Questioning the Assumptions of Moralism, Universalism, and Interpretive Dominance in Racist Monument Debates

Abstract This essay questions three widespread assumptions in monument debates: “moralism,” “universalism,” and “interpretive dominance.” Roughly: moralism assumes that memorials should be only to good people or causes; universalism holds represent “for” the whole polity its (real supposed) corporate values; interpretive dominance maintains that, when faced with monuments reasonable qualifying disqualifying interpretations, policy respond one(s). These do not settle debates between removalists preservationists, but they make removalist position easier defend. Various counter-examples these assumptions, real imagined, motivate competing positions I term “sentimentalism,” “particularism,” independence.”