• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Iconoclasm (Destroying Icons / Symbols / Monuments)

Status
Not open for further replies.

McAvennie

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 13, 2003
Messages
3,996
"Iconoclasm is the social belief in the importance of the destruction of icons and other images or monuments, most frequently for religious or political reasons."

Given recent events in Bristol and Virginia, what is the mood with regards to the removal of statue's of people deemed by some to no longer be cromulent?

This is not a new phenomenon of course, the statues of Saddam Hussein have gone from Iraq and many Soviet-era statues have been torn down, or relocated to retirement parks, although, hundreds if not thousands do remain across Russia and the former states.

Many Confederate statues have already gone and I suspect the sweep of history will remove many more in the years to come... Purely from an artistic standpoint, the bas relief on Stone Mountain in Georgia would be a terrible loss if ever we reach a point where it is on the frontline of the criticism.

Religious statues from way further back have suffered and been damaged if not destroyed.

What is the preference here? We have semi-regular reviews and remove those that are now deemed to offend? Destroy them forever or move them as pieces of art to a museum or gallery where their story can be told in proper context?

Who decides who should stay and who should go? It surely cannot be a fair approach to leave it to an angry rabble or a zealous local council to decide while someone with similar credentials in a more sedate town remains standing? How do you judge what level of heinous act vs the rest of the person's deeds decides that they should come down?

Should we only have statues that reflect the people of our times, or those who are unequivocally good eggs? There are vast numbers of statues I see who I have no idea who the person is and couldn't give a fig about them. Should they all be removed for no longer being relevant?

Do we even need statues? Would we miss them if they were all removed.

Lastly, at the risk of opening a tinderbox... who would you get rid of. The Duke of Sutherland statue in the north of Scotland would be the first toppled and thrown in the North Sea on my watch, replaced with a large bronze depiction of a Highland family huddled together to mark those who suffered forced eviction by the British from their farmland and homes. Anything of Cromwell as well can come down.
 
It is an interesting point. What about a statue of someone who died bravely in what at the time was seen as a good cause but which we now find ignoble?
 
Lastly, at the risk of opening a tinderbox... who would you get rid of. The Duke of Sutherland statue in the north of Scotland would be the first toppled and thrown in the North Sea on my watch, replaced with a large bronze depiction of a Highland family huddled together to mark those who suffered forced eviction by the British from their farmland and homes. Anything of Cromwell as well can come down.

Agree with the first part. Being Irish I should want Cromwell gone but he really wasn't any different in his attitude to the Irish than those who came before or after him. I do have a soft spot for regicides.

 
If we can keep this discussion at the level of the general and not get into the nitty-gritty of current political events, the moderators would be extremely grateful.
 
Agree with the first part. Being Irish I should want Cromwell gone but he really wasn't any different in his attitude to the Irish than those who came before or after him. I do have a soft spot for regicides.


Having read what latterly happened to his head... I think he has been punished enough. He can keep his statues.
 
I'm hoping that this is the correct place to put this news item: Bristol George Floyd protest: Colston statue toppled. Having used the Search function the only other mention of Colston was in the 'Political Correctness Gone Mad' thread - a few years ago.

I was going to write a post about this subject on another forum of which I'm a member, but thought that there might be a more considered response here.

I'm not a Bristolian and have never even visited the city and, prior to the events yesterday, had never heard of Edward Colston. I am however opposed to the toppling of the statue for two main reasons:

  1. I have no knowledge of, or any real interest in art, but I understand that the statue was a Grade 2 listed monument. If this was the only thing that it had going for it then I would be quite happy to see the city council remove the statue from it's current position and instead place it in a museum - ideally only viewable by prior appointment. But...
  2. by inclination and education I'm a historian. I have a knee-jerk dislike of the destruction of anything that can inform or educate us about the past. I believe that the statue should have remained in situ and could have/should have been used to improve, not just our own knowledge of Britain's dark past as a slaving nation, but the knowledge of future generations also. There should have been an information board that would have put Thomas Colston's legacy in context - not just as a philanthropist; but as someone who made his wealth through the untold misery of tens of thousands of men, women and children. There was, apparently, a decision made to add a second plaque to the statue that would emphasize his involvement in the slave trade - but it seems that every Tom, Dick and Harry wanted to have a hand in it's wording and it's installation has stalled over the last couple of years as a result.
I'm not a member of any minority group however, maybe I'm being unreasonable in finding the tearing down of this monument in this manner distasteful.

