Statues and monuments stand in public squares all over the world, and most people walk past them every day without giving them a second thought. Yet these silent stone figures are far from neutral. A monument is deliberately built in order to honor a particular person or event, and in doing so it inevitably expresses the values of the people who chose to put it up. Because those values can change a great deal over time, monuments that once seemed entirely natural and uncontroversial can later become the focus of fierce public disagreement.
In recent years, many countries have debated, sometimes angrily, what to do with monuments to historical figures whose actions are now widely condemned. Statues honoring people who owned slaves, led brutal conquests, or supported deeply unjust systems have become especially controversial. To some people, these monuments are painful daily reminders of past injustice, displayed in places of honor as if nothing at all were wrong. They argue that keeping such statues standing in public squares quietly suggests that society still admires the very people they represent.
Others, however, worry about the dangers of erasing the past. They argue that removing monuments amounts to hiding history, and that even uncomfortable or shameful figures should be remembered, precisely so that their mistakes are never forgotten or repeated. Some also fear that once a society begins tearing down statues, it will be very hard to know where to stop, since almost any historical figure can be criticized by the standards of the present day. For these people, the real danger is that history will end up being judged far too simply, by the values of a single passing moment.
Between outright removal and unchanged preservation lie many other, more creative options. Some monuments have been carefully moved from places of honor into museums, where they can be studied and understood in their full historical context. Others have been left exactly where they are but given new signs that explain the whole story, including the uncomfortable parts that were once conveniently left out. A few communities have even chosen to add new monuments alongside the old ones, telling a fuller and more honest history. What all these approaches share is a recognition that monuments are not really about the past at all; they are statements, made in the present, about what a society chooses to honor.
(1) 正解 2. Because they express the values of those who put them up.
第1段落に「記念碑はそれを建てた人々の価値観を表す」とある。選択肢2。
(2) 正解 3. Because keeping them suggests society still admires those figures.
第2段落末に「そうした像を公共の広場に残すことは、社会が今もその人物を称賛していることを示唆する」とある。選択肢3。
(3) 正解 1. That history will be forgotten or judged too simply.
第3段落に「歴史を隠すこと」「単一の瞬間の価値観で歴史が単純に裁かれること」を恐れるとある。選択肢1。
(4) 正解 2. Moving monuments into museums to study them in context.
第4段落に「記念碑を博物館に移し、文脈のなかで研究する」という中間策がある。選択肢2。
sustainable:持続可能な
able to continue without harming the future(将来を損なわずに続けられる)
resident:住民
a person who lives in a place(ある場所に住んでいる人)
microbe:微生物
a tiny living thing seen only with a microscope(顕微鏡でしか見えない小さな生き物)
digest:消化する
to break down food in the body(体内で食べ物を分解する)
precise:正確な
exact and accurate(きっちりとして正確な)
standardize:標準化する
to make things follow one common rule(物事を一つの共通の基準に合わせる)
monument:記念碑
a structure built to honor a person or event(人や出来事をたたえて建てられた構造物)
condemn:非難する
to say strongly that something is wrong(何かを強く間違っていると言う)