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?

@ConfusedcomMum

I agree it's healthy to move on with the times. No one can erase history. The museums are the best place for them in this day and age. Use them to inform and educate. On a personal note, I wish we'd stop putting up statues of people on the streets, I find them really freaky unless it's in an art gallery 😬

History can be erased very easily. Check out Stalin.

The museums are the best place for them in this day and age.

Will nobody think of the poor museums?

Most of those things are huge, and heavy; storage for them in a museum would be a complete pita to arrange.

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.

That doesn’t give anyone the right to vandalise it.

@AStudyinPink

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.

That doesn’t give anyone the right to vandalise it.

It does not excuse vandalism but it explains why this statue in particular was a target. It also highlights the fact that it is all very well calling for more informative plaques to contextualise statues but if local councils refuse to cooperate then you get stalemate and things can become flashpointd to wider issues.

terrywynne

It’s not the job of local councils to co-operate with vocal minorities unless there is wider support for the change. When the Colston statue was vandalised, I heard many many people making the argument, “Well, they had no choice, the Council wouldn’t listen!” as if they had some rights over and above the right to a say - the same democratic right we all have. At the end of the day, those who objected to the statue didn’t get their own way and enforced it through illegal, violent means. That’s why they’re on trial for criminal acts.

@AStudyinPink

terrywynne

It’s not the job of local councils to co-operate with vocal minorities unless there is wider support for the change. When the Colston statue was vandalised, I heard many many people making the argument, “Well, they had no choice, the Council wouldn’t listen!” as if they had some rights over and above the right to a say - the same democratic right we all have. At the end of the day, those who objected to the statue didn’t get their own way and enforced it through illegal, violent means. That’s why they’re on trial for criminal acts.

There has been decades of arguing over Colston statue. And when compromise seemed to have been reached over wording it was changed, and more debate ensued. There was even criticism that it had been reworded (i cant remember which version they were on by then) without consultation with communities affected by the slave trade. Again, I am not saying it was not a criminal act, I am saying that we need to understand why it happened. In this case it was frustration that the legal methods were not working within the wider context of a political/social movement.

terrywynne

I do understand why it happened. I empathise with people who disagree with a majority of others (it’s not nice, not getting what you want when you care deeply about it). But as you say, it doesn’t excuse it. There are processes we have to follow in these things, flawed or not.

@AStudyinPink

terrywynne

I do understand why it happened. I empathise with people who disagree with a majority of others (it’s not nice, not getting what you want when you care deeply about it). But as you say, it doesn’t excuse it. There are processes we have to follow in these things, flawed or not.

Whilst it would be nice if people followed the proper procedures, I think statues and artwork are always going to be at risk when it comes to protests/changes in attitudes/revolutions etc because visual symbols still carry weight in our society. I mean the BBC did a whole analysis piece on Biden's artwork in the oval office - what he removed, what he brought in, where it was placed.

Images of dictator statues being toppled are iconic now. The 16th century saw the national destruction of thousands of statues and paintings (probably not with majority approval) because of religious change. I'm sure there are examples right back to ancient Greece etc. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think this is this last time a social/political/religious movement will violently target art because I don't think it is going to lose its symbolic power after thousands of years.

It wouldn’t ‘be nice’ - it is a legal requirement. It’s not inevitable that people will break the law and trash property belonging to others unless they get their own way. It’s a decision they make, and they are accountable for that.

Awww, there there, some of you are just going to have to find other ways of celebrating your favourite slavers

Some of the replies are verging on 'political correctness gorn maaaaaaad' territory

I mean the BBC did a whole analysis piece on Biden's artwork in the oval office - what he removed, what he brought in, where it was placed.

Are you comparing Biden redecorating his office with vandalism?

@AStudyinPink

I mean the BBC did a whole analysis piece on Biden's artwork in the oval office - what he removed, what he brought in, where it was placed.

Are you comparing Biden redecorating his office with vandalism?

Erm, nope! I was saying thay art work is given social and cultural meaning and that it is powerful. The Biden redocoration illustrates this because he made his choices to send a message. Given thatvwe ascribe powerful meaning to art it is going to prompt emotional responses up to and including violent destruction.

And 'It would be nice' is a general sentiment. It would be nice if people followed the law. But they don't do they? People commit all sorts of actions when it is a legal requirement they should/shouldn't. So I am not going to be surprised if more art gets destroyed in the next decades as it has in previous centuries.

Well, no, Terry; I’m not going to be surprised that some idiots continue to break the law either. But I will put the blame for that where it belongs: on them.

