Published: September 2024
Debating Matters Transatlantic is a partnership project between Bill of Rights Institute, Ideas Matter and Incubate Debate.
Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.
INTRODUCTION
In June 2020, in a response to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests, people in Bristol, UK, vandalised and then toppled a statue of Edward Colston [Ref: BBC]. In the United States, heated debates also occurred over the existence of monuments to controversial figures. For example, in Richmond, Virginia, the city removed three statues of Confederate leaders on ‘Monument Avenue’ in 2020, with the state removing the last one in 2021. Many other cities in the southern US also removed statues of Confederate figures.
In the UK, the toppling of the Colston statue prompted the Mayor of London to set up the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm [Ref: Wikipedia] with the aim of ensuring London’s monuments, plaques and street names reflect the diversity of the city today [ref: London.gov.uk]. Reviews of statues are being planned in other UK cities, too, including Cardiff, Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle [Ref: Sky News]. Edinburgh City Council has convened a review group to look at public monuments, street names and building names that have links to slavery and colonialism [Ref: Edinburgh Evening News].
In the US, the BLM protests prompted further discussion about the removing of monuments of controversial figures, with the debate expanded to the naming of university buildings [Ref: Prime/UCLA], public schools and even military bases. [Ref: CBS] In 2021, Congress set up the ‘Naming Commission’, a government commission to create a list of military assets with names of those associated with the Confederacy, with recommendations for their removal. [Ref: Wikipedia]
The appointment of these commissions is the latest chapter in a long-running debate about historical monuments, in both the UK and the US. For example, campaigns such as Whose Heritage? from the Southern Poverty Law Center began taking a critical look at symbols honouring the Confederacy and its icons following the 2015 massacre of nine African Americans at the historic Mother Emanuel church in Charleston, South Carolina. In the UK, the Rhodes Must Fall campaign followed the University of Cape Town, South Africa, in arguing that such statues and public landmarks are more than just a symbol of past oppression – they represent the institutional racism that continues to exist today [Ref: BBC News]. ‘Protesters’, says one columnist, are ‘compelling entire nations to confront their present through a new understanding of their past’ [Ref: Guardian].
However, some people worry there is a tendency to ‘cleanse’ history of unsavoury – even appalling – elements. In the words of British historian Mary Beard, ‘statues offer different challenges to our view of history… and remind us of our own fragility in the judgement of the future’ [Ref: TLS]. Others argue that history has now become ‘the most active front in a new culture war’ and that ‘actions are being taken widely and quickly in a way that does not reflect public opinion or growing concern over our treatment of the past’. [ref: Policy Exchange]
At its heart, the debate is about our relationship with history, and whether removing statues and monuments has a role to play in reappraising historic wrongs, or whether they encourage us to airbrush out difficult and contentious parts of our past, rather than engage with and understand them. But it is also a public policy question about who gets to decide whether monuments to controversial figures remain and on what basis such judgements are made. Do government commissions have the authority to remove controversial monuments?
DEBATE IN CONTEXT
This section provides a summary of the key issues in the debate, set in the context of recent discussions and the competing positions that have been adopted.
Do historical monuments matter?
‘Public statues are intensely political’, notes writer Martin Gayford. He outlines the nature of public memorials and statues, and observes that over time, our appraisal of individuals changes, for instance with the thousands of statues of Lenin and Marx brought down after the fall of the former Soviet Union [Ref: Spectator]. From this perspective, historical monuments do matter as they can be seen as symbols of norms and values we agree to commemorate. As historian Professor Christopher Phelps argues: ‘History is one thing, memorials another. As tributes, memorials are selective, affirmative representations… [they] bestow honour and legitimacy.’ [Ref: Chronicle Review]. But what changes when a monument is removed? As someone who participated in the removal of Soviet statues reflects: ‘Waging war on bronze men doesn’t make your life any more moral or just.’ [Ref: New York Times]
Thus, the moral value of historical monuments is fiercely contested. For critics, in removing these statues we are in danger of symbolically removing distasteful aspects of history which allow us to understand the present. As one South African student notes in reference to Cecil Rhodes: ‘Removing him omits an essential part of the institution’s history that has contributed to everything good, bad and ugly about it.’ [Ref: Guardian] In the case of the Rhodes statue at Oxford, some argue that statues serve as a repository of history, good and bad: ‘A salient fact about the Oriel statue of Rhodes is its date: 1911. It is an echo in stone of a different time.’ [Ref: New York Times]
Why do people want to remove them?
