Vandalizing tainted commemorations

Abstract

What should we do about “tainted” public commemorations—commemorations of people who were responsible for injustice, or commemorations of injustice?1 Recent campaigns to remove commemorations of historical oppressors—notably, for instance, those of Cecil Rhodes in South Africa and the United Kingdom, or Confederate soldiers in the United States—have brought this question to the fore. Two opposing views currently dominate public discussions. According to one, tainted commemorations should not be removed, even though they are connected to injustice. This view is often supported by claims about the importance of preserving our history rather than eliminating aspects of it that we now find repugnant or offensive. According to the other, tainted commemorations should be removed if they are connected to injustice. This view is frequently supported by claims about the relatively greater importance of eliminating the negative impact of tainted commemorations on members of formerly oppressed groups, in terms of their self‐respect or social standing. There are many other responses to the initial question, inter alia, adding contextualizing information, relocating the commemorations, housing them in museums, or installing “counter” commemorations. These suggestions are often taken, overly quickly, as sensible or plausible in virtue of their occupying the ground between the two dominant views.