statues to remove and statues to reinstate

[runs as required]

 i'll start by saying a statue i'd reinstate is the missing Mallard duck that is inspiring Sir Nigel to have a go at the world record for steam locos; I tried to support the disappointed sculptor in her brilliant idea to stimulate young children into thinking the could do great things.

 

For those "out of favour" I'd learn from the collapse of the Stalinist East. I'd have a fascinating overgrown dump where you can go and ferret out all the statues torn down and ditched any old how. I saw those in the Baltic states full of Stalin and Lenin, and glimpsed in China and Cuba also.

The Chines experience was interesting - I was there from York uni advising on making money out of tourism and Conservation. A big  issue was whether or not to preserve as a reminder, relics from the Japanese invasion of the 1930s invasion and the treatment of Chinese as animals to be experimented upon. 

Profiteering Mayors eventually solved this dilemma by demolishing everything in sight and rebuilding with high rise blocks.

 

[Reorte]

I find most of the current statue business rather objectionable - far better would be to balance them with the complete picture, especially when they are of people who did have an impact on the place their statue is. There's an imbalance to be addressed. I think the Lenin etc. statues are a bit different, that was all about a cult of personality and an ongoing attempt at expressing domination over people (which could also be said about former British leaders in former colonies and their statues).

Edited June 10, 2020 by Reorte
grammar

[caradoc]

It seems to me that removing statues, and (particularly applicable to Bristol) all other associations (street and school names, etc) with people whose behaviour is now rightly regarded as abhorrent will just lead to that aspect of history becoming forgotten and unknown; Surely it would be better to add information explaining exactly what these people did ?

 

[Torper]

So first you remove the statues of people whose actions, 200 or so years after their deaths, is now regarded as abhorrent even although it was perfectly normal then and they often used much of their money to do good - As Willie Shakespeare said "the evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones".  Anyway, today you remove their statues; tomorrow you'll burn their books; next week you'll destroy all the books about them; and then you'll change the history so that they never existed (I think that's what happened in "1984").  And that may be fine until the mores and political thinking change yet again and you'll find that people who we regard as good in our culture are instead regarded as abhorrent and their statues are pulled down and their books burned and they too are erased from history and are unpeople.  Beware the Thought Police....

 

DT

[roundhouse]

43 minutes ago, caradoc said:

It seems to me that removing statues, and (particularly applicable to Bristol) all other associations (street and school names, etc) with people whose behaviour is now rightly regarded as abhorrent will just lead to that aspect of history becoming forgotten and unknown; Surely it would be better to add information explaining exactly what these people did ?

 

And no one who's lived there all their lives or return after living there  will be able to find addresses or give peoples directions anymore without using Google

[Fenman]

59 minutes ago, caradoc said:

It seems to me that removing statues, and (particularly applicable to Bristol) all other associations (street and school names, etc) with people whose behaviour is now rightly regarded as abhorrent will just lead to that aspect of history becoming forgotten and unknown; Surely it would be better to add information explaining exactly what these people did ?

 

 

Not necessarily -- it depends what you do with them.

 

A public sculpture is, by definition, something celebratory put into a public space. Individuals can't avoid it unless we give up the public space. It therefore seems reasonable that things in the public space should be, at least, not overly objectionable.

 

Somewhere else on RMWeb there was a discussion of how pre-Victorian street names were censored or bowdlerised by the Victorians (the example I gave was the wonderfully descriptive Pissing Alley in Clerkenwell, which became the dull-sounding Passsing Alley). I haven't seen any campaign to restore those vigorous original street names.

 

So, why shouldn't statues move around: at some points in their histories they may be cause for celebration; at others, cause for educational lessons? The example of how some of eastern Europe has handled its legacy of toxic statuary might be helpful. I quite like the idea of museum gardens which contextualise and contrast. Things can have more than one meaning*.

