Christopher Columbus Statues Essay

How should we honor history? Where should we stand in the debate over memorials? These the questions that float to the surface when Gov. Nikki R. Haley of South Carolina signed a bill into law that ordered the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the Capitol grounds. Michael I. Niman author of As Confederate Flags Fall, Columbus Statues Stand Tall and Ernest B. Ferguson author of The End of History write regarding the question, what decisions should be taken against the offending statues and memorials that remain across the United States. Niman believes all offending statues should be removed, but I believe Ferguson idea is much better, we need to have dialogue for a better solution.
Michael I. Niman a professor of journalism and critical

media at Buffalo State College. In an article, he wrote to The Public newspaper titled As Confederate Flags Fall, Columbus Statues Stand Tall.

Niman believes offensive statues and memorials should be taken down. Therefore he thinks Christopher Columbus statues should face the same fate as the Confederate flags in the South. He argues that Christopher Columbus statues should not be honored because they symbolize racism. Niman states, “After Eastern Europeans demonstrated how statues, in their case hundreds of statues of Lenin, can be torn down, our Columbus statues continue to stand tall as enduring symbols of racism, beyond the reach of change.” He thinks Christopher Columbus statues should be torn down, similar to what people in Eastern Europe did to the hundreds of Lenin statues, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Niman furthermore believes that “His most significant contributions to history was as the father of the transatlantic slave trade, who presided over a brutal reign of murder and rape shortly after arriving in the new world.” He explains that unlike what we know, Christopher Columbus is actually a

villain. Niman is basically telling us that we are honoring and celebrating a villain. Niman explains this is due to the fact that, like he asserts, “As the political class in the country becomes more diverse, there increase the demands to end the whitewashing of American history and challenge the mythology that distorts the teaching of history.” Niman is saying that, even though the American political class is becoming more diverse. Government officials are declining to answer the call for the end of whitewashing American history. Such as the case in Albany, where Government officials refused to change the name of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, which is named after a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.
Ernest B. Ferguson on the other side, a former correspondent and columnist for the Baltimore Sun, and a well-known historian, and biographer. In an article, he published in The American Scholar, titled The End of History. Furgurson starts his introduction not knowing which side to stand on. Either the diehards, the offended ones, or the black lives matter. He says, “Somewhere amid all this, I am trying to place myself.” Because the diehards think the banner has nothing to do with race, that it was just a symbol of their Southern heritage. The offended Americans are urging that those memorials come down along with the flag, and the black lives matter spray-painted on the monuments north and south. Furgurson then questions, “But suppose we did decide to tear those down—what about all the other reminders of our shameful past? Mount Vernon, Monticello, Montpelier, and the other homes of our slave-owning presidents?” Furgurson shows that if we were to take down every offensive Confederate statue, then we might as well take down every shameful reminder of our past. Such as the homes of our slave-owning presidents. He then further explains that if we were to do so, “To take down every offensive monument in the South willy-nilly reminds me of the wholesale de-Stalinization campaign that I witnessed in the old Soviet Union, and the destruction of ancient monuments by ISIS and Taliban fanatics today.” Furgurson concludes that there would be no difference between us “Americans” and terrorists if we were to destroy every statue that offends us.

Furgurosn thinks a dialogue is a better solution for community members.

Furgurson explains he has more experience in dealing with this problem. For instance “I qualify four times over for membership in the Sons of Confederate Veterans, vigorous defenders of their heritage and its symbols. Because I’d written Civil War history.” He explains that he has more experience in dealing with this situation than others because he has written Civil War History. He gives an example of how once he was invited 20 years ago to speak to the SCV camp in Alexandria. In his talk, he recalled his great-grandfather who died of smallpox in the Yankee prison at Fort Delaware, and the people at the SCV camp were impressed. Then he told them that the Confederate battle flag was a provocation and that it should be retired to the museum. Furgurson than bringing other people's opinions such New York Times editorialist Brent Staples. Who strongly supports removing statues of villains like Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest, a postwar organizer of the Klan. There Furgurson comes to conclusion, he responds to staples, “But neither the professor nor do I want to start bulldozing without serious reflections on how to honor history. For me, that should mean enshrining other heroes, at least as conspicuously as the ones who now stir such passions.” Furguson thinks instead of destroying statues. We should replace them with heroes we admire today. For instance, the statues standing today were once

placed by people who admired them back in their days. Moreover, Furgurson ends his article with, “If we’re going to honor our history, let us honor all of it.
I personally think Furgurson has a strong stand in this debate. I firmly believe Furgurson has more experience in this matter of subject because Furgurson is a well-known historian and biographer. Niman on the other side is a professor of journalism and critical media. Who teach college students about journalism, and critical media, and like Trump always says, it could be fake media. On the other hand, Furgurson believes in a peaceful dialogue among community members, and honoring history as a whole. Meanwhile, Niman thinks we should just destroy the statues. I’d rather go with a peaceful dialogue, because if we were to go destroy every statue. We might make one side happy and the other side unfortunate, but through a dialogue, the change can be peaceful. In addition, if we're going to remove every offending statue, then does it affect our founding fathers' memorials, because some of them owned slaves.
America's declaration of independence states "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says have been given to all human beings by their Creator, which governments are created to protect. In protecting these “unalienable rights” including the pursuit of happiness. We as a country shouldn't honor one group's history, but rather, we should honor history as a whole, "all of it". We should try to make everyone satisfied.