Courting controversy
The acquittal of four people charged with criminal damage, after removing a statue of a slave trader, reignited discussions on how we commemorate the past. ANNA WHIT'LOC- charted the debate
In January, four people involved in the tearing down of a statue of 17th-century slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol were cleared of criminal damage, reigniting the debate about the role of historical statues in our view of the past. Historian and broadcaster Greg Jenner (@greg_jenner), for instance, tweeted that “statues are put up in praise, they can be taken down in condemnation. That is not changing the past, it’s reflecting what we value in our present.”
As you’d expect, Jenner’s remark prompted much discussion. Aspidistra (@Aspidistra MW) countered that “statues are meant to be a reminder, so let’s leave them all up and add plaques and explanations as to what they represent – let’s make people think.” Gee Aitch Cee (@Scriblit) noted that “both [erecting and taking down statues] are public political acts. Both happen all the time. Colston is still on public display, he has been recontextualised as a figure who is condemned, not revered. Certain opinionists have either conveniently ‘forgotten’ that, or are upset by the recontextualisation.”
Dr Sally Le Page (@sallylepage) remarked: “If it’s acceptable to cut down a 500-year-old tree, it should be acceptable to take down the odd statue. I redecorate my home all the time – why not redecorate public spaces?” That point was echoed by Vanessa Rowlands (@VanessaRowlands), who suggested that “we should be able to review and ‘rehang’ the outdoor public space just as museums and other internal spaces do.” Patricia Lacey (@Patrici57847240) was among those to disagree strongly, arguing that “it is showing you value nothing… [and that] vandalism is okay”.
Other people stressed the need to consider the nuances both of the specific situation and the wider debate. Iain Bloomfield (@iain_ bloomfield) pointed to the “extremely longterm campaign to have it removed… It was all tried for years.” Piers North (@PiersNorth) noted that “this argument – like most these days – goes to extremes from both sides. I always think history is a pile of nuance…
It is the process and who decides, and when… everything is a moment of time.” The need to understand the context in which statues are removed was amplified by Linda Jones (@joneslinda), who wrote that the “western establishment rejoices when statues of Lenin or Stalin are pulled down by ‘crowds’ (never ‘mobs’). [There’s] no talk about ‘learning from history’… or acting without due process.”
This, clearly, is not a debate that will die down any time soon. The last word for now should go to Ms L.O.S.T. (@littlemslost1): “I really recommend Alex von Tunzelmann’s excellent book Fallen Idols as a starting point on statues. Perhaps it’s time MPs liaised with historians more and together a more nuanced approach can be created.” Yes please!
If it’s acceptable to cut down a 500-year-old tree, it should be acceptable to take down the odd statue