Katie Roche's Blog
Should we Topple the Racists?
In the past month, many high-profile statues have been felled around the world. Some have been felled because the person they are of was guilty of many atrocities. In other cases, the person had some views that are now considered unsavory, but they had never done anything seriously bad. Is taking down these statues the right thing to do?
Some people think every statue of anyone who has done anything bad should go: instead of remembering history with statues, we should visit museums and study history books. It is true that statues aren’t the only way of teaching history. But statues make history accessible. They are very visible. They attract attention and are an easy way to introduce a historical figure. They also cannot be ignored easily. Furthermore, not everyone can- or will- sit around reading history books or visit a museum. That’s not to say that no statues should be removed. Rather, this should be considered on a case-by-case basis. So which statues should stay? And which should go?
There are three factors that should be considered before removing a statue:
Why were they notable?
Were they notable purely for bad things, like colonizing another country or trading slaves- even if they did a small amount of good, such as donating money? Or was the main thing they were notable for unrelated to their distasteful views or actions?
Were their views representative of their time?
For example, most people in the past had views that would today be considered racist, homophobic, misogynistic or ableist. But these were acceptable at the time. It is not fair to judge people for being of their time. In 200 years, people will probably judge the society of today for attitudes that we consider completely acceptable, and that we can’t imagine being seen as wrong. On the other hand, if someone’s actions and beliefs were considered problematic at the time, and are still considered an issue today, then this is a good reason for taking a statue down. But bear in mind that nobody is perfect.
Did the harm they cause outweigh any good they did?
Did they do a lot of harm and a little bit of good? Or a little bit of harm and a lot of good? An example of someone who did a lot of good but also acted immorally on many occasions is Winston Churchill. He was far from perfect; he held many racist attitudes and was a supporter of colonialism. But he helped defeat the Nazis. On balance, he did more to help the world than he did to hurt it.
Let’s have a look at two other examples:
Edward Colston
In June, Colston’s statue in Bristol was toppled and thrown into the river. Colston was a wealthy merchant, who also donated some of his wealth to various causes. Part of his wealth was gained from slave trading. He is only really notable for his philanthropy. He did few other positive things. And slavery was known to be wrong at the time. The small amount of benefit from Colston’s philanthropy does not cancel out all the bad he did. Therefore, it was right to take down the statue.
Robert Baden-Powell
Baden-Powell, the founder of the Scouting movement, is accused of being homophobic and racist. Which is why his statue in Poole has been targeted by protesters. There are two problems with these allegations. Firstly, he was living in a time when homosexuality was illegal. His attitudes reflected the attitudes of the time, when most people might be regarded as homophobic by modern standards.
Secondly, with respect to the accusations that Baden-Powell was a racist who supported Hitler, there are some subtleties to the debate that have been overlooked. Baden-Powell wrote about Hitler in his diary. He is said to have praised him. The actual quote was: "Lay up all day. Read Mein Kampf. A wonderful book, with good ideas on education, health, propaganda, organisation etc. – and ideals which Hitler does not practise himself." People often omit the last sentence, even though it changes the whole meaning of what he says. He is not praising Hitler but accusing him of hypocrisy.
In terms of the contribution Baden-Powell made to society, the Scouting movement, while not perfect, has provided activities and friendship for many children, so founding it should be regarded as a positive action. Therefore, on balance, Baden-Powell’s statue should remain.
Another uncomfortable thing to consider is this: Is the statue-felling trend really about sparing white discomfort? Some of the biggest proponents of statue felling are white. As a white person, I am deeply ashamed of the actions of my ancestors- as I should be. Perhaps the statues should remain, not as a symbol of pride, but as a reminder of the terrible tragedy that slavery was, and how it was not thousands of miles from our shores. Is this really about sparing the discomfort of white people, so we don’t have to think about what our race has done in the past? The danger is that we could take down the statues and pretend that slavery and colonialism never happened. We must never allow these atrocities to be forgotten.
Ultimately, we shouldn’t fell every statue of everyone who ever said or did anything bad. For slave owners or other deeply troubling figures, maybe the solution is to put these statues in museums. Alternatively, the statue could remain outdoors, but measures should be taken to make it clear that we no longer celebrate these figures. For instance, moving statues to a less prominent location, taking statues off plinths, and putting a plaque which explains what they did and why the statue is there. But we must remember the past. Which is why these statues should not be destroyed completely. In other cases, where the person has merely held unpleasant views, we have to accept that nobody is perfect, and that attitudes change over time. It is best to let these statues remain.
See previous post
See next post
See older posts
If you enjoyed this article, please consider making a donation to support the site.
