PQlarKsKPg gurGs
Do statues lead to vital debate, or inflame dangerous passions? And who should they commemorate? Those are just some of the issues being debated on social media following the events of June’s Black Lives Matter protest in Bristol.
Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson), a great admirer of Winston Churchill – whose statue has been targeted by demonstrators – believes that “statues teach us about our past, with all its faults. To tear them down would be to lie about our history and impoverish the education of generations to come.” Robert Saunders (@redhistorian) argued that “statues inhabit the present, not the past, and are subject to its jurisdiction. Our relationship with the past, and what we choose to honour, can change over time. It is not an offence against history to reflect those changes in what we commemorate in our public spaces.” Bernardine Evaristo (@BernardineEvari) went further. “People of colour, women, working classes and LGBTQI+ [people] have all been erased or marginalised in the timelines of official British history. Relocating and recontextualising toxic statues in museums is a necessary remaking of history.”
In a debate about a statue of Robert Clive, who brutally established British rule in India, Likav Nerus (@LikavN) wrote: “I despise Clive. But I feel his statue should remain to remind every Indian who walks past it about British atrocities in India and remind the Brits that their empire was built on invasion and repression of the colonies. Plaques informing people of real history would help.”
University of Southampton lecturer
Dr Charlotte Lydia Riley (@lottelydia) agreed, in part. “Some statues or memorials can be used to have difficult conversations about complex histories – but we simply don’t put up statues to people that we don’t want to celebrate as well as remember… I don’t think people ‘learn’ much about history from seeing a statue.” John (@hartigj1) injected a note of caution: “Shouldn’t we first be clear about why the statue is there? Often [it’s] quite specific irrespective of the person’s character/rest of their record: Nelson (saved us from invasion, although an adulterer); Churchill (inspired resistance in WW2 despite an otherwise chequered record), etc.”
Nick Harris (@2ndthoughttank) proposed radical action. “Has the ‘removed statue’ debate moved to melting them down to create new monuments yet?” It’s a theme DanielKorski (@DanielKorski) warmed to. “There are many great subjects for new statues like author Mary Price, abolitionists Ottobah Cugoano and Olaudah Equiano… What about a #100newstatues campaign?”
The debate looks set to run and run – but, as historian and BBC History Magazine columnist David Olusoga (@DavidOlusoga) points out, “the ‘statue wars’ must not distract us from a reckoning with racism”.
I don’t think that people learn much about history from seeing a statue