The post Marshal Konev Statue in Prague appeared first on Contested Histories.

The post Statue of Unity in Gujarat appeared first on Contested Histories.

The post Modeste Testas Monument in Bordeaux appeared first on Contested Histories.

The post Abdelkader Statue in Amboise appeared first on Contested Histories.

The post Marsha P. Johnson Statue in New York City appeared first on Contested Histories.

The post Columbus Monuments in Mexico City appeared first on Contested Histories.

The post Queen Victoria Statue in Hong Kong appeared first on Contested Histories.

The equestrian statue of General Sir Redvers Buller, situated on the junction of Hele Road and New North Road in Exeter, was erected and paid for by local residents in the military leader’s honour on 6 September 1905^[1]. Sometimes interpreted as a deliberate political act, the fifteen-feet statue stands on a large plinth and is engraved with ‘He Saved Natal’ alongside a list of countries that Buller served in. The fact the statue elicited such strong support amongst Devonians is indicative of a regional pride in Buller’s actions, who was widely perceived as “one of the county’s greatest heroes”^[2], particularly while on another front he was facing criticism and disrepute from political and military bodies alike^[3].

In recent years, the statue of Redvers Buller has become divisive on three levels. First, as it valorises a form of aggressive colonialist-imperialist expansionism from which Buller is so inseparably intertwined, particularly given his role in the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 and the Second Boer War in 1899. It was during this War in South Africa that Buller led British soldiers against Dutch-speaking Boers in Transvaal and Orange State over control of gold mines, and where he also had acquaintance with the likes of Cecil Rhodes^[4]. Second, his possible connection to, or support of, concentration camps in South Africa which were erected following victory in the war, and which subsequently led to the deaths of thousands of local Boers and Black Africans. And third, because of the disunion created today between those in support of the statue and those against, recently highlighted during the Black Lives Matter movement whereby the statue of Buller featured on crowd-sourced website ToppletheRacists.org, while on the flipside, Exeter City Council’s review of the statue was shunned by some as “ridiculous” and a form of “historical wokery”^[5].

Following heavy media-coverage of Black Lives Matter protests in June 2020, and after a banner was draped on the statue saying “Wanted for war crimes”^[6], the true repercussions of protests directed at the statue of Buller were ultimately in their re-invigoration of council-led discussions.

To begin with, the Council’s Scrutiny Task and Finish Group was asked to investigate the appropriateness of the statue. The Group met on four occasions and took written and oral submissions from a range of stakeholders^[7]. The result of this was made clear on January 12^th, 2021, when Exeter’s Executive Council was presented with a ‘Review of the General Buller Statue’, carried out by Director Jon-Paul Hedge. The Review cited the statue as “the most conspicuous by way of location and controversy”^[8] and concluded with the suggestion that there exist four strands of “significant strength of feeling” within Exeter’s communities. In no particular order, these favoured each of the following: removal of the statue all together, relocation as a form of cultural reference, redefinition it by way of narrative (such as adding a sign), and leaving it, instead focusing on education and inequality around the city.

Exeter’s Executive Councillors voted in favour of the Task Group’s findings, which ultimately opted for re-location as the best course of action, primarily due to the Army General’s connection to the British Empire^[9]. Given that this vote was exclusive to Exeter’s Executive councillors, certain steps remained in place before a date and location could be set for its relocation, including seeking formal Listed Building consent to move the Grade II monument, a public consultation, and a final vote made by the city’s full council.

This initial decision received heavy criticism, with a petition on change.org seeking to appeal the decision receiving over 9,000 votes in just under a month, in part citing the £25,000 cost associated with its removal, but otherwise standing against the “erasure” of history (see Figure 3^[10]). Elsewhere, more conservative views took to slamming the decision as a form of “historical wokery”, with the Daily Mail choosing to single out the verdict that, “[the statue] impacts anybody who does not define themselves in binary gender terms”^[11].

After facing backlash against the decision to relocate the statue of Redvers Buller, the final nail in the coffin for the Council’s decision followed a statement by Robert Jenrick, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who proclaimed that applications for the removal of statues were unlikely to be successful^[12]. This proposition was made in reference to the UK Government’s recently revealed plans for a new law on cultural and historic heritage which seeks to ‘retain and explain’ as opposed to remove or relocate^[13]. The repercussions of this are likely to have nationwide consequences but for the most part, its effect has been strongly felt in Exeter, where following a meeting on February 9^th, Councillor Phil Bialyk of Exeter City Council released a statement which said: “In light of the comments by the Secretary of State, we will not be submitting a planning application to relocate the Buller state”^[14].

And so, in a swift U-turn, the decision to relocate the statue of Redvers Buller has been completely rescinded. The Council in Exeter has reaffirmed its position on fulfilling the rest of the recommendations outlined in the Task Group’s findings. These include the creation of a working group to develop an anti-racism strategy for the council, as well an arts-based engagement programme project with residents in the city. The Council has also not dismissed erecting temporary information boards near the statue of Redvers Buller, nor the possibility of removing ‘He Saved Natal’ from the plinth on which Buller’s sits^[15]. What these boards will say, and to what extent such actions address the statue’s divisive legacy is unclear, but one thing is certain, Redvers Buller has once again been at the receiving end of yet another heavily contested and politically replete reversal. Where Exeter’s decision-makers now turn in order to fulfil their obligations for equality and impact in the city will make for an interesting case to follow.

