"As a historian the hardest part of my job is that I am constantly building statues, as statues are the only way people learn about history. Little known fact, but most of what you learn when you pursue a PhD in history is actually just how to build and install statues. Just the other day I was discussing dissertation ideas with my advisor and she said "pick a different topic, there isn't a statue of this." The phrase "pre-history" derives from a German word meaning "periods of history that didn't leave statues behind so who knows what happened". Last year I did a ton of archival research only to have a conference reject my paper for: "failure to cite a statue." Harsh but fair! How do we know that Don Quixote and Rocky are real historic figures, and not fictional characters? Easy: because there are statues of them! How do historians know that F. Kafka's father was a terrifying headless monster and that Franz rode on his shoulders? Because of the statue. There are some who ask "which came first: the history or the statue?" But those people are philosophers and you should probably ignore them. Some argue that you can learn about history from books & other non-statue materials. But who has ever heard of learning from a book? No one! If a statue comes down it becomes impossible to know what happened in the past. No historian will dare make a claim without statue evidence. Don't we all know the famed adage: "if you want to be remembered, do something important - but also build a statue of it"?We do! Historians have been calling for a return to "statue based" education for years, but skills like "looking at statues" have been devalued. In conclusion: taking down statues permanently alters the space-time continuum (unless you build a statue of the other statue coming down)."
~Shipwreck
Get a clue!! THIS ISN'T ABOUT STATUES!!!!!
