Statues should be left alone

[Rubyroost]

Ffs why target statues of Oliver Cromwell, Peel etc. They are history and should be left. Sorry, I know this is probably controversial. When will the book burning start?

Whilst i understand the emotion and reasons behind these statues being pulled down by mobs, I am also concerned about the systematic eradication of the past.

The way I see it, these artefacts are a powerful reminder of atrocities that have happened, and a stimulus for really rich debate, much like we're seeing here. I agree that it was not widely known who Colston was until this week, and what's happened to the statue has played an important role in this. It's not the objects themselves that are problematic but the context in which they exist. Until this week, Colston has stood on a plinth to be venerated much as the day the statue was installed. Much like Auschwitz has been preserved (imperfectly) as an important reminder of what mankind is capable of, these statues have a power too that can be put to great use. I personally find it chilling, and moving, to reflect on the faces of these individuals and the actions they have felt justified in taking. It's valuable to 'put a face' to the perpetration of slavery instead of making it an abstract concept or something that 'happened' to people rather than something that was enacted upon them by others. It can tell us a lot about society now and in relation to how things have been in the past. We all have the capacity to turn a blind eye, or even to do terrible things, and it's valuable to have the stimulus to reflect on that in a personal way.

I'm not sure it's a question of whether they stay or whether they should be removed. Neither seems to have much power to me. However, the context in which they're experienced could be radically examined to make people think deeply about the slave trade. This could be about juxtaposing them against commemorations to the victims of the slave trade. The Bristol response (tiny contextual plaque) was woefully inadequate and I can see why there's so much anger around this. It does feel like a bit of an apologist response.

Rather than destroy these statues or hide them away, it could be really powerful to use the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square alongside displays about the horrors and legacy of slavery to actually educate people and get them talking. My fear about iconoclasm and just removing things is that it sweeps it under the carpet and makes it easy to forget, when actually these statues can be used to move things forwards.

Sorry, this is a really clumsily written post! Basically my view is they shouldn't be left to be venerated in their original context, but I don't think they should be destroyed / hidden from view forever more either. But then I am an historian rather than someone who's suffered as a result of slavery's legacy so I can't really comment on the pain of being exposed to them day in day out either.

@Grasspigeons

I would like to see some public spending on replacement statues that reflect women, different etnicities, working classes, slaves and so on.

But who would you choose, and why? It's a reasonable idea superficially. Edward Colston was memorialised for his philanthropic contributions to the city of Bristo;l having made a fortune in the 17th century in slaving, and given back to the city via education and old people's accommodation in his will. Most of the slaves transported in his ships would have been taken by Arab slave-masters and transported to the coast for export. But he died in 1690-something. It was the past, leave it there.

There are even nastier people at work today in the same or related trades. Young girls being sent to big cities as prostitutes. I really don't think there's much moral high ground to claim in this fight, whatever colour your skin might be.

I'd read up on Colston but was curious with regards to the Royals. I thought it was highly likely they'd profited from the slave trade, and agree re OBE's etc that its appalling that the Empire is still glorified in this way. Going to read up some more now.

But what will you read? Articles that confirm what you already think you think, or original sources that delineate the thoughts that would have been circulating at the time? The two are miles apart.

It is a historian point. But a very important one, IMVHO.

All the 'big' families profited and continue to profit from slavery like the Barclay family, the Barings..most if the titled aristocracy. The Lascelles family.

So do you think the descendants of the original members of these families who profited from slavery should be taken to take for what their ancestors did?

@Amymone

Most arguments I've seen called for the statues removal and relocation to a museum.

I think these heinous figures can be removed while ensuring preservation of the facts. The erasure of history starts with it's removal from education for each new generation. Considering the empire is mostly absent from curriculae, it's already well in progress.

These statutes don't serve to educate. They are there to celebrate and commemorate. They are sending the wrong message by being allowed to stand. No amount of philanthropy absolves him of the tens of thousands he murdered.

OP just give up your argument is lost.

Except that life doesn't happen in museums, it happens in our civic environments. So if the goal is to engage society with our shared history of slavery and address what is unspoken in the UK, the streets seem the very best place to do that.