 

Paul

 

* There was a nice example of a Porsche exhibition at the Design Museum, 20 years ago. Every highly-polished car had a label telling us the maximum speed, but not one of the labels told us about, say, fuel consumption, or emissions of noxious gasses. Those things strike me as equally important to the engineering story, but the museum didn't bother. Then again, the exhibition was sponsored by Porsche, so I guess it wasn't in their financial interests to tell any story other than the corporate one of speed/glamour. Unsurprisingly, Porsche's role in designing Nazi tanks was also overlooked.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by Fenman
Damn autocorrect thought it was smarter than me. Huh.

[Reorte]

1 minute ago, Fenman said:

 

Not necessarily -- it depends what you do with them.

 

A public sculpture is, by definition, something celebratory put into a public space. Individuals can't avoid it unless we give up the public space. It therefore seems reasonable that things in the public space should be, at least, not overly objectionable.

 

There are a lot of things that would be objectionable if they were recent, but the idea of removing them now would appal people - their offensive aspects are all in the past and don't reflect upon us now. What happened at prehistoric religious sites? The Collosseum? The reason something was put up in the first place I'd argue only matters to the people at the time.

[Fenman]

4 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

There are a lot of things that would be objectionable if they were recent, but the idea of removing them now would appal people - their offensive aspects are all in the past and don't reflect upon us now. What happened at prehistoric religious sites? The Collosseum? The reason something was put up in the first place I'd argue only matters to the people at the time.

 

Emphasis added

 

Really? You think statues of slave-owning Confederate generals in the US south have no "meaning" today?

 

Paul

[The Stationmaster]

None to remove, Edward Colston to replaced as a reminder of a significant part of the history of Bristol.    I'm sorry but kowtowing to flavour of the week mob behaviour is no way for a country to make decisions about its history.

[Fenman]

4 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

None to remove, Edward Colston to replaced as a reminder of a significant part of the history of Bristol.    I'm sorry but kowtowing to flavour of the week mob behaviour is no way for a country to make decisions about its history.

 

I very much hope that not wishing to celebrate slavery is not a "flavour of the week".

 

Paul

[scottystitch]

12 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

None to remove, Edward Colston to replaced as a reminder of a significant part of the history of Bristol.    I'm sorry but kowtowing to flavour of the week mob behaviour is no way for a country to make decisions about its history.

 

I think this is key.  The first question is do we remove, move or revise a statue; the second is how one goes about it.  I'd suggest a mob rule isn't necessarily the answer to the second  question.

 

And of course, when you start, where do you draw the line?

 

With regards to street names like "pissing Lane", I'm quite happy with it being changed to reflect the increased sophistication of society, but I'd prefer if there was a plaque underneath the new name plate explaining what it used to be called and why.

 

Best

 

Scott.

Edited June 10, 2020 by scottystitch

[Reorte]

13 minutes ago, Fenman said:

Really? You think statues of slave-owning Confederate generals in the US south have no "meaning" today?

 

They're all dead, the people they affected would all be dead now even if it wasn't for them, and whilst the wrongs of the past are part of what has shaped the world today they are also firmly in the past, beyond our lives; we really should've moved on so that they have no more relevance than a statue of someone unpleasant like Caligula would. I'm afraid I see getting worked up about the statues as the sort of behaviour that keeps hatreds and divisions alive; they really should've lost their power to affect us now, beyond providing reminders of what not to do (or positive ones in the case of statues of more appealing figures).

 

Do we want to be slaves to the "I hate you because your country invaded my country hundreds of years ago" mentality?

[friscopete]

Most statues are erected to the glory of people who have trampled all over other people , even modern ones .I mention no names.Tear em down and put Paddington   or Winnie the Pooh in its location .People would know that an offensive statue once stood there .

[snitchthebudgie]

Dangerous to get involved in this one, but here goes.....

16 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

None to remove, Edward Colston to replaced as a reminder of a significant part of the history of Bristol.    I'm sorry but kowtowing to flavour of the week mob behaviour is no way for a country to make decisions about its history.

