It Belongs in a Museum (LOL): New Labour Leader Keir Starmer Decries "Lawlessness" Over Forcefully Removed Racist Statue.

[excelsiorlef]

During an LBC phone-in session this morning, the Labour leader discussed the Black Lives Matter protests over the weekend, which saw protesters throw the statue in the harbour in Bristol.

Referring to the actions of protesters, he said that "nobody should condone lawlessness" and that the statue should have been removed "properly with consent" and placed in a museum.

Click to shrink...

It was "completely wrong" for protesters to pull down Colston statue, says Starmer - LabourList

Keir Starmer has said that it was “completely wrong” for protesters to pull down the statue of 17th-century…

labourlist.org

The memorial to Edward Colston was toppled and thrown into the harbour during yesterday's anti-racism demonstrations.


But in the first edition of his monthly phone-in, Call Keir, the Labour leader said the statue should've been removed by consent long ago and placed in a museum.

He said: "It shouldn't have been done in that way. Completely wrong to pull a statue down like that.

"But that statue should have been taken down a long, long time ago.


"You can't in 21st century Britain have a slaver on a statue. Statues are there to honour people. It should have been brought down properly with consent and put in a museum.

Click to shrink...

Keir Starmer: Protesters were wrong, but Colston statue should have been removed long ago

Sir Keir Starmer has told LBC it was "completely wrong" for protesters in Bristol to rip down a statue of a 17th century slave trader.

www.lbc.co.uk

These calls of the right way are always funny because 90% of the time the so called right way is never going to happen.


Also it's just an old statue.... Not some actually significant historical piece..

On some level a discussion about the whole everything belongs in a museum needs to be had, it's the same logic used about Confederate Statues in the US which were commissioned by White Supremacist groups like Daughter's of the Confederation being of historical value because they're old.

Edit: Full video for people who don't click links

 

[Mekanos]

He's free to go jump in the water and get it himself.

 

[Deleted member 16516]

To be fair, even the Major of Bristol has said as much.

"It's an incredible decision for us now to decide what should go on the plinth in the city to tell us who we are or not just who we are but who we want to be and to use that as a place to celebrate something about ourselves. What I look forward to is having that city discussion.

"In the meantime it is highly likely that the Colston statue will end up in one of our museums."

Mayor gives update on future of Edward Colston statue

It was thrown in the water during a Black Lives Matter protest

www.bristolpost.co.uk

 

[show me your skeleton]

utterly milquetoast.

 

[Golding]

smh

 

[Techno]

under water museum?

 

[Fat4all]

how long did you have before now to put it in a museum

 

[excelsiorlef]

To be fair, even the Major of Bristol has said as much.

"It's an incredible decision for us now to decide what should go on the plinth in the city to tell us who we are or not just who we are but who we want to be and to use that as a place to celebrate something about ourselves. What I look forward to is having that city discussion.

"In the meantime it is highly likely that the Colston statue will end up in one of our museums."

Mayor gives update on future of Edward Colston statue

It was thrown in the water during a Black Lives Matter protest

www.bristolpost.co.uk

Click to shrink...

So?

Of course it's going to end up there, lots of people love fetish worthless racist shit. Doesn't mean it should.

 

[RedSparrows]

I agree the thing should have been taken down, and the protest was a historically vital moment in which to do it.

But

Also it's just an old statue.... Not some actually significant historical piece..

Click to shrink...

Think about what you are saying here, hah.

Also, yeah, Starmer's gonna be canned by Era for not being on the barricades. That doesn't mean I wouldn't rather have him in power than Johnson (and no doubt it'll add to the cult of martyred Corbyn).

 

[MopDog]

Um. The reason the statue was torn down in the first place is because people are refusing to condone lawlessness.

 

[grady]

Not an amazing response, but I respect that he's in the tough position of having to go straight down the middle in these situations, given you have a load of people decrying the 'vandalism' and calling for arrests, he can't be seen to be supporting 'undemocratic' procedure. Nonetheless I'd hope to see him lean further left in future.

 

[CD_93]

Former head of the CPS and DPP was not going to condone breaking the law.

If we're going to open a thread with a tweet, let it be the full answer.

 

[Blent]

I mean, he's trying to win an election. Albeit in 2024 or whatever.

He's hardly going to come out and say 'I bloody love destroying public monuments, me'. Even if we all took joy in it ourselves.

This is politics in Britain, sadly.

