View Full Version : Why every statue should come down
I try to stay out of this forum usually but did want to share a Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/jun/01/gary-younge-why-every-single-statue-should-come-down-rhodes-colston?utm_term=5a8b9a0ae17251f25784a41a7beb4c37&utm_campaign=TheLongRead&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=longread_email article that really made me think seriously about the turbulence, policies and the commemoration throughout history.
Canada is as vulnerable as any other country.
"The story starts in the mid-19th century, when the designers of Trafalgar Square decided that there would be one huge column for Horatio Nelson and four smaller plinths for statues surrounding it. They managed to put statues on three of the plinths before running out of money, leaving the fourth one bare. A government advisory group, convened in 1999, decided that this fourth plinth should be a site for a rotating exhibition of contemporary sculpture. Responsibility for the site went to the new mayor of London, Ken Livingstone.
Livingstone, whom I did not know, asked me if I would be on the committee, which I joined in 2002. The committee met every six weeks, working out the most engaged, popular way to include the public in the process. I was asked if I would chair the meetings because they wanted someone outside the arts and I agreed. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, the Queen Mother died. That had nothing to do with me. Given that she was 101 her passing was a much anticipated, if very sad, event. Less anticipated was the suggestion by Simon Hughes, a Liberal Democrat MP and potential candidate for the London mayoralty, that the Queen Mother’s likeness be placed on the vacant fourth plinth. Worlds collided.
The next day, the Daily Mail ran a front page headline: “Carve her name in pride - Join our campaign for a statue of the Queen Mother to be erected in Trafalgar Square (whatever the panjandrums of political correctness say!)” Inside, an editorial asked whether our committee “would really respond to the national mood and agree a memorial in Trafalgar Square”.
Never mind that a committee, convened by parliament, had already decided how the plinth should be filled. Never mind that it was supposed to be an equestrian statue and that the Queen Mother will not be remembered for riding horses. Never mind that no one from the royal family or any elected official had approached us...
This, however, was simply the most insistent attempt to find a human occupant for the plinth. ..
But with each request I got, I would make the petitioner an offer: if you can name those who occupy the other three plinths, then the fourth is yours. Of course, the plinth was not actually in my gift. But that didn’t matter because I knew I would never have to deliver. I knew the answer because I had made it my business to. The other three were Maj Gen Sir Henry Havelock, who distinguished himself during what is now known as the Indian Rebellion of 1857, when an uprising of thousands of Indians ended in slaughter; Gen Sir Charles Napier, who crushed a rebellion in Ireland and conquered the Sindh province in what is now Pakistan; and King George IV, an alcoholic, debtor and womaniser...
[None are memorable for positive reasons today.]
But history is not set in stone. It is a living discipline, subject to excavation, evolution and maturation. Our understanding of the past shifts. Our views on women’s suffrage, sexuality, medicine, education, child-rearing and masculinity are not the same as they were 50 years ago, and will be different again in another 50 years. But while our sense of who we are, what is acceptable and what is possible changes with time, statues don’t. They stand, indifferent to the play of events, impervious to the tides of thought that might wash over them and the winds of change that that swirl around them – or at least they do until we decide to take them down..."
John A MacDonald is considered the Father of Canada's Confederation but also was the one who wished to convert all aboriginals in Canada to European modes of thinking and education at the time by enforced withdrawal of the youth from their homes and families and into residential schools.
I found it an interesting read and quite thought.-provoking
iris lilies
6-6-21, 10:38am
I agree that “history is not set in stone…it is a living discipline.” As such, the living get to decide which of the dead are honored, and that is done according to cultural ideas of the moment.
But we all have our own ideas of what to value. For instance, I dont care much about statues in a nearby Park because I do not know those guys, they were local beer barons who built stuff around here.
My own neighborhood park has one of the 7 Hubbard casts of the famous Houdon statue of George Washington. I am dreading the day when cultural warriors come after our George. Perhaps he will be overlooked because who expects an important public statue in our tiny neighborhood Park? It is not on the radar of many people. It is there hiding in plain sight, often the best place to hide stuff.
The Victorians loved to put up statues to honor themselves and their coherts. That isnt done much these days so likely future generations will not have this particular cross to bear, the honoring of old dead white men as embodied in their likeness.
