Recently I’ve hear a lot of people being very critical about the removal of statues from our community. Not just any statues but those of people involved in the slave trade or Nazism or the oppression of people who live/d in countries systematically pillaged by the British Empire. I’ve heard comments such as, `Yes, they might have made their money through slavery but look how much good they did for their community.’ Or, `That was all in the past – we can’t do anything about that now and we should just move forwards.’ Or, `I object to the amount of public money that’s going to be spent on removing statues that could have been put to better use.’ Or, `You can’t just tear down the whole of a city that someone built just because you don’t like something they did.’
These have not been the words of far right, hard-line, white-supremacists: these are the words of intelligent, highly-educated, progressive, liberal-minded, white people. The sort of people who pride themselves on being anti-racist. The sort of people who proudly announce that they’ve got many friends who are black or Asian (just to prove that they’re not racist.) The sort of people who applaud Black History Month. (Why is only one month out of twelve dedicated to Black History? Why isn’t black history taught as part of the History curriculum?) But I digress.
The point I want to make is that a statue is a means of honouring someone: applauding them for their contributions to society. Edward Colson was a philanthropist in Bristol. He put money into schools and hospitals – great! But that money was blood money. It came from trafficking 84,000 men, women and children to the Caribbean and America. Many died en route through the inhumane conditions on his slave ships. The rest were enslaved and the majority were then systematically tortured, raped, mutilated and murdered. Is this really the type of person we want to honour? If you really can’t see why his statue needed to have been taken down decades ago, ask yourself, as an open-minded, liberal white person, would you want a statue of Fred and Rosemary West at the bottom of your road? Or Peter Sutcliffe? Because, believe me, what they did to their victims was peanuts compared to what Colson was a party to.
Now let’s think about Robert Baden-Powell: the founding father of that wonderful institution that, today, teaches children and teenagers to be independent, resourceful individuals, skilled in all sorts of outdoor pursuits. The scouting movement has evolved almost unrecognisably since it’s inception in 1907 – thank goodness. Because Baden-Powell was a Nazi sympathiser whose scouting movement formed the blueprint for the Hitler Youth Programme in 1920s and 30s. Again, would we want to honour that other infamous fascist, Oswald Mosely? I hope and believe that most people can understand why it’s inappropriate and offensive to do so. Bear Grylls, the current Chief Scout is quoted as saying, `We most certainly do not celebrate Baden-Powell for his failings… we know where we came from but we are not going back.’ I don’t think anyone is suggesting going back – without a time machine that’s not even possible – but I’m suggesting that we certainly need to look back at our history (which as been whitewashed to be more palatable for our fragile white egos). Certainly it’s OK to honour the things we’re proud of, but perhaps those more sinister aspects of our history should be displayed in context in museums – and I include Baden-Powell in that.
And, as for Winnie? What can I say? Yes, Churchill was a great orator. Yes, he inspired the allies to defeat Nazi Germany and that was exactly what was needed during the Second World War. But he was also a white supremacist and a mysogynist who believed in eugenics, the British Empire and almost single-handedly brought about Partition in India in 1947. He stepped up to lead his country in the face of invasion and I, for one, am grateful. But the rest of his career, both political and military, was dubious and certainly not one to be honoured.
I have no doubt that people will argue that no one is flawless and I agree: it’s what makes us human. As an author I teach creative writing and I stress that characters need flaws as well as attributes in order to make them whole and rounded. BUT…. if a main character’s flaws outweigh their attributes we are less able to identify them as protagonist or antagonist; hero or villain; goody or baddie. And the same goes for real human beings. It is neither honourable nor advisable to only recognise one facet of a person. You cannot honour the philanthropist without also acknowledging the slave trader; nor the scout master without his fascist leanings, or the orator without his Imperialism.
So why have graven images at all? Why can’t we remember events without the Cult of Personality that detracts from the real history and focuses on individuals? Why not have contextualised resources that demonstrate the full story rather than glorifying one side or one person? Why can’t we begin now to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? History isn’t monochrome. And it certainly isn’t the way it’s been taught in this country for the last couple of hundred years.
Thanks to the BLM protests and social media, every single day I am learning something new about my country and my culture. Without this knowledge I would have continued through my comfortable, white-privileged life, being blinkered to the reality of what has been done in my name.
It’s time we all stepped outside our comfort zones. Because comfort zones are rarely comfortable and, without stepping outside, there is no understanding of the wider world, no learning about things other than ourselves and absolutely no growth.
And without growth there is only atrophy.
Reiki in Wanstead 