Vandalizing Tainted Commemorations

Philosophy and Public Affairs 48 (2):185-216 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

What should we do about “tainted” public commemorations? Recent events have highlighted the urgency of reaching a consensus on this question. However, existing discussions appear to be dominated by two naïve opposing views – to remove or preserve them. My aims in this essay are two-fold. First, I argue that the two views are not naïve, but undergirded by concerns with securing self-respect and with the character of our engagement with the past. Second, I offer a qualified defence of vandalising tainted commemorations. The defence comprises two parts. I consider two prominent suggestions – to install counter-commemorations and to add contextualising plaques – and argue that they are typically beset with difficulties. I then argue that in some circumstances, constrained vandalism is a response to tainted commemorations which effectively adjudicates the demands of the two opposing views.

Other Versions

No versions found

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-04-02

Downloads
967 (#23,678)

6 months
257 (#10,501)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Chong-Ming Lim
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

References found in this work

The Aptness of Anger.Amia Srinivasan - 2017 - Journal of Political Philosophy 26 (2):123-144.
Who Owns Up to the Past? Heritage and Historical Injustice.Erich Hatala Matthes - 2018 - Journal of the American Philosophical Association 4 (1):87-104.
Rage inside the machine: Defending the place of anger in democratic speech.Maxime Lepoutre - 2018 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 17 (4):398-426.

Add more references