Given the generally educated and erudite nature of most of the posters on here ;); is the above reasonable - or should I be applauding the actions of the protesters yesterday?:cheer:
 
Threads on toppling statues merged.

I'll be keeping my own views to myself this time as I'm expecting to have to lock the thread and issue warnings in the next 48hrs.

Please prove me wrong.
 
I'm hoping that this is the correct place to put this news item: Bristol George Floyd protest: Colston statue toppled. Having used the Search function the only other mention of Colston was in the 'Political Correctness Gone Mad' thread - a few years ago.

I was going to write a post about this subject on another forum of which I'm a member, but thought that there might be a more considered response here.

I'm not a Bristolian and have never even visited the city and, prior to the events yesterday, had never heard of Edward Colston. I am however opposed to the toppling of the statue for two main reasons:

  1. I have no knowledge of, or any real interest in art, but I understand that the statue was a Grade 2 listed monument. If this was the only thing that it had going for it then I would be quite happy to see the city council remove the statue from it's current position and instead place it in a museum - ideally only viewable by prior appointment. But...
  2. by inclination and education I'm a historian. I have a knee-jerk dislike of the destruction of anything that can inform or educate us about the past. I believe that the statue should have remained in situ and could have/should have been used to improve, not just our own knowledge of Britain's dark past as a slaving nation, but the knowledge of future generations also. There should have been an information board that would have put Thomas Colston's legacy in context - not just as a philanthropist; but as someone who made his wealth through the untold misery of tens of thousands of men, women and children. There was, apparently, a decision made to add a second plaque to the statue that would emphasize his involvement in the slave trade - but it seems that every Tom, Dick and Harry wanted to have a hand in it's wording and it's installation has stalled over the last couple of years as a result.
I'm not a member of any minority group however, maybe I'm being unreasonable in finding the tearing down of this monument in this manner distasteful.

Given the generally educated and erudite nature of most of the posters on here ;); is the above reasonable - or should I be applauding the actions of the protesters yesterday?:cheer:


If I may disagree with you? Mmmm a philanthropist? Possibly in the very strictest meaning of the word, but even his philanthropy was built on the money he "earned" from the slave trade. If I may use a modern analogy? Jimmy Savile raised vast amounts of money for various charities, should we raise a statue to him? Of course not. There were no complaints in the west that I am aware of at the toppling of statues of Saddam Hussein and various dictators around the world.

Pablo Escobar funded hospitals, schools and orphanages over many years, no one would seriously suggest raising a statue to him In Medellin

I genuinely think Bristol is better without a monument to a vile personage and period of history.
 
Last edited:
Sooner or later any discussion of iconoclasm must confront Santayana's wise words:

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - The Life of Reason

Outright / wholesale elimination of odious past symbols may represent convenient housekeeping for the short term, but it invariably creates blind spots for navigating toward the long term future.
 
My tuppenceworth – while the thread remains civilised.

Statues are not history – they are cultural ephemera which often illuminate the circumstances of their erection much more than the events or individuals they are supposedly intended to memorialise. Their presence is no indication of the health of our understanding of history. Statues are historiography in stone – they are not actual history. In fact, an unhealthy attachment to a lump of bronze on a plinth could be seen as a distraction from the actual blood and sinew of history. History did not disappear in a puff of revisionism when society turned against the institution of slavery, therefore I doubt it will be affected by the removal of the odd lump of associated metal, marble or granite.

That said, I predict an almost inevitable problem with selective blindness.

Some years back there was an issue with the statue of Shaka Zulu at Durban airport. Not because of his aggressive involvement in the wave of inter-tribal warfare that accompanied the period of chaos, displacement and atrocity known as the Mfecane, and which is believed to have resulted in the deaths of between one and two million black Africans, but because his depiction was not considered militaristic enough.

To be honest, I'm not much wedded to an opinion one way or the other; if the good people of Bristol want to get rid of the statue of a slaver and the population of South Africa want to keep the statue of an extremely effective and innovative military leader, I can actually see both their points. I just think - when you actually try and remove emotion from the subject, and apply logic - it could all get very…very complicated.
 
I'm hoping that this is the correct place to put this news item: Bristol George Floyd protest: Colston statue toppled. Having used the Search function the only other mention of Colston was in the 'Political Correctness Gone Mad' thread - a few years ago.

