To think - let’s just have loads of statues and information.

[Ozgirl75]

So wouldn’t it be nice if in loads of public places it was just statue central - parks etc instead of having two statues, they’ve got like, ten statues of interesting people who have done notable things. And then on their plaques, have real information about the good and maybe the not so good things they’ve done.
Every time you went for a walk it could be like a little bit of a history lesson.
Plus it wouldn’t be such an argument as to who gets a statue because there would be thousands of them, dotted about with their little mini history lessons (oh and a QR code for more information) all over the place.
Yes I know, cost, who writes them etc - details we could work out. Some sort of committee.

Who is going to pay for it?

I am delighted all the statues dedicated to slave traders are being taken down, and I'd like to see them be replaced with interactive art that can be climbed on and used by people in a more proactive way.

That’s a lovely idea too - I think celebrating people who have done notable things is really good and sometimes in doing those notable things they will annoy a set of the population (and I’m not disagreeing with you on slave owners by the way).

Art, statues, I’m all for a diversity of media - if people can accept that they won’t like every person “statued” (my word) or every piece of art, but that it sparks debate and interest, that’s probably a good thing.

Build an outdoor prison for them, bit like a zoo. That's an idea.

Also that it’s fine to disagree with something without expecting that everyone will agree with that opinion.
I actually think slave owners are a good example. Eg Thomas Jefferson - slave owner but also did great, amazing things. So let’s statue him (yes I know he already has them, this is just an example) and also comment on his slave owning past.

I would rather the statues remained with explanations about the controversy surrounding them. Revisionist history is not useful for future generations. Not many young people regularly visit museums to learn about the past so removing statues from town centres just erases an uncomfortable past, it doesn't encourage anyone to learn from it.

I like the idea that we could have history happening around us. It wouldn't need to be statues it could be places, objects, views, etc. A written piece and a QR code to an interactive the good the bad and the ugly stuff. Imagine walking around an area and discovering hidden gems without them being overtly in your face. Actually I don't like the idea I love it 🙂

@LizzieMacQueen

Build an outdoor prison for them, bit like a zoo. That's an idea.

Quite. An outdoor museum of historic monsters. These were the people who enriched some Britons, but literally haunted the dreams of millions abroad.

King Leopold is case in point. Just google Congo hand chopping for further context of what these statues mean for non British.

Aww go on. Here's a clicky link.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State

I would like the statues to remain with honest information attached to them.
I find it sad that we are trying to erase history. For example You can visit Auschwitz, I want people to know the horrors so we never ever get complacent and move backwards.

I saw Professor Sir Geoff Palmer from Herriot Watt on TV yesterday. His argument is that if you remove the statues you, to some extent, cover up the evil. He wants the statues to stay, (or be moved to a museum or similar) but will full and truthful information about who I they were, what they did and what their role in slavery was. In that way the statues serve to educate rather than to celebrate.

Hell yeah, why not. Let's get some statues up of Hitler and the rest of the Nazis. Maybe a new one of Colston holding a branding iron? Forget statues of the victims, let's centre the oppressors!

@OnlyFoolsnMothers

I would like the statues to remain with honest information attached to them. I find it sad that we are trying to erase history. For example You can visit Auschwitz, I want people to know the horrors so we never ever get complacent and move backwards.

Auschwitz is a memorial to the murdered. These statues are the equivalent of leaving a statue of Hitler, himself, standing, forcing 1000's of Jewish people to walk by it daily on their way to work, and saying "oh but that's fine because it's "educational", right?" despite almost no (white) person ever previously really knowing the history or caring to ask.

Then after many decades of talking, pleading, reasoning, petitioning, the statue of Hitler is finally tipped into the harbour and this act of frustration is called "vandalism" and "thuggery".

Exactly picsinred. I'm astonished people keep bringing up auschwitz as a justification for having statues dotted around of people who contributed to a genocide of 11 million and more people.