It speaks to the imbecility of the present age that so many of us insist on viewing history as a morality play. We think we can punish figures of the past we disapprove of by tearing down their images from the public square. We sit in judgment of historical eras from the comfort and safety of today, enjoying a vicarious thrill of superiority.
I’m more of a believer in the warts and all viewpoint. I think it’s more important in using history to help understand how we got to where we are rather than a tool assigning which group is indebted to which other group based on the actions of their ancestors. Removing artwork from our cultural refrigerator seems a little childish to me.
iris lilies
6-6-21, 1:54pm
It speaks to the imbecility of the present age that so many of us insist on viewing history as a morality play. We think we can punish figures of the past we disapprove of by tearing down their images from the public square. We sit in judgment of historical eras from the comfort and safety of today, enjoying a vicarious thrill of superiority.
I’m more of a believer in the warts and all viewpoint. I think it’s more important in using history to help understand how we got to where we are rather than a tool assigning which group is indebted to which other group based on the actions of their ancestors. Removing artwork from our cultural refrigerator seems a little childish to me.
I agree that dislike of the subject is a main idea behind much of this statue removal, but I also think in the bigger picture that public art should be allowed to change after review. It costs money to maintain public art, and the public art that was favored in 1895 is not favored in 2021. It is art. Tastes change.
early morning
6-6-21, 2:06pm
Thanks for posting this article, razz. If we actually DID use history to help understand how we got where we are, I would agree, cheerfully, with LDAHL. But we, as a society, do not do this. Instead we get this:
https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2021/06/02/veterans-audio-cut-when-he-discusses-blacks-role-memorial-day-speech-hudson-ohio/7508217002/
nutshell version:Hudson Ohio American Legion cuts mic to their own keynote speaker when he talks about Black Americans' contributions to the history of Memorial Day.
So currently, I'm in the "move statues of people to museums or just remove them" camp. We sanitize history far too much.
Added: I agree with IL that much pubic art should be changed from time to time!
I agree that dislike of the subject is a main idea behind much of this statue removal, but I also think in the bigger picture that public art should be allowed to change after review. It costs money to maintain public art, and the public art that was favored in 1895 is not favored in 2021. It is art. Tastes change.
I agree that tastes change over time, but I think some (not all) art of the past should be preserved as part of a slow, deliberative process. It shouldn’t be a matter of fleeting fashion the way it seems to be today, with ad hoc groups appointing themselves as censors of the past. We preserve certain buildings by law. Maybe we should preserve certain works of monumental art no matter how offensive they might be to the sensibilities of (for example) the current generation of Oberlin undergraduates. Not all, by any means, but a decent representative sample.
Are most statues really art? Or, simply a prize handed out like ribbons in kid's races?
I saw the statue of David in Florence by Michelangelo and was awe-struck at how much feeling and movement the body conveyed. Not fair to compare most statues to the one of David though.
As I mentioned at the outset, the article triggered a lot of thought about the purpose of statues.
What I liken this to is the attention the Taliban got when they threatened (and finally executed) the destruction of two ancient stone Buddha statues. I was really, really sad to hear that. I'm not Buddhist, but I love artifacts of antiquity. I thought the destruction of those statues was terrible.
So, when thinking it through, my vote leans towards more that LDAHL is suggesting--that many of these statues are artifacts of history and culture, and one man's (or woman's) Taliban God is another man's Buddhist one.
But I don't believe the issue is black and white. Relevancy is important, historical truth is important, artistic value is important, and I don't think sentiment is the final arbiter.
But I don't believe the issue is black and white. Relevancy is important, historical truth is important, artistic value is important, and I don't think sentiment is the final arbiter.
This is very well-said and encompasses how I feel as well. I also think there is a big difference between "removal" and "destruction". Of the two, I choose removal.
iris lilies
6-6-21, 6:00pm
Are most statues really art? Or, simply a prize handed out like ribbons in kid's races?
I saw the statue of David in Florence by Michelangelo and was awe-struck at how much feeling and movement the body conveyed. Not fair to compare most statues to the one of David though.
As I mentioned at the outset, the article triggered a lot of thought about the purpose of statues.
