Priti Patel, the home secretary, is quite right. Civic monuments in British cities should not be toppled by angry crowds while nervous police look on inadequately. In Bristol a crowd pulled down a statue of Edward Colston and tipped it into the Avon. When dictatorships are overthrown, such vigilante civic action can warm the heart. In a democracy, under the rule of law, it is unacceptable.None of that is to suggest that Bristol needed a statue of Colston. Certainly it would be incendiary to erect one today. Born in the city in 1636, he was a notable philanthropist. Yet he was also a slaver, responsible for trafficking tens of thousands of Africans. When that statue was erected in 1895, Colston had already been dead for far longer than the statue would stand and slavery had been considered both illegal and abhorrent for well over half a century. Clearly he has become a controversial figure and it is quite reasonable in 2020 to feel that he should not be put on a pedestal. But if that was the overwhelming feeling of the inhabitants of Bristol, perhaps endorsed in a plebiscite, then the statue could have been removed legally.On the same day another crowd in London vandalised a statue of Winston Churchill outside the House of Commons. The intent, presumably, was to spread awareness of his role in contributing to the 1943 Bengal famine, if indeed the crowd knew that. But the effect was to outrage much of the country and display simple ignorance of his vital role in defeating the Nazis in the Second World War and preventing the enslavement of Britain.The question is where does this end and how far should modern Britain judge the past, and its symbols, by contemporary attitudes. Slavery in the 17th century was regarded as unexceptional, however much we might abhor that now. Likewise colonialism was seen as beneficial as it spread the rule of law and western values. Now the debate has started to swirl again around Cecil Rhodes and his statue in Oxford, where he was a generous patron of scholarships. Others, too, may be targeted, such as a statue in Whitehall of Robert Clive, otherwise known as Clive of India. As a self-interested architect of the British Raj, is he to be toppled too? Or Jan Smuts, a friend of Churchill and loyal war ally, but a man who presided over a racist South Africa?Across British cities, many statues today are seen by most as little more than furniture for pigeons and little is known about the person they celebrate. Paid closer attention, some, such as Colston, are hard to justify. Sadiq Khan, the mayor London, has set up a commission to review landmarks in the capital for their suitability. The problem is that it is unlikely to be even-handed and will bring prejudices to the debate, thereby opening another can of worms. The logic of targeting Rhodes leads to targeting Churchill, which could, in turn, lead to targeting Mahatma Gandhi. By modern standards, few historical figures are beyond reproach. We may find we have obliterated symbols of British history thereby leaving people even more ignorant of the past.
Mark Perry ● 2337d