Advocates of removing statutes of controversial figures suggest that these monuments represent individuals whose actions and legacies should not be celebrated or memorialised. Following the Black Lives Matter protests of June 2020, 168 Confederate symbols were removed in that year alone [Ref: NPR] with many more having been removed since. In the UK, almost 70 memorials have been renamed or taken down in what some historians have called an ‘unprecedented’ public reckoning with Britain’s slavery and colonial past [Ref: Guardian]. But others have argued that the connection between the transatlantic slave trade and colonialism is often wrongly attributed.
According to one historian, Dr Zareer Masini, it ignores the fact that ‘slavery was almost universally practised across the globe until the British empire and navy stamped it out in the mid-19th century’. [Ref: Spectator] These commentators believe that the campaigns to remove monuments to controversial historical figures have been ‘rushed through without democratic consultation or due process’ and welcome new government legislation to ‘protect monuments and statues from mob iconoclasm’ [Ref: Spectator].
But for some, this ‘reckoning with history’ is more about ensuring the public realm represents the diversity of life as it is now. For Aindrea Emelife, a 27-year-old art historian and a member of the Mayor of London’s Commission for Diversity, the toppling of the Edward Colston statue in Bristol marked a turning point, particularly when a sculpture of a young black woman was put in its place. Emelife says, ‘that reinvigorated the idea that public art should mean something. I saw little black girls looking at that statue and it made me wonder if I saw that when I was younger, how it would have inspired me.’ [Ref: Guardian]. Other commentators, such as Trevor Phillips, former chair of the UK’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission, consider the idea of diverse representation in the public realm as a distraction. ‘My worry too is that this new culture war risks distracting us from the practical steps that need to be taken to make a real and lasting practical difference to the lives of BAME people in this country.’ [Ref: Express]
However, prominent historian and activist Ibram X. Kendi argues that the US memorial Robert E. Lee glorifies white supremacy and systemic racism. His arguments echo those of many proponents of removing the Robert E. Lee memorial, who view it as a harmful symbol perpetuating a distorted and romanticized view of the Confederacy. It has been argued that the statue’s presence can be deeply offensive to African Americans, as it represents a painful chapter in their history, and it fails to adequately acknowledge the atrocities committed by Confederate forces during the Civil War [Ref: Charlottesville Tomorrow].
However, opponents of removing the Lee memorial emphasise its historical significance and argue for its preservation and recontextualization. They warn against the “slippery slope” of removing all such monuments. Leading Civil War scholar Gary Gallagher supports this perspective, advocating for preserving and contextualizing existing Confederate monuments while also creating new ones. He argues that this approach would provide a more balanced and informative understanding of history and memory [Ref: AEIdeas].
Of course, many dispute that removing statues really represents a historical reckoning at all. One cultural critic insists it is a ‘moral crusade to cleanse history’, and that ‘preserving material (be it inspiring or appalling) allows us better to understand our history and society today; it helps us make judicious decisions about what is right for our future.’ [Ref: Spiked] Yet, as some counter, is removing statues not as much a part of the historical process as keeping them? British commentator Matthew Parris insists: ‘Far from [toppling a statue] being a “writing out of history” it was a writing in of history. History is what happened.’ [Ref: Spectator] Indeed, our understanding and interpretation of historical norms and values changes over time: ‘To reconsider, to recast, is the essence of historical practice. Altering how we present the past is not ahistorical… it represents a more thorough coming to terms with the past and legacies, a refusal to forget.’ [Ref: Chronicle Review]
American historian Allen Guelzo posits that controversial historical monuments should be preserved and supplemented with contextual information rather than eliminated. He contends that these monuments can serve as pedagogical tools, sparking discourse on intricate historical quandaries and societal metamorphosis. By incorporating contextual plaques or interpretive displays, we can cultivate a more nuanced comprehension of the individuals or events commemorated, acknowledging both their salutary and deleterious contributions. Guelzo cautions against the perils of historical erasure, asserting that removing monuments can engender a distorted perception of the past. He maintains that it is imperative to confront history, even its disagreeable facets, in order to glean lessons and forestall future errors. [Ref: USA Today]
Yet, the Mayor of London’s commission, as well as others being created on both sides of the Atlantic, are seen by many as a way to ‘work with their local communities to look at the “appropriateness” of certain monuments and statues on public land and council property’ [Ref: Dorset Echo]. The American Society of Architectural Historians suggests that ‘scholarly consensus is that the original intent of monuments to the Confederacy was to reinforce racist ideals’ and supports and encourages the removal of Confederate monuments from public spaces. [Ref: SAH]
Such initiatives raise the question about who should decide which monuments and plaques should be removed. Do the sentiments of local residents or ‘scholarly consensus’ represent a just mandate for transforming our public spaces? In the case of the Bristol statue of Colston, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson lamented that democratic decisions were being replaced by criminal acts [Ref: BBC]. Indeed, a survey conducted in early 2021 showed that only 16 per cent of black Britons believed toppling statues was a permissible form of protest [Ref: The Sunday Times].
