How do we think about taking down controversial statues in the UK?

Our approach to storytelling UK statues is flawed

Question: How do we think about taking down controversial statues in the UK?
Position‹3 of 3: We should approach the statues issue with caution
Argument‹2 of 7›: Our approach to storytelling UK statues is flawed

The statues are not the issue. Flawed storytelling about the UK's complex past means we unquestionably memorialise the accomplishments of historical figures. Our storytelling should show balance by also taking into account any injustices that may have transpired.

The argument

Evidence suggests that the statues themselves are not the issue. It is the selective myth associated with memorable figures, which allows us to look at the past through rose-tinted glasses. For example, slave trader Edward Colston's statue was erected almost 170 years after his death in commendation of his philanthropy and status as a virtuous man in Bristol. His plaque has never been updated to include that he made his wealth as part of the Royal African Company. Colston played a huge part in shipping 80,000 men, women, and children from Africa to America to be sold as slaves, with a further loss of the lives of 20,000 people who died en route. There is a call for better education in the UK's national curriculum to stop teaching whitewashed views of history. There is also an argument that statues may remain if their plaques are truthful in teaching the horrors and the honours committed during the memorable figures' lifetime. This means the issues of taking down statues must be approached with caution. One solution is to engage in public debate to create a more balanced narrative in our storytelling of historical events. This opens up discourse for a better understanding of how the past, and the people we memorialise, impact the present day.

Premises

[P1]The problem is not the statues themselves but the selective myth around memorable figures—Edward Colston's statue praised his philanthropy while never noting he trafficked some 80,000 enslaved Africans for the Royal African Company. [P2] Because this whitewashed storytelling can be corrected through truthful plaques and better history education, statues might remain rather than simply being torn down. [C] Therefore, because our approach to storytelling through statues is flawed, the issue should be approached with caution and public debate.

Counter-arguments

Statues of controversial figures must be removed from public spaces. In removing these statues, we help eradicate the link between contemporary racism and racism rooted in historical colonialism. Society has a systemic problem of whitewashing history, which is further perpetuated by the celebration of racist statues. The slave trade and other contentious parts of history can be remembered without memorialising and venerating the perpetrators of the crimes.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The Colston example supports the premise well but cuts against its own framing: a memorial erected long after the man's death, praising him in terms that omit where the money came from, is itself the selective myth — so the object and the story are not as separable as the premise claims. [Rejecting P2] Corrigibility in principle is not a plan, and the premise gives no account of who writes the plaques, who decides, or why this has not happened over the interval it describes. The counter's objection also goes unanswered: a statue on a plinth is a form of honour rather than a neutral surface for information, so added text may not change what the monument does.

Proponents cited

Sadiq Khan
“There’s a conversation to be had about the national curriculum properly teaches our children about people’s warts and all, and some of the things they’ve done we don’t approve of.”
David Olusoga
“The great untruth around which everything pivots is the idea that the defenders of these statues are the defenders of history and truth; while those who want to see them toppled or contextualised are the Huns at the gate, who would destroy national histories and bring down great men. As a result of this positioning, we’re yet to have a proper debate about the contention that statues always represent some form of historical truth.”
Martin Kettle
“British history continues to be a political battleground between those who insist that our historic greatness is self-evident and empowering, and those who cannot bring themselves to see much in our history beyond lies about crimes. In public policy, public rituals and public debate the old, island-story narratives of greatness still have the upper hand.”