We learn from history not to erase history | Adam James Pollock
Throughout the period of time characterised by the first wave of a public health epidemic, in which government regulations prohibited mass socialisation in both public and private spheres, a different timeline was unfolding in our United Kingdom, seemingly existing outside of the law, outside of the new normality, spurred on by a horrid misappropriation of the Napoleonic view that “He who saves his country violates no law”. This concurrent timeline consisted of mass public demand for social reform, precipitated through mass action for social unrest, executed as a means of shedding greater light on how all great men of British history are racist, good-for-nothing slave drivers whose accomplishments and social philanthropy do not mitigate the harm they caused to society as a whole.
Such figures as Churchill, instrumental in the fight against Nazism, had their monuments vandalised on the anniversary of their greatest accomplishment, with claims that he supported slavery and hated minorities causing the outrage. Concurrently, the Rhodes Must Fall movement was revitalised, calling for the removal of Cecil Rhodes’ statue from Oriel College, Oxford, due to his imperialist actions and racist remarks.
Indeed, Oriel College, Oxford has a history of iconoclastic tendencies, having removed (later to reinstate) the statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which stands above the archway depicted, after the Protestant Reformation.
As with all people, their actions, beliefs and morals (or lack thereof in modern cases) are rooted in the societal contexts in which they owe their foundation. Humanity is inherently flawed- and, to an extent, a dissection of any individual is sure to present values which can be viewed positively and negatively depending on the lens through which they are observed. This unchaining of context from understanding is why the revisionist approaches taken during this fervour are not appropriate.
Despite such monuments as Churchill and Rhodes’ representing, for some, the more distasteful characteristics of certain individuals and their unpalatable legacies, many statues, buildings, and other historically and aesthetically important works should not be removed by a madding crowd rife with anger and anarchy, despite such anger sometimes being just. History is important, not only to commemorate the achievements of nations or individuals, but also to learn from their mistakes. Subsequently, the best way to understand why such abject destruction of history is objectively bad, we must look at the lessons which history itself bestows us on this topic.
The symbolic nature of holding statues accountable for their icon’s crimes has its beginnings in the literal sense of accountability, in ancient Greece.
Around the fifth century BC, there lived an athlete by the name of Theagenes, whose extraordinary strength gave him victories at Olympian and other games, with his name becoming synonymous with physical achievements throughout much of ancient Hellas. A statue was erected of Theagenes on the island of Thasos, however a man local to the island held a personal grudge against the strongman, and vandalised the statue as a way of exacting revenge. The statue, however, as the story accounts, fell on the vandal, killing him. Subsequently, the statue was put on trial for murder, with a punishment of exile carried out by throwing it into the sea, similar in act and in symbolism to Edward Colston’s statue in Bristol being thrown into the River Avon by protestors. The statue of Theagenes was recovered after fear of wrath from the gods of the land becoming barren.
Such practices of holding inanimate objects accountable for crimes continued through history, even in the modern era- in the form of deodands- in which objects responsible for causing death were forfeited to the crown, sold and the money was used to help the common good. This practice existed in England under common law until 1846, and still exists in some forms in the United States. When objects are held accountable for crimes, either in the literal or symbolic sense, this can be supported when achieved through legal means; learning from the vandal of the statue of Theagenes, accountability cannot be bestowed upon such objects by individuals outside of the law, at least not without unfortunate consequences.
The clearest example of the negative results of historical vandalism and destruction can be seen in the remnants of architecture still extant from the times preceding the French Revolution. I had the good fortune last year to take a tour across France during the summer to visit some great examples of religious and historical architecture, seeing many fantastic churches, monasteries and cathedrals. However my heart was broken upon a visit to Cluny when I saw the remnants of Cluny Abbey, a Benedictine monastery once the largest church in Christendom before the construction of St Peter’s Basilica in Rome, now reduced to approximately 10% of its former size.
The ruins of part of Cluny Abbey can be seen above.
The monastery was viewed by the revolutionaries as symbolic of the Ancien Régime which they opposed, and so it was destroyed along with its extensive library and archives. While what remains is still beautiful and allows the imagination to roam freely about the size and beauty of the original building, one cannot help but feel saddened that such a work of architectural and historical significance could be reduced to rubble due solely to an ideological standpoint.
In the modern era, such lessons have been altogether ignored by many who wish to destroy that which they view as representative of oppression. While this is by no means a new idea, it cannot be allowed to continue if the current established notions of our society wish to remain free from upheaval. It is integral that an education of the true meaning of monuments, statues and historical buildings be taught, placed in context, and preserved for the future generations, both as a means of maintaining the beauty of our cities and allowing it to be recognised in years to come.
While Cecil Rhodes irrefutably had views which are, at the least, distasteful, and at the most, utterly abhorrent, individuals such as Nelson Mandela recognised the importance of preserving monuments to him for the sake of historical appreciation, with his government declaring all pre-Apartheid monuments national heritages. Even anti-white nationalist Robert Mugabe refused to allow a fierce mob to forbid Rhodes a grave in the hills of Matobo in Zimbabwe, what was previously known as Rhodesia. While society as a whole has deemed it true that the art can be viewed separately from its artist, it is time now the subject of the art to be viewed separately as well.
–
If you liked this article and want to help our organisation expand, please consider donating. Every little helps.
