You know, after thinking this over some more, I'm finding it curious that the author specifically connected these themes to the statue-toppling trend. Because there are two very significant statutes in HP.
The second one is the "Magic Is Might" statute in DH, which depicts a witch and wizard seated on twisted human figures. Whatever we think of the statue's morality or artistic merit, this does represent an important moment in wizarding history. Would it be wrong to remove it from the atrium of the Ministry of Magic? Is that canceling our memory of history?
The first is the Fountain of Magical Brethren. For all we know, this statute has great artistic merit and was created by a famous sculptor. It may also commemorate a specific historic event, like the signing of a treaty. The witch and wizard might have been real people with complicated personalities containing both good and bad. Say the wizard negotiated an important peace treaty which saved many lives, abused his wife, and also beat three house-elves to death, and the witch invented a critical healing potion and also was the key Wizengamot member pushing for the law forbidding goblins to carry wands.
We don't know who they are or whether the statue represents an event because even if there is a plaque explaining everything, most people will never read it. Even those who do won't read it every time they pass the statue and think about the historical complexities. Whatever else it means, the statue also stands on its own as a visual symbol, and that might mean that people passing it just get a jolt of memory about "that guy who murdered my great-grandmother" or "that witch who is a major reason I'm treated as a second-class citizen." Or just see the grouping and think, "Yes, human magic-users lording it over their grateful inferiors. That's an accurate representation of the Ministry's beliefs, all right."
If that statue had survived, or if it has been repaired and could be re-installed, would it be wrong to take it out of the atrium? There isn't really a "neutral" option. Leaving it there is a statement that whatever bad things the witch and wizard might have done do not outweigh the good things which justify having a public statue memorializing them, and that species superiority is something which ought to be portrayed in the halls of government. Taking it out says that the wrongs are important enough that they shouldn't be lauded in public.
And it isn't a choice between leaving the statue in the atrium and no one ever seeing it again. There's Option C, the Indiana Jones option: "That belongs in a museum!" That is, a place where people will be interested in the historical context and where it isn't acting as the face of or welcome mat for for the entire government. Would putting the statue in a museum be that intolerant "cancel culture," in the author's opinion?
And if a house-elf, a centaur, and a goblin decided to pull down the symbol of how wizards like to oppress them, would that be wrong?
While it's a matter of interpretation, I don't think the books support the interpretation that these statutes are precious relics which ought to be eternally preserved and appreciated in the Ministry atrium forevermore. In fact, I rather get the feeling that the Fountain of Magical Brethren getting blasted to pieces was seen as a bonus of the fight, and that melting down the Magic Is Might statute might just be one of Kingsley Shacklebolt's first orders as the new Minister. So I don't know what the article's author thinks they're proving, really.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2020-08-12 09:21 pm (UTC)The second one is the "Magic Is Might" statute in DH, which depicts a witch and wizard seated on twisted human figures. Whatever we think of the statue's morality or artistic merit, this does represent an important moment in wizarding history. Would it be wrong to remove it from the atrium of the Ministry of Magic? Is that canceling our memory of history?
The first is the Fountain of Magical Brethren. For all we know, this statute has great artistic merit and was created by a famous sculptor. It may also commemorate a specific historic event, like the signing of a treaty. The witch and wizard might have been real people with complicated personalities containing both good and bad. Say the wizard negotiated an important peace treaty which saved many lives, abused his wife, and also beat three house-elves to death, and the witch invented a critical healing potion and also was the key Wizengamot member pushing for the law forbidding goblins to carry wands.
We don't know who they are or whether the statue represents an event because even if there is a plaque explaining everything, most people will never read it. Even those who do won't read it every time they pass the statue and think about the historical complexities. Whatever else it means, the statue also stands on its own as a visual symbol, and that might mean that people passing it just get a jolt of memory about "that guy who murdered my great-grandmother" or "that witch who is a major reason I'm treated as a second-class citizen." Or just see the grouping and think, "Yes, human magic-users lording it over their grateful inferiors. That's an accurate representation of the Ministry's beliefs, all right."
If that statue had survived, or if it has been repaired and could be re-installed, would it be wrong to take it out of the atrium? There isn't really a "neutral" option. Leaving it there is a statement that whatever bad things the witch and wizard might have done do not outweigh the good things which justify having a public statue memorializing them, and that species superiority is something which ought to be portrayed in the halls of government. Taking it out says that the wrongs are important enough that they shouldn't be lauded in public.
And it isn't a choice between leaving the statue in the atrium and no one ever seeing it again. There's Option C, the Indiana Jones option: "That belongs in a museum!" That is, a place where people will be interested in the historical context and where it isn't acting as the face of or welcome mat for for the entire government. Would putting the statue in a museum be that intolerant "cancel culture," in the author's opinion?
And if a house-elf, a centaur, and a goblin decided to pull down the symbol of how wizards like to oppress them, would that be wrong?
While it's a matter of interpretation, I don't think the books support the interpretation that these statutes are precious relics which ought to be eternally preserved and appreciated in the Ministry atrium forevermore. In fact, I rather get the feeling that the Fountain of Magical Brethren getting blasted to pieces was seen as a bonus of the fight, and that melting down the Magic Is Might statute might just be one of Kingsley Shacklebolt's first orders as the new Minister. So I don't know what the article's author thinks they're proving, really.