Divisive figures

Regarding the current controversy over who should or should not be placed on a plinth in a public place, I would suggest that it is never a good idea to place any individual on a pedestal – either physically or metaphorically. No one, living or dead, is entirely good or bad: we are all merely human, with our strengths and weaknesses. A person’s actions, well-considered at the time, may not transfer happily to another era. This was exemplified by a description of Edward Colston on the BBC news as “philanthropist and slave trader” – and however many statues are torn down or names changed, the people of Bristol will continue to be affected by this man’s actions.

Might it not be better to commemorate events rather than people? The cast of Rodin’s 19th-century statue The Burghers of Calais next to the houses of parliament in London comes to mind, and there are many more sculptures around the UK that highlight local history and ways of life in an uncontroversial way. I would also suggest that it might be aesthetically and morally better to create the sculpture at street level or on a low plinth, rather than raising the structure high above those who are meant to gain something from it, which could reinforce an adverse message.

If old memories and stories are erased, new ones emerge to take their place which are not necessarily ‘correct’ or ‘better’. Neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ history should be manipulated to make us feel more comfortable; we must use all human experience to make moral progress.

Sarah Porterfield, Okehampton