-
Regarding the "erasing history" accusation, there are lots of historically significant figures who don't have a statue anywhere. All a statue proves is that at some point someone with enough power and cash thought you were worth making a statue of. So that argument boils down to "well it's already there and it's a reminder that some people once thought that being a slave trader could be overlooked in favour of other, better characteristics."
As a piece of artwork, it's probably not that significant and public art gets installed and removed all the time. I can't really see any argument for leaving it publicly installed except for the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument that everyone's imperfect and especially if you judge people in the past by today's standards. If you tear down every statue that anyone finds objectionable, soon none will be left. But thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments are, more often than not, shite.
You are reading a single comment by @ffm and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
ffm
It's funny how people talk about removing statues as erasing history, when the Edward Colston has been raised and debates in mainstream media and public consciousness more in the last two days than in the previous three centuries.
As a history teacher who teaches two courses about colonialism I can confirm you can teach about people who do not have statues erected in their honour. And that there are probably more statues in London of complete unknowns who don't merit a mention than there are right-wing talking heads complaining about the end of history.