The Bristol slave trader Edward Colston statue toppled by BLM protesters has been retrieved from harbour. Photo: Bristol Council
For generations in cities and towns all over the UK, serious-looking men (it is nearly always men) have looked down on shoppers and tourists going about their business. In most cases the exploits of these individuals have long been forgotten by most who see them. They are just big lumps of bronze or stone clad in eighteenth and nineteenth century outfits looming over our streets and harbours.
The killing of an ordinary man on the streets of an ordinary city in the United States has changed the way many now look at some of these monuments. They are no longer simple street furniture or convenient meeting places, but have become a stark reminder of some of our less than auspicious history. They now represent the dark side of empire and the far from great aspects of the history of Great Britain.
For a good number of years in the US statues from the dark side of their history have been under attack. Confederate generals and monuments to rebel victories in the American Civil War have been vandalised or removed by local authorities, many of these now reside in museums where appropriate historical facts can be given about what some of these men really stood for. Not a romantic lost cause, but a symbol of institutionalised brutality that turned millions of human beings into property for profit.
Now in the UK the statues of those who built and maintained the British Empire are coming under increased attack. It started with Cecil Rhodes whose statue adorns Oriel College Oxford, probably not so much for his imperialist exploits but for endowing the university with a scholarship fund. The Rhodes Must Fall campaign has been arguing for its removal for a number of years now and the campaign to remove monuments and statues similarly linked to the Empire is now intensifying.
Opinion polls on the subject of should they stay or should they go are remarkably balanced. For every one who wants them gone there is one who wants them to stay. While the reason behind removing them is virtually unanimous, the reason for wanting to keep them is more ambiguous. Not everyone who wants to keep them is an imperialist, a racist or a xenophobe, some just like them for what they are. A street decoration or just somewhere convenient to meet someone. So why should we get rid of them?
The toppling of Edward Colston’s statue in Bristol may very well be an act of vandalism, as described by several members of our present government. The removal of Robert Milligan’s statue was however nothing of the sort, but what is fundamentally of more importance than how the statues were removed is what on Earth were they doing there at all? How is it possible that well into the 21st century we are still displaying images and paying tribute to men who were brutal slave traders and by implication mass murderers. It may very well be the case that these long dead ‘merchants and adventurers’ were philanthropic, giving huge amounts of money to their towns and colleges — but that money was blood money.
How would the supporters of these statues react if the local council in Munich erected a statue to Heinrich Himmler, another mass murdering slave owner from a more recent period
in history? Is it the historical context that matters? Is it only the slave trading empire building characters from Britain’s imperialist past that we need to remove? Some are calling for a more radical approach, even demanding that Winston Churchill and Oliver Cromwell are removed from the environs of Parliament.
This is the problem with movements, a sound idea in the first instance nearly always overstretches its remit often to ridiculous extremes. In removing statues that cause offence, where will we draw the line?
On the 14th October 2016 in Berkhamsted a bronze bust was unveiled of William the Conqueror, one of the most important Kings in English history. William was a heroic champion undoubtedly, but like the others heroes of our colourful past, he was also a mass murderer and ruthless despot who placed virtually the whole of Saxon England into bond serfdom and massacred tens of thousands of people as an example to others. If Edward Colston was a monster, and he undoubtedly was even by the standards of his time, King William the 1st was no less so.
Sharing the environs of Parliament with Churchill and Cromwell we find another great English, well French actually, king. Richard the Lionheart stands triumphant, sword in hand in the Old Palace Yard. Generations of British school children were educated to believe he was one of the greats. We now of course know that he was a genocidal crusader, who delighted in slaughtering Muslims, with scant regard for the country that reveres him spending the vast majority of his reign on crusade or in France. Why do we celebrate such a man with a statue?
Standing on the wall of the BBC headquarters in Portland Place is another statue with horrific associations. Eric Gill, its sculptor, was a sexual pervert of astounding depravity and the BBC has an unfortunate recent history with people like that. Just as with mass murderers and slave owners, we have to ask what it says about our society that it remains where it is.
The anti-statue movement has its work cut out at this rate just deciding who we can keep and who should go. While it is clear that statues of Edward Colston and his ilk have no place on our streets, someone is going to have to come up with a more coherent strategy for determining which monuments and statues must go and which must stay.
What the statue debate has taught us is that we urgently need to revisit our history and to place in perspective the things we revere and celebrate as our heritage. We cannot preach to others about values when our own are so mixed up.
Spotted an error? Please notify us by selecting that text and pressing Ctrl+Enter.
Barry Turner is Senior Lecturer in Media Law and Public Administration at the University of Lincoln.
The Lincolnite welcomes your views. All comments are reactively-moderated and must obey the house rules. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers.
The Lincolnite welcomes your views. All comments are reactively-moderated and must obey the house rules. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers.
The 32-year-old man and 30-year-old woman arrested in the murder probe of an 11-year-old boy in Lincoln have both been released on police bail, without any charges.
The man was arrested on suspicion of murder and the woman on suspicion of manslaughter after an incident at a house on Geneva Street on St Giles in Lincoln.
