A discussion has started/ is ongoing in Western countries after George Floyd was murdered by four white police officers while this happened not long after Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor were killed and a video showed how a white woman called police to falsely claim a black man threatened her. I wrote about slavery and its consequences shortly before while these stories about police killing black people is not something new while I suggested some solutions. The discussion is among others about whether or not to remove and/or destroy statues of slave traders, slave owners and leading figures who approved slavery, mistreatment of humans and enforced deportation of humans to other countries and even continents to force them to work without payment and even under threat of punishment and death if they didn't work hard enough. I acknowledge, not all slave owners were bad but they too lived in a time when black people's lives were in danger when they were free and thus being in a household of someone who respected slaves could save lives; still, it shows that society at large was wrong. (Compare with "Schindler's list", a film about a true story of a business owner who saved Jews during WWII but they had to work for him and couldn't be free).
Even after slavery was abolished, the descendants of slaves (mostly black) often endured worse treatment than descendants of those who enforced slavery upon them (mostly white people although not all white people). Indeed, white people (such as the Ku Klux Klan or KKK) continued to attack and murder black people, Tulsa being an extreme example of the destruction and massacre of successful black people. Even the recently deceased politician John Lewis experienced discrimination throughout his life. And while slave-owners were compensated after the abolition of slavery, former slaves received nothing and are still not allowed to protest for equality. And remember the difficulties the first black USA President Barack Obama experienced in order to have his presidency destroyed. And when black people consider they have no way out, they might start to take law in their own hands (although the video is very unsharp to definitely say the person was black); something that is unacceptable and indeed need severe punishment to deter others from doing the same.
Another problem in the USA is the National Rifle Association (NRA) that is powerful enough to block changes to gun ownership laws so American society is full with weapons of which many are legal up to semi-automatic ones and thus everyone fears each other so a policy of "shoot first than ask questions" came into place as we saw again when a black man entered his car and police opened fire. Therefore, the NRA needs to be destroyed so weapons laws can change and society becomes less threatening.
Yes, everywhere black people are at the bottom of the picking order, unfortunately even in Africa where the best grounds, houses and companies are in (often foreign and) mainly white hands. Also climbing the career ladder is difficult. Still, we tell black people they should not complain versus a white young man who killed two people can walk past police with the weapon in his hand or sometimes heavily armed white extremists can protest without mask to protect others from Covid-19.
Therefore, informed discussions are needed as for instance Bristol's mayor (descendant of slaves) said after a statue of a slave trader was thrown in the harbour during antiracist protests; he suggests an alternative is to replace it with a statue of Paul Stevenson, a civil rights campaigner as indeed people who often risked their job and even life for others are not often remembered. Another possibility may be to place a statue of an African such as a sculptor who installed a statue of a Black Lives Matter protestor although it was removed after only one day. Here a testimony by someone who explains what is wrong when statues that honour slavery are defended: people start to minimise and even defend slavery as a force that brought wealth here and in colonies while they say those who want the statues gone exaggerate and are even equated with terrorists and Nazi's, something that is simply wrong. Also Brussels plans to discuss what to do with statues of people linked to its colonial period. Because, such statues in societies that still discriminate symbolise racism.
Before, I was of the opinion that we shouldn't remove those statues but instead place an explanation about how bad the person was. However, is this sufficient? I'm no longer convinced. Indeed, the execution of black man George Floyd by a white policeman and his colleagues and afterwards the minimalisation and main focus on violence by a small part of demonstrators changed my mind, certainly when now protestors for equal human rights are taken from streets by secret police, illustrating no reflection by at least part of authorities on why people protest and thus black and white people continue to be treated differently. Why are black people not allowed to be angry when again a video showed how a black person was killed by someone who should protect people? Why can't white people demand that other white people behave as their actions bring shame on all white? To defend statues that were erected to honour slave traders and owners is to forget the bad and remember the good they did.
Questions
Therefore, is it to slave traders and owners, their descendants and the people from the same culture to decide that statues of their own evil people should remain to be worshipped because those statues make places more beautiful? Or should we not listen to the victims and their descendants what they want, certainly when they continue to complain about discrimination at many levels, even when they are successful in their job?
Can white people alone decide what (descendants of) victims have to accept about the white culture after we slaughtered, directly and indirectly, throughout history multiples of millions of people (including each other), after we took away the freedom of many while destroyed culture after culture and sold not only humans but until today what we recognise as valuable of which we can see a fraction in Western museums after paying entrance while the rest is in private property? That's not very fair I think. Or should we humble ourselves and ask the descendants of slaves of whom many still experience discrimination and even death simply because of their skin colour, what they want? Should white people not feel such shame that they belong to a group of people who did so much evil throughout history and up to today as many of our companies still exploit people living in developing countries, that we don't even want those statues? And, don't forget, they also spread the word around the world that e.g. LGBTs are not worth to keep alive.
