Article Analysis of Why Every Single Statue Should Come Down

In his argumentative article “Why every single statue should come down” Gary Young argues that regardless of moral connotation or historical relevance that all statues should be removed. He begins by giving some background on the issue. He was a member of a board that would decide who shall occupy the empty plinth that is in London. Along with background on the current situation, he includes the highly politicized removal of statues across the world, why they are necessary and just, but also while they are inherently unnecessary as statues should not be there to begin with. Throughout his article. His argument, amidst ample protest, was that instead of consistently erecting new statues, only for the morality of the person to come into question several years later; instead eliminate these of statutes all together. Younge’s use of language and tone provides and effective ethos and pathos appeal, while cultivating vivid imagery which provides significant depth to his argument. These aspects ultimately provide the substance for which Younge’s argument is predicated.

Younge effectively utilizes ethos through his language as a way to portray his undeniable education on this matter, and to create a sense of unwavering sense of acceptance of his reliability to present his argument to the reader. Through the article Younge uses his vast vocabulary as a linguistic style to evoke the feeling in the readers, that he undoubtedly holds the intellect to be discussing the issue at hand. Consistently, Younge spruces up his explanation of historical events or simple statements as a ploy to show off his expansive language. As he refers to his “denunciations of capitalism” (Para. 1) or his “many spurious arguments” he attempts to implore the reader that he has an extensive and highly regarded background with the idea of questioning the current models of society. Further on Younge begins to acknowledge that “our views… will be different again in another 50 years”. The sentiment is inherently true, as society does constantly evolve. The way in which he links that thought however, includes the in depth mention of contentious and convoluted topics, such as women’s suffrage, sexuality and education. Extensive knowledge of these topics, which Younge indirectly alludes to being well versed on, speaks to the reader in a way that almost projects Younge of a higher intellect, and his opinion should be highly regarded. This not the only instance in which Younge flexes his linguistic muscles upon the reader however. When proving the point that many petitioners looking to have a new statue erected, did in fact, not know who the current statues were of, he boastfully acknowledges that “[he] knew”. This sort of intellectual projection is effective at emphatically provides credibility to Younge and creates an added weight to his arguments later. However, Younge almost over does it as it comes across as a pompous attitude that reflects his views of himself are upon a similar pedestal that the statues he is referring to stand.

Along with the alluring nature of ethos, Younge’s high level vocabulary usage is what formulates a pathos approach, as he illuminates systemic discrepancies, creating an overall tone which dismantles the celebratory tone statues represent. The actions of many of the people that are depicted in statues, are morally unjust and irreprehensible, that much is certain. Nonetheless, Younge easily could have discussed these people in a simplistic way, while quietly adding their wrong doing. Younge took a different approach. Every instance that a statue or historical figure is mentioned, he does so with unwavering conviction. When depicting the inequalities that are still with us as a result of racism, Younge alludes to the “racial subjugation” that create the “disparities” amongst varying populations. He even goes as far as to describe the socioeconomic inequality as “created by design”. Younge also provides emotion driven counter arguments. In order to “even out” the “prevailing and persistent issues that [remain]”, we should focus more on erecting prominent figures of the black community. The way in which he articulates this is just as important as the content. He is not just hearing out the community that has suffered, and continues to suffer incredible hardships, but he does so in such a descriptive way that validates their feelings. The degree to which he describes the inequalities will tug on the emotional heart strings of reader, who know things must be better. He doesn’t just mention it, he emphatically hammers down the notion that it is still with us. He uses this technique to speak to the reader, that yes, he does understand the point and, in a sense, agrees with it, but follows it up with his own rebuttal. Expressively mentioning readers views will pull them to his side and be more likely to listen to his argument against statues. This type of language is not by accident, as it is meant to evoke an emotional response that allows the text to fully captivate the reader and pull them to his side of the argument.

Similar to the way in which ethos and pathos are utilized, Younge’s linguistic breadth casts immense imagery, which captures his audience and strengthens his argument. When mentioning statues, his general take is that they stop conversation. He does not however, express it like that. He instead speaks to the “petrify[ing] of historical discourse when they “lather it in cement [and] hoist it high”. This hyperbolic depiction creates an unquestionable image for the readers, of the way in which statues freeze history and eliminate ability to revise with dialogue. Not only that, Younge describes the permanency of the figures as “impervious to the tides of thought”. This is incredibly powerful and vivid language. It creates a dark tone in the text which truly encapsulates the enduring nature that statues represent. They are not just metal, concrete or bronze but they are “permanent statement of fact, culture, truth and tradition”. Not only that but as Younge describes we are “saddled with these monuments” until crowds of people, bearing ropes and clubs, ultimately decapitate them numerous years later. Younge’s language doesn’t just depict the lasting effect of statues, but he also uses descriptive language to put emphasis on the good dealings of morally equitable people and dismantle the works of the morally inept. When statues of individuals responsible for genocide or everlasting inequalities are erected they “cast a long shadow”. This double-entendre culminates in the imagery aspect that Younge uses top convince the reader that statues are poor displays of public art.

The way that Younge articulate this article was by no means an accident, he effectively and intentionally enhanced the way his depictions of events, individuals and expressions are expressed and does so in numerous different ways. This is done to appeal to the reader and create and more emphatic approach to his argument. The allure of his expressive dialogue creates a damming tone, as like the bronzer casting in which the statues are produced, the dialogue behind history that is maintained with statues is petrified. His description as to how the permanent nature of statues encapsulates the history arguably goes against the way in which society is headed. Constant revision and view changes are inevitable and the way in Younge writes and discusses the issue speaks to the reader in ways that decapitating statues never could.