A lot of people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a statue represents and therefore incomplete information as to why taking down statues like the one of former Twins owner Calvin Griffith is so important.
Their argument goes like this: If you take down a statue, you are on a dangerous path that attempts to erase an unpleasant part of history. Why not leave up statues and monuments that we consider controversial and/or racist as teaching tools and talking points by which to avoid the same history?
That sentiment showed up in Star Tribune comments on Friday's story about the Griffith statue being removed from Target Field after the organization reconsidered Griffith's racist comments in Waseca 42 years ago.
A variation of that argument showed up in countless other instances, particularly on Twitter, in response to several other statues coming down nationwide in recent weeks.
It seems somewhat logical on its face. But the very people whose job it is to study and communicate history — historians! — also say it is incorrect.
In one particularly apt and smart Twitter thread, this is spelled out quite nicely by Bret Devereaux, an ancient historian who lays out the progression of statues and monuments — and what they symbolize — from ancient civilizations to present day.
The upshot comes in the middle of the thread, when Devereaux writes this: "Statues have always been about commemorating values, and have never been about teaching history. … Now, it isn't that we don't have large, publicly funded history teaching tools! We do! They're called museums (and also to an extent, battlefield parks)! But statues are not teaching tools. No history is lost when a statue comes down."
He adds later in the thread: "So if you are thinking, 'should this statue be here?' The question you want to ask is not "what history is it connected to?' but 'what values does it express right now?'"
