Tearing down statues

[Prudence V]

The statue of some slave trader was torn down and thrown into the harbour at Bristol. Another has been removed in the east part of London. A list of 60 more has been submitted by #BlackLivesMatterUK and they include some people formerly hallowed, like Henry Morton Stanley and James Cook, some contentious ones like Churchill, and some people I really had never heard of before but who made their money selling black people and shared some of the proceeds with white people in their home towns so were locally revered. 
 

It’s polarised debate. Some people say we should keep the statues up and use them to educate people about evil times in history. There is a great meme of Philomena Cunk saying “if you take down monuments to evildoers people will forget the dark parts of history, which is why nobody knows who Hitler was.” This, to me, sums up the nonsense of the argument for keeping them. 

Others - and I’m among this group - say statues don’t mark events in a neutral way, they celebrate them. I’m all for ripping down statues of Winston Churchill, Cecil John Rhodes, King Leopoldo II and other notorious racists, as well as Margaret Thatcher and other powerful people who used that power to support racism. 
 

I also find it interesting that many of the people who object to removing a statue of Winston Churchill were happy enough to see statues of others, like Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, or Josef Stalin, taken down. 
 

This debate is happening in other countries as well - I see Trump has blocked the military from getting rid of pro-slavery names of military bases but a descendant of Robert E Lee (same name) is all for purging all the statues etc of his notorious antecedent. I’m guessing it’s pretty polarised in most places, with those oppressed by racism (and their allies) in favour of getting rid of these toxic memorials, and those who continue to benefit wanting to keep them. And some folk having the privilege not to be affected by racism, and just wanting everyone to look beyond colour and joint hands to sing Kumbaya... 🙄

How is this playing out on your home patch? 

Edited June 11, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[schlumpy]

A lot of cities in the US are going to have to change their names.

I guess we could have some fun with it. We could hold a contest like they do at the zoo to name the new baby animal.

Let's extrapolate into the future.

I think many Americans are still historically affected by the atrocities visited upon us by the evil British Empire. It seems a bit intolerable that we should have to endure the mental duress of so many cities, towns, ports, and other geographic points named after their British analogs. It just causes distress and reinvokes the terror caused by British troops not so long ago. It's possible that we need to rename everything. 

All these years I've wondered what was wrong in my life. Could it possibly be because I was born in a town named Portsmouth?

Who needs a heritage?

[Emilie Jolie]

Professor David Olusoga explained very well why toppling the statue of Colston was the very last resort in an interview on the BBC. He basically said that for years, various groups have been asking for the statue to be moved to a museum (where it should have been in the first place) or have a plaque explaining who he was and his place in the history of the city - all of these requests had been denied. 

Perfect timing to make a statement now, I think. The Mayor of Bristol said yesterday the statue will be retrieved and exposed in a local museum, and that a conversation should start about better explaining the history of the city. A happy ending (and beginning, hopefully).

[lana-banana]

Almost all of the statues of Confederate generals were built in the 20s to terrorize Black populations after Reconstruction. And they work. (Talk to a Black college student about how they feel walking around Richmond...) Many were mass-produced. And regardless, they have no place in 2020.

A statue is virtue signaling: it shows what your society values. It is not just some random representation that has value because it's old; it's literally a person on a pedestal. In the year 2020 if we do not value slavemasters and genocidal murderers like Columbus, we shouldn't have statues of them.

Statues are not "neutral" or "objective". They should (and usually do) come and go as social values change. It is for every society to decide what they think is worth upholding and what they don't. The actual historical record is not changed or diminished in any way due to the presence or absence of a statue.

[schlumpy]

27 minutes ago, lana-banana said:

Statues are not "neutral" or "objective". They should (and usually do) come and go as social values change. It is for every society to decide what they think is worth upholding and what they don't. The actual historical record is not changed or diminished in any way due to the presence or absence of a statue.

How far a leap is it from an offensive statue to an offensive painting or even an offensive book.

This road has been traveled before.

[lana-banana]

13 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

How far a leap is it from an offensive statue to an offensive painting or even an offensive book.

This road has been traveled before.

It's a very far leap. A painting is not inherently indicative of value; where and how it's displayed (context!) is the issue. Similarly, a book isn't a problem because critical theory and analysis exists to help provide context. Statues don't exist without context. They are there because someone thought they deserved to be commemorated forever. If residents disagree, they should be taken down.

