Recent years have seen various forms of honorific public art – statues, monuments, and the like – brought under renewed moral scrutiny. This scrutiny has resulted in some high-profile removals, some defacement and additional contextualization to augment existing objects, and some cases of the status quo prevailing. Scholarly treatment of the issues has similarly resulted in arguments that articulate competing values that support removal, modification or preservation. I bring the insights of these arguments to bear on specifically military commemorations, where (...) I argue that they have ample application, but where they do not exhaust the moral complexity to be confronted. This is true first because military commemoration introduces a novel moral concern of militarism, and second because military commemoration frequently has a distinctively normative function of expressing gratitude. Both these points are most powerfully observed in collections of commemorations, rather than individual monuments, a distinction that deepens ongoing discussions about problematic commemorations. (shrink)

While civic education may not always be explicitly included in school curriculums, it can still be imparted through various non-teaching practices and in different places. In this article, we will delve into three potential educational spaces -memorials, museums, and libraries- that are commonly found in Western democracies. We will explore the significance and scope of each of these spaces and discuss their respective ethical, political, and aesthetic responsibilities. Additionally, we will examine how they possess agency and can influence the educational (...) process, recognizing that even non-human entities, such as nature itself, can play an important role in shaping our understanding of civic education. (shrink)

It has sometimes been suggested that removing statues of problematic historical figures such as Cecil Rhodes from the public realm amounts to ‘erasing history’ and should therefore be avoided. In philosophy, this approach has generally been rejected. In this article, I try to develop a more plausible version of the erasing history argument. I suggest that sometimes societies aim to forget for defensive reasons (i.e. to cover up past wrongdoing). I also suggest that such past wrongdoing can also consist in (...) the widespread acceptance of a problematic monument (and therewith complicity in the insult it represents). I conclude that in such cases, to avoid defensive forgetting, we should aim to recontextualize rather than remove the monument. I also discuss which forms such recontextualization may take. (shrink)