I suppose what i am saying is single issue perspectives never permit grey areas. But actually, shades of grey is the space we inhabit. A person did this thing and it had these benign and malign effects. Or he did these two things, and one looks good in hindsight, the other notsomuch.
Can we use these things to understand the world? Or are we going to keep on thinking in black and white?
Horatio Nelson opposed ending the slave trade. Bad chap. Horatio Nelson saved Britain from Napoleon. Hero. Same guy. Has a column in Trafalgar Square. Do we topple him and rename the square because Trafalgar was one of the naval engagements he won?
George Washington was also a slave owner. So was Tom Jefferson.
Part of the issue seems to be that people assume putting up a statue grants status to the subject. Clearly that was intended for Nelson. There are plenty of statues of America's founding fathers. The capital city of the USA is named after a slave holder.
A museum filled with statues for some of these imperfect humans, which removes the status the plinth confers, would be nice to have.
If the public wishes, fill the vacant squares with statues of virtuous bores who ventured nothing and made no risk of their purity.
For me, I would mostly leave the past alone. Instead, just rethink how to understand people from the past. They were as human as we are.
| 