Normalise bringing down bygone statues
If we can’t as a society allow these symbolic gestures, there’s no hope for a better nation
Earlier this month, British protestors symbolically pulled down a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol. They knelt on his neck (a reference to the brutal killing of George Floyd) and pushed him into the body of water where the ships filled with slaves would once dock.
Later, Belgian officials took down King Leopold II. A monarch who has been characterised by atrocity after atrocity — including as many as 10 million deaths in the Congo free state.
Since then, “topple the racists” has been a demand from many protestors. With many calling for statues of Columbus, and WWII Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, to be taken down.
As expected, this was met with a lot of anger by the right. Many claiming that when you take down a statue, you’re taking down a part of history. However, that’s not necessarily true. As a society, we should evolve, and recognise that leader’s from 100+ years ago, weren’t always moral people.
Bringing down statues is a part of history
In 2003, a giant statue of the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, was brought down. In fact, the US marines helped to pull the tainted sculpture from its plinth. Onlookers cheered as his two-decade rule, symbolically came to an end.
In 1989, the effigy of Felix Dzerzhinksy, the founder of the Soviet secret police, was lifted by a crane. As it hovered in the air, the lower piece fell and fragmented on the floor. This has often been compared to communism shattering in Soviet Russia.
In 1990, it took three days for a statue of Vladimir Lenin to be taken down by workers. Eventually, his 12-tonne bronze statue fell.
In 1871, a bronze statue of Napoleon that once towered 130 feet above its surroundings, was brought down.
In 1966, Nelon’s Pillar was destroyed in an attack by the Republican Dissidents. The other half was destroyed by Army engineers a couple of days later. A spire has replaced this statue.
These are a handful of a vast array of examples. At no point would you hear that these occurrences have muted history. Rather, they have created a new one.
Taking down statues does not cause us to forget about the history of our country, but instead helps us to learn sides which aren’t always repeated to us.
Glorified legacies of the tainted elite contaminate our nation
Edward Colston was a philanthropist, whose money did good, and continues to do good. Black Lives Matter protestors do not deny that.
However, this generosity comes at the expense of slavery. In other words, Colston made this “good” money, from the blood of black people. It is unequivocally tainted.
His statue gloriously standing there was not only an insult to black people but a disgrace to this country. For years, Merchant Ventures valiantly worked to keep the British people ignorant of Colston’s dark past of a slave trader. So, hauling him from his plinth and rolling him into the river was exactly what he deserved.
Churchill, a man often credited with “winning the second world war”, has been criticised for decades. So much so that our ancestors voted him out, the first chance they got.
Churchill is often seen as responsible for the deaths of up to 3 million Bengali people. Supporting eugenics, and holding white supremacist, racist views.
As calls for his noble statue to be ripped down surfaced, an uproar from the right echoed the streets. In a weird turn of events, the man who sent troops in to kill the working-class people in areas such as Wales, Glasgow, and Liverpool, is now being protected by the community of people he once murdered.
This proves one thing: it’s not only normal but necessary that we know of the atrocities performed by those who we get told to worship. That’s what enables society to develop, and stops future leaders from committing the same crimes.
To support a reformation, in whatever way, destruction of these statues is important. Can we justify slave-owners like Queen Victoria towering above ordinary people, as we fight for a more equal society?
It’s okay to admit historical figures weren’t always pure
Even the figures which we still worship today are problematic. Think, Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Humanity, social norms, and an evolving society are complicated.
People can perform both moral and immoral actions. That’s the complexity of the human psyche. As time moves on, certain beliefs and actions performed centuries ago would be completely unheard of in modern society.
As a society, we need to accept that the prime minister credited as stopping the spread of fascism, held fascist views. The man who we were taught “discovered America”, actually colonised and murdered indigenous people. Academic debates can be made when discussing historical figures, but that’s not where our energy should go.
Taking down controversial statues and placing them in museums where people can learn about the good, the bad, and the revolution has much more substance. Symbolic gestures like this do make a difference. They allow marginalised groups in our society to feel respected and keeps the momentum for activists up.
Something which damages learning about history more than tearing down statues? A school curriculum which actively strives to keep Britain’s dark past hidden.
Finding a happy medium between looking at the British Empire with pride, wishing for Empire 2.0, and viewing our past with unreserved disgrace would be desirable.
Where should our energy be directed?
The argument seems to have shifted on whether or not Churchill should have a statue in the centre of of the nation’s capital. The truth is, there will always be two sides to that argument.
Our current Prime Minister should spend less time curating a 7 part Twitter thread, and more time remedying the injustices that still occur in the U.K today.
For instance, the U.K is the only country in Europe that continues indefinite immigration detention. Systematic racism in the police force still exists. The Windrush Lessons Learned Review still needs to be implemented. Meaningful change for those that experience racism every day is the least this government can offer.
Of course, when some see a statue of a slave trader, spinning to the ground — there’s an instinctive positive response triggered. It’s physical proof that change is happening. A strike against the injustices that the empire committed. Nonetheless, it should not detract from the real change we need to make.
If right-wingers want to spend their day protecting inanimate objects, allow them. These symbolic gestures should not be the focus, let’s turn the attention back to what really matters. We can’t do much to correct the injustices of the past, we can do a lot for the future, though.
The fact remains — Black Lives Matters. Statues don’t even have lives.
