You all know the famous quotation from George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
These words have been very much at the forefront of my thinking recently, not least given Robert Jenrick’s announcement that statues situated in public spaces will now only be removable through the planning system.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is advocating a ‘retain and explain’ policy which would mean that statues would only be taken down in the most exceptional circumstances.
He is quoted as saying: “What has stood for generations should be considered thoughtfully, not removed on a whim. Any removal should require planning permission and local people should have the chance to be properly consulted. Our policy in law will be clear, that we believe in explaining and retaining heritage, not tearing it down.'
His intentions are clearly a reaction to the mob in Bristol who toppled the statue to 17th-century slave trader Edward Colston last year. And, no matter how well-intentioned or accurate they might have been in their critique of this particular person, they were a mob and one intent on violent action against someone else’s property.
Broadly speaking, I applaud Mr Jenrick’s intentions and approach, although I don’t much care for the centralisation of powers proposed when a local council wants to approve the removal of a statue but heritage body Historic England objects, the communities secretary will get the final call.
I am very much against what has been termed ‘cancel culture’, whereby certain groups in our society try to impose their views of a particular person on others without engaging in a mature dialogue with those who might hold less militant views.
You can be sure that even in Suffolk, there are people who would like to remove statues of historical or even non-historical characters with whom they feel no sympathy.
What is to stop such activists from pressurising local councils in getting rid of Thomas Gainsborough in Sudbury (too fawning over the establishment of his day), or Prince Albert outside Framlingham College or even Ipswich’s Giles Grandma (doubtless seen as insulting to women of a certain age by some observers)?
This wokeism made flesh is both simultaneously insulting and naive.
It is insulting because many – admittedly not all – statues in this country were funded through public subscriptions. In other words, they were not imposed on society by an authoritarian body, but reflected a supportive sentiment from ordinary men and women. The proposed statue of Ipswich Town footballer, Kevin Beattie, is an up-to-date example.
What gives campaigners the right to disregard the generosity of previous, as well as contemporary, generations?
It is naïve because it assumes that people cannot hold more than one idea in their heads at any one time. The likes of Colston and dare I say Cecil Rhodes, whose portrayal in stone at Oriel College, Oxford offends some so much that they want it removed, were – like most of us - complex characters. Their reputations are more mixed and complex than their opponents, or even their advocates, might care to admit.
Therefore, given this, surely a better demand would be for the groups agitating for a statue’s destruction/removal would be to campaign for the installation of an alternative statue that encapsulates their views?
This would be an excellent and dynamic way of expressing the complex and diverse histories and views on those histories within our towns and cities.
And of course, those looking to establish such alternatives would be able to lead by example by contributing their own cash.
In short, don’t get rid of statues – build more, instead!
No comments:
Post a Comment