Just a point of view, you're obviously welcome to disagree...

I think actually removing these statues that essentially glorify these individuals and putting them in museums will allow for the preservation of history but accurately.

I was never taught of the despicable things that individuals like Colston or Churchill did. Only the seemingly positive things make the history books that are taught in mainstream lessons. Unless you have a real interest in history you don't always dig any deeper.

Having these statues up helps to hide those acts under the achievements and that is not ethical. I have learnt more in the past 2 weeks about racial oppression within our history than I ever had before.

These people do not deserve to be celebrated. People walking past these statues will not always to their own research. They will see a person commemorated, read a positive 'whitewashed' plaque and that will be what that person remembers them for.

The good that they did does not outweigh the oppression and terrible things that they also did. Future generations should know everything and publicly commemorating these people is not conducive to knowledge.

I don't know really. Some kind of reparation yes considering all the slavery compensation money invested in the city and that people are are stll rich off it. Why not? It's very recent history. The city of London is pprobably the most corrupt place in the world by the by ..not some banana republic as we might have been led to think

Destroyed - the original members of these families will have a lot of descendants so would they all have to contribute?

@Amymone

I do agree that live happens elsewhere. It's not a perfect argument either in that museums are inaccessible to a vast number of people for various reasons, that needs to be considered too.

I don't want to talk into an echo chamber, I appreciate hearing other reasoned views

The history curriculum has already removed any sensible discussion of the British Empire because it's too challenging for the descendants of its subjects. It would be more progressive to ask why the clever subjects did not leap aboard the bandwagon. Every population has people who need to be spoonfed to have ideas,

Look I don't really care if some reptilian scion of the Baring family has to part with a few quid.Christ they've got enough thanks to slavery and investing that money in the 'City.

@rainbowscalling

I think actually removing these statues that essentially glorify these individuals and putting them in museums will allow for the preservation of history but accurately.

I was never taught of the despicable things that individuals like Colston or Churchill did. Only the seemingly positive things make the history books that are taught in mainstream lessons. Unless you have a real interest in history you don't always dig any deeper.

Having these statues up helps to hide those acts under the achievements and that is not ethical. I have learnt more in the past 2 weeks about racial oppression within our history than I ever had before.

These people do not deserve to be celebrated. People walking past these statues will not always to their own research. They will see a person commemorated, read a positive 'whitewashed' plaque and that will be what that person remembers them for.

The good that they did does not outweigh the oppression and terrible things that they also did. Future generations should know everything and publicly commemorating these people is not conducive to knowledge.

Why do you think Churchill did despicable things?

I'd much prefer statues commemorating and reminding us about the struggles of people who've been oppressed than statues that glorify those who oppress.

And more to the point, of which despicable acts by Churchill do you particularly disapprove? He fucked up big time at Gallipolli; the death toll was appalling. but who else was left standing to defy Hitler?

@Kay1341

I'd much prefer statues commemorating and reminding us about the struggles of people who've been oppressed than statues that glorify those who oppress.

Nobody remembers nonentities. Sorry.

"Racism today has nothing to do with slavery"

Wait, what? OP if you honestly believe that you desperately need to go and educate yourself. I'm honestly aghast you've said that. You shouldn't be participating in any kind of discussion or debate on racism until you've at least educated yourself a bit more.

XingMing - the bengal famine is something i only learned about recently.

I think th statues should stay but should have new plaques erected next to them.
" This statue represents Joe Smith. He was a slave trader and ae his fortune selling people.15,000 people died as a result of his actions. He spent some of the money he made from this business investing in the city of xyz. He paid for the concert hall, the library and built a school. As a result of this, the city erected this statue to him'

Then people would be educated abot the origins of plae names, streets etc

If the statues are removed, people won't see the names and won't think to go looking for them in order to learn.

@Rubyroost You should really read or listen to “Why I am no longer talking to white people about race.” I think you would find it very informative, and I am not saying that in a sarky way. It would help you “get it”. I was just listening to it on my evening walk and the historical context the writer gives to the experience of being Black and British is so insightful.

Sorry if I have missed when you clarified, but if you don’t think racism against Black people in Britain is linked to slavery, what do you think it stems from?