Yes it is public art. That’s what the Victorians liked. Just because these Victorian statues are more recent than the David statue doesn’t make them any less Art. They may be less important art, but they are still Art with a capital A.
Sculptors spent years making these big bronze likenesses of people around our town. Yes they are artists, they studied art, anatomy, etc.
The Story of Harriet Hosmer, a Victorian woman who was a sculptor associated with st.Louis who worked in Italy, should convince you they are creating art:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Hosmer
She created a huge and important statue also in my neighborhood park, The statue of Thomas Hart Benton who was an important St. Louis political figure. I contributed $5000 a dozen years ago towards its renovation. While it’s not my favorite piece of statuary, it is the one that was undergoing renovation at the time.
ToomuchStuff
6-7-21, 12:02am
Yes it is public art. That’s what the Victorians liked. Just because these Victorian statues are more recent than the David statue doesn’t make them any less Art. They may be less important art, but they are still Art with a capital A.
Being art, is subject to interpretation, IMHO. To me statues are just big pieces of concrete/marble/bronze, etc, that are a memorial to an idea of someone that meant something to them, but to me, are just places for pigeons to sit (or spelled a bit different).
They are much a remembrance of time in the same way their subject matter is a remembrance of time.
Being British equestrian statues, I would not be surprised to see someone saying Camilla Parker Bowles could have been placed under the queen mother.>8)
Harriet Hosmer is an artist and an amazing individual. Thanks for sharing that.
I saw a bronze statue https://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-madrid-don-quixote-sancho-panza-statue-cervantes-memorial-sculptor-lorenzo-coullaut-valera-plaza-espana-march-image32508966 of Don Quixote on a horse accompanied by Sancho Panza in Madrid. The emotions
that all the figures conveyed were quite amazing. There was no person commemorated as much an image of the imagination. That is art to me.
That is why I have a hard time with removing all statues. Some are just ego trips, some are extraordinary works and some do just support pigeons. I don't agree with throwing the 'baby out with the bath water' so would struggle with decisions made to remove all statues.
iris lilies
6-7-21, 11:57am
The first thing our city’s first female mayor did, about 4 years ago, was to put to bed the conflict about a monument in our biggest city park. The mo I ent was erected by the daughters of men who died fighting for the South in our War between the States (American Civil War.).
I personally didn’t care if the monuments stayed or went, but because it was a continuing issue of contention, I was glad to see it go. My main concern in its disposal was where is it going? Will it be preserved? And yes, it went to the organization that handles war artifacts it is museum. , I don’t think it will be assembled for quite a while if ever in my lifetime, but at least the pieces are all in one place. And if someone wants to donate a ton of money to put it together in a permanent place, they can do that.
gimmethesimplelife
6-14-21, 11:55pm
On this one I tend to pull out a rare conservative card. I believe it's in society's best interest to leave statues standing - no matter how repulsive one finds the one commemerated. If Auschwitz can remain standing as a warning of how dark human nature can be - statues in the US can stand, too. It's not like bulldozing them will rewrite history. Rob
Without statues, this wouldn't have happened:
https://ebth-com-production.imgix.net/2015/03/01/18/47/25/459/DSCN4454.jpg?ixlib=rb-3.1.0&w=1400&h=2100&fit=max&crop=&auto=format
They can melt down all the typical statues to make plowshares, for all I care, but I do rather like Portland's Joan of Arc.
Teacher Terry
6-15-21, 12:24pm
Rob, I totally agree with you. I went to auschwitz and it was powerful. I had a panic attack but was determined to finish the tour and the only way to describe what I felt is that I felt like I could feel the people’s souls.
On this one I tend to pull out a rare conservative card. I believe it's in society's best interest to leave statues standing - no matter how repulsive one finds the one commemerated. If Auschwitz can remain standing as a warning of how dark human nature can be - statues in the US can stand, too. It's not like bulldozing them will rewrite history. Rob
Auschwitz is not in the middle of the town square, where the few remaining Jews, the homosexuals, the Romani, and the other oppressed folks have to walk past every single day.
