What role do statues, monuments and memorials play in modern Britain? - The British Empire

British Empire
1815-1914
Go to content
What role do statues, monuments and memorials play in modern Britain?

The statue of Edward Colston at the M Shed Museum Bristol,
photo credit: Adrian Boliston
Thropughout history statues have been taken down
In recent years and especially in the last couple of months with the development of the Black Lives Matter movement, there have been large scale demonstrations throughout the world to pull down statues that are deemed by some to be offensive and not represent the values of today. Throughout history statues  have been taken down, most often following momentous changes in societies as during the French and Russian Revolutions. In revolutionary France statues were taken down by angry mobs when they thought statues represented past kings of France. Following the collapse of Nazi Germany monuments everywhere were taken down by Allied soldiers and German citizens themselves. After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein his statues were toppled in Iraq. Russia has seen a number of revolutionary movements in the c20th and first statues of the Tsars were taken down, then replaced by statues of Lenin and Stalin and then they in turn were replaced by the statues of the Tsarist kings.

In recent years in the USA there have been campaigns to have Civil War statues commemorating Confederate military and political leaders taken down. Such statues have become rallying points for some groups who have an alternative view of the past and a vision for the future that is different from the mainstream view. The ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ movement began at the University of Cape Town in 2015, leading to the dismantling of a statue which was for many a symbol of continuing inequality in South Africa’s educational system. In Britain, demonstrations against the Rhodes statue at Oriel College led to the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry led by Carole Souter.
Statues are regarded by some sections of society as not representing current values and seen as causing offence by being constant reminders of the suffering and oppression of exploited peoples. Yet there is a debate over whether  they should be taken down with supporters of statues saying that they are an important part of our historic environment and can teach lessons about the past.
General Charles James Napier
Why are statues put up in the first place?
Most statues were erected to remind us of a significant event and to honour the contribution of a particular person to society. As many of Britain’s statues were erected in the Victorian era, the majority of our statues are of military men who helped to create and defend the British Empire. Such statues were often erected not just to commemorate an event and become part of our collective memory but to encourage a feeling of national pride, such as  when  Britain was losing its military and economic over the rest of the world in the late c19th. Statues of men like Clive, Wolseley, Napier, and Havelock, reminded people of the nation’s glorious recent past and the values of Victorian society. Trafalgar Square has three statues of such men but how many of them can we name?
Statues are not always erected in living memory of the subject. There are times in history when statues are erected for political purposes such as those Confederate statues which were  erected at the end of World War One, to act as a clarion call to those who opposed the extension of the franchise and the liberation of black people from Jim Crow laws. The Colston statue in Bristol was put up in 1895, many years after his life (he was born in 1636), to recognise his philanthropic work and to encourage the philanthropy of others.

In ancient Greek cities statues were everywhere: statues of gods, athletic heroes, foreign kings, and politicians and mostly of men. There were perhaps 3,000  bronze statues in the cities of Rhodes and Athens alone. Such statues were of the powerful and those who had worked for the community and their subjects were given almost god-like status. They were taken down usually because once overthrown they became hated figures.

Many statues in Europe were put up in the late c19th, many of them by newly independent states attempting to create a national identity. Myths were created around heroes of a previous age to establish links with a glorious past and the values of a previous age. Between 1848 and 1914 major European cities saw the erection of dozens of new statues. Paris had 78 new statues, Berlin 59, London 61 in this age of ‘statuomania’. Many of these statues now define those cities. The bronze statue of Joan of Arc is a familiar sight in the Place des Pyramides as is Richard I outside the Palace of Westminster. In Berlin, the statue of Frederick the Great on Unter der Linden cannot be separated from the history of the city as is the case of the Brandenburger Gate which has become a symbol of Germany’s changing history and a symbol of peace.
 
