Statues, even to notoriety, ought to remain a part of our history

LETTERS

IT IS indisputable that much of Glasgow’s mercantile success in the 18th century was dependent on slave labour (“Monuments to make Scotland proud or emblems of shame?”, The Herald Magazine, September 9). It is understandable that there is a debate about the appropriateness of statues erected in memory of individuals who profited directly or indirectly from slavery in the Caribbean and the Americas (although we might remember here that Scottish colliers and saltworkers were effectively enslaved until 1799).

However, Glasgow played its part in helping to abolish the slave trade. In 1791 (relatively early in the Abolition campaign) despite massive opposition from the city’s West India merchants, the Glasgow Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was established. Its first chairman was David Dale, the wealthy industrialist and philanthropist whose business headquarters were in St Andrew’s Square, a short walk from his mansion in Charlotte Street.

Dale’s wealth stemmed from ownership of the New Lanark Cotton Mills, a model community with decent housing and schooling. New Lanark’s fame as an enlightened factory community, offering the best conditions in the UK , attracted visitors from all over the world, long before Robert Owen came on the scene.

Dale was well known in the city as a philanthropist, involved with the Royal Infirmary, Town’s Hospital and many other charitable projects. He was aware that the raw cotton which he bought in London, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow had come from slave plantations. Unlike most of his fellow merchants, he agreed to take a public stand against the slave trade. Records of the Glasgow Society are difficult to find but we know that Dale chaired the group for some time and that the Glasgow Society (with a similar society in Edinburgh) played a significant part in Clarkson’s campaign to petition Parliament.

Dale supported gradual abolition. Anything else would have meant the end of New Lanark and the loss of 1,300 jobs. The Glasgow Society spoke of the “cruelty and barbarity” of the slave trade, which it found “repugnant” and “founded in iniquity”. Further, “its continuance in this enlightened age [was] disgraceful to the nation and utterly inconsistent with the profession of Christians”.

Glasgow, quite properly, needs to address the issue of slavery in its history but it should not be forgotten that the city also played a part in the campaign to abolish the trade. The issue is a complex one, and one which I think deserves much more attention and research. A good place to start would be to consider an anti-slavery museum/ information centre that would allow the issues (including statues) to be discussed and displayed.

Dr DJ McLaren, 8 Kilmaurs Drive, Giffnock, Glasgow.

WITH reference to colonial statues in Glasgow, the monument I find most offensive is the Royal Doulton fountain in Glasgow Green opposite the People’s Palace.

This 1888 installation has four faces denoting the four main areas of empire: Canada, Australia, South Africa and India. The first three are depicted by effigies of British settlers looking prosperous. Only India is represented by statues of supposed Indian nationals, though the facial features of the statues have been Europeanised.

The message of the fountain is clear. The colonised lands were devoid of indigenous peoples and were ripe for the taking. It was only the hard work of the British settlers that gave these lands prosperity. I find it astonishing that Glasgow is proud of this relict and, while I do not want it destroyed, it should be accompanied by a plaque explaining its nature as colonial propaganda.

Bob Downie,

66 Mansewood Road, Glasgow.

THE statue on Ben Bhraggie of George Granville Leveson-Gower, the man who became 1st Duke of Sutherland, represents a conspicuous monument to Clearance, a stone-faced reminder of a stoney-hearted man. Yet it is important that the stone duke remains where he is to remind us of the diaspora his actions created.

My four-greats-grandfather Donald Mackay, born circa 1760, was driven out of Strathnaver and resettled at Torrisdail, a stony northfacing community on the north coast. His forced migration and the compulsory resettlement of so many others saw the interior of Sutherland systematically emptied quarter by quarter.

All too often, emigration from the interior was followed by emigration from the coast. In 1840, the chief government relief officer for Scotland noted that “the aim of the Highland landlords is the extermination of the people”. Twenty-first century victimhood should play no part in letting the Duke stay. He should remain as part of our history.

Gordon Casely, Westerton Cottage, Crathes, Kincardineshire.

DANI Garivelli’s thoughtful article on historic statues in the Herald Magazine underlines the need to see those commemorated in their historical context and not to make unbalanced or anachronistic judgments. But still more basic is the need to know whom the statues depict: Sandy Stoddart’s statue of Playfair unveiled a year ago outside the National Museum of Scotland is not of the William Playfair of bar chart fame, whom Professor Bob Davis was seemingly discussing.

It is a statue of his nephew, William Henry Playfair, the great neoclassical architect, and is most appropriately placed, being in the vicinity of the university’s Old Quadrangle, initially designed by Robert Adam in 1789 and revised and completed by WH Playfair in 1819-27. Play fair by the Playfairs!

Dr Ronald A. Knox, 8, Queensborough Gardens, Glasgow.

I WAS reminded of Isaac Asimov’s book The End of Eternity, about a future society that can travel in time and, by the manipulation of events, change the course of future history. Beyond the benevolent society there was another culture that infiltrated the “do gooder”. It recognised that bad things had to happen to improve future societies.

So what is better? Statues as mentioned by Dani Garivelli’s recognising the bad stuff and enabling value judgment to avoid repetition of what we want as a more desirable existence, or no statues because we have not developed beyond a non enquiring species? I agree that many statues should be removed but disagree that the history that created them should also be removed. If all is gone we may forget what to protest and ultimately fight against. But do leave Lobey Dosser and Desperate Dan where they are.

Ian Gray, Low Cottage, Croftamie.