[schlumpy]

5 minutes ago, lana-banana said:

It's a very far leap. A painting is not inherently indicative of value; where and how it's displayed (context!) is the issue. Similarly, a book isn't a problem because critical theory and analysis exists to help provide context. Statues don't exist without context. They are there because someone thought they deserved to be commemorated forever. If residents disagree, they should be taken down.

I don't remember anyone voting when they statues came down. Was one guy with a sledgehammer the disgruntled resident that wanted it down?

[Ollie180]

They pulled the statue out of the water in Bristol and are ‘apparently’ talking about putting it in a museum in its current state (I.e a bit worse for wear and covered in graffiti from the protests), I think that’s a super cool idea... it nicely reflects the evolution of it all.. how something that started, back in its day, as a celebration of a person for one reason became almost a symbol of change for another. I think it shows progression without letting those wrong doings be ‘forgotten’ or if not forgotten, swept under the carpet!

[Ruby Slippers]

I think it's a beautiful sight.

[Piddy]

These statues represent hate, oppression / subjugation for many people.  These statues belong in a museum and not in the public square.  

[stillafool]

Why in a museum?  If they are that bad and cause so much pain why aren't they crushed to dust?

[mark clemson]

One problem, of course, is that person X's hero (or at least noteworthy historical leader) is very often person Y's oppressor. I personally don't have a problem with removing confederate war "hero" statues (technically traitors IMO). However, others might and they're not all necessarily racists or interested in recreating the "good old days" or similar. So who's right?

Let's take it to the US currency as another example. Andrew Jackson had the Trail of Tears (pretty brutal). But then again Washington and Jefferson both owned slaves (not sure about Franklin). Who do we listen to and/or "get rid of" in order to appease whom? 

For better or worse, all of these people were products of their times. My belief is very few history-changing leaders have ZERO sins to account for.

So there are no easy answers. For every statue that gets torn down today, in 20 years there may be a push to put many of them back up. Sometimes, but probably not necessarily always for the wrong reasons...

Also as to @schlumpy's point, New York comes to mind. How far do we take this?

History is almost always "checkered" in some way. Malcolm X advocated for black supremacy (and was later murdered by members of the Nation of Islam organization he helped found...)

Edited June 11, 2020 by mark clemson

[salparadise]

The Jefferson Davis statue came dow last night in Richmond. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Lee statue comes down before the court has a chance to rule on Northam’s promise to take it down. I lived in Richmond for several years, and my daughter is there now. When I was there we didn’t relate to the honorees or purpose, but to the magnificence of the works of art and relics of a bygone era. I realize it’s all interwoven, and time for them to go, but for me there are some conflicting feelings. The protesters are on a mission. 

[Ellener]

I spent a lot of time in Bristol the year before we emigrated, the city was built on slavery:

According to Richardson (The Bristol Slave Traders: A Collective Portrait Bristol: Historical Association, Bristol Branch, 1984) this amounted to around 500,000 Africans who were carried into slavery, representing just under one fifth of the British trade in slaves of this period.

~BBC 'Legacies of the Slave Trade'

'I really love this city. I was born in St Pauls and grew up on a white council estate called Southmead. There are things about Bristol Im proud of, but ...
The Festival of the Sea in 1996 was an example of how some of the institutions that run the city have failed to understand the people of Bristol. They celebrated Bristol's maritime history and ignored slavery.'

~Artist Tony Forbes whose painting Sold Down the River hangs in Bristol Museum and Art Gallery.

The abolitionist Thomas Clarkson worked in Bristol interviewing slaves and seamen about the conditions on the ships; put a statue up to him if anyone! He helped pass the 1807 Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade which banned slavery in the British Empire; the barbaric practice did not end for another 26 years, he spent his whole working life trying to bring about social justice.

Anti-Slavery International is the world's oldest human rights organisation, founded in London in 1839. Their website says this:

'Slavery is often termed an invisible crime, and in many ways the resultant exploitation can be difficult to spot. It is our job, as allies, as colleagues, as friends, as people who want to do the right thing to do better so that the invisible comes into sharp focus. As William Wilberforce said “You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know.” I think that rings true for a lot of us as we witness, and take part in, this awakening.