Following the independence of Belgium in 1830, its leaders tried to forge a new national identity and statues were an important part of that project. Such statues honoured figures from the distant past such as Charlemagne, Rubens and Vesalius who were seen to embrace typical Belgian values and to establish a link with the past. Such statues therefore were part of trying to create a particular view of the past. Similarly, in Italy in the 1920s and 30s, Mussolini tried to establish links between his regime and the Roman Empire and erected many statues of figures that were replicas of ancient roman statues. Such statues are now the subject of debates over whether they should remain or not.
How are statues, memorials, and monuments different?
Much of the recent debate has been about the place of statues in our society with little thought being given to memorials and monuments which also play a part in helping us to remember the past. Memorials are often erected to commemorate those who have died in a civilian disaster such as a mining disaster or air crash. They help stimulate feelings of common solidarity and help individuals come to terms with their grief. Private grief becomes easier to bear when shared with others and  memorials can help loved ones to come to terms with their losses. Many of our memorials commemorate the dead in Britain’s wars and as such can be the target of a minority who see the participants of war as a legitimate target. As a nation we commemorate the dead from both World Wars in an annual Remembrance Day ceremony at the Cenotaph, and we commemorate the many anniversaries of those wars.

The Cenotaph
In recent years Remembrance Day has figured more prominently with schools, shops, and work- places, stopping for a minute or two minutes silence.

Blue Plaques have been used since 1867 to remind us of a connection between a location and an individual who has made a significant contribution to ‘human welfare and happiness’. Such plaques acknowledge the local links of people made famous by what they have done in their own field.

Most European capitals  have numerous large monuments which do not necessarily revere one person but have become symbols of the capital itself. The Arc De Triomphe was built to commemorate the dead in  France’s revolutionary wars, the Brandenburg gate in Berlin has become a symbol of the turmoil of European history and a symbol of European unity and peace. London has many monuments, particularly around Hyde Park Corner commemorating the contribution of particular countries and groups of soldiers or airmen in Britain’s history. Such monuments have come to symbolise our towns and cities whatever the original reason for their erection.

Statues and monuments may be erected for a particular purpose but over the course of time attitudes to them change and in fact in the course of huge social change may well be toppled. Statues become part of a town or city’s townscape and although when constructed they are just pieces of metal or wood or other materials, they acquire a symbolic value. Such symbolism can mean they are associated with a particular regime or ideology which when it is overturned, the statue is toppled. The Colston statue was built to remind the city of Bristol of Colston’s contribution to the city but in time the statue came to represent the city’s links with slavery. The Cromwell statue in Parliament Square was erected in 1899 to commemorate his role in overthrowing absolute monarchy but in time he was criticised for his genocide in Ireland.

The Berlin Wall was regarded as a symbol of oppression by those in the west but  to those living in the east the wall was regarded as a means of protecting a lifestyle. The fall of the wall was heralded in the west as a symbol for the fall of communism but to those who lived in East Germany, the fall of the wall came to symbolise an end to a life they had grown up with and to those values which  were very much part of them. Bringing the wall down came to symbolise to those people a devaluing of their life’s values.
 
Monuments, memorials, and statues are part of our cultural memory, but they are not history. They were part of the creation of a particular narrative that might not accord with the view that we now have of the past. Memory is therefore not history and the two should not be confused. History is about using sources critically and coming to a view of the past based on those sources but accepting that different historians and societies may well have a different view of the past. Certainly, as new sources come to light, the past is re-interpreted. Although memorials, monuments and statues are not history they are useful to anyone wanting to know about the past. They are clues to the development of the area in which they sit, and they can provoke questions about the past, if we are brave enough to provide a context and even make them part of an outdoor exhibition.
Should we therefore remove all of our statues?
There is a view that statues, memorials, and monuments together form part of our cultural identity and help to create our national identity. As such they should therefore reflect current values and reflect who we are and who we want to be. Statues which do not reflect such values therefore have no place in our townscape and should be taken down. If we want statues then we should have statues that reflect a modern multi-cultural Britain.

Statues when erected were never intended to be there for an indefinite period and over time many statues were removed to different locations, were destroyed in war, plundered to decorate the houses of the wealthy or destroyed for political reasons. The Romans in particular were well known for destroying statues of enemies of the state and disgraced rulers. Removing statues could be therefore the natural order. However, the value of statues to the historian is now recognised. Many Greek and Roman statues are now regarded as objects of historical value and are in museums.
 