The Civil-War-Hero honoring statues were put up in prominent public places to subjugate the unruly and remind them of their place(*). They are more akin to putting up statues of Hitler in the middle of town 40 years after the war than to Auschwitz.
Remove them to a sculpture museum.
(*) See also "current wave of efforts to suppress voting..."
iris lilies
6-15-21, 2:37pm
? What happened here:)
Oops wrong thread!
Auschwitz is not in the middle of the town square, where the few remaining Jews, the homosexuals, the Romani, and the other oppressed folks have to walk past every single day.
The Civil-War-Hero honoring statues were put up in prominent public places to subjugate the unruly and remind them of their place(*). They are more akin to putting up statues of Hitler in the middle of town 40 years after the war than to Auschwitz.
Remove them to a sculpture museum.
(*) See also "current wave of efforts to suppress voting..."
Everything old is new again--Jim Crow, fascism, the robber barons, keep reappearing like noxious weeds and have to be beaten back, apparently.
Teacher Terry
6-15-21, 3:54pm
Good point Bae. Museums appear to be the best solution.
Everything old is new again--Jim Crow, fascism, the robber barons, keep reappearing like noxious weeds and have to be beaten back, apparently.
At least as hackneyed insults.
At least as hackneyed insults.
Is it one, two or all three that you refuse to believe is coming back?
happystuff
6-16-21, 11:10am
Yes, I agree with the museums as a solution. They will "fit" in a museum if considered history, art or both.
Is it one, two or all three that you refuse to believe is coming back?
More as memes than in actuality.
The party that invented “Jim Crow” to pretend to protect white people from black people now uses it as an epithet to pretend they are protecting black people from white people. They apply it to any election law change, no matter how trivial, to try justifying a bill that would seize power allocated by the Constitution to the states, violate the privacy of donors and limit speech.
The “Robber Baron” charge is the overlap of two myths. The first is that we could provide some vision of a Euro-welfare state without a Euro-tax regime. We just need to soak the rich. And happily, the second myth is that the rich came by their wealth dishonesty and unfairly and therefore deserve a good soaking.
And “fascist” has been so overused and trivialized in progressive polemic that it has the rhetorical value of Zimbabwean currency. It has been reduced to a sort of constant term in formulaic thinking for anything even vaguely undesirable. A reductio ad hitlerum.
For the record, no one believes it when republicans pull the ‘but we’re the party of Lincoln’ BS when discussing racism. Political parties and their members change over time. There is simply no connection between the ‘party of Lincoln’ and the current ‘the party of the big lie.’
Similarly their is not a lot of connection between the party of Jim Crow and the Democrats today. If only for the reason that many of the Jim Crow democrats switched to the Republican Party after their party passed the civil rights acts.
For the record, no one believes it when republicans pull the ‘but we’re the party of Lincoln’ BS when discussing racism. Political parties and their members change over time. There is simply no connection between the ‘party of Lincoln’ and the current ‘the party of the big lie.’
Similarly their is not a lot of connection between the party of Jim Crow and the Democrats today. If only for the reason that many of the Jim Crow democrats switched to the Republican Party after their party passed the civil rights acts.That's an interesting take on things even if it's mostly BS since both the 1957 and 1964 civil rights bills passed with near unanimous Republican support along with a small minority of Democratic party support. I kind of admire people willing to go to such great lengths to justify their delusions. ;)
But more importantly, I find it really interesting in the context of this discussion to see folks support removing statues or other memorabilia because of their 'history' while ignoring or downplaying the 'history' of their favorite ideological institutions. By your own statue logic your political party should be shunned and relegated to the ash heap of history for it's actions, and yet, it's not. Weird.
Feel free to deny that the south was a Democratic stronghold until after the civil rights bills passed but it was. As Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips stated in a NY Times interview in 1970 explaining Nixon's Southern Strategy "From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
Feel free to deny that the south was a Democratic stronghold until after the civil rights bills passed but it was. I've never denied the south was a Democratic stronghold but having been a southerner during that period I remember things a little differently. I seem to recall mass defections from the party of slavery and the KKK over social welfare programs designed to increase dependence and purchase votes.
