to think removing certain statues and renaming certain street names is not erasing our history?

[chomalungma]

It's just not celebrating people who are seen as controversial.
People can still learn about these people in books.
In films
At school.

It's just that they aren't being celebrated by having public recognition and the honour of a statue or a street name.

I would link to a story - but there would be so many of them as the Government (and certain media organisations) seem to think that it's a war on our history.

I guess a lot of it is down to the person being celebrated. And whether that celebration is still deemed 'worthy' 100s of years later.

Statues have been removed in the past for a range of reasons. I wonder how many of the Victorian statues will still be up in 200 years time?

I think he's still William the Bastard over there.

Son of a duke known as The Devil and a tanner's daughter. Did well for himself

The thing that has never made sense to me with the whole "they're our history, like it or lump it!!1!" attitude is that surely you can find better British people to publically commemorate with statues. It shouldn't be hard to come up with a list of worthy names.

By all means keep the original statues somewhere - maybe part of an exhibit on their life - but if Cromwell et al is really one of the best options out there then that's quite sad.

@chomalungma I give up. You are only responding to half of a post, leaving the half where you agree with me unacknowledged!

@SionnachRua

Personally I'd start with the Cromwell statue. Ethnic cleanser extraordinaire.

He’s a local hero here in his birthplace. Every other business is named after him and there’s a museum devoted to him in his old school. It’s completely meaningless as is most of the public art in question.

It amused me to see one council deciding to get rid of Nelson Road - get over it and say it’s to commemorate Mandela, not Horatio, job done.

@BountyFul

I don’t think there is one blanket correct answer to the problem, we have preserved concentration camps and removed statues of Stalin. Both of these responses feel right so I guess it depends on the actual location and scale of the problem item/name. It’s a difficult balancing act but there is a reasonable argument that tearing down all statues hides the history. I’d like to see some kept with new plaques detailing their crimes to remind people that we aren’t that far removed from what they did.

I don't disagree but in fairness the overriding message of the concentration camps is about what disgustingly cruel places they were. I agree with keeping them along with a plaque explaining who they were (I'd prob do this as a museum exhibit, much more scope to create a full experience).

Is there anything wrong with remembering past iniquities and learning from them? Is there anything wrong with changing celebration of such events and people to learning about what drove it, what the loing term results were and how the world changes to, hopefully, prevent such things happening again?

If I remember correctly the Colston statue was a target in part because the local council had been dragging their heels for years over agreeing a more informative plaque. So the sentiment is all very well but it has to be acted upon.

I would prefer to see statues removed in a considered fashion not torn down but I think understanding why it reaches the point of tearing them down is important (And will probably be part of a history course in 50 years time!)

As an aside the Colston statue was put up a long time after his death in part as a response to political events at the time it was erected (not just to celebrate him) and it was not universally approved of. So kind of the reverse of pulling it down I response to political events of the day... We shouldn't assume that statues that are up today were universally liked or supported until this moment because some have always been disputed!

He’s a local hero here in his birthplace. Every other business is named after him and there’s a museum devoted to him in his old school. It’s completely meaningless as is most of the public art in question.

I grew up in one of the areas he terrorised so my school learning about him was very different Certainly no tributes to the aul bollix in my school!

I don’t think removing statues or renaming streets is erasing history, but it is definitely white washing it. I’d much rather say a statue of a slave trader is in Bristol add a plaque describing this man was a slave trader and that he thought being a philanthropist would white wash his guilt away. Or whatever.
Statues are not always monument to honour, but for remembrance. By removing the statue it just whitewashes the fact that slave traders were honoured for a time. It whitewashes the roles of people and cities. Ten years down the road, who will be able to name slave traders when there are no statues left? Hardly anyone. Their absence will ensure they will be forgotten. I’d rather turn a statue of “honour” into one of “shame and remembrance”. That doesn’t mean they have to stay where they are, they could all be put in a museum of collective shame. But to me destroying them is whitewashing...it’s the first step to forgetting.

@Moirarose2021

Well they are already there, I am not advocating naming streets after historic figures or erecting statues but do wonder about the benefit of removing those that are already there. Values change and we can learn and debate them but we can't change what has happened.

You don’t see the benefit?

Would you be happy walking past statues celebrating people who enslaved and murdered your ancestors, or living on a street named after one?

Their presences implicitly condone those actions. I don’t see how this is hard to understand.

It does feel a little bit like a Great Leap Forward... it ended so well...

When you discuss specifics the answers will change @terrywynne. That would be the point of discussions. I remain conflicted about the Colston statue because of what is still being asked for - i.e. the removal of all things bearing his name. That needs some proper thought, not a knee jerk reaction. But I suppose that would be seen as heels being dragged again!

But broadly speaking, yep, I agree and wish I had a time machine so I could leap forward and see how this all went!

