Iconoclasm is back. In the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests, progressive activists have pivoted from a narrative that most could unite around—police brutality is wrong and, in the killing of George Floyd, looks very racist—to divisive demands, which allow right-wing politicians to regain the initiative and rile up their bases. Christopher Columbus, King Leopold II and slave-trader Edward Colston are among the high profile casualties of this new wave of statue toppling. Local authorities in the unlikeliest of places have panicked. It is hard to imagine anywhere less politically radical than the upper middle-class, English seaside town of Poole. Yet its council planned to put into storage the statue of Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of the scouting movement—until outcry from local residents saved it.
Part of the reason why this debate seems so circular is that protesters and their critics derive competing conclusions from the same premises. Both believe that public spaces belong to everyone. But protesters see this as meaning that every constituency needs to approve of a statue for it to stay up, while their critics take it to mean that unilateral action by a single group is unjustifiable. This is the age-old question of how far the wishes of minorities can and should be respected in a democracy, reframed.
Each side accuses the other of playing with history. Statue defenders argue that reducing historical figures to their worst actions ignores the complexities of the past. But the same objection could be levelled at statues in the first instance, for the images they project are hardly neutral. Is glorification any less reductive than demonization? Some have suggested a compromise: plaques could acknowledge offensive actions and racist views. But do we expect the average passer-by to read a long paragraph on the nuances of the man towering above her? Rather than trying to make statues give a complete picture, we need to decide on a case-by-case basis whether someone is worthy of a statue or not. Admittedly, this is easier said than done. But something resembling a consensus is more likely to be achieved within council chambers—where representatives are forced to listen to one another—than through directionless shouting on social media.
How should we judge historical figures? Progressive campaigners argue for the cultural contingency of Enlightenment values, but then apply them across history. Meanwhile, classical liberals argue that Enlightenment values should be applied across the world—without regard to culture—but then turn into postmodern structuralists when addressing the past. It is obviously true that the values of no era are homogeneous: the slave trade had many contemporary critics. Plenty of figures can be considered abhorrent when judged against the principles of their own times. Yet, as progressives concede when they argue that statues are incompatible with our values today, certain beliefs can still be dominant without being universally accepted. Certainly, we should not infer from precedents that people understood choices the same way we do now. An ordinary Confederate soldier knew that others had decided to fight against the Confederacy—some southerners even joined the North. But it still seems wrong to tear down his memorial. After all, it is likely that most people outside the intellectual elite took their cue more from their families than from abstract ideologies.
One way to resolve this issue would be to have statues of men and women who were progressive by the standards of their own times. Yet historical figures cannot be clearly sorted into progressives and racists. Take British Prime Minister William Gladstone (1809–98). Campaigners at Liverpool University have successfully removed his name from a hall of residence, on the grounds that his father owned slaves and Gladstone advocated for compensation for plantation owners. But Gladstone supported abolition—even if not as forcefully as some—and called for the boycott of slave-produced sugar. Caught between his Christian morals and his father’s plantations, Gladstone held views that were more naive than nasty. He worried that the reunification of the United States after the American Civil War could lead to the reintroduction of slavery in the North. He expressed admiration for Jefferson Davis, but wanted European governments to lobby the Confederacy to abolish slavery. Moreover, Gladstone was more progressive than his contemporaries on many issues. In speeches to the public, he strongly criticized atrocities and abuses committed in the name of the British Empire in the Opium, Afghan and Zulu Wars: “Remember the rights of the savage, as we call him … Remember that the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan, among the winter snows, is as inviolable in the eye of Almighty God as your own.”
Despite Gladstone’s equivocations on slavery, then, as well as his prejudice against Jews—an issue which, incidentally, has received far less attention from campaigners—you would struggle to find a prime minister to whom anti-imperialist movements owe more than they do to Gladstone. He also oversaw an expansion of the franchise and the abolition of paper duty, which made it easier for working-class literature to be published. So, when Guardian journalist Owen Jones says that the statues of imperialists and racists should be replaced by those who fought for progressive causes, he will find that the two groups are harder to distinguish than he thinks.
