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

Having controversial statues in a museum sanctifies evil

Question: How do we think about taking down controversial statues in the UK?
Position1 of 3›: We have every right to take the statues down
Argument‹9 of 11›: Having controversial statues in a museum sanctifies evil

Keeping statues in museums will not alleviate the problem. They need to be removed for good.

The argument

The removal of controversial statues has sparked much debate concerning whether the monuments should remain in public areas, be confined to certain types of public spaces or be completely removed. If these statues are to be erected, but not in public squares, then the question of in which location we display them remains. Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer states that the statue of Edward Colston, that was unlawfully removed by Black Lives Matter protesters in Bristol, should have been placed in a museum to begin with. Museums are educational institutions that aim to preserve culture. So, the exhibition of statues would be one way in which the public could educate themselves on British history without it being the case that the controversial monuments are in blatant view or destroyed. What underpins this argument is the belief that the preservation of the statues, by displaying them in museums, approves and legitimises the evil acts carried out by the depicted figures. The statues are a way of glorifying the figures regardless of the specific public spaces in which they may be displayed.

Premises

[P1]Even the museum compromise—suggested by Keir Starmer for the toppled Edward Colston statue—still preserves and displays monuments to figures known for evil acts. [P2] Displaying such statues, wherever they stand, approves and legitimises those acts and continues to glorify the figures, so the venue does not resolve the objection. [C] Because keeping controversial statues even in a museum sanctifies evil, we have every right to take them down.

Counter-arguments

While displaying these statues in museums can be interpreted as an act of glorying the actions carried out by the depicted figures, their display is also a way in which we can learn about their actions. Museums are educational establishments that can present factual information about the figures concerning their role in history so that visitors can learn about and debate their entire legacy. That said, having the controversial statues in museums rather legitimises the understanding of evil than evil itself.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise treats preservation as endorsement, but museums routinely hold objects they do not endorse, and a statue moved into a curated display loses the honorific function it had in a public square — which is the specific thing objected to. [Rejecting P2] If display of any kind legitimises, the principle extends further than the argument wants, ruling out the exhibition of material from slavery, colonial rule and genocide that is used to teach precisely how those systems presented themselves; and the argument gives no reason why a labelled museum object glorifies its subject rather than documenting him.