No, it’s not erasing history. Moving statues because they no longer represent our values in 2021 is part of our future history. History isn’t stagnant, it’s not set in one point in time. It changes and evolves as the context and we change and evolve.

Their presences implicitly condone those actions. I don’t see how this is hard to understand. That is far too reductive.

Ten years down the road, who will be able to name slave traders when there are no statues left? Hardly anyone.

Who can name a slave trader now? With statues up? I'll put my hand up and say I can't! Not off the top of my head. I can go look in a history book or research online and then I would be able to.

It is telling that when the Colston statue was being debated very few people that specialise in public history (ie: producing accessible history for radio/tv/light reading) thought statues were essential to their work.

Me. I could!

But only because I watched David Olusoga's Bristol "House through Time".

If you don't want these people celebrated then they shouldn't be in books or films either. It's more of an honour to have a book or film about you than a statue.
What happened in Bristol was bad. Yes Coulston was a slave trader but he also poured thousands of pounds in to city and made it a desirable place to live with art and attractive buildings.
No one cares about that though.
Anyway I still think books and films are a greater honour. Like someone else said most people don't even know who the statue is supposed to be.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

When you discuss specifics the answers will change *@terrywynne*. That would be the point of discussions. I remain conflicted about the Colston statue because of what is still being asked for - i.e. the removal of all things bearing his name. That needs some proper thought, not a knee jerk reaction. But I suppose that would be seen as heels being dragged again!

But broadly speaking, yep, I agree and wish I had a time machine so I could leap forward and see how this all went!

That's the problem with the present, no hindsight it's hard enough analysing history when you can see what happened in the following x number of years and (possibly) have a few more sources of information and perspectives available to you, let alone try to see how now is going to pan out.

Well, if that's the case can we call for all statues of men prior to say 1900 to be removed as its pretty much a given they were most likely sexist and mysognistic and partook in the slavery of women? Or would that be stupid?

I'd remove them if either a) there is no meaningful way of contextualising them properly, or b) they are likely to be subject to sustained vandalism.

What slightly annoys me about the Colston statue discussion is the number of people who say "they should have had a plaque rather than tearing it down" as an attempt to make the protestors look totally unreasonable even though activists had spent years asking for that only to be stonewalled by officials and influential people in Bristol.

The lesson to take away from the Colston statue affair is that local officials and others need to engage in constructive dialogue with activists and find proper solutions rather than sticking their fingers in their ears.

Of course ironically taking down the Colston statue probably increased national awareness of him far more than his statue of him ever did.

Regardless of whether it should or shouldn't have been torn down, etc I am grateful as well that it has prompted some really interesting debates about what history is and the purpose of/need for statues, street naming etc and that that interest is still continuing. I may not agree with everyone on this thread or others I've been in but I'm happy they exist!

@haggistramp

If the main reason for their notoriety was because of the wealth they gained by the mistreatment and enslavement of women the yes they should be removed.

@Rosebel

If you don't want these people celebrated then they shouldn't be in books or films either. It's more of an honour to have a book or film about you than a statue. What happened in Bristol was bad. Yes Coulston was a slave trader but he also poured thousands of pounds in to city and made it a desirable place to live with art and attractive buildings. No one cares about that though. Anyway I still think books and films are a greater honour. Like someone else said most people don't even know who the statue is supposed to be.

So every book and film written about slavery is “celebrating” the slave traders and owners mentioned in them? What about books about Columbus that go into full detail of how he enslaved and massacred the native Americans? Surely it is the content of the book not who is in it that determines whether it’s apologist work or making sure history is remembered and recorded accurately as possible. It’s important to still have books on those people and their actions.

@haggistramp

Well, if that's the case can we call for all statues of men prior to say 1900 to be removed as its pretty much a given they were most likely sexist and mysognistic and partook in the slavery of women? Or would that be stupid?

That would have to include men like Frederick Douglas who fought for the abolition of slavery in the US but against the vote for women....

I think there is a vast, immeasurable difference between keeping death camps open and maintained as memorials to respect those who were murdered and remind people of the true horrors compared to a statue with some chap on a pedestal which would seem to be celebrating their success through the the oppression and deaths of others.
Drake should not be put on a pedestal for starting the British slave trade; its abhorrent. If some symbol of the historic circumnavigation should remain in Plymouth, perhaps it should be a model of the Marigold where the entire crew was lost; certainly better than building a replica Golden Hind in 1973.

[quote Eleganz]@haggistramp

If the main reason for their notoriety was because of the wealth they gained by the mistreatment and enslavement of women the yes they should be removed.[/quote]
I suppose Chingis Khan is on that list what with his saying that a man's greatest work is to break his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all the things that have been theirs, to hear the weeping of those who cherished them, to take their horses between his knees and to press in his arms the most desirable of their women.