@EachDubh that was exactly what I was picturing! Like a “look at these notable figures that have some sort of connection with this place” - like, incidental history rather than history that you have to specifically seek out in a museum etc.

Or yes, art, writing, poetry etc - you could have an app on your phone that lets you know that an interesting thing happened where you are, or someone notable was born or visited there.

I think the removal of the Colston statue was an important moment and was the right thing to do and has highlighted that to many people who didn't think about it before seeing that. Bristol's history in intertwined with slavery and it was shocking to read on here from people that they'd been basically taught 'he was great man who did lots for the city and, oh, by the way he owned a few slaves but different times, eh?'. Actually I suppose it's not that surprising, DH has an ancestor who was involved early on in trading in Virginia. FIL wrote a history about him and I asked if he had been involved in the slave trade and was told 'oh no, that was later', except of course a quick google showed it wasn't. I suspect it's natural to not want to think about your own connections to these things but it's also a reminder that we do need to be explicit about slave ownership or people will forget it. I do worry that removing lots of statues is whitewashing our history and the OP is right that we do need to add plaques with a modern assessment of the history. I am the person who always googles people when I see blue plaques though.

Legacies of slave ownership

In an age of GoFundMe and crowdfunding, I would have thought that the concept of "by public subscription" would have exploded.

Mind you I also thought free access to information would cure ignorance, so probably best not go by my thoughts ...

From what I’ve recently found out about him Colston should have been removed. the part I struggle with is the vast majority of these status represent an era where if you were rich you would have “benefitted” from slavery- this is not me saying that’s in anyway a good thing- far from it!
But do we then remove all status- Churchill too?

But do we then remove all status- Churchill too?
Why not - WTF are they actually for?
Chuck 'em all in the Sea.

From what I’ve recently found out about him Colston should have been removed.

When I read a bit about the story (bad form I know, you must never delay frothing) it was clear that there had been a long running debate about the position of the statue (and I can recall debates about the Rhodes statue in the 80s).

It wasn't like the mob had suddenly decided it was "no statue day" nationwide, but a very local response. The Big Society in action, really.

Well Churchill led the the U.K. through the Second World War if that wasn’t obvious.

DGRossetti I literally had never heard of the man, so I’m glad I’m now better educated.

I think that, once we get the job started properly, it won't be a case of which statues get removed but rather which ones are allowed to remain. There won't be all that many left.

Eric Morecambe, Victoria Wood, Desperate Dan et al in Dundee....

I don't buy the argument that people who perpetrated atrocities also did a lot of good too - maybe giving away a small proportion of the fortune they made from from human death and misery (which surely always rightly belonged to the slaves and exploited workers anyway), but invariably keeping a massive chunk of it for themselves and living a life of obscene opulence.

Jimmy Savile raised a lot of money for charity, entertained millions on TV and spent more than 99% of his waking hours NOT raping and abusing children - shall we put up a statue of him in Stoke Mandeville?

If we must have statues to testify to these past monsters, instead of putting them up on high, exalted plinths, we should dig a three-foot pit and put them in that, with a cage of some sort around it. That way, we could look down on them and dogs can wee on them and, instead of admiring them, use them as an aide-memoire of what can happen when people grow up with so much privilege and yet still make wicked life choices that oppress, torture and kill their far less-privileged fellow humans in order to get even more for themselves. A warning not an aspiration.

Information about Churchill, allegedly the 'Greatest Briton':

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Winston_Churchill

I think that, once we get the job started properly, it won't be a case of which statues get removed but rather which ones are allowed to remain. There won't be all that many left.

I think the racists among us will pretty quickly twig that if they take a few statues down they'll be able to claim to have "fixed" racism, and it will go away for the next 50 years. Much as having pop concerts fixes" world poverty.

Or am I too cynical ? Maybe living through the 1981 Britxon riots (thats what ... three generations ago ) has kinda prepared me a bit ?