Encyclopedia of Opinion
Question

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

In June 2020 protestors circulated a hit list of controversial UK statues to be taken down. These included Gandhi, Winston Churchill and Robert Baden-Powell. Campaigners say these statues must be ripped down because they contribute to racialised systemic violence. In turn, this trickles down into every facet of public life and subordinates ethnic minorities. On the other side, groups made up of mostly far right activists say this is deeply offensive. They see this lobby as a violent mob that have been undeservedly handed a mandate to whitewash UK history. So, who are these groups, what do they think, and why?

Position 1 of 3
Read this position →

We have every right to take the statues down

This group believes that tearing down statues is an important method at redressing systemic racial inequality. Proponents include Black Lives Matter, and left wing, British commentators such as Namitha Aravind.

Position 2 of 3
Read this position →

How dare they tear down our statues

This entry describes a nativist reaction against removing controversial UK statues, associated with groups such as the EDL and the alt-right press. It frames anti-statue activists as a lawless mob 'erasing British history,' and leans heavily on anti-immigrant and racist rhetoric.

Position 3 of 3
Read this position →

We should approach the statues issue with caution

This group believes that there are other ways to look at this debate. They are neither in favour of tearing them all down, or defending them till the death. They see the issue as symptomatic of wider concerns the we should address. Proponents include free speech activists, left wing historians such as David Olusoga and the moderate press.