 

I think the Mayor of Bristol got it exactly right.  It shouldn't have been pulled down - but it should have been moved years ago.  He'd have it placed in a museum - remembering the past but not celebrating it.

 

3 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

They're all dead, the people they affected would all be dead now even if it wasn't for them, and whilst the wrongs of the past are part of what has shaped the world today they are also firmly in the past, beyond our lives; we really should've moved on so that they have no more relevance than a statue of someone unpleasant like Caligula would. I'm afraid I see getting worked up about the statues as the sort of behaviour that keeps hatreds and divisions alive; they really should've lost their power to affect us now, beyond providing reminders of what not to do (or positive ones in the case of statues of more appealing figures).

 

Do we want to be slaves to the "I hate you because your country invaded my country hundreds of years ago" mentality?

 

Don't forget that most Confederate statues were put up relatively recently to reinforce Jim Crow laws and segregation.  Good riddance to them!

[snitchthebudgie]

And remember context - statue thrown into harbour = nasty mob.  Chests of tea thrown into harbour = brave freedom fighters.  All depends who you support at the time.

[2750Papyrus]

Slave trading and then slavery was supposedly abolished in our country some two hundred years ago but still thrives. It would be good to see some of the current interest and energy focussed on modern slavery.

[Fenman]

2 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

They're all dead, the people they affected would all be dead now even if it wasn't for them, and whilst the wrongs of the past are part of what has shaped the world today they are also firmly in the past, beyond our lives; we really should've moved on so that they have no more relevance than a statue of someone unpleasant like Caligula would. I'm afraid I see getting worked up about the statues as the sort of behaviour that keeps hatreds and divisions alive; they really should've lost their power to affect us now, beyond providing reminders of what not to do (or positive ones in the case of statues of more appealing figures).

 

Do we want to be slaves to the "I hate you because your country invaded my country hundreds of years ago" mentality?

 

Your post is intriguing: for someone who consistently argues how much better things were in the past as opposed to how horrible almost everything is today, I would have imagined that you would be even more aware than most of the important part that history plays in contemporary culture.

 

We are shaped by our collective past, or by our own fantasies about it -- see how one tabloid newspaper decided that the recent "VE Day" celebrations stood for "Victory over Europe Day". Either historically breathtakingly ignorant, or using its partial interpretation of history to support its present-day agenda.

 

If you think the long-ago past has no effect on the present, have a look at what proportion of the UK's land is owned by people descended from the same families who grabbed most of it in the eleventh century. 

 

Paul

 

[Reorte]

4 minutes ago, snitchthebudgie said:

Don't forget that most Confederate statues were put up relatively recently to reinforce Jim Crow laws and segregation.  Good riddance to them!

Several years ago Carlisle put up a statue of a Border Reiver, and they were a very unpleasant bunch on both sides, but also a significant part of the history of the region.

[scottystitch]

1 minute ago, snitchthebudgie said:

And remember context - statue thrown into harbour = nasty mob.  Chests of tea thrown into harbour = brave freedom fighters.  All depends who you support at the time.

 

Indeed, a fair point.

 

But in any event why does the mob get to make that decision on behalf of the rest of us?  It's hardly democratic.  And like I said, where do you stop?  Should we start tearing down buildings because they were built on the proceeds of unsavoury acts, policies and practices?  Half of central Glasgow would be levelled in that case, as much of it was built on slavery, Tobacco or Cotton (with attendant slavery connotations)

 

Surely a better way would be for the Mayor of Bristol to ask his subjects whether they wanted the statue to remain or not?

 

Why can't we be more measured in our actions, instead of sucumbing to kneejerk violant solutions?

 

Best

 

Scott.

 

[runs as required]

About street naming:

Anyone remember Brendan Behan's joke about Dubliners looking up at their street name  

Quote

 

GAS STREET

cul de sac

 

and saying "sure isn't the Irish language a lot more poetic than the English" ?

