Once again, I’m posting something I wrote several days ago, with additions at the end to bring it up to date. I’ve had a few crappy days on a personal level so haven’t been able to do the relevant fact-checking and research prior to posting before now.
~*~
Written 9/6/20
Monday morning, I saw the news reports of the statue of the slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol torn down by protestors and dumped in the bay, followed by discussions on the criminal and moral implications of the actions, and what the moment might mean for other such statues in the UK.
Watching it, I remembered an episode of the American political drama Designated Survivor, which involved a debate about a similar statue. One of the African-American characters in the debate had this to say:
“Child, you mean well. You declare “This is racist” and “that is racist”; but you are young, white, and living in America. You don’t know what it’s like to walk in my shoes, and I won’t always be around to tell you. But that statue will. It stays.”
Later in the episode, after a compromise was (eventually) agreed to move it to a less trafficked area, he said,
“I believe we sanitize history at our peril”.
At the time of watching, I couldn’t really make up my mind what the right thing to do would have been. But coming back to the real-life event this week, I greatly admired what the Bristol mayor had to say in response. I’m afraid I can’t find the interview now, but he made some great comments on the importance of putting the statue in its historical context, and remembering the moment it had been torn down as a historical moment as well. I can’t find that specific interview, but I found a different one here.
I’m not going to condone criminal damage either, though I admit I don’t know whether the statue would ever have been moved/removed democratically, from what people have been saying about the amount of time it’s been debated for—though given the growing demand for change right now, maybe it would have been. But we’ll never know that.
Personally, I think that putting these pieces in museums—where they serve as an educational reminder of our past rather than a tribute to the historical figures—with the complete historical context, is the closest to a perfect solution available. I’m sure not everyone will agree, and I realise it’s not my opinion that matters. But given the segment the next morning with teachers discussing how history is taught in our schools, it sounds like that would be a starting point—it can’t end with that—for tackling the wider issue of how we as a nation view and teach our history.
~*~
Written 12/6/20
Since I drafted the above, many things have developed in this area—I can’t cover them all, but some stood out to me.
The morning after writing the above (Wednesday), I saw that a statue had been removed, this time officially. Again, I can’t find the segment online to check which one it was and whether it was considered a temporary removal to protect it, or a permanent one, and what happens to it now if the latter. In other places, some statues are being temporarily protected while debates go on as to long-term decisions. Others have had the decision made not to move them.
This morning, there was a news feature on the statue of Robert Baden-Powell, founder of the Scouts, and the comments made by the officials involved (again, can’t find the video) were interesting but didn’t sound very sympathetic to the offence it causes. That he apparently backtracked from his Nazi support is definitely something worth recognising, but that doesn’t necessarily take away the offence people might feel at its placement. I did find it interesting that it was only erected 12 years ago, and have to wonder if the people who made that decision were fully aware of all the less admirable aspects of his life at the time. Regardless of where he stood at the end of his life, the meaning of it having a place of honour to people needs to be carefully considered and, again, I think a museum with the full historical context to be the best move. But again, it’s not my decision.
Deviating slightly from statues, but nonetheless on a similar note, I was quite shocked at the news story that an episode of Fawlty Towers and episodes or full series of other shows have been withdrawn from certain streaming services.
I disagree with this decision—not because of my views on the content itself, which I agree is not acceptable. But, at least with the case of Fawlty Towers (I’m not familiar with the other programmes), removing or editing the content to make it fit in with modern values is the wrong move. It’s about sanitising history again.
Programmes like Fawlty Towers represent the era in which they were made, in which that kind of content was deemed acceptable/funny. It’s not now, but removing it completely is to pretend it, and those attitudes, did not exist. A few years ago I came across a screenshot of a message that said:
“The cartoons you are about to see are products of their time. They may depict some of the ethnic and racial prejudices that were commonplace in American society. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. While the following does not represent the Warner Bros view of today’s society, these cartoons are being presented as they were originally created, because to do so otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed.”
Rather than censoring historical fiction, I think streaming services should accompany them with a suitable notice like this one—perhaps less wordy, but something that clearly states something along the lines of “This programme contains [type of content] which is representative of the time it was made”, perhaps with a disclaimer like the above if the service feels inclined to add it.
We don’t want to endorse prejudice, but we shouldn’t sanitise history either by cutting it out of anything that was made in that time. We need to put it in its proper context for viewers—to educate young people who didn’t live through that era, to open discussions with children about why it’s wrong, and to serve as a warning for people who don’t want to view that kind of content.
I realise it may be a different scenario when we’re talking about more recent programmes. I don’t have an answer for that. But if we start removing anything in fiction (or non-fiction, for that matter) which doesn’t fit in with today’s views, I think that’s an incredibly slippery slope. With all the discussion at the moment on better historical education, I hope we can get the balance right between the extremes of endorsing racism or pretending it never existed.
I welcome discussion on the subject, and anyone willing to share educational resources.
~*~
Written 13/6/20
I was glad to see on the news this morning that UKTV have decided to put the Fawlty Towers episode back, accompanied by some kind of content notice.
~*~
Apologies for not being able to provide links to the specific news segments I’m referencing! Not everything is available or findable on Youtube or the BBC Breakfast site. And my ability to take thorough notes while having breakfast is also limited.