Vera Mukhina, THE sculptor behind the worker and kolkhoz woman sculpture, would’ve probably convinced people to keep it purely for artistic value. She allegedly did it with the “Freedom monument” in Latvia, but the Latvian “Freedom” statue is so ugly I wouldn’t have listened.
You could turn the supposed values the statue is representing against the State that’s refusing to uphold them. That’s what I would do personally.
It’s a rather morbid sight to have a statue of liberty, in a city where even a single person goes unsheltered and hungry.
What about adding something to reflect the new era. Another piece that describes progress made and changing aspirations in relationship to the previous mentality.
if it were up to me i’d keep it. it doesn’t have as much baggage as any of the other famous monuments, and liberty can mean pretty much anything anyway. plus can you imagine how bad it would look to destroy “liberty”? at least any time during my natural lifetime. plus i’ve always kinda liked it. at the very least it would make a rocking flag, way less ugly and way less colonial than the current one.
Not the statues fault that its ideals are ignored. I’d keep the SoL, and destroy the monuments dedicated to the historical figures; Washington Monument, Jefferson & Lincoln Memorials, and those dedicated to war leaders. I’d hand over Mount Rushmore to the Lakota tribes to do with as they wish.
Melt it down and use the material for a statue that celebrates the working class:
I’d keep it but replace the torch and tablet with a sickle and hammer.
I care less about the statue. It’s symbolism can be changed. If we are gonna talk about destroying monuments, they should do what they can to wipe that shit off if Mt. Rushmore.
I grew up near Mt. Rushmore. I loved it when I was a kid. Now I abhor everything about it.
I’d put it in a museum dedicated to American propaganda and replace it with a statue of Huey P. Newton.
Modify it into the Statue of Liberation.
Replace the torch with a hammer and sickle.
I would argue to keep it .It’s historical and iconic. But It’s a symbol of oppression, not liberty. Just change it a wee bit. The local nations should ultimately be the deciding factor though.
Taking it down costs money and resources that would be better spent elsewhere.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with liberty as a concept, but in this specific context, it’s meant as the liberty of bourgeois colonists
I am not sure what the statue is supposed to symbolise but it looks nice.
Liberty
There’s loads of spec-fic and comics etc from both during and after the Cold War about what if the US loses/lost the Cold War illustrated with the Statue of Liberty having the torch replaced with a hammer and sickle or the book she’s holding is changed to be a copy of Quotations from Chairman Mao or whatever. Just do that.
For everyone that don’t is Latvian.
https://rees.sas.upenn.edu/about/spotlight/freedom-monument-riga-latvia
The solution is simple, you do a public consultation, with particular focus on the people of NYC, with debate and propositions, and what the people feel it’s best is to be done, quite simple in my oppinion. Since to my eyes it’s not an inherently reactionary symbol, so I’d say the people should decide on a post revolutionary NYC