In my city, barring the war memorials, all the statues have been moved around and are no where near where they were originally, historically erected. This is done mostly as fitting the council's amusement to out of the way places for new building projects for their mates. Local wishes don't seem to play much of a factor.

How are these many of which were originally paid for by the individuals or their families to attest to their own greatness any more history to be protected than the buildings that are torn down all the time or that have been left to decay? Is it because they're human shaped that people seem to put so much more value to them no matter how they got there compared to anything else we could do to have our history on display?

Why are old metal dolls more for hoarding our past that we can't "erase" by not keeping them up and maintained than anything else in our built environment that gets changed? We're told to just suck it up when the council decides to put another hole in the ground, knocking down hospitals and other facilities, many of which had historical value - I guess because they went through the legal process of ignoring local needs so since they're not technically breaking the law, it doesn't really matter.

We've got multiple listed buildings rotting and repeatedly catching fire under corporate ownership, no push for legal action there...I think that's far more vandalism of history than anything any of us could do a statue, even if the law at the moment is on their side.

And the whole idea that museums are just a middle class thing universally...

Some of the replies are verging on 'political correctness gorn maaaaaaad' territory

Well no, they're not actually. I think this has largely been a respectful and nuanced debate. There's really not much point in adding remarks like this (and the extremely offensive preceding one) unless you are looking to shut down the conversation?

@ChristmasSexyTime

Some of the replies are verging on 'political correctness gorn maaaaaaad' territory

Well no, they're not actually. I think this has largely been a respectful and nuanced debate. There's really not much point in adding remarks like this (and the extremely offensive preceding one) unless you are looking to shut down the conversation?

I agree. The debate has been calm and measured.

There wouldn't be many statues left if you did this- no monarchs, no military figures, no religious figures (including Greek or Roman gods & goddesses- they behaved pretty appallingly). No war memorials. Just Ken Dodd & his tickle stick in Liverpool Lime Street Station, Greyfriar's Bobby & maybe Paddington Bear- if he isn't labelled a symbol of British colonialism! Oh and we'll have to chip off the figures on the wall of BBC Broadcasting house- as the artist was a paedophile.

Is the Sherlock Holmes statue in Edinburgh allowed? Fictional character but one with sexist & racist views, and a serious recreational drug habit.

@AStudyinPink

It wouldn’t ‘be nice’ - it is a legal requirement. It’s not inevitable that people will break the law and trash property belonging to others unless they get their own way. It’s a decision they make, and they are accountable for that.

I assume all those women talking about law breakers who carry out acts of 'vandalism' for their beliefs don't vote? I'm guessing those saying its awful to remove statues of slave traders think Rosa Parks should have been fired for her beliefs?

As Margaret Mead who said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, It's the only thing that ever has."

The question is less about whether we should keep the statues but why anyone wants to put a slave trader on a pedestal? Why would we celebrate slavery and murder?

Why be pedantic about Drake and dismiss his leadership of the foundations of slavery because his older cousin was also involved? Luckily Plymouth have seen sense and there will be wording added to Drakes statues and Sir John Hawkins Square is being renamed 9or has been).

I have never understood why we have statues to anyone actually - you could junk the fucking lot for me.

We don’t celebrate slavery or murder. The statues aren’t celebrating anything, they’re commemorative, not celebratory.

We honour the women who fought for our right to vote, not their vandalism. We honour Rosa Parks for her guts and determination, not her civil disobedience.

It’s really disheartening to see how many people are completely incapable of understanding that times change and it’s completely unreasonable to judge the past by the standards of a completely different society.

My great, great grandparents came here from Ireland in the potato famine. They were treated abysmally in both countries, my great grandmother ended up in the workhouse. It was appalling but it can’t be changed. The world has changed but the worlds of the past can’t be.

If we’re going to trade quotes Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

It's a shame that the past that most people are taught at school and that they hear from many politicians is not the whole story and is often the selected positive highlights about individuals and events.

It's hard for many people to 'remember' the past when politicians and certain media outlets do their level best to dismiss anyone who wants to discuss the past from a different perspective.

*See the attitude towards the National Trust at the moment

History isn’t taught in schools as selected positive highlights.

@VinylDetective

Statues of individuals have usually been in their honor not their historical significance. I can't think of a single person who has a statue that was done to remember their atrocities.

For example you might have a statue of a family in potatoes famine, or a memorial but never the cause

@Stripesnomore

History isn’t taught in schools as selected positive highlights.

Some bits of our history where things might be seen as complicated aren't necessarily covered in detail.

It's as if people don't want to think about the more negative aspects of our history and the role some of our national heroes played in it.

Most people know about Churchill and WW2. But how much else do they know about his role and attitudes in Government?