Judging history

Last year, as BLM protests raged worldwide, a series of debates began over how society sees and remembers its history, specifically the unpleasant bits. In the US and UK in particular, this culminated in heated debates over statues, symbols and names of controversial historical icons and their place in our modern 'civilised' society. To be clear, the protests last year were not the first time such symbols of a bygone age were questioned. In 2015, a popular movement was started in Cape Town, South Africa to remove the statue of colonial politician Cecil Rhodes. Rhodes, among other things, was a diamond magnate who believed wholeheartedly in the absolute civilisational power of white rule. After a lifetime of earning a fortune and then some, he decided to spend his twilight years giving generously to various causes. The apartheid regime of South Africa venerated Rhodes as a hero, as a symbol to both black Africans and their white rulers of the natural order of things. Through one way or another, the statue survived the end of apartheid and became a simple peace of history, devoid of its own historical context to most visitors who passed by it or visited it. When in 2015, a series of protests ended with the statue being torn out of place, those in authority, even those that had fought the white power regime, were shocked.

This was one of many such protests in the last decade. In the US, this took the form of agitation against the symbols of America's colonial past or more prominently, against symbols of the Confederacy. In the UK, Canada, Germany, etc., a new generation of citizens are finally coming to terms with the mixed history of their nations and the leaders that helped shame them. This confrontation has set-off a great debate over just what these symbols mean in the modern-day and whether getting rid of them is the way to go. Take the example of the many symbols of the Confederacy that are still in display throughout the United States. In the US, these symbols — whether they be statues, the names of bases or even the flag itself — mean different things. To some, it is an undeniable part of their cultural history and heritage, an icon of a storied past that cannot be reviled. To some others, these symbols are unfortunate but necessary reminders of the darkness of humanity that must be kept in order to keep history from repeating itself. Finally, there are those who see these symbols as part of a larger problem of whitewashing and normalising the brutality of history. The latter two groups particularly come in disagreement over whether it is removing the statues or letting them stay that 'white-washes' history. The problems do not end there. The example of the Confederacy is particularly interesting because there is a fundamental disagreement over the nature of facts regarding the history of the Confederacy. Those who hold such symbols dear believe in the alternative view of history where the Confederacy was not fighting to keep its slaves but rather fighting a tragic war to defend the right of states to self-determinism. In such a manner, controversial slave-owning figures like Robert E Lee or Jefferson Davis become heroes and visionaries who fought valiantly for their beliefs. This is the nature of history. Someone's hero is another man's villain. As historians are often fond of saying, you cannot retrospectively judge history and expect to gain an accurate understanding of it. But this does not mean that the power of an icon can be ignored. These statues, names, flags, etc., are not simply pieces of history. They are powerful symbols of a bygone order of things and can be considered as active symbols of oppression. We cannot ignore them in the name of history and claim to be a modern society. At the same time, it is important to note that it is not possible to right these historical wrongs by simply removing the symbols. For one, there are too many of them. Indeed, it can be argued that many of the greatest cities of the west are symbols of colonialism and slavery in and of itself. For another, we risk closing off the conversations that such symbols may otherwise invite and the acknowledgement that history has not always moved in the 'right' direction. Various solutions have been forwarded. Certain statues have been moved, others altered to give context and still, others are being debated over in public forums as is the case with the city of London currently voting on the removal of two controversial statues that currently sit in the city's guildhall. Commentators have noted that even if the statues were to removed in the name of diversity and inclusiveness, the city and financial services the guildhall represents are yet to be generally considered either of those things. While debates over the nature of such symbols can continue without end, we must not forget that they represent 'evils' that still very much continue to exist in our so-called modern civilisational world.