The Commons: A Very British Reckoning

ISABEL INFANTES/AFP via Getty Images

The death of American George Floyd has induced a new wave of activism stretching across the globe. Amidst a sea of cardboard signs and chants of “Black Lives Matter,” anti-racism protests across the UK have been a site for the vandalism of or tearing down of statues that depict historically controversial figures. 

Demonstrators have made clear their issue with the memorialization of Britons who were historically racist. From a Bristol statue of slave trader Edward Colston to one of Winston Churchill in central London, this widespread anger has led many to reconsider the purpose of these statues and how Britain should be celebrating its history. 

Parliament’s response can be largely characterized by an ideological rift between the Conservative and Labour Party. 

The Conservative Party’s perspective has hinged largely on an argument of moral relativism, that is that moral judgements exist relative to a certain standpoint – in this case, a historical standpoint. One branch of this call to relativism is the view that while the racist acts of these memorialized figures may be considered wrong in 2020, they were not morally impermissible in the era in which these men lived. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has advocated this view on Twitter. In response to threats of a central London statue of Winston Churchill, Johnson tweeted, “Yes, [Churchill] sometimes expressed opinions that were and are unacceptable to us today, but he was a hero, and he fully deserves his memorial.” 

This perspective concerns those depicted in the memorials specifically and is one conservative argument against the removal of these controversial figures. The second branch of a call to moral relativism concerns those that actually put these statues up – that is, the original Britons who decided to memorialize these figures. Conservatives advocate a view that recognizes that “The statues in our cities and towns were put up by previous generations. They had different perspectives, different understandings of right and wrong.” 

While the Conservative view embraces some philosophical truth, it fails to recognize those for whom, even in this historical era, the acts of these memorialized men were not moral. If the argument is that statues may remain because the ideas of right and wrong have changed, there’s an underlying sentiment that it was morally acceptable in the whole of British society to trade slaves or advance overtly racist rhetoric. A concern with the Conservative argument of moral relativism is that what was “right” to those involved with and benefiting from the systemic oppression of people of color was not “right” to everyone involved, nor everyone in the UK. Thus, refusal to remove a statue on the grounds of historical moral relativism presupposes that British society, as a whole, embraced a universal moral understanding of the Empire and the violent subjugation of millions of Black and Brown bodies to the rule of Britannia. 

However, as early as 1783, white Britons wrote to Parliament expressing abhorrence with the Transatlantic Slave Trade. The Bristol statue of human trafficker Edward Colston that was torn down in early June, was erected in 1895. Over 100 years after the first anti-Slavery movements arose in the UK. The Conservative Party aims to appeal to moral relativism, but their arguments may be undermined by the fact that at no point did all of Britain agree to the universal moral claim that the trading of slaves by Edward Colston or overt racism of Winston Churchill was “right.”

The Conservative side also embraces the view that statues, in lieu of simply memorializing historical figures, exist to teach Britons about their history. Boris Johnson has argued that “those statues teach us about our past, with all its faults. To tear them down would be to lie about our history, and impoverish the education of generations to come.”

Clearly, the role of a statue in this sense is called into question. For many, statues memorialize or commemorate figures; They are not tools for in-depth education or remembrance, rather, they serve to celebrate the importance of a certain figure in our history. A statue is not the same as a memorial in this way. Looking to Germany for a clear-cut example – the European nation has memorials for holocaust survivors, not statues for Nazis who inflicted genocide. Thus, the Conservative argument does not land well for many. If Britain actually wanted to recognize its sinister past, it would not celebrate slave owners, but rather, memorialize and pay tribute to those who died at the hands of the British empire. 

The primary cause of debate between the Conservative and Labour Party arises out of a differing opinion on the purpose of statues. In the words of Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, “a statue is there to honor people,” not to serve as an informant about British history. In discussion about the vandalism and violence surrounding the removal of the Colston Statue, Starmer went on to state that the “statue should have been brought down properly, with consent, and put, I would say, in a museum.” Herein lies the great chasm between the Labour and Conservative view on this issue. For Boris Johnson, the Colston statue was a reminder of Britain's sinister past, while for Starmer it was a celebration of one man in spite of his formidable role in a truly evil system that dehumanized and trafficked people across the globe. 

The Labour party does not have an ideological opposition to the removal of statues, they are more concerned with the civil disobedience that has emerged in the UK. Starmer would prefer that statues are brought down “properly,” or lawfully. 

Anger at civil disobedience seems to be a shared view throughout the oppositional parties, with conservative Home Secretary Priti Patel tweeting that “Any perpetrators of violence or vandalism should expect to face the full force of the law.”

Small but significant, the SNP and Liberal Democrats have also commented on this issue. 

SNP Leader Nicola Sturgeon took a reflective stance on the issue in an interview with the BBC. She implored viewers to consider: “Why do we want to continue to have statues and celebrations of people who profited and traded in abject human misery?” Sturgeon recognised that the debates around statue removal are complex and that we should not “brush under the carpet the shameful parts of our country’s history” by immediately tearing down statues or changing commemorative street names. Where Labour and the Conservatives ride two extremes on the issue, the SNP seems to sit – for now – comfortably in the middle, prepared to tackle each statue as they come. 

Liberal Democrats largely agree with the Labour party that these statues should be taken down. Lib Dem co-leader Sir Ed Davey echoed a similar sentiment to that of Starmer in discussing the Colston statue: “The real question - why was this statue still on our streets?” Furthermore, to Davey, the tearing down of statues allows for the UK to “expose these dark sides of British history.” The Lib Dems have advocated a position that characterizes statue removal as part of British education, a view that contrasts with that of the Conservatives, who see the statues alone as education enough. 

Britain has been catapulted into a historical reckoning, a reevaluation of how it wants to proceed. The question heard around the globe: Will the UK recognize its sinister past or ignore it, and what role does the memorialisation of historically controversial figures have in the nation moving forward?