I was going to write a post about this subject on another forum of which I'm a member, but thought that there might be a more considered response here.

I'm not a Bristolian and have never even visited the city and, prior to the events yesterday, had never heard of Edward Colston. I am however opposed to the toppling of the statue for two main reasons:

  1. I have no knowledge of, or any real interest in art, but I understand that the statue was a Grade 2 listed monument. If this was the only thing that it had going for it then I would be quite happy to see the city council remove the statue from it's current position and instead place it in a museum - ideally only viewable by prior appointment. But...
  2. by inclination and education I'm a historian. I have a knee-jerk dislike of the destruction of anything that can inform or educate us about the past. I believe that the statue should have remained in situ and could have/should have been used to improve, not just our own knowledge of Britain's dark past as a slaving nation, but the knowledge of future generations also. There should have been an information board that would have put Thomas Colston's legacy in context - not just as a philanthropist; but as someone who made his wealth through the untold misery of tens of thousands of men, women and children. There was, apparently, a decision made to add a second plaque to the statue that would emphasize his involvement in the slave trade - but it seems that every Tom, Dick and Harry wanted to have a hand in it's wording and it's installation has stalled over the last couple of years as a result.
I'm not a member of any minority group however, maybe I'm being unreasonable in finding the tearing down of this monument in this manner distasteful.

Given the generally educated and erudite nature of most of the posters on here ;); is the above reasonable - or should I be applauding the actions of the protesters yesterday?:cheer:

I think you are genuine in your views and they are certainly balanced towards the interests of the oppressed.

However some of those now protesting at the pulling down of the statue actually proposed vandalising and even stealing any plaque which referred to Colson's murderous past.

A prominent councillor has appeared to advocate vandalism and theft as a row over a second plaque proposed for the controversial statue of Edward Colston intensified.

Cllr Richard Eddy said someone taking the law into the own hands and ‘unilaterally removing’ the plaque, which recognises Colston’s involvement in the transatlantic slave trade, ‘might be justified’.

The plaque is being proposed by the city council’s City Design Group, and a planning application to the council’s own planners has been submitted, because the statue of Edward Colston is a listed monument.

If given planning permission, the plaque will be added to the side of the statue’s plinth, and add to the original plaque on the front, placed there when the statue was unveiled in 1895.

But Cllr Eddy appeared to advocate or support theft or vandalism against that official second plaque. He said he wanted to suggest that any plan to ‘unilaterally remove it might be justified’.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/theft-vandalism-second-colston-statue-1815967

The mayor of Bristol who supported pulling down the statue has suggested that the statue be retrieved and displayed in context in a museum.
 
... I genuinely think Bristol is better without a monument to a vile personage and period of history.

Here's the eternal problem ... There's the symbol, and then there's whatever the symbol symbolizes. These aren't the same thing, if for no other reason than the fact the symbol is what it is whereas its symbolism is subject to variable interpretations and mutations over time.

The dangerous part isn't the monument - it's the memory / mindset symbolized by the monument. Anyone who thinks dispensing with the monument automatically and effectively dispenses with the memory / mindset is a fool (i.e., someone so shallow as to consider face value appearances as the extent of "substance").
 
...Being Irish I should want Cromwell gone but he really wasn't any different in his attitude to the Irish than those who came before or after him. I do have a soft spot for regicides...

On an aside. I once suggested basically the same thing, on another board, I think - quoting a relevant passage from a book I owned.

I was roundly savaged for being an apologist for murder, genocide and empire, and promulgating the vile propaganda of the perfidious Brit.

The book in question was God's Executioner, by Micheál Ó Siochrú.

Clue's in the name, guys.
 
Last edited:
On an aside. I once suggested basically the same thing, on another board, I think - quoting a relevant passage from a book I owned.

I was roundly savaged for being an apologist for murder, genocide and empire, and promulgating the vile propaganda of the perfidious Brit.

The book in question was God's Executioner, by Micheál Ó Siochrú.

Clues in the name, guys.


At the 1991 John Hewitt Summer School I said that Cromwell was the first Republican in Ireland - outrage, pandemonium!
 
My inclination is to leave existing statues alone but add explanatory plaques detailing their crimes & misdemeanors regarding reason for fame, otherwise you're glossing over history to some extent, however unpleasant. Having said that, I doubt the Colston one will be missed by many.