For Trevor Pateman, an essayist from Brighton, the answer is simple. Statues are not needed to remind us of our past and have no value so should be taken down. We need to deal with our obsession with forgetting the past. He claims we try to remember too much and that ‘our over-stuffed streets cluttered with bronze and stone effigies, monuments in perpetuity to personages who were erected in order not to be forgotten’. Pateman goes on to say about the monuments in Trafalgar Square that nobody knows and cares. In a conference organised by Historic England in 2018 David Olusoga, historian, said that statues make no difference to our daily lives.
For many though statues, memorials and monuments have an important value in helping us make sense of our past. Although they were built and became part of our collective memory, statues are now part of our built environment, lending historical character to our towns and cities and also are important clues about the past. Not only do statues reflect the historical development of an area they can provoke questions about the past and help us deal with important questions. For Historic England statues and have a vital role in helping us to understand our past and should be preserved.

Histories may be re-told or reinterpreted but, once lost, the historic environment cannot be re-made. This built historic record remains our shared physical legacy of humankind. It prompts us to address our past, as understood and narrated by each generation. New responses can involve re-interpretation, new layers and installations, new artworks, displays and counter-memorials, as well as intangible interventions, such as education programmes.

Even when statues are contested Historic England believes they should not be removed.
When an object or building becomes contested, there are sometimes calls to remove or alter the building or monument. As the Government's adviser on the historic environment, we believe that removing difficult and contentious parts of the historic environment would risk harming our understanding of our collective past.  Instead, we would usually recommend that clear, long-lasting and/or innovative reinterpretation at or near a contested object or site can be used in order to reflect a changed context and contemporary understanding of the (say) statue or memorial.
 
In an article in the New Statesman (19-25 July 2020), Professor Evans argued that the statues erected at the height of imperial power  do not belong in 21st-century Britain but toppling monuments will not help us properly understand our past or resolve our present troubles.

Rather than remove statues we should use them to improve our understanding about our imperial past. For too long Britain has been afraid to confront its imperial past and have failed to take the British Empire seriously as a historical topic. Serious debate has been confined to academia and those schools that teach one of the few courses on the British Empire. Real debate about the British Empire has been stifled by our own sensibilities and fears about the past. Without an understanding of the British Empire we cannot understand the world in which we live. The British Empire at its height ruled over a quarter of the world's population with territories in every part of the world. There was not a part of the world that it did not touch, and the areas marked red on classroom maps were just the tip of the iceberg, with Britain's informal empire arguably more important than the official empire. The British Empire affected the course of western civilisation and influenced the development of every territory it came into contact with.
The story of an empire built on violence needs to be told
The British Empire was built and maintained by violence and thousands and thousands died at the hands of the British or as a result of the policies of the British. We need to tell the stories of how native people suffered and died, and the resistance to the empire . We need to know not just about the British role in the slave trade and slavery itself, but the history of slavery and empire and the efforts of the British to eradicate slavery in Africa and the Middle East. We also need to understand how Indian migration of indentured servants to Africa and Mauritius led to later problems in Uganda and Kenya. We also need to learn how the British managed to rule over so many people with so few officials of its own and the part played in local elites in governing colonies.
The looting of the Summer Palace in Peking
Hidden away in museums and archives throughout Britain are  sources that can help to provide a different narrative of the empire. I have been working for some time on the letters of General Wolseley who was in India during the Indian rebellion and himself benefitted from the looting of the Imperial Place in Peking and the Asante palace in Kumasi. These letters are stuck away and rarely seen. They should be part of an exhibition that focuses on Wolseley and his life as an imperial general who joined the British army as a cadet and rose to become Commander-in-Chief at the time of the Second Anglo-Boer War.
Brighton was also the home to Ranjitsinhji when he was playing for Sussex in the 1890s and the early 1900s. Ranji, as he was commonly known, was the first non-white to play for England at cricket and indeed for any sport. Yet we have no memorial of him apart from a name on a bus. As a nation we must learn about the British Empire and understand the subjects of the monuments and statues that many wish to knock down.
The past is complicated and different
Figures like Cecil Rhodes were not isolated characters in history who committed acts of evil. They were representatives of a society that believed that Britain was a superior nation which should civilise the world. Rhodes’ views on imperialism were shaped by John Ruskin who gave his inaugural lecture at Oxford whilst Rhodes was at Oxford in which he said:
Ranji - the first non-white to play cricket for England
The Rhodes Statue at Oriel College, Oxford
There is a destiny now possible to us, the highest ever set before a nation to be accepted or refused. Will you youths of England make your country again a royal throne of kings, a sceptred isle, ….This is what England must do or perish: she must found colonies as fast and as far as she is able… seizing every piece of fruitful waste ground she can set her feet on, and there teaching those of her colonists that their chief virtue is to be fidelity to their country, and their first aim is to advance the power of England by land and sea.'
By the 1870s attitudes were changing towards native people and in the Cape Colony there was an increasing tendency to regard Africans as an inferior species incapable of attaining the same standards as whites. These new racist attitudes were justified and given ideological justification by the work of Herbert Spencer in his book, Principles of Biology. Rhodes would have been subjected to the views of both Ruskin and Spencer whilst at Oxford. He was to enunciate his views in his 'Confession of Faith' in 1876: Why should we not form a secret society with but one object, the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule? In a later addition to this will, he stated, Whites have clearly come out on top in the struggle for existence and achieved the highest standard of human existence.
 
