it all is that he shamelessly announced the freedom of his slaves in his will. The Stories on Washington’sWashington’s hostility goes on and on. So does the contentious topic on other slave supporters. Jefferson, the third president of America statue, suffered the same fate. The activists insisted that his icon reminds of white superiority in America. Like Washington, he was a slave owner with more than 600 in his estate. As a married man, he bore four illegitimate children with an underage slave named Sally Hemings. Based on his personality, it gets confusing on the status of his monument. A man of such caliber should portray integrity from all angles. Instead, Jefferson was quite the opposite of it. The argument stands on whether his statue should remain based on his presidency or pulled down for slavery and rape. The facts remain on their service to the people, but they should also get judged for their shortcomings. It is tricky how to critique an individual over his faults, yet commemorate him for his accomplishments. It is even more confusing in the case of Grant, the 18th President of the United States. The protestors still targeted his monument mainly because his government allowed slavery. But, records mentioned an incident when he received a slave as a gift from his in-laws. Later, he set him free.

President Donald Trump stands against the removal of the statues. After the outbursts, reprimanded the act and called for arrest and penalties on the protesters. He termed them as thieves striving to pull down the country’s history. The democrats tried to differentiate the safeguarding of memorials with racial hitches. All in all, some demonstrators support removing the icons, while others call for dialogue over it. The proposing side states that it is not about the image but how the person got portrayed. There are other instances where statues got removed for various reasons. For example, several of Marx and Lenin monuments got pulled down after the Soviet Union’s downfall. In this regard, monuments stand out it they have a positive representation. When an institution erects a monument, it offers a sign of respect and authenticity. However, if the person’s ethics get contested, removal is necessary to uphold the institution’s morals. Such icons represent people whose actions require no remembrance or celebration. In the removal case of the Rhodes statue, the acts call for a legitimate argument. While the statue stands as a reminder of the racial killer, it also estranges black scholars in Oxford and within.

The ultimate decision to let the statue stay or go is a steep slope. There is a lot of deliberation required based on the historical aspect. Associate’sAssociate’s figures like Grant deserve a different approach compared to slave owners like Washington. But as hurting as it is, these men played a very crucial role in the country. Most of the protestors were too young to understand the history and did it out of rage. The innovative idea of Hofstra University to move Jefferson’sJefferson’s statue to the museum compound acts as a basis. The move does not only allow the heritage to continue, but it does it away from the people discontented with it. The decision to put it in front of a museum still raises a debate. Some people argue that moving it to a less-prominent location does not serve the purpose. Instead, the museum should tuck it away permanently. Another group of people suggests replacing these statues with prominent people in modern days. All said historical monuments should replicate the virtues of the people who put them up. As values change with time, society should decide whether they go or stay.