^[1] Donaldson, Peter. Remembering the South African War: Britain and the Memory of the Anglo-Boer War, from 1899 to the present (Liverpool: University Press, 2013), p.115.

^[2] Hedge, Jon-Paul, ‘Review of the General Buller Statue’, Report to Executive, July 7^th, 2020.

^[3] Malvern, Jack. ‘General Sir Redvers Buller sees off his foes in Exeter statue battle’, The Times, February 03, 2021.

^[4] Thomas, Roy. Two Generals: Buller and Botha in the Boer War. (Bloomington: Authorhouse), pp.33

^[5] Mail Online. ‘Council is slammed for ‘ridiculous and historical wokery’ over plans to remove a statue of a British war hero – with official report claiming it ‘impacts anybody who does not define themselves in binary gender terms’, Daily Mail, January 11, 2021.

^[6] Malvern, Jack. ‘General Sir Redvers Buller sees off his foes in Exeter statue battle’, The Times, February 03, 2021.

^[7] Exeter City Council. ‘Councillors to discuss the future of Exeter’s Buller statue’, Exeter City Council, January 05, 2021.

^[8] Hedge, Jon-Paul, ‘Review of the General Buller Statue’, Report to Executive, July 7^th 2020.

^[9] Crediton Courier, ‘Exeter councillors approve next step towards removal of statue of Crediton-born Buller’, Crediton Courier, January 13^th, 2021.

^[10] Change.org. ‘Save Exeter’s Statue of Sir Redvers Buller’, Change.org, February 1^st, 2021

^[11] Mail Online. ‘Council is slammed for ‘ridiculous and historical wokery’ over plans to remove a statue of a British war hero – with official report claiming it ‘impacts anybody who does not define themselves in binary gender terms’, Daily Mail, January 11, 2021.

^[12] Clark, Daniel. ‘Statue to stay but signs will be put near it and wording may change’, The Express and Echo¸ February 11^th, 2021.

^[13] Clark, Daniel. ‘Statue will stay as council would be unlikely to get permission to move it’, The Express and Echo, February 4^th, 2021.

^[14] Clark, Daniel. ‘Statue to stay but signs will be put near it and wording may change’, The Express and Echo¸ February 11^th, 2021.

^[15] Ibid.

Originally published by EuroClio News on 26 February 2021.

The post A Reverse on Buller appeared first on Contested Histories.

Townsville, in north Queensland, is home to a life-sized statue of its namesake Robert Towns. Unlike many of the cases catalogued by Contested Histories, this statue was erected in recent history–in 2004–with funds from the local council, in spite of instant controversy. Towns was a merchant entrepreneur and ‘blackbirder’, whose ship ‘Don Juan’ brought one of the earliest shiploads of South Sea Islanders from present-day Vanuatu to labour on his Queensland properties in 1863.

What is ‘blackbirding’?

‘Blackbirding’ refers to the kidnapping or luring of South Sea Islanders, mostly from Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands, but it also included ‘recruiting’ from parts of New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, Kiribati and Fiji. Blackbirding occurred from 1863 until the early 1900s and saw more than 62,000 South Sea Islanders transported to Australia for labour in pastoral, sugar and maritime industries. 

There exists debate as to whether blackbirding can be likened to enslavement, and the (il)legality of the process by which South Sea Islanders were recruited for indentured labour. The Australian South Sea Islanders organisation (ASSI) notes that the degree of choice in recruitment does not negate the reality of exploitation, nor is the distinction between kidnapping and choice so simple. Professor Clive Moore, a leading researcher on South Sea Islander history at the University of Queensland, coined the term ‘cultural kidnapping’ to refer to the exploitation that many Islanders unknowingly signed up for. According to Moore, “whether you call them slaves or not, they [blackbirded Islanders] definitely worked in slave-like conditions. It was often horrific.” 

Still standing

The statue of Towns remains despite controversy. While there have been calls for its removal, Emelda Davis, president of ASSI, argues instead that “there needs to be a greater understanding, a broader discussion”, that “the full truth needs to be told”. Removal, which has the potential to become erasure, is often a quick-fix which leaves the underlying cause of the dispute unconsidered and unresolved. In the case of Towns, simply removing his statue risks burying the legacy of his involvement in blackbirding. 

Engagement in discussion and the notion of ‘full truth’ is central to the work of Contested Histories. Contextualising disputed historical sites can balance and/or resignify narratives concerning historical figures and events to present multiple perspectives, including those that have been and perhaps remain enduringly under-represented, marginalised and oppressed. Moreover, additive elements can act as a means through which uncomfortable histories can be reflected upon and worked through for deeper, more nuanced understandings of the past and present. It is here that the educative potential of public spaces shines through, potential which may have otherwise been lost with hasty removal. 

