Lord’s offers a masterclass in how to defy the statue topplers
The spectators in their straw hats and bacon-and-egg ties streaming into Lord’s for the start of play this morning are more likely to have their minds on who won the toss than the woke wars. Yet within the environs of St John’s Wood a template is emerging for how we might celebrate Britain’s heritage in a way that honours our modern, diverse society without succumbing to the demands of Left-wing activists to erase or disavow the past.
Ever since students at Oxford started chanting that Rhodes Must Fall there has been an obvious solution to the prevalence of statues deemed to be “problematic”: erecting more of them. Thus the legitimate hurt in some communities at being overlooked could be addressed without indulging the Year Zero statue-smashing agenda of a minority of woke activists.
Too often, however, this process has been captured by such activists. Instead of a broad-based, apolitical effort to diversify the public square, we have seen the Left co-opt these opportunities with a thumping lack of subtlety and inevitable overreach. Malcolm Gladwell’s recent suggestion of a new statue of the pacifist Vera Brittain is a case in point. A statue of Brittain is an admirable idea (although one already exists in Newcastle-under-lyme), but it was ruined completely by his suggestion that she be built glaring with contempt at an existing memorial to Sir Arthur “Bomber” Harris.
At Lord’s, a two-pronged approach to the past has shown what “build more statues” might look like in the hands of those who genuinely want to celebrate their heritage while widening representation.
On one side, the MCC has proved willing to stand up for historical figures, refusing to erase its links with Sir Pelham “Plum” Warner – after whom is named one of the stands at Lord’s – whose family wealth was derived from his grandfather’s ownership of plantations in the Caribbean. Of course it ought to be self-evidently ridiculous to cancel a man born decades after the abolition of slavery for the sins of his grandfather, but others have caved in such situations. (The merit of their plan to move portraits of more troublesome figures from the Long Room to the museum will likely depend on the ham-fistedness or otherwise of the execution.)
On the other, the MCC has sought sensible, even conservative, ways of broadening the range of people it celebrates. It was announced last week that a new gate, to be unveiled next year, will be erected to honour Rachael Heyhoe Flint, a pioneer of the women’s game. In doing so, the MCC cannot be accused of honouring an unworthy recipient for the sake of some statue-gender quota. Baroness Heyhoe Flint is precisely the sort of onceoverlooked yet influential figure who should be sought out and celebrated. There is no shortage of ethnic minority players who could be held up in similar ways as testament to cricket’s unifying power.
Having acquiesced in the act of cultural vandalism that is The Hundred, it is surprising to see the MCC acting as a guardian of the nation’s heritage. Indeed, Plum Warner’s reprieve may well owe more to the committee’s fears of a revolt by members driven to breaking point than to any master plan for navigating the culture wars. But how they arrived at this compromise is less important than the lessons to be learned from it.
Universities, councils and others confronted by the statue-toppling mob should take note.