Monuments and Morality: Should We Honor People with Dark Pasts?

Monuments are built around the world with the intention of immortalizing the impact of great people in the society, probably for their service to the community, nation, or related stuff. Doing this often helps to keep their legacy and memory fresh in the hearts of the citizens, passersby, and users of such facilities, like we know a monument isn't necessarily a statue; sometimes it could be a building, road, or site named in honor of the person, so as to make them a symbol of history that can't fade away. But then, by chance, if we get to know that an individual who has a monument has a questionable character, what should we do? Should we destroy such a monument, rename it, or what exactly can we do?

Like I explained above, a monument ought to be built for people with a great impact on the society and not for people with questionable character or those who don't deserve it, so it's quite normal to have an uproar when we discover someone with a questionable character has a monument to his name, while people with a clean slate and good reputation have none. It leads to questioning as regarding what the society values or what kind of thing we want to be left in history or for us to be known for each time such a name or monument is talked about, but is destruction the only way to right the wrongs of giving a bad person a monument?

In my opinion it shouldn't always be the solution, but I won't say it can't be a solution; the kind of monument set up in honor of that individual will determine the kind of way we can work towards rectifying the situation. Take, for instance, a situation where the monument made in honor of the person with questionable character is a statue. Then I won't go against having such a monument being destroyed, because seeing such people daily can actually lead to outrage by the people, so it's either such a statue is pulled down, or we have someone remold it into something else or someone with a great impact on the society.

But in a situation where the monument isn't a statue but is instead a building or an infrastructure, be it a medical facility, an airport, or a road, then in such situations I don't think destruction is the way forward, because destroying such is us indirectly nailing ourselves for different agony. For instance, a hospital destroyed because it carries the name of a questionable individual will only lead to citizens of such a community lacking access to health care. So instead, what should be done is to simply rename such infrastructure, building, or what have you into something neutral or replace it with the name of someone with a wonderful impact on the society.

Those are ways I think such a situation can best be handled, and I think depending on the kind of monument, we should decide on what's best for a solution. Last on the list is if such a monument is a park or rejuvenation center, we can't, because of the wrong name such places carry, then go ahead to destroy the greenery and nature that users have enjoyed and run too to have a great time. In such situations the name of such places should also be changed; it's as simple as that. I don't agree with letting names of people with questionable character remain on the monument because it'll make people wonder what we actually exalt or stand against.

All photos are taken and edited on canva.