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

The statues sustain structural oppression

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‹3 of 11›: The statues sustain structural oppression

To break free from the system of oppression, we must stop celebrating the statues of racist figures in the slave trade and put an end to whitewashing the cruel acts that earned them their glory.

The argument

Throughout history, statues have been used to commemorate, remember, or tell stories about people or events with significant historical or cultural meaning. But throughout history, they have also been used to sustain structural oppression, and history has fallen victim to whitewashing. During the June 2020 Black Lives Matter protests in the UK, two significant statues came under attack from demonstrators who have been attempting to put an end to systemic racism. Demonstrators in Bristol tied a rope around the 125-year old statue of 17th-century slave trader Edward Colston and toppled it into Bristol Harbour. Colston’s statue was erected to celebrate his philanthropy and charitable donations to his home town of Bristol. But much of Colston’s wealth came from his position within the Royal African Company, who shipped 80,000 men, women, and children from Africa to America to be sold as slaves. Structural oppression is sustained when we glorify philanthropic racist figures and ignore the injustices of how they gained their wealth. On the same day, the owner of 526 slaves, Robert Milligan’s statue was crane lifted from its plinth outside the Museum of London Docklands in rebellion of his crimes against humanity. This marked another successful attempt to decolonise spaces where colonisation was being promoted and push back against systemic racism. Removing racist statues from public spaces eradicates the links between contemporary racism and racism rooted in historical colonialism. For some, there is no need to celebrate statues of the perpetrators of the slave trade. Instead, there is a call for action to replace racist statues with other prominent figures. These figures must reflect the UK’s modern and underrepresented multicultural society to move away from celebrating statues that are symbolic of systemic racism and structural oppression.

Premises

[P1]Statues in public spaces glorify the figures they depict and the values associated with them. [P2] Many UK statues honor figures like Edward Colston and Robert Milligan whose wealth and status came from slave trading and colonial oppression. [P3] Continuing to celebrate such figures sustains structural racism by linking contemporary public life to the injustices of historical colonialism. [C] Therefore, we have every right to take these statues down in order to dismantle the structural oppression they perpetuate.

Counter-arguments

While slave trade was legal and considered socially acceptable in the 17th century, it is not legal or socially acceptable now. Society is constantly changing, and we cannot judge people from the past by the attitudes of today. Keeping statues of racist figures in the slave trade does not mean that slavery is acceptable or sustains structural oppression. It is an uncomfortable and unforgivable part of history, but society can learn a lot from the past. Statues offer a snapshot into history and tell us about the values, views, and mistakes of previous generations. This means that statues that are symbolic of systemic racism and structural oppression can act as a reminder of violations against humanity, which should never be repeated. If the statues are displayed in the correct places, respectfully, with plaques that do not whitewash history, they can become powerful educational tools for progress, change, and understanding.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] A statue does not carry a fixed glorifying meaning independent of how it is presented. Placement, framing and accompanying interpretation determine what a monument communicates, which is why the same object can function as celebration in one setting and as historical record in another. [Rejecting P3] Continued presence is not continued celebration. A monument displayed with an accurate account of how its subject acquired his wealth marks the injustice rather than sustaining it, and removing it forfeits the prompt that makes the history visible at all. [Rejecting C] Even if some statues in some settings sustain oppression, that supports a case for recontextualising them — relocation, plaques, museum display — rather than the general entitlement to pull them down that the conclusion asserts.

Proponents cited

Elaine Bagshaw
“There’s no need for statues in public places that celebrate and venerate people that ripped thousands from their homes and traded them based on the colour of their skin. We can remember the slave trade without celebrating the perpetrators.”
The Museum of London Docklands
“The Museum of London recognises that the [Robert Milligan] monument is part of the ongoing problematic regime of white-washing history, which disregards the pain of those who are still wrestling with the remnants of the crimes Milligan committed against humanity.””
Roderick Lynch
“Erecting a statue of someone based on just one philanthropic act whilst forgetting the countless injustices for which they were responsible is, frankly, an insult. If you visit any of these statues, they mention nothing about the years of barbaric slavery”