There is a lot being said about educating ourselves individually; it is a noble pursuit to read more from black voices, from the perspective of people persecuted overtly and subtly. But we must go further. We can step out of our comfort zones, take responsibility, get to know people who experience a wholly different reality to us. To do so offers two parallel benefits; first, understanding racism and how it is perpetrated; and second, understanding the disadvantages that discrimination creates that renders people vulnerable to losing their liberty and their lives.

And we must reflect on ourselves, and the ways we may harbour prejudice, however subtly, in our hearts. To be truly anti-racist is to recognise that we may be part of a problem and to be committed to changing ourselves.'

( Ryna Sherazi )

[Emilie Jolie]

37 minutes ago, stillafool said:

Why in a museum?  If they are that bad and cause so much pain why aren't they crushed to dust?

For the same reason there are Holocaust museums - so future generations can learn from history (not that we always do, but that's another topic).. 

[rjc149]

If you want to tear down every last statue of anyone who was ever a racist or said racist things, or signed oppressive legislation, you'd need to tear all of them down.

In this country, that would mean statues of any president in office before 2002. Even beloved presidents like Abraham Lincoln (an open racist, intended to preserve slavery if possible) or FDR (internment of Japanese-Americans) or even Bill Clinton (signed anti-LGBT legislation). All of 'em. Especially the founding fathers, most of whom were slave owners. Statues, portraits, they'd all have to go. Might as well just bulldoze Washington DC, which is effectively a giant monument to racism, then figure it out. 

And then we'd need to take down statues commemorating Native Americans, who were committing genocide and enslaving each other on the basis of racial supremacy for eons before the first European sailboat appeared on the horizon. They'd all have to go too. 

We'd then need to change the name of any town, county, locale, high school, federal building, that was name after a racist, or someone who expressed bigoted viewpoints at one time in his or her life. Rename all of the Native American town names, because as noted, they were often violently bigoted slave-drivers themselves. 

We'd then build "The American Museum of Racists and Bigots" and put whatever statue, portrait, etc. that wasn't destroyed on display. To remind us that racism is bad. 

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by rjc149

[schlumpy]

We must be prepared to remove a lot names from buildings and return Mount Rushmore to it's prior pristine condition.

[stillafool]

I can think of at least 10 schools around here, street signs and more that would have to be torn down.  Hell there are so many building with the names Washington and Jefferson it's not even funny.  I wonder if VA is going to do away with Thomas Jefferson's home Monticello because of his relationship with Sally and his slaves.

[rjc149]

1 minute ago, schlumpy said:

We must be prepared to remove a lot names from buildings and return Mount Rushmore to it's prior pristine condition.

Oh, it'll be a project alright. That's a lot of statues and names. Lots of man hours, lots of sledgehammers and bulldozers. Lots of raffles for "best new name."

But, it would be our tax dollars at work putting an end to racism. It's worth it. 

[stillafool]

2 minutes ago, rjc149 said:

But, it would be our tax dollars at work putting an end to racism. It's worth it. 

Tearing down building and hiding statues will not put an end to racism.

[rjc149]

3 minutes ago, stillafool said:

I can think of at least 10 schools around here, street signs and more that would have to be torn down.  Hell there are so many building with the names Washington and Jefferson it's not even funny.  I wonder if VA is going to do away with Thomas Jefferson's home Monticello because of his relationship with Sally and his slaves.

And what about down South? Geeze. Everything is named after Robert E Lee. Even the damn children. We'd have to get rid of those too. 

[rjc149]

2 minutes ago, stillafool said:

Tearing down building and hiding statues will not put an end to racism.

Lol it certainly will not. 

[stillafool]

I agree if your name is George, Thomas, William or Robert you're required to get your name changed.😂

[Emilie Jolie]

19 minutes ago, rjc149 said:

If you want to tear down every last statue of anyone who was ever a racist or said racist things, or signed oppressive legislation, you'd need to tear all of them down.

 

This tearing statues down is just a symbol, yes. Of course it'll mean nothing if the history books or attitudes don't change. But sometimes (not always) a tiny symbolic act can help make better changes.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Emilie Jolie

[rjc149]

3 minutes ago, stillafool said:

I agree if your name is George, Thomas, William or Robert you're required to get your name changed.😂

Welp. Looks like I'm off to the court house for a legal name change then.