Society/Culture Statue wars

[Frank Bunn]

During the recent BLM protests in Britain, activists dragged down a statue of Edward Colston and threw it in the local harbour. Colston was an international merchant and prominent member of the Royal African Company. RAC was set up by the British royal family to search for gold but later became heavily involved in the slave trade. Colston was also a philanthropist - funding charitable housing, schools and hospitals. 174 years after his death the statue was erected in the centre of Bristol, to commemorate his philanthropy. Activists have drawn up a hit list of another 60 monuments in the United Kingdom that "celebrate slavery and racism".

Is it fair to judge figures from different times according to our modern morality?

Is mob rule a good way of determining which statues of historic figures are allowed to stand?

 

[Mofra]

There are calls to amend the plaques on some statues in Gippsland to include the involvement of explorers and pasturalists in massacres of Aboriginals. That's a better way forward than calling in bulldozers.

In most circumstatnces I'd rather plaques be updated rather than statues torn down. Rightly or worngly, history shouldn't be ignored.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

History illustrates (or sometimes obfuscates - after all, it is always written by the victors) while statues commemorate. Change the plaques or tear 'em down - much of a muchness in my book.

 

[Mateyman]

I think there's a fairly significant difference between those who, like Colston and Rhodes, are celebrated essentially because of money made directly off the slave trade and those like Churchill who seems to have definitely been a savage racist but is commemorated for his war efforts. In the first case I think there is a good case that statues (which commemorate and celebrate these people) should be removed. In the second case, I think not.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I think there's a fairly significant difference between those who, like Colston and Rhodes, are celebrated essentially because of money made directly off the slave trade and those like Churchill who seems to have definitely been a savage racist but is commemorated for his war efforts. In the first case I think there is a good case that statues (which commemorate and celebrate these people) should be removed. In the second case, I think not.

During Colston's lifetime slavery was the norm. It was endemic in all civilisations across the globe including Africa before the Europeans got there. Colston was born in 1636 and died in 1721. The abolitionists in Britain only began to challenge the legality of slavery in the mid to late 1700s. The Slave Trade Act in 1807 made the slave trade illegal throughout the British Empire.

Do we judge him by the standards of his times or our modern morality?

 

[Mateyman]

During Colston's lifetime slavery was the norm. It was endemic in all civilisations across the globe including Africa before the Europeans got there. Colston was born in 1636 and died in 1721. The abolitionists in Britain only began to challenge the legality of slavery in the mid to late 1700s. The Slave Trade Act in 1807 made the slave trade illegal throughout the British Empire.

Do we judge him by the standards of his times or our modern morality?

Yes slavery was the norm. Should the head slave traders be celebrated? In his time, people thought yes. We are now in 2020 and I think no. Why should we keep celebrating these people?

 

[Frank Bunn]

Yes slavery was the norm. Should the head slave traders be celebrated? In his time, people thought yes. We are now in 2020 and I think no. Why should we keep celebrating these people?

The statue is not celebrating his slavery trading, it is celebrating his philanthropy. There would hardly be any old statues left if we judged the individuals by our current standards.

The Great Pyramids, the Colosseum and the White House were all built by slaves. Should we tear them down?

 

[Caesar]

Where pervading attitudes shift since the erection of the statue, I am happy to leave it up to the discretion of the local authorities as to how they are managed over time - whether they are kept, maintained, updated, or replaced with something else.

Colston was a popular local figure in Bristol when the memorial was erected, and despite his shifting reputation the council evidently continued to value its artistic or historical merits enough to maintain it up until now. I believe they had added a plaque in recent years to give additional historical context. Now that it is torn down I would expect the vandals to be prosecuted for damaging a public asset. The council will presumably take the temperature of their community about whether they want the statue restored or replaced with something else. Life moves on.

On the other hand I don't really have an issue with moving to actively tear down statues that were erected for explicitly divisive or racist reasons, as is the case with many Confederate memorials in the US that were erected during the 20th century. I don't think the kind of arguments being promoted in favour of statues like Colston's have any currency in that situation.

 

[Mateyman]

The statue is not celebrating his slavery trading, it is celebrating his philanthropy. There would hardly be any old statues left if we judged the individuals by our current standards.

The Great Pyramids, the Colosseum and the White House were all built by slaves. Should we tear them down?

