Written in Stone created something very unique within United States Public History works; it compared the actions of other nations to those within the United States. This comparison to the destruction of monuments within the former Soviet Bloc created a very different approach. Levinson displayed how the possible destruction essentially can create a similar situation to groups attempting to hold power is less stable nations. Levinson correct notes that symbols such as Stalin statues and even Confederate Commemorations statues retain power, acting as a symbol of authority within the public world.
The idea of altering the meaning also comes out. His use of the Confederate flag and Confederate represented the best examples for this situation. Essentially proposing things such as new plaques and complimenting memorials and even destruction of these symbols, Levinson dove into the debate of these, defining the major issues related to keeping symbols around. He discussed the vast that minorities may be offended and that even changing policies must debate the situation of what these symbols mean to all groups, and even what they mean on a regional and national level.
The fact that debates such as these continued display how much power a symbol holds. Levinson’s essay allowed for a glimpse into the long debate over what symbols should be allowed to stay in the public world and how scholars look into such complex issues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When comparing the actions of the United States to other nations, something else should be taken into account. When most nations change their displays (destruction, replacement, additions, etc) it is usually because of an arguably more radical change in society: the creation of a new nation. This new nation, while possibly based on the previous, must create a separate identity in order to be thought of a "new." In contrast, the United States has these issues due to a new power group gaining the support to create argument. While a concrete change in the profile of our nation, is it as drastic as a whole new identity or just a new facet? Which is more long-lasting?
ReplyDeleteI liked how you mentioned Levinson’s thoughts on how to deal with these monuments, but I didn’t get the impression that destroying the monuments was something that he really advocated. It is true that monuments and symbols in general change as the environments in which they are located and used evolve (politically, socially, and economically). His and others’ suggestions to move the offending monuments (Liberty Monument for example) to museums struck me as somewhat odd, since at the beginning of the semester we discussed the power and authority that museums hold for the public. Yet, by moving the monuments from their public space and placing them in a museum, isn’t that taking away their original authority? How does their authority change with their new location and is it a good thing? It seems that a lot of the problems regarding a move (not least a destruction) stems from a lack of empathy and open mindedness from the dominant social groups. You’re right that debate and discussion are needed for any creation or reinterpretation of symbols, and that their context is key for their understanding.
ReplyDeleteLost again ... repost
ReplyDeleteCody, I think you bring up a great point about the power these structures have. It is also interesting to look at the power those individuals that are involved with either the creation or installation of the piece gain from their involvement. It makes me think, how much of it is about an individual's political agenda and how much of it is about commemoration?