Today, Africa and Latin America are still in troubles because (1) their social structures were completely disrupted when white people enslaved and killed their people and destroyed and sold symbols of their cultures and (2), again and again they are refused to govern themselves as they wish or we support(ed) military dictatorships and the imprisonment and even murder of leaders who tried to improve the life of their citizens at the disadvantage of Western companies. Therefore, should it not be white people who take the initiative to at least discuss and even move those statues that in effect praise human rights violators and mass murderers to museums to explain what they did, similar with historical figures from lost civilisations? Indeed, history shouldn't be erased but educated although educating the real history, including the bad side, will anger a section of society as we experience today. When statues are damaged or removed, the empty pedestal can remain with explanation. Another powerful option is that red paint and graffiti is used to shame the person so we see clearly he wasn't a nice person. Maybe we should return some of the statues back to streets and public buildings that are now in museums to restore part of civilisations we destroyed and didn't want to show in public except in museums in order to eradicate their history by telling our version of their history? But, I also understand that damaging or removing certain statues is only a symbolic gesture that needs to be followed with real action to improve societies, that may include the return of some of the art they want back or compensating by giving some of our own art.
After the removal or "highlighting" of certain statues, of course it is important to teach future generations about colonialism and what was done so they continue to live in our memory for what they were: bad people, even for the time in which they lived, who don't need statues in their honour because that's why their statues are made for: to forget the bad and remember the greatness. This way, people are reminded to do good or their legacy will be destroyed. This way statues of good people can remain without people wanting their destruction. On the other hand, history can also anger people long after events happened so good people may become the bad. An example is Brexit whereby part of British society no longer accepts that Germany is a founding and leading country in the EU while the UK sacrificed many of its people to liberate Europeans more than ones from German terror while the UK was blocked to join the EU at the start while had to raise its voice to be heard in that EU. Similar, the UK sacrificed its people to liberate Europe from Napoleon while de Gaulle vetoed the UK as founding member of the EU. And thus, as the UK was never taken serious, it decided to leave and now EU members are angry it does. (Another reason is that English want to punish their capital London for showing no interest at all in the development of cities and towns outside London and thus leaving the EU means devalue London property.)
Belgium, king Leopold II and Congo
Leopold II in Congo is a good example how colonisation was done in a completely and knowingly wrong way as the international community gave Congo to Leopold II to look good after the region and its people but Leopold II didn't bother.
The above picture shows a statue in Blankenberge whereby a black woman with child almost worship two men; these men were killed in Congo (see
7 - Lippens and De Bruyne for more information). The black man was used to model the child in the statue. This is really a good statue to show the wrongs of colonialism: black women and children on their knees for colonists who didn't bother. The boy of 12 in the statue grew out to become the first Congolese to finish his studies in Belgium after which he became a human right activist and scientist but he died too young at the age of 42,
Other atrocities by white people
Belgium is only one country although its track record is bad as it concerns huge numbers of deaths in quite a short period and region.
Indeed, after the colonization of the Americas, Indians in North America were legally killed and this was celebrated in movies in which the good white cowboy killed the bad Indians who were fighting for their land against a white invader; the result were millions death. Today Indians can be themselves in reserves where unemployment and depressions are high while
politicians can speak in front of huge busts of previous presidents at what was ones Indian land.
In other parts of the continent America, white people killed directly by superior weapons and indirectly (although they can't be blamed for this as they didn't have the knowledge yet) by the importation of diseases that resulted in the collapse of empires (although research suggests they were terrible empires with human sacrifices as can be seen in the movie "
Apocalypto") and destruction of cultures and cities while their wealth such as gold but also farming products where exported to Europe. Later these European colonialists fought against their home countries to liberate themselves while the original population continued to live in poverty without any political influence. The massive abuse of human rights also introduced the current troubles as Africans were massively kidnapped to be sold in the Americas to work as slaves; today these African-Americans are seen by many whites as a threat to them and their culture as their numbers are growing. Even today certain white people think black people should accept to be slaves; an example is the terrible
earthquake in Haiti that some evangelicals considered as a (late) punishment by God because black slaves fought against their white masters and they won (you could also argue God granted them freedom).
Also in
Asia white people conquered territories (and this means mainly Europeans as kings and queens were never happy with the territory they ruled and wanted more) such as
India and Pakistan, China, ... and each time locals suffered. But, here we have a two way violence as sometimes Asians came to Europe to kill, mostly during climate crises when people moved to other regions searching for food. Guess what, climate is changing and China is strengthening its army.
