Don’t let vandalism airbrush history

As the Bristol slaver, Edward Colston fell into the water, the Bristol crowd, which had campaigned for years to get rid of his statue, cheered.

Days later, the Mayor of London provided a miracle by getting public sector work done overnight and removed slaver, Robert Milligan from outside the museum of London Docklands.

No democratic vote, no conversation, no community engagement; just the removal of a deplorable, visual reminder.

In the aftermath, division has arisen and while other statues are being targeted, it’s clear that we now have a few choices to make about these fallen figures. Do we replace them with someone else? Retain public space? Or, use the plinths as a reminder of the past?

The choices that are made may influence the length of time it takes to rid ourselves of the maximum amount of racism and inspire sustained change, therefore the decision should not be rushed. However, with websites already being put up that identify other statues that must go, the Government needs to start a debate about what the next steps may be before it snowballs into combative moral debate. Groups are already beginning to take sides.

If we continue to accept vandalism and local government decisions without debate, we risk further division. That will require some effort and strategy to heal the divide and bring people back together. We will also need to accept that many other statues and symbols will be targeted. Gandhi expressed disdain for Africans and Martin Luther King disrespected the LGBT community. Do not expect their statues to remain untouched.

If we adopt a more considered approach and leave statues in place, we will be left with a number of choices. When do we get rid of them and how, eg-local referendums? Do we first put up plaques of accountability and if so, what should the wording be? Can we make the wording standardised, so all controversial statues can have a fuller history on display? How do we prosecute vandalism (civil, or criminal) because it will occur? When removed, do any plaques remain and for how long?

The reason we need to think deeply about these processes is because we are hurtling toward change and change needs to be lasting and embedded in our consciousness.

If we choose to remove statues and use our school syllabus and museums as places of learning, the learning will not get embedded. We would we recognising history, not resetting our approach to it.

If we choose to use these statues and monuments as memories of failure for all to see, as well as exampling that in education, museums and debate, we will have a much better chance at inspiring change and resetting wider engagement through more honest eyes. But we risk accusations of misunderstanding their impact.

Reset is important because people should not feel guilty for a past they were never part of. They should feel ashamed that it happened at all, even if it’s not part of their history. If we choose to remove all trace, including the history of why statues went up, we risk airbrushing failure out of discourse and decreasing our connection to past mistakes.

Keeping a statue or plinth and/or adding a plaque to mark the spot where the memory to a slaver once stood will be passed by millions every year. It will start conversations in streets and learning in public, both good and bad. But communities will engage with change directly and reset their own relationships.

The Government would not go wrong by exploring why Edward Colston ended up in the harbour which made him his dishonourable fortune. Bristol did organise to have a plaque but it was certainly neither informative, not representative of his actions, so was axed.

Whatever decision is made, it must be government led. While this may prove uncomfortable, it must come from those who control law, order and policy. And it must lead by example.