This goes for non-white figureheads as well. Dr Charles Irving recruited the ex-slave Olaudah Equiano—whose abolitionist credentials few would dispute—to help him select slave labourers for his plantation on the Mosquito Coast. Toussaint L’Ouverture led one of the only successful slave revolts in history. But, during the early years of the rebellion, he helped the French repress black insurrections in what his otherwise favourable biographer, C. L. R. James, called an “abominable betrayal.” Gandhi was racist towards Africans in his early life. Progress is not made by angels, but by hypocritical and prejudiced human beings. If those who sometimes compromised their morals are considered too problematic, there will be almost no one left to memorialize.
What about only having statues of present day figures? But then, won’t we be left with the same problem one hundred years from now, when those we thought acceptable have views that are no longer considered appropriate? Let us not even assume that societal attitudes will become more progressive. Nationalism has been on the increase. Maybe we will reach the point where anti-racist heroes have their statues torn down for their ignorant equalitist views, or for not being sufficiently supportive of the nation. Progressive activists might then regret having fed a culture war over statues—creating precedents that could be used to justify a world where the only statues are marble Donald Trumps.
Perhaps we should go back to basics—and simply say that statues are there to memorialize the positive contributions historical figures have made. In countries with an ethnically diverse population, someone whose career revolved almost entirely around trading slaves can no longer be said to have provided a lasting benefit to the people who make up the nation. So down goes Edward Colston. Meanwhile, Gladstone, who was moderate in his opposition to slavery, but helped people in many other ways, stays up. Statues only become an endorsement of all aspects of a person’s life if we choose to see them that way.
Taking down statues does not inherently erase history. No one is going to forget about Colston and the slave trade anytime soon. Indeed, images of statues coming down can encapsulate a moment of history moving forward—as the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad or George III’s in Manhattan centuries earlier did. Yet, while, in a dictatorship, statues are often designed to inspire veneration towards the current ruler, statues in a democracy remind us that our society owes something to a past against which present politicians might be judged. Lord Nelson, Edmund Burke and William Gladstone may have held imperfect views on slavery. But they helped forge the British nation and British democracy, and their statues are there to remind people of that. If taking down statues provides an opportunity for learning via the debate it provokes, so does putting them back up.
Statues populate our histories. Removing one or two probably won’t make much difference. But remove too many, and you weaken the historical memory of the general public—for whom statues hint at heritage. When we no longer recognise past figures for their contributions, the present is easier to manipulate. Those who have seen regimes tear down old statues and put up new ones in their place know this only too well. Milan Kundera writes of the busts of Lenin that replaced the old statues in Soviet-occupied Prague: “They grow like weeds on the ruins, like melancholy flowers of forgetting.” His homeland, he laments, was left with “the ghosts of monuments demolished.”
Get rid of stone men, then, and you leave behind a country of ghosts. Admittedly, some ghosts may be horrific phantoms, which are better exorcised. But, if we create too many ghosts, we will leave a nation cursed, for the erasure of old figureheads facilitates the creation of unworthy idols. Few would support carving Donald Trump’s face next to George Washington’s on Mount Rushmore. It would look too absurd. But a stony Trump face, all by itself? That is far easier to imagine.
16 comments
Not only do generally progressive figures of the past have embarrassing or damning clay feet by contemporary standards, like Thomas Jefferson owning slaves and whatever Hans Christian Heg (whom I’d never even heard of until just now) was supposedly guilty of. There have also been whole movements that were once widely considered “progressive,” and enthusiastically supported by many progressive figures of the time, that are now generally considered reactionary, oppressive, or highly problematic–such as Prohibition and Eugenics. Think of how many 19th century feminists, suffragists, and Abolitionists supported Prohibition, or how many early 20th century liberals, progressives, socialists, feminists, birth-controllers, and “advanced thinkers” supported Eugenic!s!