We should also not forget the huge country
Australia where white people settled and
Aboriginals still live in terrible conditions while its white government over about 26 million inhabitants does everything possible to keep refugees outside by what can be considered as imprisonment of refugees in camps,
now considered as an example for Europe.
These conquests by Europeans happened over centuries:
Alexander the Great,
Ancient Rome and others. As described above and elsewhere; even in Europe they couldn't stop fighting each other in order to enlarge territories they claim God had given them while they were in effect family wars over inheritance. Remember the 30 and 100 year wars, Napoleonic wars, WWI and WWII and other wars, all about territory; at least the
American civil war was about the abolishment of slavery instead of extermination of people although the USA has a terrible history towards the Indians.
 |
A monument in Barcelona honoring the colonisation of America. We see on the left an Indian kneeling before a white priest while we know the original Americans weren't that pleased with Europeans' arrival that resulted in the fall of empires and death of millions of people.
|
Today
While the West exploited the lands they conquered to become wealthy (e.g. ivory and rubber trade in Congo by Belgium in return for mutilated and death Congolese) although after a while we brought some wealth and development for the locals as that also benefited the colonisers, today the same Westerners are telling developing countries that they must preserve nature because otherwise also rich Western countries will face climate change and swim in polluted oceans. Now we want to see monkeys, lions and elephants although some hunts them while locals, often dark skinned people, have to serve us because we pay them something. How proud we are when we can reduce the cost of souvenirs, even when their original prices were only a few euros while few negotiate a price in their own country and even add an extra tip on top of a great cost.
On the other hand, many Westerners now go to developing countries to help locals to educate them, including in farming and to provide healthcare as many leaders in those countries are corrupt, often because of the power structures that keep the same people in power, and refuse to invest in their own country while those who try to bring change often fail because of those power structures.
An example is
Winston Churchill who was the first to go against Nazism and fascism in Europe and thus he is by many considered as a great statesman. But,
not everyone agrees, certainly not in India where some historians consider him as the man who ordered to starve Indians to save the lives of Europeans when they were fighting a European war and thus this needs to be discussed. Indeed, in wars innocent people die; however, do leaders need to sacrifice people who live in other parts of the world to win their own war? Winston Churchill didn't conquer India but inherited it and thus what he did is still important. Thus, it's good India is now an independent country that can decide whether or not no help countries that fight wars. If Europeans decided against conquering the world while we already traded with Asia and could have done so with America, Australia, Africa, it's unlikely all this anger throughout the world would be here. Further, after the independence of countries white people could have decided to share their land and companies fairly with the original inhabitants which they did not. On the contrary as I mentioned higher, slave owners were compensated after the abolition of slavery while liberated slaves were not for the years they and their ancestors were not free people but instead property of white people. Still, white people mourn statues of their mass murderers are vandalised.
Because, do white people need to wait until black and other people are angry or should white people act before? And don't forget, if those four white police officers involved in the killing of George Floyd hadn't done what they did, i.e. clearly showing on camera that lives of black people don't matter, than all this protest may not have happened (at least not until another white person with authority may have done something similar). That doesn't mean black people can't be criminals and I accept sometimes aggression needs to be used when people are arrested, whether they are black, yellow or white. In case of George Floyd's death, I still think this was organised to cause anger and violence and to be able to respond against "lefties". Indeed, white people would also protest when this happened to a white person, certainly when the police officers were not white.
What to do with statues?
Maybe descendants of victims agree that an explanation below a statue is sufficient. Or maybe they accept red paint on statues to disgrace historical figures of human right abuses. Maybe they find we should topple statues so they lay below their pedestal. Or maybe they think we should completely remove certain statues and replace them with victims of the abuse. Of course, buildings and parks are here but we may rename them after the victims of colonial abuse. An example, the
Royal Museum for Central Africa in Tervuren may be renamed after PM Lumumba as an apology of Belgium's bad treatment of him and Congo in general; this way Congolese will also start to know the history of their killed freedom fighters that was kept hidden for them. Maybe we, white people, should ask migrant and African politicians and artists what to do with the statues of colonialism?
If descendants of victims decide the removal of a statue is needed, who are we, white people, to object as we made and maintain these statues to remember the good these people did for (part of) their own people while the statues intend to remove the fact that the persons immortalised destroyed families as they tortured and killed thousands if not millions while destroyed civilisations? I think the West should even consider to give some of its own art as an apology for the art we stole and destroyed that was theirs.
