The murder of George Floyd has ignited a wave of protests across the globe with more and more people taking to the streets in support of the 'Black Lives Matter' movement. The demonstrations internationally envelop a broader struggle to eradicate racism.
While such demands are undoubtedly justified, the many ongoing protests in the US and elsewhere are promptly turning riotous. What is worrisome is the new outlet for public outrage, which seems to be crystallising in acts of vandalism against historical landmarks with dubious past.
The most recent example of such pernicious behaviour is from yesterday in the British port city of Bristol. Protestors toppled a statue of Edward Colston before throwing it in the city harbour. Admittedly, Colston was a controversial historical figure, having made his fortune from lave trade in the 17th century. Before he died, however, Colston donated most of his wealth to various charities in the city of Bristol, which made him one of the most prominent philanthropists of his time.
All of this raises one essential question. Does public outrage and anger with deeply-rooted issues such as racism, justify the destruction of historical monuments that represent contentious parts of a nation's cultural heritage? Tensions from all sides tend to flare up when the masses are being allowed to vent their anger in such an indiscriminate manner.
The highly emotional 'herd mentality' that tends to prevail during riotous demonstrations is also quite inept at directing the general focus towards the real origins of the underlying issue. Yesterday's toppling of Edward Colston's statue is just one example of a cathartic outlet for the dissatisfactions of the masses. Case in point, the destruction of a monument that the masses perceive as a symbolic representation of the main problem.
Yet, Colston can hardly be blamed for the entire history of racism, nor would the historical baggage of racism that continues to plague our modern society, perish completely with the abolition of his bronze statue. In reality, such actions could impede the overcoming of racial prejudices in the long term.
A little over five years ago, ISIS commenced its campaign to systematically destroy cultural monuments in the ancient city of Palmyra, which was situated in present-day Syria. The outraged world rightfully so condemned the act of eradicating world heritage sights as being barbaric. This hardly impressed the Islamists who must have been convinced they were doing a righteous thing. A calamitous outcome of the 'Does the ends justify the means' conundrum.
Ultimately, what is the difference between the two acts of vandalism? The struggle to overcome racial prejudices is, of course, much more justified and easier to get behind, compared to religious fanaticism. But when one examines the two cases at face value, the actions of the two groups become indistinguishable from one another.
History is seldom homogenous. As times change, so does the perception of what is right and what is wrong. This is what progress looks like at its most rudimentary form. But in order for people to be able to distinguish between moral and immoral behaviour, they need to have solid points of reference, and that is precisely why historical monuments are important.
The preservation of even controversial statues of former slave traders is done to serve as a reminder and a cautionary tale; to ensure that the mistakes of the past shall never be forgotten. The now-empty statue slot in Bristol is not going to offset centuries of slave trading. However, it will certainly deny future generations the opportunity to see the face of one of the men responsible for the awful legacy of racial segregation. One less pillar to remind us of the virtue of change.