I think it's important to consider all the options of the time. Why would a southern Democrat become a Republican based on disapproval of civil rights legislation when it was the Republicans who provided those protections? No, I think those former Democrats simply disapproved of the Democrats social dependence agenda. Remember that they were the descendants of the Confederacy and well remembered all powerful government intrusion into lives. Believe it or not, not all personal decisions are based on race.
Strom Thurmond would probably disagree with your odd perception of history.
Strom Thurmond would probably disagree with your odd perception of history.I would think that even Strom Thurmond might think it odd that all this time later the Democratic Party is still fixated on race as a means to divide people and make their members feel better about themselves.
I would think that even Strom Thurmond might think it odd that all this time later the Democratic Party is still fixated on race as a means to divide people and make their members feel better about themselves.
But he'd surely be pleased that the republican party is still using race to whip up fear and get votes.
But he'd surely be pleased that the republican party is still using race to whip up fear and get votes.Since the Democratic Party and 90% of our media have fully committed to the all race all the time agenda I can see how you might think any resistance would be bad, especially since the agenda requires everyone to be on board or face the consequences.
I used to think that sort of thing was amusing in a shoot yourself in the foot sort of way, but I'm now concerned that the racial agenda has become bullet proof. Reason, fair play and equality are now seen as negative characteristics, hopefully that will soon run its course and we can stop arguing about all this foolishness.
happystuff
6-19-21, 7:17pm
Since the Democratic Party and 90% of our media have fully committed to the all race all the time agenda I can see how you might think any resistance would be bad, especially since the agenda requires everyone to be on board or face the consequences.
I used to think that sort of thing was amusing in a shoot yourself in the foot sort of way, but I'm now concerned that the racial agenda has become bullet proof. Reason, fair play and equality are now seen as negative characteristics, hopefully that will soon run its course and we can stop arguing about all this foolishness.
Spoken like a true privileged white man.
Edited to add: I know the above statement reads somewhat nasty, but I really don't mean it that way... rather, to call it foolishness and wait for the whole thing to go away is something that is more often said by someone who is not on the receiving end of negative racism.
Spoken like a true privileged white man.
Edited to add: I know the above statement reads somewhat nasty, but I really don't mean it that way... rather, to call it foolishness and wait for the whole thing to go away is something that is more often said by someone who is not on the receiving end of negative racism.See, that's the kind of foolishness I was referring to, isn't being called a privileged white man for not thinking and speaking in the correct way a form of negative racism?
Must we always defend ourselves against negativity for not following the popular agenda?
happystuff
6-19-21, 8:00pm
See, that's the kind of foolishness I was referring to, isn't being called a privileged white man for not thinking and speaking in the correct way a form of negative racism?
Must we always defend ourselves against negativity for not following the popular agenda?
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!! You objected to being called a "privileged white man" and you spoke up and said something! You defended yourself against the negativity, just as - in my opinion - you should. Just as others are standing up to defend themselves.
In my opinion it's not about a "correct way of speaking", but being non-racist to begin with. You may call it following a "proper agenda", but I call it an agenda with issues that have been a long time needing to be addressed - not trivialized and hoping it "runs its course". I don't think it is foolishness.
"Fair play" Bwahaha. Two words--Mitch McDonnell.
I recognize there are exceptions, but I don't recognize "fair play" as an inhabitant of the Republican universe.Their gold-plated deck is permanently stacked in their favor.
Thomas Sowell once said something to the effect that if you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, then you would have been called a radical sixty years ago, a liberal thirty years ago and a racist today.
As we move from talking about “equality” to talking about “equity”, I think he was on to something.
Thomas Sowell once said ......
I love Thomas Sowell, another of my favorites: “Racism does not have a good track record. It's been tried out for a long time and you'd think by now we'd want to put an end to it instead of putting it under new management.”
ApatheticNoMore
6-20-21, 12:12pm
The only thing where judging people by the same standards can make much sense is the legal system, I mean it collapses into a nonsense statement when applied to anything else (I suppose one may do some judging in their personal life, it seems insignificant). And in the legal system it's never been the case.
https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/210065627_1222547868174875_986743474703248867_n.jp g?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=KvUhBdRGi6gAX-GGKtX&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-2.xx&oh=b9d2594cc690b4c49c0662c26b3d81d2&oe=60E40BA5
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.