Destruction happened in the past when anger destroyed the legacy of bad rulers
It's not only now but throughout history that the legacies of evil rulers have been destroyed or at least seriously damaged. Little is left behind from
Roman emperor Caligula who was sufficiently evil that he was murdered by part of his own elite soldiers. Also little more than ruins are left behind from
Roman emperor Nero as rulers after him decided his ego and buildings were too big as they nearly bankrupted the empire. Also the legacy of good rulers can be destroyed when leaders come into power who want to portray themselves as greater than previous leaders. Or older statues are placed in such a way they surround the new rulers statue.
In modern times,
when Saddam Hussein's regime fell his statue was toppled to destroy the image of the brutal ruler while his palaces were looted but are now used for other purposes. Unfortunately but Hussein's supporters but also opponents are now fighting for control over the country. Maybe dividing it in smaller pieces so everyone can rule something may be a solution just as in the past empires collapsed and crumbled; the problem is that at least one group wants to unite regions from different countries and thus face opposition.
No removal from history
Does that mean to remove evil from history? No, people have to face their past, feel shame for parts and proud about other parts of their history to improve. The internet and movies play an important part to teach us our past, not only from one viewpoint as in the past when governments told schools what part of history children should know but also the point of view from (descendants of) victims.
An example are movies and books about
Hitler because, even without statues as they are forbidden, he is remembered as the leader of nations gone mad. He was one of the most manipulative persons in history and thus society should interfere when it notice individuals and society are moving in the wrong direction as recently happened when a
person was jailed for openly showing his admiration for Hitler what is obviously wrong while the symbols of his admiration were removed to stop its influence from spreading. Thus, education is good so we know; therefore, bad persons who had power shouldn't be removed from history books while pictures, paintings, videos and statues should be used to teach us history. But, why not remove them from where they are portrayed as good people such as a peaceful man on a horse while he ordered the enslavement and killing of millions of people to increase his wealth so he could build to be remembered?
Thus, I think we should ask survivors and descendants of victims and present them different options and their advantages and disadvantages while they may have their own ideas. If they decide a statue of an evil person should be destroyed because he/she harmed too many, it be so, it only concerns a non living thing of someone who destroyed real living humans. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and many others don't deserve statues as their rule resulted in millions of deaths; the same applies to others. And with the statues gone, even when the memory of slavery and its masters may be destroyed, at least their legacy will also be gone unless inequality continues to exist but then also slavery will be remembered by those who favour it. In addition to descendants of victims, also historians and artists can be involved in the discussion what to do with those statues such as cut off a hand or deform faces into something inhumane. Finally, the general public too can be consulted so they can decide they want to see statues of mass murderers or want them in museums to inform what they did. And yes, not all statues need to be destroyed because although certain persons had a white skin, they may have done good; that's why knowing history is important.
Personal note
I do not like this destruction as indeed it concerns history. Even those who were
ones considered as children's friends who give toys away are now under attack. However, each history can only come to an end when people acknowledge what was done wrong in the past and try to do it better now and in the future. It's a shame that Leopold II abused his presence in Congo while he promised to do good so today what he did wrong becomes the main focus.
Further, it is a shame that today's racists destroy many positive achievements by white people. Indeed, today many Westerners go to developing countries, often paying their own flight and accommodation to help people such as cure the ill while educate them how to prevent illnesses.
Now, because white policemen killed a defenseless black man (and there are similar cases), it seems people oppose the police but many don't, instead they oppose racist police officers. Because what they did to Mr Floyd and the slow response of the police to act against the policemen who did this, now police can't do anything right or they are called racists, even when violence is needed. Further, the whole world is reminded about the evil white people did and still do so people forget the good. As an example are Africa and Latin-America where apartheid is still not over because white people claim they are better in farming but often this is because their ancestors conquered and kept for themselves large areas of the best ground while even today they don't educate the original inhabitants who lost their own knowledge how best to grow local plants but instead they are told that only monocultures of imported plants are worth investing in so they can sell to the West while local populations are hungry and western farmers complain they can't compete with food imported from developing countries. Indeed, racism destroys legacies as racists embrace the bad of their society, not the good. And because of a few racist police officers (for whatever reason), now all are considered racists.
On the other hand, why do certain people think they must always argue with police or teachers or any adults while they know they should not dare to do the same in the country their parents came from? It's not because here police officers have to behave that people should abuse this because than one day people in authority will behave as they would in those other countries to silence those who can't stop questioning any order.
And it's not only BLM and more general antiracist protests but instead a steady build-up of tensions since a number of years that, like the ripening of a pimple, may one day break open. More in a next publication.
Comments