 

[Ravensmash]

Why are you expecting a senior politician to condone people breaking the law - even if it's a morally justified action?

 

[LewieP]

Where was he when the tories destroyed the Windrush landing cards: Extremely significant historical artefacts?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Think about what you are saying here, hah.

Click to shrink...

It's literally just a totem in tribute to a Slave Trader.... That's it.



Literally if it was built yesterday no one would be wanting it in a museum.

It's not special, it's not important, it's racist junk. It has no historical value other than it was built a long time ago.

 

[CD_93]

Where was he when the tories destroyed the Windrush landing cards: Extremely significant historical artefacts?

Click to shrink...

International Court of Justice.
European Court of Human Rights.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Caribbean Court of Justice.
African Commission on Human and People's Rights.

Where he has been at any given time has been a matter of public record for over three decades.

 

[Deleted member 16516]

So?

Of course it's going to end up there, lots of people love fetish worthless racist shit. Doesn't mean it should.

Click to shrink...

The sad fact is that Starmer has to play the game if Labour are to have a chance of toppling the Tories in 4 years. If he went all out in favour of the actions of the protesters yesterday, he'd be castigated by the right wing press who pretty much control the mindset of the vast majority of the general public in the UK, and especially in England.

 

[Heromanz]

The bottom of the sea is a museum

 

[WhateverItTakes]

So?

Of course it's going to end up there, lots of people love fetish worthless racist shit. Doesn't mean it should.

Click to shrink...

Counterpoint, it getting thrown in the river adds new history to the statue. Include it in a museum now in a context of how the wealth of the country is linked to intense slavery, death, and suffering, which ripples into impacts felt today, it serves a useful purpose.

I understand why Starmer's getting heat on Era for how he's approached his reponse, but he's saying anyone should be punished for this, or doing any name calling, nor is he calling for the city to keep things how they were. There more important things about the protests and the rest of the current UK shitshow that need oxygen rather than the next week being "UK LABOUR LEADER CONGRATULATES INCITEMENT OF RIOT", because that's all it would do.

 

[theaface]

First off, let me be clear: I am personally delighted with what happened with the statue and support it completely.

With regards to Starmer, he's the leader of the opposition and a lawyer by trade. It is fantasy to assume he ever would, or indeed should, come out in unequivocal support of a breach of the law, however morally justifiable it is. It's not what most of us want to hear, but he cannot come out and directly condone it, not least because the Tories and right wing gutter press will tear him to pieces over it.

 

[Hagi]

Not really surprised to be honest. Can't be seen to support this else it opens the doors for people toppling the rest of the racist crap we've got around the country. Please ask permission first.

To be fair, even the Major of Bristol has said as much.

"It's an incredible decision for us now to decide what should go on the plinth in the city to tell us who we are or not just who we are but who we want to be and to use that as a place to celebrate something about ourselves. What I look forward to is having that city discussion.

"In the meantime it is highly likely that the Colston statue will end up in one of our museums."

Mayor gives update on future of Edward Colston statue

It was thrown in the water during a Black Lives Matter protest

www.bristolpost.co.uk

Click to shrink...

I think this part is more interesting to be honest

"We do live in a country where some people feel like they are losing their grip on their history and identity, many people believe Colston represented their sense of Bristol.
"So we as a city need to now have that kind of discussion with ourselves about what we are as a city and how we all make sure we have a sense of place and ownership."

Click to shrink...

Wonder if these people fully acknowledge his role in the slave trade.

 

[RedSparrows]

It's literally just a totem in tribute to a Slave Trader.... That's it.



Literally if it was built yesterday no one would be wanting it in a museum.

It's not special, it's not important, it's racist junk. It has no historical value other than it was built a long time ago.

Click to shrink...

Yes, and thus it has significant historical meaning. If it had no meaning it wouldn't have been torn down. It wouldn't have existed in the first place, and thus couldn't have been rejected.

I thought it was simply a rather ironic thing to say about the very statue that's become the centre of a furore.

 

[gerg]

It's not special, it's not important, it's racist junk. It has no historical value other than it was built a long time ago.

Click to shrink...

Isn't the definition of "historical value" precisely that something was built a long time ago?

I absolutely agree that the statue should not be on public display except in a museum where the context of the statue can be interrogated, the same way that Nazi propaganda is on display in certain museums.

