Citizens of Bristol, England tore down a statue of a slave trader who later bequeathed his money to local causes. The statue had been controversial for years and there were multiple campaigns to have it taken down. Marchers on a BLM march tied a rope around the statue, pulled it down, dragged it through the streets, and then threw it off the docks into the water. Video here: Slave trader statue torn down in Bristol anti-racism protest - BBC News
They pulled the statue out this morning and will put it in the local museum presumably with a description of who he was, why he was controversial and a depiction of the events this week.
Now there are calls to pull down others. I have no problem with this statue being pulled down but it risks getting ridiculous. Let’s not be like the iconoclasts of history. Where there is controversy we should consider putting up explanations of the controversy like the museum in Bristol will be doing. The public space can be a place of learning too!
There’s a difference between a museum and statue in the park. Most of the Civil War statues we have were erected during a time when many American cities were building parks and making other efforts to give their municipalities a little curbside appeal. In our southern states, it was popular to put up Civil War “heroes.” Why? Because they represented a bygone era and these men represented their values among which was white supremacy. These heroes weren’t just defending their homes they rebelled and actively fought for the continued enslavement of all African descendants. A museum could have a bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest and as long as the interpretation accompanying that exhibit is accurate most people aren’t going to complain. They don’t even have to do a hack job on Forrest they just need to accurately describe what he’s known for.
In short, the statue was erected in a park to honor and glorify these people. When it’s placed in a museum it’s there to educate and inform.
On that same day that the statue of Edward Colston, the Bristol slave trader/philanthropist, was pulled down protestors also defaced a statue of Churchill. His name was engraved on the statue and they spraypainted “was a racist” after it, and then made a large black mark. Shortly afterwards, other protestors attempted to burn the Union Jack on the national memorial to the military who’ve died in war, commonly called the Cenotaph.
There’s been considerable back and forth on the events. Many people think it was a positive event for the protestors to pull down Colston’s statue but wrong to commit the other two acts. Others, including myself, don’t want a self-appointed mob making a decision on who should or shouldn’t be memorialised.
Will the sign say, ‘This statue was installed to constantly remind you of your lesser place within our society. Though we know better now, we’re still a little attached to it. But can’t/won’t ever admit it’s for the same reason.’?
Might as well just pull down all statues anywhere, if they weren’t racist, they were most certainly, homophobic, misogynist, transphobic, yada, yada, yada.
If they are mostly known for a fight to enforce those values, that should be taken into account along with historical and artistic merit. If they were just people who happened to have those values, (for instance, in the case of Lincoln, less so than the average person of his time), that may have some value in determining if a monument can stay, but not much.
Generally, when approaching civic matters, no person or monument or memorial should be held sacred. If a person is depicted, is the subject of a memorial or monument or something is named for that person, the community has an ongoing, continuous right and obligation to re-asses and reconsider whether that person still should be honored in that way.
Indeed. Besides slavery and lynchings, we had the mistreatment of the native tribes e.g. Trail of Tears, the Chinese railroad builders and that exclusion act, Japanese interment camps of WWII, strongarming Hawaii to join the US, denying women the vote, all that land we “won” from Mexico, and more.
Even better… what about John McDonogh? His legacy is pretty complex, and in a lot of ways is worth celebration, even if is inextricably tied with slave ownership.
That’s it. Self appointed, radical mob, combined with cowardly/complicit local leaders is not self governance. It’s capitulation to those most willing to use force.
Where the line should be? Follow the laws that govern the monument. If you have enough support to get rid of the monument then do so.
Can we factor in a bonus point? Let’s say we now look at statues of Jefferson Davis and conclude, yeah, those should be removed; his views and values aren’t the sort of thing we should celebrate and commemorate. Yeah, some folks used to say that he maybe wasn’t so bad and we shouldn’t bother removing a statue to him; but, these days, we see him as being a heck of a lot more loathsome.
Now, we might someday debate removing a Lincoln statue — and someone might argue that his views and values, while fine compared to the average person of his time, aren’t worth celebrating and commemorating today. But if we then ask, hey, what’s so great about Lincoln anyway? — we can reply, he foiled Jefferson Davis: when that statue got put up, folks thought highly of foiling Jefferson Davis; but, now, we see it as even MORE commendable!
In Belgium, they’re vandalizing and removing statues of King Leopold II, who was known for orchestrating the brutal conquest of the Congo in the 19th century. Truly one of history’s great (or rather not-so-great) sons of bitches.
The South militarized virtually every available soldier. Thing is, they ran out of willing volunteers very quickly, and resorted to mass conscription. The conscripts were not necessarily willing by any stretch of the imagination, but at the same time many of them performed well in service, (though many deserted given a chance). By the end of the war, nearly every white male of fighting age, and quite a few outside of it, had served in some capacity. The exempt were only those with valuable skills or government posts - and sometimes not even then.
Pssst, octopus: there was that whole awkward situation about the Confederates themselves not being entirely willing to “follow the laws”, remember? Complaining about vandalizers of Confederate monuments being illegally, er, rebellious is a li’l bit selective.
Now personally, I’m all in favor of people removing unwanted statues by recourse to legal means rather than illegal vandalism. But I do recognize that it’s a bit ironic to fly the “respect for law ‘n’ order” flag in defense of memorials to the Confederacy.