Stone Statues Versus Mental Statues

The real obstacles facing the Black Lives Matter movement

Since the murder of George Floyd by police officer Edward Chauvin in Minneapolis on 25th May 2020, the storm that has raged across the globe has worked its way towards statues, specifically those representing colonialist exploitation.

Put simply, all the slavery is a fine thing statues are being toppled, smashed and drowned. Only their structural makeup has saved them from being smelted down on the spot and remade into raised fist salutes across the land.

At first my response was viscerally joyous. But once the heat of the moment had passed, a different thought process set in. Because statues have been with us a long time, and they’re not going anywhere.

The Löwenmensch figurine, or Lion-man (or woman) of the Hohlenstein-Stadel Caves in Germany, is carbon dated at 35,000 — to 40,000 years old. It may not be the oldest, just the oldest found to date, but 40,000 years is still getting on a bit.

One of those that triggered debate (again) is the statue of Bristol politician Edward Colston. Colston was a controversial figure for years, with many local groups having campaigned for his statue to be removed due to his profits from slave trading activities. On 7th June 2020, his statue was pulled down and thrown into the River Avon. On 15th July 2020, artist Marc Quinn temporarily installed, in Colston’s place, the statue of Jen Reid, a BLM protester.

However, Colston is no different in his mindset or activity from the political and cultural beliefs of his day. In order to undo the wrongs of history, almost all of these icons strewn about the British Isles would have to be erased or edited.

Statues under regime change

Statues have always been transient, erected for the time that serves their political message. In 1686 the statue of James II was thrown into the River Tyne in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Who were the protesters then? Why, the local population: rallying against the king for trying to force his Catholic faith on them.

However, some seem to have missed this memo. When Colston’s statue was toppled, Pritti Patel, the UK’s Home Secretary, called it ‘utterly disgraceful’. What would she say of the toppling of statues of Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and Hitler? After all, at one time all three were considered ‘great men’ that had helped their country’s progress socially, politically, and economically.

Some factions are keen to protect the statues, finding it hard to let go. Even though most of them would have been excluded from the society of those they’re protecting. As members of the ‘lower classes’ when these statues were erected, the knighted Sir Fotheringham-Biddesley would never have shaken hands with them but, by god old chum, none of that matters. Because they shared the same colour of blood (white) and given the opportunity those scorned individuals would do the same to their own.

After all, we were once the great British Empire .

How many toppled statues will it take to eradicate those views today?

Not one. The removal of the statues change nothing in history in which layers of racism lie centuries thick. Some years ago, I was in discussion with a colleague over the line in the British National Anthem: Britons never shall be slaves. To this I laughingly added the word again; pointing out that the English had already been slaves and, over centuries, subject to invasion by many. After the Vikings and the Romans, William the Conqueror treated Britons like second class citizens. His response? “Oh, but that’s different: they were all white.”

It was tragic, laughable, and frightening. In his mind, the enslavement, torture, and murder of his ancestors meant nothing, as long as he could identify in some way with those who had enslaved them. And he was right. Racial similarity often makes assimilation, identity and forgiveness easier.

This is a human failing which streaks across all races and all groups. Like many older generations in the Caribbean who will declare proudly that they’re British and feel offended if they're addressed as African, like the Angolan colleague who told me proudly that most Angolans today speak Portuguese and not 'those backward bongo-bongo' languages, the statues in these minds are immovable.

When is a statue not a statue?

The Thriee Dikgosi, Wikipedia

Generally statues are there to showcase culture, war, sovereignty, rebellion, conquest, or victory. In Botswana, the Three Dikgosi Monument or the Three Chiefs. features Khama III of Bangwato, Sebele I of Bakwena, and Bathoen I of Bangwakets. All three were instrumental in helping Botswana to gain her independence from the British Empire.

If any African country deserved to put up statues of their national heroes, it is Botswana. Coming from being one of Africa's poorest countries when colonialism ended, the Three Chiefs, as they're known, travelled to the UK to negotiate for Botswana to have a relative level of autonomy. Perhaps being landlocked helped it, as the ruthless extraction of Africa's resources were being leeched from those countries nearer the coast. But today, Botswana has become one of Africa's most stable countries, with very low levels of corruption and a good human rights record. It also has the continent's longest continuous multi-party democracy.

Wise managment of the country's resources - it is the world's largest producer of diamonds - along with protection of some of the largest natural areas in Africa has placed Botswana as a middle-income country. Today the average salary in Botswana is the equivalient of US$12,000. Despite the economy contracting from COVID-19, Botswana's economy is expected to grow again in 2022.

