The main debate around statues, and their symbolism, began with the removal of many Confederate statues across America. Of course, discussion around the representation of such monuments has gone on for decades, probably centuries, but this news really bought the debate to the forefront of discussion. It’s difficult to be against this decision, as the statues were a clear symbol of white supremacy: something I abhor. The statues were produced on a mass scale, across hundreds of towns, meaning black Americans, wherever they went, would probably see such a statue, reminding them of oppression and centuries of slavery, based simply on the colour of their skin. The debate seemed to be based around heritage vs offence: what matters more? Should the statues be kept up for the sake of culture, reminding future Americans what was once the norm? Or should their connotation mean the statues were finally consigned to history, instead of being everywhere people looked?
This question stemmed to Britain where, in the Guardian, Afua Hirsch called for the toppling of Nelson’s column, as he was a ‘white supremacist who used his position in the House of Lords to ‘perpetuate the tyranny, serial rape and exploitation’ of black slaves. I must admit, I did not know this. Having walked pasted Nelson’s column nearly every time I visited London, I knew him just as a naval officer. I had no reason to research what else he did, as I had no interest in ships. Maybe that’s a sign of bad education, but I’m pleased I know what interests me. The question about tearing down Lord Nelson was directly asked on Any Questions? I tweeted that, while we may disagree with someone’s beliefs, it is an important part of history to know what they did. Statues help to tell this story. I received a reply to the tweet from a friend, who asked: ‘Would you keep a statue of Hitler?’ I found this very difficult to answer. While, thank goodness, no statue will ever be made of Hitler in the future, I thought he was so influential, for the wrong reasons, that people needed to know about this. Eventually, I replied that I wouldn’t keep a statue, because his actions were beyond evil: creating a dictatorship, killing millions & being responsible for a world war. Given that his actions are taught in GCSE (and presumably A-level) history, and the vast number of concentration camp museums, it seemed unnecessary to keep a statue of a despicable person. However, I am against a complete blanket ban on statues for people who have done bad things, like Nelson. Offence. I’m sure it’s something we’ve all given (and taken). In speech, free speech should triumph offence caused. Online, people should be allowed to say what they wish, as long as it doesn’t incite violence. In these contexts, the freedom of speech and thought is put ahead of those who don’t like what you have to say. However, finding statues offensive seems to be a bigger priority than teaching the historical truth. What is offensive to one person isn’t offensive to another. That is surely what makes us unique. Someone may wish for all statues of Tories to be destroyed, out of hatred for the Tory party. However, not everyone will feel that way. Wouldn’t it be better to keep the statue and educate people on why you may disagree with the person, instead of censoring the statue to the history books, which aren’t as easily accessible? No. It’s clear some believe: if this statue disagrees with my political ideology, whatever else the person did, it must go. Now. The whole narrative around statues seems to suggest they are only used for commemoration and celebration. Statues appear to only be positive structures, celebrating the person. I believe they can be for education, not just commemoration. Of course, the way the person is standing and what is written below is a form of propaganda. Isn’t that why history, and English, lessons are so vital? Learning not to trust something at face value as it probably has a hidden agenda, digging in deeper beyond the popular books and webpages, uncovering the true about what the person was like. That’s what history teaches us to do. By understanding this, people can cut through the propaganda, be educated and not have to celebrate the person at all. Instead of tearing statues down, I would support efforts to put more statues up of truly inspiring people. People who have fought for equality, whether that be race, gender, sexuality, people who have campaigned for peace, helped countries to develop, discovered a scientific cure, written masterful literature, music or poetry. The list goes on. Essentially, people who have worked hard to contribute something wonderful to the world, making it a better place to live in deserve a statue. Maybe a committee could be set up in each borough, which would allow people to give evidence saying why they, or someone they know, deserves a statue in that area. Yes, it seems complicated, but it could work. If the energy that went into opposing statues was instead dedicated towards celebrating amazing people, some truly deserving people could get statues. History isn’t always nice. While there have been amazing breakthroughs and progress over the years, there has also been a number of evil, wicked dictators who, though awful, have shaped the world to be what it is today. Surely, it is important for future generations to learn, through statues, that awful people did exist. Can’t we trust them to look at the statue without holding the awful beliefs of the person represented? Do we really want to hide away history, thinking our descendants won’t be able to cope? Statues can be a place for future generations to celebrate marvellous people that have contributed towards them having the life they lead, in terms of fairness, health and justice. Education is the key to a better world. If statues can be a part of future generations making better decisions than the last, that has to be welcome.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|