Argumentative essay on Should the Silent Sam monument be removed? Why or Why not? What is the solution?
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Should the Silent Sam Monument be Removed? Exploring Perspectives and Seeking a Solution
The debate surrounding the Silent Sam monument has been a contentious issue, sparking intense discussions about history, racism, and the appropriate way to commemorate the past. Silent Sam, a Confederate monument located on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has faced calls for removal due to its association with a painful and divisive period in American history. In this essay, we will explore arguments from both sides of the debate and propose a potential solution to address the concerns raised.
Arguments for Removal
Historical Context: Supporters of removal argue that the Silent Sam monument represents a problematic and glorified version of history. It was erected during the Jim Crow era and symbolizes a painful period of racial oppression. Removing it would help to rectify this distorted representation and promote a more accurate understanding of the past.
Racial Symbolism: The presence of Silent Sam on a university campus is seen by many as an endorsement of white supremacy and racial inequality. Given its ties to the Confederacy, which fought to uphold slavery, the monument is viewed as a symbol that perpetuates racism and systemic discrimination.
Inclusivity and Campus Environment: Universities should strive to create inclusive and welcoming environments for all students. The presence of a Confederate monument on campus can be distressing and alienating for marginalized communities, particularly African American students who may feel targeted or devalued.
Arguments against Removal
Historical Preservation: Opponents of removal argue that Silent Sam is an important historical artifact that should be preserved. They contend that removing the monument erases a part of history, regardless of its controversial nature. By keeping it in place, they argue that it serves as a reminder of the past and an opportunity for education and reflection.
Freedom of Speech: Some argue that removing Silent Sam infringes upon freedom of speech and expression. They believe that regardless of its historical context, the monument represents an individual or group’s right to memorialize their beliefs and heritage, even if those beliefs are unpopular or offensive to some.
Slippery Slope Argument: Critics of removal worry about setting a precedent for erasing historical monuments and potentially erasing other markers or statues that some find objectionable. They fear that removing Silent Sam could lead to a slippery slope where other monuments associated with controversial figures or events are targeted for removal.
Proposed Solution
Finding a solution that acknowledges the concerns raised by both sides is crucial in moving forward. One potential solution could involve contextualizing the Silent Sam monument through additional signage and educational initiatives. This approach would allow for a more accurate representation of history while also providing an opportunity for dialogue and learning.
The university could develop educational programs, exhibits, or guided tours that provide a comprehensive understanding of the Civil War era, the Confederacy, and the ongoing struggles for racial equality. This would help students and visitors contextualize the monument within its historical framework and engage in critical discussions about its significance.
Furthermore, erecting additional memorials or monuments adjacent to Silent Sam could offer alternative perspectives and narratives. These new installations could honor the contributions of marginalized communities, highlight stories of resistance against racism, or commemorate individuals who fought for civil rights.
By implementing these measures, the university can strike a balance between preserving history, promoting inclusivity, and fostering an environment conducive to open dialogue and understanding.
Conclusion
The debate over whether the Silent Sam monument should be removed is complex and multifaceted. While arguments for removal emphasize historical context, racial symbolism, and inclusivity, opponents stress historical preservation, freedom of speech, and concerns about erasing history. To address these concerns, a potential solution involves contextualizing the monument through additional signage and educational initiatives while also erecting new memorials that provide alternative perspectives. By adopting this approach, the university can create an environment that respects diverse viewpoints, promotes dialogue, and fosters a comprehensive understanding of history.