I see that Colston Hall music venue is currently being refurbished & will be renamed. Can't say I disagree with this. The public are being invited to suggest a new name. Let's hope it's not Hally McHall Face.

someone on twitter said

Now Bristol only has:
Colston Hill
Colston Road
Colston Street
Colston Avenue
Colston Parade
Colston Girls’ School
Colston Tower
The Colston Arms
Colston Almshouses
Colston Tower
Colston Fort

Where do you stop?..
 
My inclination is to leave existing statues alone but add explanatory plaques detailing their crimes & misdemeanors regarding reason for fame, otherwise you're glossing over history to some extent, however unpleasant. Having said that, I doubt the Colston one will be missed by many.

I see that Colston Hall music venue is currently being refurbished & will be renamed. Can't say I disagree with this. The public are being invited to suggest a new name. Let's hope it's not Hally McHall Face.

someone on twitter said

Now Bristol only has:
Colston Hill
Colston Road
Colston Street
Colston Avenue
Colston Parade
Colston Girls’ School
Colston Tower
The Colston Arms
Colston Almshouses
Colston Tower
Colston Fort

Where do you stop?..

Demand that the names be changed. If they're not then Bristol should be placed under an international trade and cultural embargo, to be enforced by a UN Naval Blockade.
 
My inclination is to leave existing statues alone but add explanatory plaques detailing their crimes & misdemeanors regarding reason for fame

That's a good idea @hunck, however, as seen with the Colston statue, arguments over the wording of such plaques seems to complicate things further.

I think we should have more statues. Placed close to the Colston statue I would have had one of an African mother and child (dead) with R.A.C. branded on their chest. The explanatory plaque would show it's connection to the Colston statue. If we did this with all problematic, public artworks it would give more information about the person and subject matter, provide work for sculptors and plinth makers, and give tourist guides a visual aid when explaining the contentious issues.

I don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of what happened but it was a moment of history and I'm a bit sorry I wasn't there to see it (I live in Bristol)
 
I'd like to see more statues of people we may have contemporary descriptions of (eg Boudicca) but no contemporary surviving image.

Alfred The Great and Athelstan are currently my Anglo-Saxon pinups, so more of them would be good too!

Edited to add: there are rumours afoot that E. Colston unfortunately tripped, fell down the stairs and fell into the harbour....
 
I for one, am not in favour of demolishing listed edifices.

(I mean, without prior delisting, maybe?)

If we are going to memorialise things that at the time were not considered relevant, we should consider

a) Victims of the Sallee rovers. (not a football team, in case you were wondering)
b) Bonded servants. (a bit of a wide and faceless designation)
c) Absolutley anyone else who was technicaly a British Citizen who was sent somewhere else against their will.

And, come to think of it.

d) The Harrying of the North isnt exactly important to anyone.
e) If we must bring up the subject of Boudicca, we musnt forget she razed three Romano British towns.

And, because we need some positives

f) The West African Fleet, who had no loot, no glory and often died of fever.
 
No easy answers.

In extreme cases - removal.
A statue of Hitler would not be welcome.

But I prefer the addition of an explanatory plaque, rather than wholesale removal.
This offers a balanced view of history - shows that a hero to some was a villain to others.

Admiral Nelson is an example - one of the icons of Englishness - but his father in law was a slave owner, and he wrote to his slave owning friend Simon Taylor of his opposition against the abolishionist movement.

Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square though has at it's base, on one of it's four metal reliefs, a Black sailor (standing, far left).
It is not certain who he was, but there was in the muster rolls for HMS Victory a Black sailor named George Ryan.
So the column is first on my list of explanatory plaques to be added.


nelson.jpg
 
In fairness to Nelson, he simply argued that the middle of a war of survival was not the time to abolish slavery. Of course he may have had underlying motives as well.

One point that confuses me, largely I think because all the websites dealing with the slave trade focus on Wilberforce and later, is when was slavery abolished in England itself? I'm sure I read somewhere that if a slave made it to England they would be free, but I can't find out what time period that was referring to.
 
...One point that confuses me, largely I think because all the websites dealing with the slave trade focus on Wilberforce and later, is when was slavery abolished in England itself? I'm sure I read somewhere that if a slave made it to England they would be free, but I can't find out what time period that was referring to.