I looked up some of the on-line news stories about the tearing-down of Hans Christian Heg’s statue, as well a reading the Wikipedia bio of Heg. There don’t seem to be any discoverable skeletons of any sort in Heg’s closet, nor did any of the demonstrators mention any specific objections to either Heg himself or to his statue–certainly nobody seems to have accused him of being a racist, or an anti-Semite, or a sexist, or an Indian-killer, or a colonialist–nor for that matter, of corruption, or being a drunk, or cheating on his wife, or whatever! No, it does seem that the demonstrators simply objected to statues of white people in general, and his just happened to be a conveniently available white statue to take down!
An “Anonymous Commentator” has made some important points – I welcome all (good faith) criticism!
To take each of criticismspoints in turn…
[1. “If those who sometimes compromised their morals are considered too problematic, there will be almost no one left to memorialize.” Those who oppose all monumentalization of individuals would say, “So?”]
I don’t think most activists oppose all monumentalization of individuals, though I’m sure you could find one or two… But if someone understands the implications of applying a purity test and is happy with a statueless world, then fine… For reasons I put across in the piece, I personally believe that statues, notwithstanding some problematic examples, do more to enrich our public square than degenerate it.
[2. “What about only having statues of present day figures? But then, won’t we be left with the same problem one hundred years from now, when those we thought acceptable have views that are no longer considered appropriate?” Those who do not oppose all monumentalization of individuals could say, “So? Let posterity sort it out just as we are.” ]
Surely the whole point of putting up a statue is you want the person to be recognized and remembered by posterity? Again, if someone is in fact indifferent to posterity’s opinion, fine, but then one might ask why they are bothering to put up a statue in the first instance…
[3. “Progressive activists might then regret having fed a culture war over statues—creating precedents that could be used to justify a world where the only statues are marble Donald Trumps.” It’s silly to the point of ahistoricism to suggest that authoritarian governments would need to rely on precedent to engage in iconoclasm. Progressives would suffer enormously under a fascist government regardless of what they post on social media or what statues they do or do not endorse.]
It is, of course, true that fascists need no precedents to get away with iconoclasm. The point about “marble Trumps” – intended half-jokingly – was to get people to think seriously about whether we should judge and take down statues because the memorialized individual falls foul of our present standards. Many would instinctively say we should, because the dominant cultural values align with their own. So I wanted to pose a hypothetical situation where the dominant values would differ to their own, and where their own heroes were taken down – so that they might understand what those objecting to the taking down of statues currently feel, and realise the importance of the continuity statues provide.
Hi, Anonymous here.
Most of the leftists I interact with do exactly think that statues just aren’t very important, whether they might represent someone who ‘aligns with their values’ or otherwise. Whereas some statues can be outright noxious in their presence. Overall I find it hard to disagree, though I imagine there are some monuments – personified or otherwise – that truly are culturally-significant in themselves (Lincoln Memorial, Vietnam Memorial…).
A real tricky case might be Mount Rushmore, which is at the pinnacle of casual Americana, but has a rather dark history. Upon reflection from a detached view it does come across as a fascist supervillain lair too, or the kind of manifestation of a civic religion cultifying leadership that we might otherwise expect from the likes of the USSR. But denouncing it, or even effacing it, would (at least in the moment) feel like a much more decisive revision of “American-ness” than almost any other symbolic shift in our history. No elected government would bother to undertake the controversy, but among people who favor amplifying it there might eventually arise some who view direct action in a similar way as the previously-referenced protester who identified an ideological purpose to toppling the statues of Heg and progress (Forward) in Wisconsin: reckoning as superliminal fait accompli. The original Deus Ex was set in a world where insurgents had shattered the Statue of Liberty, but Mount Rushmore seems a likelier target in our future cyberdystopia. Unless we miraculously exorcise history’s accumulated demons in a consensual process over the next generation.