[APOLLO]

Sir Francis Powell's statue in Wigan park has to stay - a Wigan custom is to rub his foot for good luck - hence it's shine !!!!

 

 

Our other superb statue is of course Billy Boston - he earned his statue for services to the towns rugby league club over many years.

 

 

A very nice man also, as are his wife & family. I lived near them as a kid.

 

Brit15

[Reorte]

1 minute ago, Fenman said:

 

Your post is intriguing: for someone who consistently argues how much better things were in the past as opposed to how horrible almost everything is today, I would have imagined that you would be even more aware than most of the important part that history plays in contemporary culture.

 

I certainly argue that I think I'd find that a lot of things were, but certainly not everything. I've said before that there are also a great number of things I'm very glad only exist in the past (or largely exist only in the past) and that's where they should stay. We can learn both what we shouldn't have changed and what we should never do again from it.

 

We are shaped by our collective past, or by our own fantasies about it -- see how one tabloid newspaper decided that the recent "VE Day" celebrations stood for "Victory over Europe Day". Either historically breathtakingly ignorant, or using its partial interpretation of history to support its present-day agenda.

And thus we need to be more aware, which is best achieved by balancing out anything one-sided and / or inaccurate than in trying to remove traces of the bits we don't like.

 

Quote

If you think the long-ago past has no effect on the present, have a look at what proportion of the UK's land is owned by people descended from the same families who grabbed most of it in the eleventh century. 

It informs us about how we got to where we are now but that's not the same thing. If an ancestor of your mistreated an ancestor of mine it's entirely irrelevant to my opinion of you here and now, although might well have its role to play in where we are now.

[Ron Ron Ron]

This campaign to remove statues is part of a wider campaign to re-tell and sometimes rewrite or extinguish history.

Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” springs to mind.

While many people with sympathise will the desire for the “story” to be reframed to highlight past injustices, the campaigners have a far wider reaching ambition that goes well beyond the current protest sparked by the horrific event that took place a couple of weeks ago.

It goes beyond BLM ( who are just being used as a tool) and many of those involved are being very open and brazen about it in various news and social media.

 

Local and National politicians are running scared and dare not put their heads above the parapet, so it appears anything goes at the moment.

However, maybe a little perspective would be helpful.

A few 10’s of thousands of university students and activist academics and teachers are not at work and a vocal element (mainly young) of the section of society who feel most aggrieved, accounting for a single digit percentage of the U.K. population. Mmmmmm???.

 

 

 

 

 

[Fenman]

1 minute ago, Reorte said:

 

I certainly argue that I think I'd find that a lot of things were, but certainly not everything. I've said before that there are also a great number of things I'm very glad only exist in the past (or largely exist only in the past) and that's where they should stay. We can learn both what we shouldn't have changed and what we should never do again from it.

 

 

 

And thus we need to be more aware, which is best achieved by balancing out anything one-sided and / or inaccurate than in trying to remove traces of the bits we don't like.

 

It informs us about how we got to where we are now but that's not the same thing. If an ancestor of your mistreated an ancestor of mine it's entirely irrelevant to my opinion of you here and now, although might well have its role to play in where we are now.

 

I'd agree with most of your points -- but I don't understand why you apparently insist that all statues must remain exactly where they were first placed. There are lots of examples of statues moved for entirely prosaic reasons (Eros in Piccadilly was shifted a bit sideways, to make traffic management simpler). Why can't a statue now serve a more useful and interesting role in a museum or a museum garden, where more of its history can be explored?

 

Paul 

[Torper]

So presumably statures of George Washington (a major slave-owner ) and Thomas Jefferson (600+ slaves) should be torn down?  Not to mention Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Tyler, Polk and Taylor, all of whom were presidents who owned slaves while in office.  Oh, and on the day that slavery was abolished in Britain 46000 Britons were slave owners and all received compensation.  Better start searching out their statues and memorials.

 

What;s going on now is censorship by the mob.  One can argue that it's "good censorship" although that strikes me as a contradiction in terms.