In the Cape Parliament Rhodes needed the support of the Afrikaner Bond in his plans to extend his influence and economic empire to the north. Supporting  the Voter Registration Act which had the effect of reducing the black franchise, a policy of the Afrikaner Bund, was one way of getting the parliamentary support he needed. Speaking in  Parliament in support of the passage of the bill to reduce the franchise for blacks Rhodes said, Does this House think it is right that men in a state of pure barbarism should have the franchise and the vote? Treat the natives as a subject people...Be the lords over them...The native is to be treated as a child and denied the franchise...We must adopt a system of despotism in our relations with the barbarians of South Africa.

In 1894 when Rhodes visited England as Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, there was hardly a newspaper that did not record his arrival in London. He was welcomed wherever he went, no more so than when he was again invited to stay at Windsor. He was later on this trip to be made a privy councillor, his thanks for extending the empire into Mashonaland and Matabeleland.

Rhodes was a racist and whilst Prime Minister did much to create apartheid, particularly by the passing of the Glen Grey Act. He was though typical of the age in his attitudes towards native people and although there was opposition to his schemes to extend the lands of the British South Africa Company, he did gain the support of the cabinet and much of the British press.
Should we remove statues to museums?
Some commentators have called for statues to be removed to museums. Dr Richard Evans argues that ‘toppling monuments does not mean erasing history nor is putting them in a museum a way of removing them from public scrutiny. He says that pulling down statues has nothing to do with history and everything to do with memory.
 
I would argue that although statues were erected to remember and therefore part of creating our collective memory, they have become important historical sources and have created debate about the past. Who would have heard of Colston and Rhodes if it were not for their statues? We need to make use of such monuments to promote a greater understanding of our imperial past. The Colston statue could have been used with the nearby Edmund Burke statue and Pero’s bridge to create an outdoor exhibition on the slave trade. The juxtaposition of the three monuments could have created a public display open to all. Or were the authorities too afraid to contemplate such a project?
 
