Statues Plaques and Other Constructions of Past Slave Owners

Statues, Plaques and Other Constructions of Past Slave-Owners: To Remove or Not?

Introduction

The unfortunate death of George Floyd in the United States while under the police custody not only sent shockwaves in the country and the world, but also reignited anger and demonstrations in various parts of the world. These demonstrations, that were mostly organized and led by the Black Lives Matter movement, were held to demand justice for George Floyd and to protest what the movement termed as structural inequalities that exposed the African Americans to racial discrimination and police brutality. In the course of these demonstrations and protests, attention was also turned to constructions such as statues and plaques that glorify past slave-owners, some of whom oversaw the worst crimes in the history of the world. This gave rise to the debate of whether past slave-owners’ statues and plaques, should be pulled down in support of the Black Lives Matter movement or to be left as they were. Students seeking history dissertation help may find this topic particularly relevant and intriguing for their research.

It is in light of this ensuing debate that the Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) Student Union is issuing this statement to give its overall position on the topic- how these statues, plaques and other constructions should be treated, and a recommendation of the overall position that the country or globe should take in this respect.

Responses to Problematic Memorials

Protesters in Bristol, on the 7th of June, 2020, tore down the Edward Colston statue and threw it into the harbor- an action that served as a prelude to multiple similar actions that followed afterwards as people revaluated the issue of statues, particularly those of past slave-owners, in the country (Hunt, 2020). While some of the various interested parties, including organizations, movements and even universities were in support of the removal of these structures, others argued that despite the troubling history that they represent, these structures serve as a key reminder of our past and should therefore not be removed or destroyed. Among the proponents of their removal is Oxford University’s Oriel College which voted for the removal of the Victorian imperialist Cecil Rhodes’ statue in its compound, on the premise that he profited from slave trade. This came by following the Rhodes Must Fall campaign that students had led in the college. Although this campaign had started four years ago, it slowed down after the graduation of the students that led it, but was reignited by the Black Lives Matter demonstrations across the UK that saw the toppling of Edward Colston’s statue in Bristol (Mohdin and Quinn, 2020). The reignition of the Rhodes Must Fall campaign led to protests outside the college for the two weeks prior to the decision by the college to remove the statue of Cecil Rhodes. Besides demonstrating solidarity with the Black Lives Matter protests, this was also regarded as the institution’s way of improving its anti-racist policies with regard to staff and student recruitment and treatment, as well as reviewing its commitment to diversity by improving the Black, Asian and ethnic minority’s access and attendance of the college- a stand supported by Simukai Chigidu who is a founding member of the Rhodes Must Fall campaign and an associate professor at the University (Mohdin and Quinn, 2020).

This announcement was so important given that the University had, in 2016, been threatened with the loss of £100 million in gifts should it take down the statue, leading to it deciding not to remove the statue despite the demand of the protesters (Moore, 2020), but only suggesting modifications that amplify its history. This development highlights the influence that the funding associated with these controversial statues has on universities (Mohdin and Quinn, 2020).

Moore (2020) argues that while the removal of these past slave-owners’ statues would constitute an erasure of history, retaining them would also act as a romanticisation of such figures and an encouragement of their tainted actions. In response to a Rhodes Must Fall campaign student journalist writing in 2016 that having the statue was a demonstration of the ‘distortion and glorification of imperial activity’ and the ‘willingness to produce and reproduce exalted legacies on a foundation of human suffering’, Moore (2020) suggests that removing their statues will not result in them being forgotten but will rather (should the current momentum succeed) ‘receive fairer critical treatment in museums, textbooks and schools’. It is Moore’s (2020) suggestion that removing controversial figures’ statues would be seeking to rewrite the past (‘our own flawed remembrance of the immoral and exploitative figures in British history’), instead of rewriting slave trade and colonialism. Rather, he suggests the re-evaluation of our association with the past as well as the acknowledgement that it was wrong to uncritically praise Rhodes and Colston, and the country accepting its persistent imperial mindset. On this, Moore (2020) acknowledges that removing or retaining these controversial statues are both flawed responses, and suggests the movement of Statues such as Colston’s that glorify individuals with very few positive historical contribution to the museum, and leaving those of individuals that evoke mixed feelings, while adapting them to fully explain their contexts.

