Vandalizing Tainted Commemorations

Lim, Chong-Ming

doi:10.1111/papa.12162

Cited by 25 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This can be achieved through significant alterations that provide some counter-messages that match the publicity of the original commemoration. For instance, defacing and preserving the statue of a colonial figure (like that of Cecil Rhodes) would help us achieve this [Lim 2020b]. First, we would have preserved the statue where it is with all its publicity, and this in itself is a testament that ordinary people, just like us, have been honouring dishonourable figures.…”

Section: The Historical Value Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, in recent years 'moral education research has moved away from a predominantly cognitive approach' [Engelen et al 2018: 360] to properly acknowledging that eliciting the correct emotions towards injustice is crucial to motivating us to work to address injustice. Second, preserving altered or defaced commemorations represents a good way of embedding historical lessons into our everyday consciousness [Lim 2020b]. In contrast, removal leads us to forfeit opportunities 'to continue to recognize and reflect on past injustices and their present and future consequences' [Enslin 2020[Enslin : 1341.…”

Section: Historical Lessonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Objectionable Commemorations, Historical Value, and Repudiatory Honouring

Lai

2022

Australasian Journal of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many have argued that certain statues or monuments are objectionable, and thus ought to be removed. Even if their arguments are compelling, a major obstacle is the apparent historical value of those commemorations. Preservation in some form seems to be the best way to respect the value of commemorations as connections to the past or opportunities to learn important historical lessons. Against this, I argue that we have exaggerated the historical value of objectionable commemorations. Sometimes commemorations connect to biased or distorted versions of history, if not mere myths. We can also learn historical lessons through what I call repudiatory honouring: the honouring of certain victims or resistors that can only make sense if the oppressor(s) or target(s) of resistance are deemed unjust, where no part of the original objectionable commemorations is preserved. This type of commemorative practice can even help to overcome some of the obstacles objectionable commemorations pose against properly connecting to the past.

show abstract

Section: The Historical Value Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Historical Lessonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objectionable Commemorations, Historical Value, and Repudiatory Honouring

Lai

2022

Australasian Journal of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This solution is similar to the idea of the philosopher Chong-Ming Lim about statues in general: even if kept, they could be justifiably vandalised thereby dampening their honouring potential. 28 If the worry of Oriel is that the removal is too complicated, other actions seem within reach. The statue is right by some windows.…”

Section: To Turn and To Shame?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Rhodes Statue: Honour, Shame and Responsibility

Stemplowska¹

2021

Political Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oriel College persists in displaying a statue of Cecil Rhodes, despite his role in British colonialism and despite opposition from the Rhodes Must Fall movement. This article considers arguments in support of Oriel's position—including three versions of the charge that removing the statue might distort history—and show that they all fail. I argue that the conclusion that the statue should be removed, despite possible costs and complexity, follows once we realise that the statue makes demands on our attention and once we correctly understand that the descendants of those previously oppressed by Rhodes and who are currently subject to racism have a special insight, standing and claim to shape the environment in which they study, work and live.

show abstract

“…But no individual or group has the right to damage, deface, or remove any monument by use of force' . Still, careful arguments in Lai (2020), Lim (2020) and Marschall (2017), among many others, might resist that characterisation of the legitimacy of the vandalism of monuments. 10 The Proclamation continues: 'I have also taken steps to ensure that we preserve our Nation's history and promote patriotic education.…”

Section: Orcidmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monumental changes: The civic harm argument for the removal of Confederate monuments

Barczak

Thompson

2021

Journal of Philosophy of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides a definition of monuments and describes their potential for removalist and preservationist controversy.The authors focus on the example of Confederate monuments in the United States as, on the basis of racist impacts, these monuments are candidates for widespread removal. The authors review influential existing philosophical arguments aimed at clarifying this controversy. In this, they draw attention to an especially promising formulation of a moral harm argument. The authors improve upon this argument by offering an educationally sensitive civic harm argument. In this, they advance a view of limited compatibility between removalist and preservationist aims.

show abstract

Vandalizing Tainted Commemorations

Cited by 25 publications

References 0 publications

Objectionable Commemorations, Historical Value, and Repudiatory Honouring

Objectionable Commemorations, Historical Value, and Repudiatory Honouring

The Rhodes Statue: Honour, Shame and Responsibility

Monumental changes: The civic harm argument for the removal of Confederate monuments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About