Police were called to the house at 10pm on Friday night, January 22.
The 11-year-old boy was found unwell at the scene and was taken to hospital for treatment.
He was pronounced dead a short time later.
At the time Lincolnshire Police said the death was unexplained and it was treated as murder.
The man and the woman arrested at the weekend were released on police bail on Monday evening.
Lincolnshire Police said in a statement on Monday night:
“Once again, we’d like to remind people that this is an active investigation and that an 11-year-old boy has sadly lost his life.
“Speculative comments are not only deeply upsetting to those involved but can potentially undermine our investigation.
“If you have any information that can help, call 101 or email [email protected] quoting incident 472 of January 22.”
There have been 259 new coronavirus cases and seven COVID-related deaths in Greater Lincolnshire on Monday.
The government’s COVID-19 dashboard recorded 213 new cases in Lincolnshire, 28 in North Lincolnshire and 18 in North East Lincolnshire.
Some six deaths were registered in Lincolnshire and one in North Lincolnshire. These figures include deaths both in and out of hospitals, as well as residents in hospitals outside the county.
NHS England reported four new local hospital deaths at United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust on Monday.
National cases increased by 22,195 to 3,669,658 — the lowest daily rise in cases since December 15, while deaths rose by 592 to 98,531.
A mass rapid testing centre has opened on Croft Street off Monks Road in Lincoln for people with and without coronavirus symptoms after relocating from the LNER Stadium.
Some 2,298 people were tested, with 42 positive results at the site on Sincil Bank between January 11 to 24.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is giving out more than £23 million to 60 councils across England including £494,800 to Boston Borough Council and £397,204 to North Lincolnshire Council.
In national news, the government will tell teachers and parents when schools in England can reopen “as soon as we can”, the prime minister has said.
MPs have called on the government to set out a “route map” for reopening amid concerns for children’s education.
Men in low-skilled jobs or caring, leisure or other service roles had the highest rate of death from COVID-19 in England and Wales from March to December last year, according to new figures.
The Office for National Statistics said 7,961 deaths involving coronavirus in the working age population (those aged 20 to 64 years) were registered between March 9 and December 28, 2020.
Leader of the Labour Party Sir Keir Starmer is self-isolating for the third time since the start of the pandemic after coming into contact with someone who has tested positive for coronavirus.
This morning I was notified that I must self isolate after coming into contact with someone who has tested positive for COVID-19.
I have no symptoms and will be working from home until next Monday.
Greater Lincolnshire has seen an average fall in its infection rate, with just a small increase in South Holland but a spike in Boston from 168.2 per 100,000 of the population on Friday to 205.2 on Monday.
National infection rates have also seen a large fall over the weekend from 472.9 on Friday to 420.7 on Monday.
Here’s Greater Lincolnshire’s infection rate up to January 25 according to the government dashboard:
Greater Lincolnshire’s infection rates from Jan 18 to Jan 25. | Data: Gov UK / Table: James Mayer for The Lincolnite
Coronavirus data for Greater Lincolnshire on Monday, January 25
Greater Lincolnshire includes Lincolnshire and the unitary authorities of North and North East (Northern) Lincolnshire.
46,422 cases (up 259)
32,441 in Lincolnshire (up 213)
7,154 in North Lincolnshire (up 28)
6,827 in North East Lincolnshire (up 18)
1,787 deaths (up seven)
1,279 from Lincolnshire (up six)
275 from North Lincolnshire (up one)
233 from North East Lincolnshire (no change)
of which 1,066 hospital deaths (up four)
653 at United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust (up four)
33 at Lincolnshire Community Health Service hospitals (no change)
1 at Lincolnshire Partnership Foundation Trust (no change)
379 in Northern Lincolnshire (NLAG) (no change)
3,669,658 UK cases, 98,531 deaths
DATA SOURCE — FIGURES CORRECT AT THE TIME OF the latest update. postcode data includes deaths not in healthcare facilities or in hospitals outside authority boundaries.
Ten people from Boston have been given fines for breaching COVID-19 regulations by driving dangerously in supermarket car parks.
Officers were called after three separate reports of dangerous driving in the car parks of Lidl and Tesco in Wyberton Fen, as well as on Marsh Lane Industrial Estate in Boston.
All three incidents took place and were reported to police between 5pm and 6pm on Sunday, January 24, though it is unsure if they were connected at all.
When officers arrived, the drivers were seen doing donut manoeuvres and racing in the snow.
A total of 10 people were given £200 fines for breaking lockdown guidelines, but this will be reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days, due to all being first time offenders.
As well as the COVID-19 fines, two of the vehicles were also seized as a result of being uninsured, with drivers reported.
A traffic offence report was also submitted after one driver was seen to be driving not just dangerously but out of control.
Inspector Fran Harrod of Lincolnshire Police said: “We would like to thank the public for bringing these incidents of dangerous driving to our attention.
“This is not only extremely dangerous to those taking part but to others in these areas.
“While we continue to engage and explain with the public, this was a blatant breach of the restrictions which will not be tolerated.”