But does this imply that removing statues is right whenever a democratic majority says so? [Ref:The Atlantic] Are democratic decisions made in the present, about our past, susceptible to contemporary political trends? And do government commissions run the risk of taking action for the sake of being seen to ‘do something’? Would a more pragmatic approach be to ‘retain and explain’ the complex history of more controversial figures, as the government has suggested? [Ref: The Times]
A battle over history?
Of course, such debates are never just about the statues themselves, but are a tussle over history, too. As the Oxford-based philosopher Amia Srinivasan argues, the ultimate goal of campaigns such as Rhodes Must Fall is ‘to “decolonise” the university, a broad campaign – of which changing public symbols is only one part’ [Ref: London Review of Books]. But the historian David Olusoga, despite being broadly in favour of removing such statues, argues the discussion about statues can be a distraction: ‘If forced to choose between a proper national debate on racism or the statue wars, which is it to be? … [S]tatues are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.’ [Ref: Guardian] Similarly, writer Kenan Malik suggests that such debates are part and parcel of distracting ‘culture war’ issues: ‘Rather than ask “What are the policy reasons for the lack of housing and stagnating wages?” or “What are the social roots of racism and what structural changes are required to combat it?”, we look to blame the Other, demand recognition for our particular identity and tussle over symbols.’ [Ref: Observer]
Aside from arguments about subjecting historical figures to modern standards of moral judgement [Ref: Guardian], and questioning what good removing a statue will do in a practical sense [Ref: The Conversation], opponents of toppling statues worry that our relationship to the past is becoming fraught or superficial. For these critics, the act of understanding history relies on recognising how the past informs the present, and not editing out parts we don’t like. Allowing monuments to stand isn’t to legitimate the views of nineteenth-century slave holders or imperialists or Confederate generals, but rather, it is part of the ‘challenge of history’ to debate the moral questions the monuments may present, and confront them head-on [Ref: New York Times]. For some, the destruction of monuments is emblematic of a wider contemporary fixation with pathologising the past, ‘treating history as a source of psychological trauma’. [Ref: Spiked] But if ‘anti-racism is a battle for memory’, then history very naturally becomes its battleground [Ref: Jacobin].
In light of the arguments on both sides, should monuments of controversial historical figures be removed, or does this do a disservice to history, and make us victims of history rather than subjects who can understand and engage with it? And who should take these decisions? Are government commissions truly representative of the population as a whole and do they have the authority to take these decisions on behalf of the population today, and the populations of the future?
ESSENTIAL READING
It is crucial for debaters to have read the articles in this section, which provide essential information and arguments for and against the debate motion. Students will be expected to have additional evidence and examples derived from independent research, but they can expect to be criticised if they lack a basic familiarity with the issues raised in the essential reading.
FOR
Want to help defeat racism? Here’s how you can use your power for good
Trevor Phillips The Times 9 June 2020
Opinion: Don’t take down my confederate monuments. Here’s Why
Sophia A. Nelson NBC News 1 June 2017
Towards Britain’s Year Zero
Alexander Adams Spiked 11 June 2020
The trouble with people who lived in the past
David Mitchell Guardian 16 March 2016
AGAINST
For 150 years, Black journalists have known what Confederate monuments really stood for
Donovan Schaefer The Conversation 30 January 2024
Tearing Down Statues Doesn’t Erase History, It Makes Us See It More Clearly
Ernesto Traverso Jacobin 24 June 2020
In praise of statue-toppling
Matthew Paris Spectator 13 June 2020
Statues: the UK’s plan to ‘retain and explain’ problem monuments is a backwards step
Katharina Massing The Conversation 9 March 2021
IN DEPTH / FURTHER READING
Historic Statue Removal – Top 3 Pros & Cons
Britannica Pros & Cons
Why ‘democratic’ approaches to removing problematic statues often fail
Chloe Chaplain The i 14 June 2020
Culture wars risk blinding us to just how liberal we’ve become in the past decades
Kenan Malik Observer 21 June 2020
Rumors of Truth: Rethinking Confederate Monuments
Nicole Penn AEIdeas 10 December 2019
Statue Wars
Mary Beard TLS 11 June 2020
On Name Changing and Statue Toppling
Victor Davis Hanson, National Review, 11 June 2020
Must Rhodes fall?