But I don't think we should rush to destroy material culture if it can be preserved in some other fashion, the same way that I don't think it should be impossible to view a copy of Mein Kampf somewhere (which I say as a Jew whose grandparents escaped the Holocaust, although I don't think I should need to qualify that thought). I can't help but feel that there is a slight bit of hubris in the thought that "it's just a Victorian statue; there are tons others just like it" in assuming that all of those will be maintained sufficiently and last for the next 100, 200 or even 1,000 years.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Counterpoint, it getting thrown in the river adds new history to the statue. Include it in a museum now in a context of how the wealth of the country is linked to intense slavery, death, and suffering, which ripples into impacts felt today, it serves a useful purpose.

I understand why Starmer's getting heat on Era for how he's approached his reponse, but he's saying anyone should be punished for this, or doing any name calling, nor is he calling for the city to keep things how they were. There more important things about the protests and the rest of the current UK shitshow that need oxygen rather than the next week being "UK LABOUR LEADER CONGRATULATES INCITEMENT OF RIOT", because that's all it would do.

Click to shrink...

Then you go and collect pieces of materials from the people who destroyed the statue, put that shit in the museum with photos. There's no reason to spend tax money to remove the statue from the water and secure it somewhere.... if anything, if your goal is to memorialize this moment in history, it cheapens the moment to take it out of the water.

 

[Qikz]

The sad fact is that Starmer has to play the game if Labour are to have a chance of toppling the Tories in 4 years. If he went all out in favour of the actions of the protesters yesterday, he'd be castigated by the right wing press who pretty much control the mindset of the vast majority of the general public in the UK, and especially in England.

Click to shrink...

This is it. He can't get on the bad side of the press or Johnson will get away with murder again.

 

[Chris.]

Also it's just an old statue.... Not some actually significant historical piece..

Click to shrink...

so because it's not a significant historical piece gives people the right to go destroy it?

I don't even understand why these protests are allowed to go on in such groups, even less so when there are groups of absolute thugs that pull down statues, throw bottles at police and throw bikes at police horses causing the officer on the horse to end up with collapsed lung, broken ribs and all sorts of other problems. While at the same time we're being told to keep away from family and friends 2 metres apart, can't visit dying loved ones in hospital, can't have a proper funeral, can't get married, can't have more than a handful of people in a shop at one time, have to queue for hours outside 2 metres apart to get into a shop, yet people are allowed to go around destroying the city in the thousands with absolutely no repercussions despite advice from the government not to go.

Not to mention vandalising the statue of Winston Churchill.

 

[TorianElecdra]

There's always a "but" and a "good way" with white liberals / centrists.

 

[Kalor]

Starmer was never going to justify tearing down the statue in that way. Even if he personally agrees with it, he's a politician and former lawyer so he isn't going to encourage law breaking. And he's on LBC to appeal to people who wouldn't currently vote Labour so it's a weird tightrope.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Isn't the definition of "historical value" precisely that something was built a long time ago?

I absolutely agree that the statue should not be on public display except in a museum where the context of the statue can be interrogated, the same way that Nazi propaganda is on display in certain museums.

But I don't think we should rush to destroy material culture if it can be preserved in some other fashion, the same way that I don't think it should be impossible to view a copy of Mein Kampf somewhere. I can't help but feel that there is a slight bit of hubris in the thought that "it's just a Victorian statue; there are tons others just like it" in assuming that all of those will be maintained sufficiently and last for the next 100, 200 or even 1,000 years.

Click to shrink...

Yes, and thus it has significant historical meaning. If it had no meaning it wouldn't have been torn down. It wouldn't have existed in the first place, and thus couldn't have been rejected.

I thought it was simply a rather ironic thing to say about the very statue that's become the centre of a furore.

Click to shrink...

You are applying the identical logic to every single one of those junk statues commissioned by The United Daughters of the Confederacy in the US. They're junk statues.

 

[TorianElecdra]

so because it's not a significant historical piece gives people the right to go destroy it?

I don't even understand why these protests are allowed to go on in such groups, even less so when there are groups of absolute thugs that pull down statues, throw bottles at police and throw bikes at police horses causing the officer on the horse to end up with collapsed lung, broken ribs and all sorts of other problems. While at the same time we're being told to keep away from family and friends 2 metres apart, can't visit dying loved ones in hospital, can't have a proper funeral, can't get married, can't have more than a handful of people in a shop at one time, have to queue for hours outside 2 metres apart to get into a shop, yet people are allowed to go around destroying the city in the thousands with absolutely no repercussions despite advice from the government not to go.