The heightened push for the removal of statues and memorials of individuals who bore responsibility for colonial violence by anti-racist campaigners following the Black Lives Matter protests have culminated in the demands for the removal of the stained-glass memorial window in Gonville and Caius College. The memorial window honours Ronald Fisher, who was a controversial biologist and statistician, with interest in eugenics and who held strong views on race. This memorial window is one of the 78 memorials and statues that have been identified and compiled on the ‘Topple the Racists’ website (Hunt, 2020). To this, Hunt (2020) posits that whereas slave trade was horrific and racism in all its forms cannot be tolerated, the ‘strength of the feeling is starting to get out of hand’. Therefore, while the ‘hit list’ of the 78 statues and memorials targeted for removal by the ‘Topple the Racists’ website comprises ‘cases where there is a responsibility for colonial violence’, including the stained glass window, removing this memorial would appear as a case of a simple argument that the views held by Ronald Fisher, which were not uncommon then, are intolerable and unacceptable today; instead of removing a statue that glorifies an individual or even a person who premised his contribution to knowledge and the university on racism or the profits of slavery (Hunt, 2020). Hunt (2020) also argues that Ronald Fisher cannot be claimed to have had a substantial ‘responsibility for colonial violence’ given that most of his writings and work in the 1930s were on biology, and therefore the anti-racist campaigners’, key among them the Black Lives Matter movement, efforts to destroy statues and other edifices presents their aim of rewriting history. This cases bears a strong similarity to the ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ campaign (highlighted above) given that in both cases the issues are not so clearly highlighted. In response to the demands for the removal of the statue of Cecil Rhodes from Oxford University, Daniel Hannan, a former conservative MEP, tweeted about the generosity of Cecil Rhodes that enabled thousands of young people to acquire an education that they would not have gotten without Rhode’s generosity, and went on to ask why anyone would contribute to an institution that treated its benefactors that way (Hunt, 2020).

The removal and/or destruction of statues and other constructions that glorify controversial individuals has also been strongly opposed by the UK government Universities Minister, Michelle Donelan, who while asserting that doing so would signify a short-sighted attempt at rewriting our history, also rejected efforts that she described as aimed at censoring or editing the past. Michelle Donelan’s sentiments were echoed by the Oxford University vice-chancellor, Professor Louise Richardson, who offered little support for the removal of the Cecil Rhodes statue arguing that it would constitute hiding the past/history, which was not the route to enlightenment. She further argued for the need to understand our history as well as the context in which it was made and the reason that led people to believe as they did then, and that while these people were wrong, they should be judged in the context of their time.

The Union’s Position

In light of these arguments, it is the ARU Student Union’s position that whereas the removal of controversial individual’s statues or their retention both present problems, it would be more prudent to leave the existing statues as removing them would constitute an erasure and tearing down of history. As Hunt (2020) stated, allowing anti-racist campaigners to decide the statues and memorials to tear down and which should remain standing is problematic as it remains unclear where or when it will end, and that the removal of the identified statues may not automatically result in the end of racism. Instead, the true context of the history associated with the controversial statues should be clearly given so as to demystify the notion that their negative contributions and actions are being romanticized or glorified. These statues should serve as a reminder of our dark history and to set us on the path of moving beyond our imperialist mindset so as to create a cohesive society premised on positive cultural foundations. This way, the world would become a better place. As such, the union suggests the retention and clear contextualization of controversial memorials as the overall position that the world should take regarding the statues and memorials of controversial individuals.

References

Hunt, M., 2020. Tearing down history. [online]. University Matters Ltd. Available at: [accessed 30 December 2021]

Mohdin, A., and Quinn, B., 2020. Oxford college backs removal of Cecil Rhodes statue. The Guardian. [online] 17 June. Available at: [accessed 30 December 2021]

Moore, J., 2020. On the Removal of Statues. [online] The Cambridge Student. Available at: [accessed 30 December 2021]

Looking for further insights on Society's Influence on Criminal Behavior? Click here.