The Statue of Unity, Wikipedia

The Statue of Unity in Gujarat, India is currently world’s tallest statue. Standing almost 600 feet tall, it displays the figure of Indian freedom fighter, politician, and diplomat Vallabhbhai Jhaverbhai Patel, more popularly known as Sardar Patel who also eased India away from the clutches of the British empire.

Sardar represents another national hero who brought his country from the yoke of colonialism.

In such cases, it is not about the statues but what they represent, and even though the location of the statue has attracted controvery - several villagers have been displaced for the construction - there is no denying the ideological importance of such landmarks for national pride and sense of legacy.

Ideologies of Beauty

Alison Lapper Pregnant by Marc Quinn

Trafalgar Square is for other things

Statues abound across the world and all in some way fit an accepted pattern for deification. Break that ideological spell, and statues lose that intrigue. In September 2005 artist Marc Quinn unveiled a statue of Alison Lapper, in Trafalgar Square naked and pregnant. In pose and style, it wasn't dissimilar to the Venus de Milo. However, one London newspaper called it “repellent.” Some said it was “ugly” and not art. A House of Lords politician, Lord Hattersley stated, ‘Trafalgar Square is for other things.’

Venus de Milo had arms that had broken off; Alison was born without any

But apart from the contemporary and classical setting, what was the difference between Alison Lapper and the Venus de Milo? One is that the statue of Venus de Milo had arms that had broken off; Alison was born without any. Alison was not considered a heroic enough figure to be shown.

What we revere and choose to ignore the symbolism of statues has always been messy. Take Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, three world leaders still adored by millions. Statues of all three stand in Parliament Square.

While fighting for so-called equality, Ghandi was still willing to accept a hierarchy that placed blacks below Indians, and Indians below whites.

Yet Churchill considered Ghandi to be a “posing as a fakir of a type well known in the East, striding half-naked up the steps of the Vice regal palace.” For his part, Gandhi, believed that, in South Africa, white people should be “the predominating race.” and that black people were “troublesome, very dirty and live like animals.” While fighting for so-called equality, Ghandi was still willing to accept a hierarchy that placed blacks below Indians, and Indians below whites.

Just a fancy barmaid

Photo by Look up London

The statue of Jamaican Mary Seacole, voted the Greatest Black Briton in 2004, stands outside St Thomas’ hospital in London, a twelve-year -battle of fundraising and lobbying for a process that normally takes two years).

Seacole, who described herself as a doctress travelled to during the Crimea War, with the aim of supporting British soldiers. While Nightingale ran a clinical hospital, Seacole went out on the field with her medicine bag to tend to officers. Yet Seacole’s statue has attracted criticism from those who object to her being placed on par with Nightingale. They also argue Seacole’s statue is taller than Nightingale’s and can be seen from Westminster Bridge. The adding of Seacole to the school curriculum brought a storm of protest from conservative media, on the grounds she was ‘not really black,’ just a fancy barmaid, Michael Gove, the Education Minister, demanded she be expunged from the school’s history curriculum.

Who cares if you suffered? We were Emperors

Will tearing down these statues change any of the ideologies they represent? On their own, no. Statues are just a small visual representation of what went before. We still have books, laws, artwork, sayings, proverbs, songs, cultural practices, and beliefs. Removing statues doesn’t remove the colour bar many Caribbean people faced even when they were fighting to put Britain back together again. It doesn’t remove the King Leopolds. It certainly doesn’t remove those non-black, non-white gate-keepers of a racist hierarchy who will happily kick back down those striving upwards.

Perhaps it’s not about removing, but adding. Africa, which gave the West so much of its wealth, sits in Western visibility as a bunch of children with their eyes filled with flies, or dragging water to a well. In Hollywood movies where a disaster affects the ‘entire’ planet, Africa is off-planet.

Can we expect miracles of a society that sent its own children up chimneys and down mines to die?

Yes. Cue 2020: dishing out miracles and horror across the globe. It may burn out by December. However it may do some good if alongside (as seems to be the case) people are being forced to rethink other elements of history, specifically those that glorify the proponents of slavery and exploitation.

In the end, the statues don’t represent the real obstacle. Rather, it’s the pull of colonial inheritance. Replacing those layers of ideology with the desire to look across at rather than down on, is a difficult traverse for the human psyche. It may take a miracle. But then again, isn’t that what 2020’s here for?