Luckily, few have followed the example of my compatriots, who BLEW UP Admiral Horatio Nelson on Dublin’s O’Connell Street in 1966. The Irish army then demolished the stump of the column, causing more collateral damage than the original explosion.
Anyway, thanks to James Burns and most commenters, particularly Joe!
Couple thoughts. if someone where to suggest today erecting a statue to a questionable figure from the past, I would be upset about that because there are great figures today to honour (Bernie Sanders, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc.). That to me would be a clearer sign of actual intent to cause harm. But statues are a reflection of how the concept of right and wrong and good changes over time. They are very much historic artifacts that call out to us from our past and tell us about history. History is grey when contemplated by the standards of the present. So removing statues is equivalent to trying to erase history.
I would suggest a couple of solutions. Create a place, museum or park, where all statues that are removed are sent. The place would be specifically designed to create a sense of the historical dimensions and present-ism of movements that seek to add statues and remove them. Statues would be preserved and reflected upon as historic objects that are contextualized within the time in which they were built and erected and within the movement that led to their removal. Another options, extend the commemorative plaques to build upon the history of the statues without removing them. Make the statues a reflection on the changing notion of right and wrong. Continuously update those plaques based on the interpretation and reinterpretation of those figures overtime. Even include divergent heterodox interpretation of that figure. Both of these become learning experiences.
Final observation. If I could make a list of things I would do today to make the world a better place (less racism, happier people, better lives, etc.) removing statues would be nearer the bottom. Universal health care and socioeconomic redistribution or a jobs guarantee, even universal early childhood development programs would be much much higher on that list.
Areo Magazine is an Islamophobic magazine. I will CLOSE IT DOWN.
15a, Station Road, Epping, Essex, United Kingdom, CM16 4HG
I have emailed BLACK LIVES MATTER ACTIVISTS THE ADDRESS OF AREO
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11782240/officers
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
UPDATE
Since the publication of this piece, a statue of Hans Christian Heg has been torn down. He joins Ulysses S. Grant as a literal fighter against slavery who has fallen afoul of the current protests.
I had said in the article that we could try to have statues of men and women who were progressive by the standards of their own times (as Heg was), but that if we looked for 100% purity no one would survive. And, as has happened, Heg has been taken down.
Now, some campaigners and their allies in the media have insisted that protestors were not seeking to apply an ahistorical purity test, but simply take down the statues of racists. The taking down of Heg shows this to be false. To be fair, part of the problem is that the BLM protest movements are – like protests generally – decentralised. Very few, when they promise restraint and limits to taking down statues, can claim to be speaking on behalf of all the protestors. This is why the “slippery slope” argument works so well here, and in this case isn’t the logical fallacy it appears to be: no one member of the movement can state that this is where the statue taking down ends.
Of course, perhaps the protestors didn’t know who Heg was; perhaps they assumed that as this was a statue of a white colonel, he must have been a racist, and, in their fury, took him down without bothering to check. Frankly, I don’t know whether ignorance is any better excuse than Heg genuinely falling afoul of some ideological test (‘white saviour’??), given the protests are justified on the grounds of being an educative experience.
One protester from the scene was quoted in the Star Tribune as justifying the removal of the Heg and Forward statues on the grounds that they reinforce a falsely-progressive image of contemporary Wisconsin. Make of that what you will.
I take many issues with this piece, but to highlight some:
1. “If those who sometimes compromised their morals are considered too problematic, there will be almost no one left to memorialize.”
Those who oppose all monumentalization of individuals would say, “So?”
2. “What about only having statues of present day figures? But then, won’t we be left with the same problem one hundred years from now, when those we thought acceptable have views that are no longer considered appropriate?”
Those who do not oppose all monumentalization of individuals could say, “So? Let posterity sort it out just as we are.”
3. “Progressive activists might then regret having fed a culture war over statues—creating precedents that could be used to justify a world where the only statues are marble Donald Trumps.”
