Do statues of discrimination and hatred belong in the twenty-first century? And, if so, where?

Robert Peel, Christopher Columbus, Oliver Cromwell, Cecil Rhodes… just a few names selected from a lengthy list created by activists who demand the removal of racist statues which glorify Britain’s uncomfortable but all-too evident history of systemic racism. Inspired by the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis as a result of police brutality, the removal of controversial statues and monuments has once again entered our news cycle and gained significant media traction as Black Lives Matter protestors firmly fix their attention towards the public commemoration of figures who encapsulate the centuries-old narrative of white supremacy. Whether such statues belong on our public landscape is not a new conversation; in fact, it has been, for many decades, a hot topic amongst academics, government officials and activists who question the extent to which historical individuals, marred by their micro-or-macro-aggressions, deserve a prime place on our national landscape.

As a 21-year-old due to graduate from QUB this summer, I recall teachers and tutors posing the question: ‘should statues be removed?’ to me many times throughout my educational career. During my third year of secondary school, I discussed whether the statue of the much contested Field Marshal Douglas Haig outside of Edinburgh castle should be removed given his unfavourable reputation as the man responsible for sending thousands of people to their deaths during the Battle of Somme and Arras. Then, whilst completing the first year of my BA Hons. History degree, I investigated the ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ movement which argued the statue of Cecil Rhodes, a notable British Imperialist, outside of Oriel College at Oxford University should be removed as it contradicted the university’s commitment to racial justice and equality. Now, the question arises again but on a much larger scale with over seventy statues facing the possibility of being torn from their location throughout the UK and my question is: should these statues be removed and, more importantly, if they are removed what will become of them?

Firstly, I would like to clarify that although the current debate concerning public statues is inextricably linked with the issue of racism, the focus of this think-piece is not on this social injustice, as I wholeheartedly admit I am not as educated as I want- or need- to be. As with most people, I am making a conscious effort to do better and do be better but, as of yet, I cannot confidently say I have achieved this. Instead, this piece will adopt a more generalised approach to shed light on whether the statues of individuals who represent the archaic narrative of monoculturalism belong in an age where equality is the supposed goal. Many options present as possible solutions with the two extremities which bookend these options consisting of: the complete removal of these statues in their entirety and also the option of doing nothing and allowing these symbols of oppression (which are often in prime city locations) to continue unchecked and unchanged.

Undoubtedly, the most damaging response to this issue would be to do nothing. In order to make real change, we must acknowledge our uncomfortable past with slavery and racism in general and ensure our commitment to anti-racism and inclusiveness extends beyond the realm of theory and reaches each and every one of us in our daily lives. For the glorification of these individuals to go unchecked and continue is an affront to black people for whom racism is not just an historical issue but a current life experience. As a white individual, I cannot understand how it must feel for a black person living in Bristol to walk down the harbour past the statue of Edward Colston, who made his fortune exploiting black people through the slave trade as a member of the Royal African Company. Moreover, I cannot relate to how it must feel for any student of Oxford University who is not white to walk under the statue of a white supremacist into Oriel College for their classes.

What I can do, however, is listen and it is evident that public opinion does not sit on the fence with this issue- people want these difficult statues removed, as they represent a ‘part of history that should not be glorified’.[1] At the time of writing, a Change.org petition entitled ‘Petition to take down all statues of slave traders in the UK’ had amassed an impressive 151,914 signatories out of a desired 200,000.[2] My mum is one of these individuals and whilst talking to her about the matter recently I remarked that statues contribute to our public memory to which she replied: ‘Germany do not have statues of Hitler but yet we all still remember World War Two and the Holocaust’ and she is right. Do statues really contribute to our historical awareness and memory and, even if they do, it is usually just the positive aspects as opposed to also including the bad and the ugly. Therefore, do we really need statues in public locations when people usually just ignore them anyway whilst going about their daily lives?

But the phrase ‘removing’ statue confuses me- where will these statues go? Are they destroyed? Hidden in a dark governmental storage unit to eventually rust and become a forgotten problem? Preserved so as to keep the legacy of the artist? Given the clear wishes of the public it is likely many statues will be removed from their plinths but my concern is with the aftermath. As we know, the statue of Robert Baden-Powell will be temporarily removed from its current location at Poole Quay for its own protection but given the current public sentiment, will it ever be safe to return it and is it right to do so? Therefore, should these statues find a permanent home elsewhere, away from public gaze? I would argue yes. As historian Ansley Heller writes: 

‘Symbols, like statues and important buildings, signal social values to the public. Statues encourage individuals to look at those being immortalised in stone to understand their deeds as strong, important, and worthy of admiration’.[3]

As such, by removing these symbols of oppression from the public domain, ‘the struggle over who gets to control the narrative of the public space is heightened’, ultimately lessening the extent to which towns, cities and countries condone white supremacy. But the mere stone, concrete and metal which make these statues are themselves apart of history, as such, I feel they should be placed where they truly belong, museums- an institution dedicated towards historical learning, inclusive of the bad and the ugly in addition to the good. No longer glorifying the individuals they represent, these statues would become an asset to museums by adding an additional visual aid to an exhibition. Moreover, in a museum setting these statues become purposeful as opposed to ornamental, as they help tell a historical narrative about the individual in question to museum visitors- much like a portrait or painting does. Moreover, by displaying these statues in an intellectual setting, museums can tell the story of why these individuals were once glorified by contemporaries through public monuments and how the reputation of these figures are undergoing constant re-evaluation as we continue to realise the actions of our shared past in the UK and slowly adapt our attitude towards social injustices to become a nation which can become proud of its current society.

---