It seems that Pennsylvania is once again in the center of an artistic controversy, this time over the statue of late Penn State football coach Joe Paterno. Just in case anyone is not aware, Joe Paterno was implicated in covering up the sexual assaults committed by his assistant, Jerry Sandusky. As a result of this situation, the college is now considering removing his statue. While this is a tremendously charged issue, as any situation involving child abuse is wont to be, this is less an issue of what Paterno did, or in this situation, did not do, and more of a case of how his legacy will be remembered. The case will then be if he is remembered for his good accomplishments, or if he will merely be known as the man who could have done more.
The author James W. Lowen once set out the case that a monument is actually a commemoration of two time periods, that of the time it was constructed, in addition to the actual commemoration taking place. This is easily seen in the example of Paterno, as the statue was constructed at the height of his accomplishments, and as such, it was seen as the glorification of him, as well as the college. Now, with his legacy and reputation in doubt, this statue may be seen as something altogether different.
An excellent example of this might be in the case of George Washington. He is naturally considered the "Father of the Country," a title which is actually not that inaccurate. However, he also owned slaves. Moreover, unlike his contemporary Thomas Jefferson, who rankled with the issues posed by stating "all men are created equal" while holding men into the bondage of slavery, it appears Washington had no such scruples.
It might be argued that Washington is a special case however, in the sense that it might be in the Americans self-interest to essentially repress these facts. After all, if Washington is considered the foremost of the Founding Fathers, and he is flawed, then how strong is the foundation on which we rest?
Therefore, we might look to another example to describe the situation going on, with ramifications into today, that of the heroic figure of Christopher Columbus. No known portraits of Columbus exist from his lifetime, yet a proliferation of statues and monuments exist. While Columbus is considered the foremost navigator of today, it might be more accurate to describe him as having one of the world's foremost publicists. In actuality, his accomplishments, while notable, were not the high mark of the age of navigation. However, he is the most well known of the explorers. Meanwhile, in addition to his navigational accomplishments, he is largely responsible for the destruction of the Arawak nation, and the conquest of the Americas. We honor a man who accomplished something great, yet was also incredibly destructive. In the end, we honor the accomplishment, but not the man.
A final example lies in a somewhat lesser known historical figure, from the American Civil War. Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. Markers and monuments to him dot the Southern landscape, as he was one of the best cavalry commanders of the Civil War (this is less conjecture than it seems, as he was noted as such by officers on both sides of the conflict.) He was made notorious by his actions both during the war (including commanding the forces that committed a massacre at Fort Pillow) and immediately following it (commanding the Ku Klux Klan.) Several years later, he reversed his views on race, in favor of reconciliation. In the American South, he is now considered still a hero, but a relatively minor one at that. Some institutions still honor him, but it is tempered by a knowledge of his actions.
I think this is the route that will be, and should be followed in regards to Joe Paterno. His deeds cannot be erased, but we have already noted him for his accomplishments. As such, we should keep his monument in place, but with the knowledge of what he did. It would then serve as a greater monument than ever before, to serve as a monument both to what Joe Paterno actually accomplished, and as a reminder of the dangers of not speaking out.
Andrew W. Huntley II
Artistic Director, Theatre Sans Serif
The author James W. Lowen once set out the case that a monument is actually a commemoration of two time periods, that of the time it was constructed, in addition to the actual commemoration taking place. This is easily seen in the example of Paterno, as the statue was constructed at the height of his accomplishments, and as such, it was seen as the glorification of him, as well as the college. Now, with his legacy and reputation in doubt, this statue may be seen as something altogether different.
An excellent example of this might be in the case of George Washington. He is naturally considered the "Father of the Country," a title which is actually not that inaccurate. However, he also owned slaves. Moreover, unlike his contemporary Thomas Jefferson, who rankled with the issues posed by stating "all men are created equal" while holding men into the bondage of slavery, it appears Washington had no such scruples.
It might be argued that Washington is a special case however, in the sense that it might be in the Americans self-interest to essentially repress these facts. After all, if Washington is considered the foremost of the Founding Fathers, and he is flawed, then how strong is the foundation on which we rest?
Therefore, we might look to another example to describe the situation going on, with ramifications into today, that of the heroic figure of Christopher Columbus. No known portraits of Columbus exist from his lifetime, yet a proliferation of statues and monuments exist. While Columbus is considered the foremost navigator of today, it might be more accurate to describe him as having one of the world's foremost publicists. In actuality, his accomplishments, while notable, were not the high mark of the age of navigation. However, he is the most well known of the explorers. Meanwhile, in addition to his navigational accomplishments, he is largely responsible for the destruction of the Arawak nation, and the conquest of the Americas. We honor a man who accomplished something great, yet was also incredibly destructive. In the end, we honor the accomplishment, but not the man.
A final example lies in a somewhat lesser known historical figure, from the American Civil War. Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. Markers and monuments to him dot the Southern landscape, as he was one of the best cavalry commanders of the Civil War (this is less conjecture than it seems, as he was noted as such by officers on both sides of the conflict.) He was made notorious by his actions both during the war (including commanding the forces that committed a massacre at Fort Pillow) and immediately following it (commanding the Ku Klux Klan.) Several years later, he reversed his views on race, in favor of reconciliation. In the American South, he is now considered still a hero, but a relatively minor one at that. Some institutions still honor him, but it is tempered by a knowledge of his actions.
I think this is the route that will be, and should be followed in regards to Joe Paterno. His deeds cannot be erased, but we have already noted him for his accomplishments. As such, we should keep his monument in place, but with the knowledge of what he did. It would then serve as a greater monument than ever before, to serve as a monument both to what Joe Paterno actually accomplished, and as a reminder of the dangers of not speaking out.
Andrew W. Huntley II
Artistic Director, Theatre Sans Serif