It’s silly to the point of ahistoricism to suggest that authoritarian governments would need to rely on precedent to engage in iconoclasm. Progressives would suffer enormously under a fascist government regardless of what they post on social media or what statues they do or do not endorse.
@Joe Thanks for the heads up on the troll.
Thanks for commenting – I’m glad you liked it. It’s clear to me that, like you say, statues cannot inherently harm anyone. At the same time, I don’t want to imply that BAME people that dislike certain statues are just being too sensitive. A big problem is that many progressives tend to conflate *feelings of anger and worthlessness* provoked by a statue with actual harm. It’s difficult to know precisely what impact statues may have on someone’s mental well-being, but taking anger as an indication of “inflicted emotional violence” makes it impossible to have a fair debate (as there’s nothing that somebody, somewhere, won’t be angry about). However, so long as we acknowledge that feelings of anger can be justified – as they certainly are, for example, when it comes to statues of dictators – it seems to me that they can be factored into the discussion as a serious/central issue, without being the only consideration.
Exactly. The feelings of anger, frustration, etc. are valid and understandable. As you said, no judgement on that. Feeling a certain way does not make anyone too sensitive, because feelings are internal and are unique to each person. So, I completely and utterly validate any feelings of disgust towards such horrible symbols of our country’s past.
That being said, in my perspective, there is a difference between feelings and actions: we cannot control our feelings, but we can control actions. With action, the question is about effectiveness: is it effective to destroy a statue? I can see in certain situations where this could be effective, for example, if a country overthrew an oppressive dictatorship. However, in today’s context, I question the effectiveness of these tactics, because while they indeed get rid of a statue, they don’t really change anything – if racist views were there before, they will persist after a physical symbol is destroyed. In fact, it may cause these perceptions to amplify, which is even worse. People say disobedience makes a statement, and yes that is correct, but again – what has REALLY changed, or been made worse?
Key here is the difference between feeling and action. Social Justice philosophy often contends that if you invalidate one, you invalidate the other. I argue there is a very clear distinction between the two. While feelings may be valid, how we act on them is not always valid, ethical, or effective to the right ends.
What evidence do you have Abd Lomax that James Burns is an Islamophobe? None. You are mentally ill. You have been spamming Areo Magazine, Reddit and other websites for the last six months calling anyone and everybody you come across an “Islamophobe”. You are a hazard to the internet and should be taken offline. We can all Google your username and see you are a lunatic who has a 10+ year of toxic internet history and bans. Why are you constantly spamming this website and making up nonsense to defame people? Just stop dude.
You have links to the alt-right. You are not a real Muslim, you are just a troll who likes to hate others
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax
If anyone wants to know who this anti-Semitic Lomax troll is, just Google his name. Lomax has been spamming every article on this website for the past 3 months, he is a known cyber harasser. His likes to spam websites in an attempt to close them down. He was the reason that Quillette made users sign up to their website to leave comments. When he is given open access he will continue to pester people until banned.
Lomax was globally banned by Wikipedia for harassing and stalking other users. After they banned him he filed a $2 million pro se lawsuit against them. It was thrown out with prejudice by the judge. This Lomax troll is an absolute loon. His trademark is stalking and harassing people online, often going after peoples families and sending complaints to domain hosts. What a nasty little man.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/27215121/Lomax_v_WikiMedia_Foundation,_Inc_et_al
Thanks for your essay, great work. I strongly feel that consensus and democracy should be the force that removes these statues, because consensus is a tangibly real sign of social change. Toppling a statue by force has a symbolic purpose to be sure, but destroying a monument does not necessarily erase the perceptions that people hold towards it – knocking down a statue is probably more likely to inflame and solidify local world views. I don’t validate the meaning held that praises the figures in these statues, I’m only acknowledging the fact that these meanings exist, and we can either fan the flames or communicate like rational human beings. It’s troubling to see them up, it’s frustrating that they continue to exist, but statues alone cannot “harm” anyone.