His philanthropy was directly related to the slavery trading. Also if you actually read what I wrote you'd be able to see that I wouldn't support that. Also if by 'tear down' you mean 'put in a museum' then most of those things have already turned into museums anyway.

 

[deanc]

Where pervading attitudes shift since the erection of the statue, I am happy to leave it up to the discretion of the local authorities as to how they are managed over time - whether they are kept, maintained, updated, or replaced with something else.

Colston was a popular local figure in Bristol when the memorial was erected, and despite his shifting reputation the council evidently continued to value its artistic or historical merits enough to maintain it up until now. I believe they had added a plaque in recent years to give additional historical context. Now that it is torn down I would expect the vandals to be prosecuted for damaging a public asset. The council will presumably take the temperature of their community about whether they want the statue restored or replaced with something else. Life moves on.

On the other hand I don't really have an issue with moving to actively tear down statues that were erected for explicitly divisive or racist reasons, as is the case with many Confederate memorials in the US that were erected during the 20th century. I don't think the kind of arguments being promoted in favour of statues like Colston's have any currency in that situation.

While I understand the reasoning and emotive factors, I'm not convinced judging and removing 'some' public statues of figures from historical times, due to modern interpretations and sensibilities, actually achieves much in addressing current race based issues...?

Also, as a society we need be careful not to invite a broader spectrum of civil lobby groups who may use this climate to target other historical figures they are upset about for various reasons.
Whereby statues of former Presidents or Prime Ministers could also be targeted because they may not have, during their time in office, supported an abortion bill or opposed Gay marriage...?
The recent defacing of Churchill's statue indicates the reality of this situation. The Yanks vandalizing/defacing a memorial on the World Wars is obviously on the extreme end of things....

 

[Chief]

The statue is not celebrating his slavery trading, it is celebrating his philanthropy. There would hardly be any old statues left if we judged the individuals by our current standards.

The Great Pyramids, the Colosseum and the White House were all built by slaves. Should we tear them down?

Pablo Escobar was very popular in Colombia where he built schools, stadiums, hospitals, and social housing.

 

[Taylor]

How far do you take the sanitation of history?

A pop singer allegedly molested children - his entire works are now invalid.


A political/religious figure married a child - his entire works are now invalid.

 

[Caesar]

While I understand the reasoning and emotive factors, I'm not convinced judging and removing 'some' public statues of figures from historical times, due to modern interpretations and sensibilities, actually achieves much in addressing current race based issues...?

Does it have to? “Take down racist monuments erected for racist reasons” seems fairly self-justifying to me.

Also, as a society we need be careful not to invite a broader spectrum of civil lobby groups who may use this climate to target other historical figures they are upset about for various reasons.
Whereby statues of former Presidents or Prime Ministers could also be targeted because they may not have, during their time in office, supported an abortion bill or opposed Gay marriage...?
The recent defacing of Churchill's statue indicates the reality of this situation. The Yanks vandalizing/defacing a memorial on the World Wars is obviously on the extreme end of things....

I have always regarded the slippery slope argument as a nonsense. The times move and we move with them as required.

If the odd statue is turned to dust because society has collectively decided it’s no longer worth maintaining, it will hardly be the first or last in history to meet that fate.

 

[Chief]

How far do you take the sanitation of history?

A pop singer allegedly molested children - his entire works are now invalid.


A political/religious figure married a child - his entire works are now invalid.

I don’t think artists are owed an audience, or public figures owed respect.

 

[Roobs321]

As someone who has worked in cultural heritage, the idea of mobs just tearing statues down fills me with anxiety. At its extreme, you have historical crossroad warzones like Iran, Afghanistan, etc. suffering damage to heritage items. We've seen that this week with Rio Tinto in the Pilbara, and also ISIS intentionally desecrating Palmyra.

The thing about statues is that they tend to get moved around, put in less visible locations, even in storage. It isn't like they just stay in one place forever regardless of their changing resonance. Statues are there to inspire, they are monuments of some sort of excellence, aspiration or political agenda. What they represent should be less about the figure and rather some simple soundbite action. But what that they purport to represent is clearly traumatic for some. And the figures they 'immortalise' are complex, with many outstanding qualities and sometimes outstanding flaws. Many of these qualities and flaws might not even be known yet. I just don't think it helps to turn on the blinkers and tear down something that doesn't fit your brand at a particular time. I mean, sure, a slavetrader who branded his slaves is pretty awful, a reminder of oppression. If Trump raised that statue today as some supremacist agenda, it would be diabolical and wouldn't last long. But statues that have remained prominently for a long time reflect some cultural relationship that should be negotiated, not just erased. They are part of a pluralised history which derived meanings their creators may even not have envisioned. You don't cut out racism in an act of violence, you treat it through a range of policies over generations.