Not to mention vandalising the statue of Winston Churchill.

Click to shrink...

Racial views of Winston Churchill - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[RedSparrows]

There's always a "but" and a "good way" with white liberals / centrists.

Click to shrink...

This is the game. He's not a revolutionary. He's better than the opposition, though.

Yes, it's shit. No, it's not changing tomorrow.

You are applying the identical logic to every single one of those junk statues commissioned by The United Daughters of the Confederacy in the US. They're junk statues.

Click to shrink...

Yes. Because they have meaning too. I think they're junk, and thus they have meaning. Others don't think they're junk, and thus they have meaning. Saying 'it's just an old statue, it's not particularly important' is massively ironic.

If you were to put it in a hierarchy of 'what would people who don't normally think of this stuff normally lose their shit about?', it's way down. But at the same time for people in Bristol, it's way up.

 

[gerg]

You are applying the identical logic to every single one of those junk statues commissioned by The United Daughters of the Confederacy in the US. They're junk statues.

Click to shrink...

Yes. I'm not passing an aesthetic judgment on the work - I'm sure the Colston statue is a relatively middling piece of Victorian sculpture, although by definition most work from any period would also be middling.

I kind of think we're quite lucky that we have access to as much "junk" from other eras as we do.

 

[LinkStrikesBack]

Also Keir starmer in that same conversation within a minute or two "It should have been removed a long time ago and had no place in 21st century Britain".

It seems pretty obvious he agrees with the morals of taking the statue down. A professional lawyer isn't going to come out saying "yeah just break the laws whenever, I'm down with that". But era loves it's hyperbolic thread titles.

 

[Pookmunki]

Glossing over the fact that he said it should have come down a long time ago loads the OP a bit too much for me.

He agrees with the sentiment, just not the means - that the council should have removed it.

 

[Pookmunki]

Also Keir starmer in that same conversation within a minute or two "It should have been removed a long time ago and had no place in 21st century Britain".

But era loves it's hyperbolic thread titles.

Click to shrink...

Exactly this.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yes. Because they have meaning too. I think they're junk, and thus they have meaning. Others don't think they're junk, and thus they have meaning. Saying 'it's just an old statue, it's not particularly important' is massively ironic.

?!!

Click to shrink...

Not everything old belongs in a museum.

 

[WhateverItTakes]

Then you go and collect pieces of materials from the people who destroyed the statue, put that shit in the museum with photos. There's no reason to spend tax money to remove the statue from the water and secure it somewhere.... if anything, if your goal is to memorialize this moment in history, it cheapens the moment to take it out of the water.

Click to shrink...

That's a nice idea! It should be up for to the city to decide at any rate regardless of all the national attention. Might just be they wouldn't want large debris on the riverbed for whatever reason.

I did defend Starmer in my earlier post, but he should go a step further by making some kind of pledge to having a more open and empowered conversation about imperialist/colonial relics from that past that can only be related to trauma. Maybe some scheme to give activist groups more power to remove things. It's completely wrong that the debate to remove had been going on for years without any power for the community to do anything.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Glossing over the fact that he said it should have come down a long time ago loads the OP a bit too much for me.

He agrees with the sentiment, just not the means - that the council should have removed it.

Click to shrink...

Except that's been tried for years, it was not happening, it was never going to happen.

So it's really easy, and lame, to say do it the "right" way, when the "right" way was never going to happen

 

[Rosebud]

The problem is that the statue was still there, which is unacceptable and what happened is justified.

But yeah, these things should be at museums.

 

[RedSparrows]

Not everything old belongs in a museum.

Click to shrink...

Didn't say it did.

My point is this: history is given meaning by people. Thus if a statue is built it is given meaning. If it is torn down, it is given meaning. Just because it's not aesthetically amazing, or holds a famous place in collective memory does not mean it is not meaningful, as evidenced by the very protests you refer to.

None of this is to say I disagree with it being taken down. I don't. The point is simply that to say 'it's just an old statue' is ironic given what has literally just happened.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Didn't say it did.

My point is this: history is given meaning by people. Thus if a statue is built it is given meaning. If it is torn down, it is given meaning. Just because it's not aesthetically amazing, or holds a famous place in collective memory does not mean it is not meaningful, as evidenced by the very protests you refer to.

None of this is to say I disagree with it being taken down. I don't. The point is simply that to say 'it's just an old statue' is ironic given what has literally just happened.

