A dangerous destination: why we are missing an opportunity by destroying our material presentations of history
Our monuments across the world continue to fall, arguably in response to faux outrage, limited grasp of facts which in turn satisfies a temporal mood. Do we ever consider what this tells us about ourselves or what these actions could lead to?
I was led to write on this subject solely as we don’t really talk about this too often.
We’ve become accustomed to the televised footage of statues, monuments and buildings being destroyed and removed with some assumption that this delivers justice and salvation, or even absolution, from the wrongdoing that was caused by the individual, concept or act that is in theory ‘celebrated’ with that material presentation.
It seems normal that our monuments, that were once raised or constructed, likely by a considerably sized group of people with a large amount of expenditure and time devoted, are no longer worth their place or stature in our ‘changed’ society of today. I’d like to think there is a silent majority of people that consider this abnormal and quite possibly fairly illogical, as do I. The very aim of those obligating for authorities and groups to discourage the continuation of monuments remaining and to have them removed is to ensure that societies make a statement that they are unwelcoming of the values that monument may represent. Or the person it represents. Or the acts and behaviours that the monuments conjure memory or dedication towards. On the outset, such an aim is pleasing.
I’d like to think there is a silent majority of people that consider this abnormal and quite possibly fairly illogical, as do I.
But what impact has the removal of 700 and likely more statues in the US led to most recently? Heightened division and the awakening of otherwise silent groups of people merely defending what is artwork — an element of their culture or character of their residence. The argument consists of whether to permit the monument to survive or be removed — not if we can modify the existing monumental surroundings. That is exactly what we should wish to introduce to both sides and the general audience of the world. This is not an issue limited to a specific political orientation in a particular country. Across all countries there are historical manifestations in the form of street names, plaques, benches and buildings erected that all create controversy and are inevitably sufficiently defaced or removed, may that be legally or illegally.
This isn’t necessary. It’s a juvenile way in dealing with something that will merely quiet some conceited individuals, rather than address the greater picture.
We’re missing a primary opportunity to neutralise any fear or conflict that could arise from permitting or removing a statue by failing to consider whether we could encourage both sides to collaborate in the modification of the existing site. For example, say a statue of a select dictator, one responsible perhaps for many deaths associated with war and famine, was erected during their popularity in the town where they were born. A town small enough to draw considerable attention to this monument especially when a fair amount of green space is attached in the vicinity. A decision by one side of people would typically be to continue to allow the statue to bear place where it always has. The opposite argument of course advocating removal. What if we were to convert this location into an effective open-air museum and place of historical interest? Several boards of notice could be erected around the site which detail the grave and shocking facts that illustrate the select dictator for who they really were. Countries with difficulty in highlighting their tricky and ugly pasts may avoid such partiality of information by providing the mere “essentials”. This would lead the general public to form their own conclusions.
Several boards of notice could be erected around the site which detail the grave and shocking facts that illustrate the select dictator for who they really were.
This would in turn lead to the manipulation of the site into a place which suggests the statue, albeit untouched, is no longer a sign of support or positive association, rather highlighting of the negative side. Glass panels can be positioned around the statue that bear lighting in the colour red, a colour associated with evil and anger, but also the disallowal and refusal of that individual’s acts in the fair and just society for which we would hope the country in question advocates today, e.g.
It is not being considered what can be worked with or modified with those items you wish to remove, nor do people engage with their opponents in conversation or theories they despise.
We could erect several trees and foliage around the monument and site which would eventually shelter the area more and provide exposure merely to those that wish to visit the site, i.e deteriorate visability to pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the locality or from above, as examples. It would be effectively removed from sight without the necessity to destroy what was at one time in this select society obviously a necessary piece of cultural identity. These locations could subsequently juxtapose those sites which are worth celebrating — of individuals or ideas that were either fundamental in the makeup of the country today or at least are worth continual praise. Light panels with the colour green, information boards that provide positive array of factual content and surroundings that lead to fixation on the monument or artwork erected. This allows a country to modify, with mere creative collaboration, controversial monuments into a diverse profile of monuments that are uninfringed upon but rather secondarily modified (via their surroundings) to support the changes in the country’s character and make clear what is welcomed, tolerated and subsequently rebuked.
It would be effectively removed from sight without the necessity to destroy what was at one time in this select society obviously a necessary piece of cultural identity.
This has clear benefits in preventing the de-colourisation of an area’s cultural identity. It is hardly sensical to suggest that removing statues could derail the name or appeal of an area but as mentioned earlier the buck does not stop at statues. Anything deemed ‘harmful’ or controversial faces removal and this will effectively erase history for those future generations that must surely be provided as much information and exposure as possible as to ensure what happened then, or who happened then, does not arise in another fashion, again…
Anything deemed ‘harmful’ or controversial faces removal and this will effectively erase history for those future generations
If groups of individuals are so devout in their insistence that something is removed, in whatever form that something is, let them be met with the decision that it will not be, open them up however to the idea that they may collaborate with people competent in creating aesthetic modifications to argue their cases and satisfy their possible worries. Instead of simple and blatant gesturing on social media or protesting for ‘removal’, lead these individuals to faciliate actual conversation and meaningful development by getting them involved with people with whom they may disagree (likely those that oppose removal in the first place, or simply dislike the thought of paying with public money to have it done). If not, then the designers, historians and people of different areas that are those ‘people competent’ in creating positive developments.
“Lead these individuals to faciliate actual conversation and meaningful development by getting them involved with people with whom they may disagree”
I don’t expect anything of this calibre to take place in the immediacy, most unfortunately. Lower economically developed countries will lack the manpower and resources, as well as effort, to potentially provide these aesthetic modifications that will derail bids to destroy historical manifestations, with the majority of most prominent manifestations having already been removed or in the process of being so in more economically advantaged countries. But this is a case by case basis.
If by removing the name of a street in exchange for another, less controversial figure, one feels satisfied with some form of success, let this be a method of self-embarrassment. Only by persisting with that street name can it be decisively taught how perhaps ‘misjudgeful’ those in former power were in letting something occur. Would that now happen again? Only by letting something remain can a form of rigorous communication take hopeful place. The notion that ‘everything is now fine’ is petulant and an attempt to mask history and propose that such behaviour can make up for acts in the past. On the contrary, we inherit a growing argument against the presentation of art and historical property for the sake of preventing radicalisation or re-awakening of that political movement or support for that political concept or individual. A campaign of scaremongering without consideration of what damage they could cause.
If by removing the name of a street in exchange for another, less controversial figure, one feels satisfied with some form of success, let this be a method of self-embarrassment.
I’m calling on governments and the general public to alert themselves to the opportunities to boost their messages through the re-consideration of their original destructful intent and ulterior political motives. It is not being considered what can be worked with or modified with those items you wish to remove, nor do people engage with their opponents in conversation or theories they despise. Work with them, not to develop support for them but to find links between their argument and your own. Work with the opposing side to find common ground. In a growing climate where belligerent yelling and inaccurate historical associations appear to be gaining ground, let us find other ways to make our statements such as what has been suggested here and consider the eventual impact on generations to come, a common destination.
Lewis Wells is a senior editor at the Portsmouth Point.
An edited version of this article featured as part of the Portsmouth Point’s ‘Destinations’ issue in 2018.