I get it. America (and Australia) have both not been upfront enough about the desert peace of genocide theft, as well as ongoing failure to meet civil rights targets, and that sense of despair and urgency is being expressed in terms of the commemorated past. It might be the intractable cost of failure to fulfil ostensible responsibilities. I just think tearing down statues in the moment is a fringe, crude way of going about it. It might be a powerful visual to topple things, but it is cartoony, simplistic. There are bigger systemic issues. Public statues should constantly be reviewed, but our relation to it now might be different in 50 years time to today, and there are different things to read into them. They can stand for good and bad, remind us of how we came to be here today, as well as the horrors involved and maybe since uncovered. The important thing is to educate, to allow multiple histories to co-exist in exhibition for audiences to piece together, one which gives power to those in power as well as the powerless. To BUILD our understanding of history, let it evolve, not to CANCEL it.

At the end of the day, these are just statues which won't last forever. But coming from a heritage background, I do have a compulsion to appraise and preserve items that reflect how we thought and lived at times in the past, even if we find it repellent now and hold it in less regard. e.g. a history of Censorship is interesting, in that what the society regards as taboo or disturbing illustrates the society and government itself. You lose that, as well as the economics of the times, and you just about lose the ability to write historical fiction or read between the lines of records for the silences contained within (e.g. female convicts, the indigenous, illiterate, state wards, etc.). How things were seen and unseen, recorded or omitted, influenced and powerless, all this is relevant to reading historical sources. As always, reading widely from different viewpoints provides discernment, creates a fuller picture.

 

[Taylor]

I don’t think artists are owed an audience, or public figures owed respect.

Neither do I, I also don't think the character of the artist reflects on the validity of the art

 

[Rob R]

There are calls to amend the plaques on some statues in Gippsland to include the involvement of explorers and pasturalists in massacres of Aboriginals. That's a better way forward than calling in bulldozers.

In most circumstatnces I'd rather plaques be updated rather than statues torn down. Rightly or worngly, history shouldn't be ignored.

Good idea and it will educate people more on the evils/errors of the past than destroying history. Will also help prevent govts/society of the day just eliminating parts they dont like.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Messenger]

How far do you take the sanitation of history?

History hasn’t been sanitised. Colston’s record lives on. Its just that his statue has its proper place under a few metres of water.

 

[Messenger]

Good idea and it will educate people more on the evils/errors of the past than destroying history. Will also help prevent govts/society of the day just eliminating parts they dont like.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

You don’t eliminate history, you just don’t memorialise it.

 

[Taylor]

Interesting if George Floyd ever gets a statue, would someone have grounds to bring it down for his criminal acts apart from what he represents?

 

[Mateyman]

Also yeah I'm not a big fan of throwing statues of anyone underwater. If they're going to be removed would much rather see them in museums

 

[Messenger]

Interesting if George Floyd ever gets a statue, would someone have grounds to bring it down for his criminal acts apart from what he represents?

Oh sure, why not.

 

[Taylor]

Oh sure, why not.

When a wave rises up against violent victimisation of women I expect a George Floyd statue to be brought down.

 

[Messenger]

When a wave rises up against violent victimisation of women I expect a George Floyd statue to be brought down.

And I’m sure you’ll pull down a Mandela statue too.

You‘re Floyd/Colston comparison is flawed. Colston‘s statue was to acknowledge his philanthropy in Bristol paid for by the slave trade.

Would a hypothetical Floyd statue celebrate him or use him a symbol of a wider societal ill?

 

[Taylor]

And I’m sure you’ll pull down a Mandela statue too.

You‘re Floyd/Colston comparison is flawed. Colston‘s statue was to acknowledge his philanthropy in Bristol paid for by the slave trade.

Would a hypothetical Floyd statue celebrate him or use him a symbol of a wider societal ill?

His statue would come to represent whatever the future society imparted it with and then judge him and his life against the standard of that day.