Retain and explain: stopping or stoking the culture wars?
The Government’s retain and explain strategy for controversial monuments will do little to diffuse the ongoing culture warm, says Toby Young.
I’m sympathetic to Oliver Dowden’s formula for defusing culture-war disputes about statues of controversial historic figures: ‘retain and explain’. That is, don’t pull statues down, but make it clear that their remaining in place doesn’t signify approval of everything the people they represent did. Provide the public with a helpful summary of their lives and works, the good as well as the bad, so we can make a rounded assessment and, hopefully, judge them by the standards of their times as well as of our own.
Unfortunately, the ‘explanatory panel’ that has just appeared beneath the statue of Cecil Rhodes on the facade of Oriel college falls somewhat short of this ideal. It describes him as a ‘committed British colonialist’ who ‘obtained his fortune through exploitation of minerals, land, and peoples of southern Africa’. In case you’re in any doubt about how terrible he was, it adds: ‘Some of his activities led to great loss of life and attracted criticism in his day and ever since.’
The problem with this summary isn’t that it’s historically inaccurate, but that it’s too one-sided... Keep reading on The Spectator.
I’m sympathetic to Oliver Dowden’s formula for defusing culture-war disputes about statues of controversial historic figures: ‘retain and explain’. That is, don’t pull statues down, but make it clear that their remaining in place doesn’t signify approval of everything the people they represent did. Provide the public with a helpful summary of their lives and works, the good as well as the bad, so we can make a rounded assessment and, hopefully, judge them by the standards of their times as well as of our own.
Unfortunately, the ‘explanatory panel’ that has just appeared beneath the statue of Cecil Rhodes on the facade of Oriel college falls somewhat short of this ideal. It describes him as a ‘committed British colonialist’ who ‘obtained his fortune through exploitation of minerals, land, and peoples of southern Africa’. In case you’re in any doubt about how terrible he was, it adds: ‘Some of his activities led to great loss of life and attracted criticism in his day and ever since.’
The problem with this summary isn’t that it’s historically inaccurate, but that it’s too one-sided... Keep reading on The Spectator.