Matthew D’Ancona New York Times 28 January 2016
Defend US statues and monuments: here’s what the mob really want to destroy
Nile Gardiner and Joseph Loconte The Heritage Foundation 30 Jun 2020
Writer Kendi, heritage center Director Douglas discuss Confederate monuments
Emily Hays and Charlotte Rene Woods Charlottesville Tomorrow 26 September 2019
The ‘statue wars’ must not distract us from a reckoning with racism
David Olusoga Guardian 14 June 2020
How can nations atone for their sins?
Ivan Krastev and Leonard Benardo Prospect 14 July 2020
The history wars
Richard J Evans New Statesman 17 June 2020
The statue-topplers are obsessed with white men and white history
Tanjil Rashid Spectator 20 June 2020
Why Hitler’s house should be destroyed
Jamie Aspden Redbrick 16 November 2016
Removing Confederate monuments in New Orleans is the right thing to do
Stephanie Grace The Advocate 21 March 2016
Why the Austrian government’s plan to demolish Hitler’s birth house is contentious
Luke Fiederer Archdaily 1 November 2016
The terrible problem of Hitler’s earliest home
Jessie Guy-Ryan Atlas Obscura 10 April 2016
Cecil Rhodes colonial legacy must fall – not his statue
Siya Mnyanda Guardian 25 March 2016
Not all racist monuments should be torn down
Zachary Fine New Republic 10 March 2016
Rhodes hasn’t fallen, but the protesters are making me re-think Britain’s past
Timothy Garton Ash Guardian 4 March 2016
New Orleans says goodbye to its Confederate status
Economist 4 February 2016
History is not a morality play: both sides of the Rhodes must fall debate should remember that
Cheryl Hudson The Conversation 30 January 2016
Defending Robert E. Lee
Barry D. Wood Huffington Post 11 January 2016
A short history of statue toppling
Martin Gayford Spectator 9 January 2016
Never mind Rhodes – it’s the cult of the victim that must fall
Brendan O’Neill spiked 28 December 2015
Message to students: Rhodes was no racist
Nigel Biggar The Times 22 December 2015
AUDIO/VIDEO
Memorials, Monuments, and Statues 2020: What to Remove, What to Preserve, and What to Build
New York Historical Society, 19 August 2020
KEY TERMS
Definitions of key concepts that are crucial for understanding the topic. Students should be familiar with these terms and the different ways in which they are used and interpreted and should be prepared to explain their significance.
List of statues removed during George Floyd Protests
American Civil War
Cecil Rhodes
Colonialism
Confederate States of America
Imperialism
Rhodes must fall
BACKGROUNDERS
Useful websites and materials that provide a good starting point for research.
Statement from the Mayor of Bristol
Martin Rees Bristol City Council 15 July 2020
In Russia, They Tore Down Lots of Statues, but Little Changed
Andrew Higgins New York Times July 7 2020
The Case for a Statue of Limitations
Yasmin Sherhan The Atlantic June 25 2020
IN THE NEWS
RFK Jr. says he opposes removing Confederate statues
Zoë Richards and Katherine Koretski NBC News 29 May 2024
London’s new diversity commission ‘not about removing statues’
Aamna Mohdin Guardian 9 February 2021
Historians debate America’s history of racism and Confederate monuments
ABC News, 18 July 2020
Sir Thomas Picton: Statue of ‘sadistic slave owner’ to be removed in Cardiff
Emily Goddard Independent 24 July 2020
Statue of Henrietta Lacks will replace Robert E Lee
Chelsea Bailey, BBC News Washington, 22 December 2022
Tributes to slave traders and colonialists removed across UK
Aamna Mohdin and Rhi Storer Guardian 29 January 2021
Philip Larkin statue placed on secret racism review’s list following Black Lives Matter protests
Craig Simpson Telegraph 6 March 2021
ORGANISATIONS
Links to organisations, campaign groups and official bodies who are referenced within the Topic Guide or which will be of use in providing additional research information.
Who’s Heritage?: Southern Law Poverty Center
Oriel College Oxford
University of Cape Town
Confederate States of America
Imperialism
Rhodes must fall
Debating Matters Transatlantic is a partnership project between Bill of Rights Institute, Ideas Matter and Incubate Debate.
