On Monday night, Professor Schnapp spoke regarding the value of monuments and their roles in revolution – not only during their time of establishment, but also establishment and through history. Do monuments really matter? Should they be left standing even if public values pertaining to the monument change? It is true that monuments often mark significant moments in history, such as the Marine Corps Memorial of Iwo Jima, or commemorate lost ones for their service, such as the Vietnam War Memorial – however, often monuments are taken down after a community changes their overall perception in values, such as taking down Joe Paterno’s monument after discovery of his wrongdoings. While we may no longer want to recognize one’s inappropriate actions, does taking down a historic monument speak equally to our values? By removing something we once stood for, we are pretending that it never existed, which is a obvious falsification, creating gaps in history. While a monument may no longer serve with the purpose of commemoration, I do not support the removal of monuments when there has been a change in values, as we must still recognize history to acknowledge when we, as a community (of whatever size), may be at fault. In modernity, should there be a method to alter an existing monument, if values change regarding the said monument – if so, whose liberty is it to change the monument, and how can it be changed? It is an incredibly valuable not to necessarily remove a monument, but rather acknowledge, and understand where faults with it may lie. Given that monuments are dependent on the time in which they are created, it is likely that a number of monuments will be erected during, and related to the presidency of Donald Trump. With a country so heavily divided, on whose authority should pertaining monuments be built, and if they don’t accurately represent the majority of views in such a large nation (which is impossible given a population of 300 million), how do we appease everyone? If a wall is built separating the United States and Mexico, per Donald Trump’s hopes, must be use this as a marker of our nation, and one representative of our views as a whole? Surely not, however does this mean it should not be acknowledge as a monument? There is also another layer with this example, as this monument serves a major purpose, and not one strictly of decoration and/or commemoration. It becomes much harder for those not in support, to turn a blind eye given the clear role of this monument. Monuments are important in understanding a community’s views at a very moment in time, however they mustn’t be taken as the values of an entire population.