For Towns, who signifies the white settler majority in Australia, the installation of a counter monument may present an effective remedy. The creation of a counter monument offers opportunities for dialogue, reflection and learning; a means to decentre the colonising gaze of Robert Towns and address intergenerational trauma from blackbirding. 

Originally published via EuroClio News on 29 September 2020.

The post Robert Towns’ Statue and his Blackbirding Legacy appeared first on Contested Histories.

With the pulling down of a statue of Edward Colston in Bristol only days earlier, a fresh series of protests, beginning on Tuesday 9th June, sought removal of the controversial monument of Cecil Rhodes, fuelled by the 19th century mining magnate’s association with colonialism and racism on multiple accounts.

On the 12th June, the University’s Vice-Chancellor, Professor Louise Richardson, released an open letter that reached no binary view about Rhodes’ legacy, though did warn against “hiding our history” and indicated little accord to the aims of the protestors. Her statement was also later criticised by fourteen dons at the University who wrote that it was “inappropriate” of Professor Richardson to “ventriloquise” the anti-apartheid leader, Nelson Mandela, by using his words to defend a colonial-era statue. (1)

Following Professor Richardson’s statement, significant headway was made within Oriel College’s Middle Common Room (MCR – graduate student body of Oriel College) in response to the renewed protests. On Sunday 14th June, numerous motions were passed in support of the Rhodes Must Fall movement, including 124 votes for and 62 votes against endorsement of the removal of Cecil Rhodes on the high street façade of Oriel College, with a further 143 votes for and 32 votes against preserving Rhodes’ statue in a museum/exhibition. (2) 

On Wednesday 17th June, the governing body of Oriel released a much-awaited statement, recommending the removal of the statue and the King Edward Street plaque (3). The report stated that an Independent Commission would be launched to  examine Rhodes’ legacy, chaired by Carole Souter CBE, the current Master of St Cross College, and former Chief Executive of the National Lottery Heritage Fund (4). It has more recently been announced that broadcaster Zeinab Badawi, former Conservative shadow culture secretary Peter Ainsworth, and Oriel College’s alumni advisory committee chairman Geoffrey Austin will also sit on the inquiry group (5). Alongside deliberating on the legacy of Rhodes, the commission will additionally consider improvements to BAME access and attendance at the College. A public notice is expected to be posted near to the statue, outlining how people are able to contribute their views, including both written and oral submissions, as well as further oral evidence public sessions to take place at a later date.

It will undoubtedly make for an interesting case to reflect upon as the Commission’s findings are published in January 2021, particularly since a similar consultation was organised by the College in 2015, when the Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford campaign initially called for the removal of the statue. In this earlier instance the Oriel’s governing body released a statement suggesting they were seeking information from the city council relating to the removal of objects of listed status (of which the Rhodes Statue is Grade II listed) (6). A six-month listening exercise was also set to take place but fell short of becoming fully realised, with some leaked documents to The Telegraph suggesting that this was in part because of threats made by College Alumni to withdraw funding equating to £100 million if the statue were to be removed (7). 

Since the protests in June there have already been pledges to cover any withdrawn funds. Particularly notable is that of Oxford alumni, Husayn Kassai, founder of Onfido, who has pledged to “make up for every penny any racist donors pull”, further stating that, “All racist status and symbols belong in museums, where we can safeguard our history, in all its gore and glory” (8). While there are yet to be any reports of donors withdrawing support to Oriel, there is certainly the capacity for future disputes to arise from stakeholders less receptive of the statue’s removal.

The decision made by Oriel College to seek consultation to remove the statue of Cecil Rhodes has been described by Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh, a founder of the Rhodes Must Fall campaign, as a “greatly vindicated” feeling (9). Although, as he further outlines, a successful outcome is only dependent upon the Commission’s decision to remove the statue, which, given the the earlier short-lived inquiry of 2015, is certainly not one which is inevitable. In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, the current inquiry’s Chair, Carole Seuter, said it “was not a forgone conclusion” that “Rhodes would fall”, adding that, “We acknowledge politely that the governing body has expressed a view but there wouldn’t be any point at all setting up this sort of Commission if it was already a foregone conclusion” (10).

Oriel College’s recent statements have certainly not quietened protests. Further Black Lives Matter marches took place in Oxford on the 18th and 26th June, with sustained emphasis on Rhodes, further calls for the removal of a statue of slave owner Christopher Codrington at All Souls College and demands for decolonisation of the curriculum. Discussions of Oxford’s problematic past are clearly not diminishing, with organisations such as Uncomfortable Oxford dedicating tours, talks, and blogposts to the histories of inequality, discrimination, and imperialism throughout Oxford (11). Taking these movements as indicatory of unresolved points of contention, it is fair to say that campaigns for social justice in Oxford are only just beginning. In regard to the statue of Cecil Rhodes, it will be an interesting case to watch now that significant advances have been made with regards to its future legacy.

Originally published via EuroClio News on 13 August 2020.

The post The Legacy of Cecil Rhodes at Oriel College appeared first on Contested Histories.