Click to shrink...

Yes.... but the reasoning for why it belongs in a museum being forwarded by Starmer has nothing to do with how it got removed, so I'm addressing that claim to it having some sort of valuable meaning before it got taken down.

 

[JoelStinty]

It's literally just a totem in tribute to a Slave Trader.... That's it.



Literally if it was built yesterday no one would be wanting it in a museum.

It's not special, it's not important, it's racist junk. It has no historical value other than it was built a long time ago.

Click to shrink...

David thinks the statue should be placed in a Museum, a place where history is taught.

David Olusoga defends pulling down of Colston statue

"Statues are not the mechanisms by which we understand history"

www.bristolpost.co.uk

The fact that statues are used as a symbol of adoration is a historical/social/cultural discussion In its own right and is relevant to how we view history and how society viewed these people over time.

 

[theaface]

Except that's been tried for years, it was not happening, it was never going to happen.

So it's really easy, and lame, to say do it the "right" way, when the "right" way was never going to happen

Click to shrink...

Would you prefer he'd taken the harder path, publicly condoning an act which was a breach of the law, and being torn to shreds over it by the Tories and the right wing press? You do understand the need to get a Labour government into power, and the need to appeal to, rather than alienate, a large bloc of wavering voters, right?

This has shades of post-election Corbynites proclaiming "we won the argument" - good for you, but you also secured a whopping Tory majority for 5 more years. Starmer has to be savvy and play the game with caution. I don't know why more people cannot see this.

 

[Gawge]

 

[Dirtyshubb]

Didn't say it did.

My point is this: history is given meaning by people. Thus if a statue is built it is given meaning. If it is torn down, it is given meaning. Just because it's not aesthetically amazing, or holds a famous place in collective memory does not mean it is not meaningful, as evidenced by the very protests you refer to.

None of this is to say I disagree with it being taken down. I don't. The point is simply that to say 'it's just an old statue' is ironic given what has literally just happened.

Click to shrink...

At this point it feels like you are more interested in simply arguing semantics and in turn shitting up the point people are making.

 

[Principate]

Except that's been tried for years, it was not happening, it was never going to happen.

So it's really easy, and lame, to say do it the "right" way, when the "right" way was never going to happen

Click to shrink...

Are you seriously stating that statue isn't historically important? Especially now that it as torn down by protesters in dramatic fashion. Museums don't exist purely to glory the past they're a tangible record of the past.

 

[RedSparrows]

Yes.... but the reasoning for why it belongs in a museum being forwarded by Starmer has nothing to do with how it got removed, so I'm addressing that claim to it having some sort of valuable meaning before it got taken down.

Click to shrink...

Now, on that, I have nothing more to add! Indeed: why this statue? 'It belongs in a museum' is a rhetorical device, I think.

Ironically, it could now be this statue because it was this statue. Though of course others would now say it belongs in the river. And so the argument shifts, and the meanings develop... I love being a historian.

At this point it feels like you are more interested in simply arguing semantics and in turn shitting up the point people are making.

Click to shrink...

I can see how it seems like that, but this isn't semantics. I don't think I am, because what is this all about if not history and our responses to it, and our honest understanding of what we are doing with and within history? Sure, it started as an ironic observation, but I flatter myself to say I think this stuff is genuinely significant. Just look at other posts in this thread and how they play with ideas of historical significance, and how those plays have political and moral and thus rhetorical weight. I am arguing the point and nothing but the point.

Edit: I'll shut up. I realise this probably is me being too finicky, and whilst I do think it important, I know it can be tiresome.

 

[Rosebud]

I hope this brings other places to remove these kind of statues from towns. But who am I kidding...

 

[gerg]

Not everything old belongs in a museum.

Click to shrink...

Most museums don't have the majority of their collections on display. It doesn't mean that they don't take the care and attention to preserve whatever in their archive isn't on show at any one point. (This is a vague statistic, admittedly, but IIRC the Science Museum has something like only 10% of its archive on display.)

I think this might be a source of some discrepancy between how people respond to instances like this. When I say that this belongs in a museum I don't mean that it should be on display in perpetuity forever, just in a room in a building instead of outside on some busy thoroughfare - there may be more culturally significant or aesthetically beautiful objects that have a greater justification to be on display. But I do believe that it should be preserved in some archive, and, if it is uneconomical to preserve it instead of some other object, it should be extensively catalogued before being destroyed.