I've always remembered my excellent old history teacher - now passed, in very sad circumstances - describing it as two acts and a prologue. The prologue was the finding in a court of law in the latish 1700's that the institution of slavery had no legal basis in English common law. Of the two acts, the former banned the slave trade, but not the institution of slavery - the latter banned slavery altogether.

I remembered all that, but had to look up the dates: 1772, 1807, 1833.
 
At a tangent, after the abolition of slavery in Britain, not only did Britain lose the - IIRC - 2% of her economy that came from the slave trade, but also a large chunk of the - once again IIRC - 4% of her income that came from the sugar trade.

The UK then spent about 2% of its national income (and about 5,000 British lives) for decades in fighting the international slave trade, which alienated several of her major trading partners.

Slavery = bad.

Britain = not nearly as bad as many others.

maximus otter
 
My inclination is to leave existing statues alone but add explanatory plaques detailing their crimes & misdemeanors regarding reason for fame, otherwise you're glossing over history to some extent, however unpleasant. Having said that, I doubt the Colston one will be missed by many.

I see that Colston Hall music venue is currently being refurbished & will be renamed. Can't say I disagree with this. The public are being invited to suggest a new name. Let's hope it's not Hally McHall Face.

someone on twitter said

Now Bristol only has:
Colston Hill
Colston Road
Colston Street
Colston Avenue
Colston Parade
Colston Girls’ School
Colston Tower
The Colston Arms
Colston Almshouses
Colston Tower
Colston Fort

Where do you stop?..
Bristol also has Whiteladies Road and Blackboy Hill.

I work in... Colston Avenue in an office overlooking the statue (or, now, its plinth) and regularly go to gigs at the Colston Hall, though that had already planned to change its name before recent events, and prior to its 2021 repoening; I was one of those who voted for a change of name, as did the great majority of those asked. It's long been a sore point among the city's BAME performers.

My personal opinion – as a history graduate (if that means owt) – is that I would get rid of the Colstons but keep Whiteladies Road and Blackboy Hill as reminders of Bristol's past; I'd also drag the statue out of the river, melt it down for the cash and go on a decent holiday, except we can't go anywhere!
 
Thanks everyone for the replies.

I'll be keeping my own views to myself this time as I'm expecting to have to lock the thread and issue warnings in the next 48hrs.

Thanks for moving this Yithian and I really hope that you don't have to lock the thread:). I'm aware that the subject is contentious and I decided to express my views here rather than elsewhere on the internet because I hoped we could discuss it without it descending into a squabble.

However some of those now protesting at the pulling down of the statue actually proposed vandalising and even stealing any plaque which referred to Colson's murderous past.

Thanks ramonmercado, I wasn't aware that it was quite that contentious. Taking that into account, I suppose then that my preferred option would be to place the statue in a museum where future generations can view it and be informed about Colston's actions in life - and also the circumstances in 2020 that led to the removal of the statue from it's previous place of prominence.

Here's the eternal problem ... There's the symbol, and then there's whatever the symbol symbolizes. These aren't the same thing, if for no other reason than the fact the symbol is what it is whereas its symbolism is subject to variable interpretations and mutations over time.

Yes, I admit that I was quite shocked that the statue was erected as recently as the 1890s. I can only assume that Bristol's city fathers decided at that time that Colston's good works for the city had somehow extirpated the means by which he had obtained his fortune:dunno:. Which, to be clear, in my view couldn't be done. So the statue doesn't just symbolize a slave trader and philanthropist, but also the indifference that our forebears felt for the actions of those who were instrumental in carrying out the former.
Again, I feel that this is something that shouldn't be hidden or forgotten or brushed under the carpet, but remembered - with regret.

And on a lighter note...

I'd like to see more statues of people we may have contemporary descriptions of (eg Boudicca) but no contemporary surviving image.

I can only agree, and I feel that it's high time that this fine fellow had a statue raised to remember him by :D:D:

Calgacus.jpg

Calgacus existed — and so did Jesus

Oh my! Reduced to linking to the Church Times. I'm just off to have a lie down.:eek:
 
After extensive research (checked wikipedia) it seems Blackboy Hill is named after a pub which in turn was named after Charles II who's nickname, was Blackboy due to his black hair.
It also has to be remembered that up until mid-Victorian times at least, referring to someone as a 'black person' meant a white person with black hair.

Re Boadicea / Boudicca - there is a statue of her somewhere in London on her chariot - quite spectacular. I think its on the Embankment.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top