Removing statues to museums not only  takes away the offending individual from public gaze and scrutiny, but it just re-locates the argument. Many museums now charge an entry fee, so putting a statue in a museum removes it from the view of many, and who is to say that the statue will be just put into storage, due to lack of display space of because the Trustees of the Museum fear a backlash should they display what others have demanded be taken down. We must be strong enough to deal  with the issues that certain statues raise and not hide from debate. Putting statues in a museum is tantamount to shutting down public debate because we cannot face up to the controversial issues which are raised.
Should we just have statues of those who reflect current values?
Dr Evans writes that statues are there to remind us who we are and what we  want to be as a nation and statues representing characters with different values have no place in public spaces. Statues may have been intended to remind us who we are and to honour individuals who had helped extend the British Empire but they play a more important role nowadays in provoking debate about the past and in teaching us about the past and its attitudes. Rather than hide statues or destroy them completely we need to understand that the past was different with different values, ideas, and a different sense of morality. If we want monuments that reflect current values and do not want statues with anyone who held or holds different values on race, sex, gender then we would have no statues at all. Even the likes of Martin Luther King and Gandhi had their critics and their darker side. Gandhi whilst in South Africa regarded Africans as inferior whilst what man in any previous age was not sexist.
Do statues help bring about equality and a society built on merit?
Following the Black Lives Matter protest in Brighton, the Council issued a statement about the statues and memorials in Brighton which said, “Following our promise earlier this week to review all plaques, monuments, statues and street names on public land to ensure that we’re celebrating legacies that reflect our city’s values. I will be taking a statement to a meeting of all councillors which commits Brighton & Hove City Council to becoming an anti-racist council. “This will go much further than ensuring we are fair and inclusive as an employer and public service provider. “This is about recognising who does and doesn’t have privilege and how those with privilege can use their power and influence to enable silenced or ignored voices to be heard, remove barriers, and ensure opportunities are open to all, so that everyone gets to live a full life free from discrimination and harm.
 
The Council is linking the removal of statues with the struggle for equality for black lives. They are two quite different things and the removal of statues does nothing to advance the cause of greater equality in Britain. As a consequence of the Black Lives Matter movement, statues and memorials have become symbols for change and have become targets for demonstrators. If we are to have a more egalitarian and a more democratic society with equal opportunities for all based on merit then we need an education system and a political system based on equal access to all.
The Honours system should be the focus not statues
Statues in many cases in the c19th were erected to honour the contribution made by individuals and groups of men, usually military but not always. They were part of the Honours system which was used to instil a sense of pride in the empire and often a means of keeping the support of elites.
The House of Lords
The honours system is still used today in Britain and is  anachronistic  in a modern democracy.  The honours system, public schools and the House of Lords are all ways of maintaining the class system which helps to perpetuate the inequalities in society. Focusing on statues is not the real issue as far as improving the condition of non-white groups is concerned.Taking down a statue will do nothing to redress the inequalities in society – in fact, it could set back progress by giving a false impression of progress. Let us focus instead on abolishing the honours system, taking away the charitable status of public schools and abolishing the House of Lords. Only then might we see some improvement in the position in non-white groups.
Replacing statues with better known characters
In 2000, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, suggested replacing the statues with figures more familiar to the general public. This to me is not a solution to ignorance. What we should be doing is to find a way of providing a context to these statues and the role they played in the British Empire. The importance of history has never been greater, and it is important that we not only  use statues as a stimulus for learning, but we do far more to develop an understanding of all aspects of the British Empire, especially in our schools. The courses are available, but we should do more to encourage schools to do modules involving the British Empire. At Key Stage Three there is ample opportunity for students to gain an understanding of the nature of empires although at GCSE opportunities are more limited. AQA offers a module in ‘Migration and Empire’ which is excellent whilst OCR offers at GCSE ‘Migration to Britain’ and the ‘Impact of Empire on Britain’. Unfortunately, not enough students are taking history at either GCSE level or A Level, a situation that needs addressing. Both OCR and AQA offer courses on aspects of empire at A level but we need to encourage more schools to offer these courses.
Statues should be symbols of learning
Knocking down statues because of the pressure from a vocal minority is not the way to determine what happens to our public spaces. If statues are to  be contested there should be a democratic process, involving the public, however as Historic England has made clear this should be a last resort. In nearly all cases statues should stay and become symbols of learning. Following the BLM protest in Brighton the Council came out almost straightaway and decided to review all plaques, monuments, statues, and street names on public land to ensure that we’re celebrating legacies that reflect our city’s values. This was without any discussion on the nature of statues and their role in bringing about social justice for Black people. We need to de-politicize the debate over statues and monuments and have a proper debate over their importance and the role of education.
 
Local authorities need to be far more imaginative and creative in using statues, memorials, and monuments to further our understanding of empire and the Victorians. Knocking down statues will do nothing to improve our understanding nor will it help bring about a more equal society.

By Peter Crowhurst, August 2020
If you would like to comment on this essay please do so using the contact form below.
Related Pages
Back to content