Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.
Epiphanies 2023: Decolonising History
This is a spin-off from a Hell thread. I raised the issue by remarking that the past cannot be cancelled, and it was pointed out to me that no one is trying to cancel the past, but to bring out the full facts, e.g. the part played by 'colonial', i.e. non-white troops in the world wars (There were no coloured troops at Dunkirk', etc.). I wonder if 'decolonisation' is the right word to use here, it conjures up overtones of the felling of statues and the renaming of sreets and buildings, a negative concept in my view, while what is needed is an enlargement of knowledge rather than its suppression. I was very properly told that the proper place for a discussion of the subject was Purgatory. So here it is. Is there a better term to use?
Comments
I’m a white man living in the American South and I have no problem with “decolonizing.” To me it suggests shifting from a colonial mindset that prioritizes the experience of the colonizing group, perhaps to the exclusion of any other perspective, to a more inclusive perspective.
@Nick Tamen will be able to attest that many Confederate statues that are now being removed in the US were in fact erected many years after the Civil War by people with a vested interest in promoting the Confederate cause and in fact suppressing history by promoting a 'War of Northern Aggression' narrative. Removing such statues is in fact widening knowledge by acknowledging this.
We do not remember history by names of streets or buildings, or by statues. At most these things can record ephemera; a name, a date. History is much more than that, and changing names and removing statues no more suppresses history than changing the display in the main hall of the NHM suppresses the palaeontology of sauropods.
As @Pomona says, these monuments and memorials were intended to *celebrate* these individuals. Our enlarging knowledge of that history must cause us to reconsider whether that celebration is something in which we would join.
Enlarging knowledge of the slave trade might surely put the thought in a reasonable person's mind that they would rather not the street they live in be named after him. Would you want to live in Goebels Gardens, Pol Pot House or Stalin Street?
Therefore there is no possible justification for objecting to removing statues and renaming streets that isn't 'what they did was actually fine'.
There are a couple of controversial statues which I would rather remained in situ but with a plaque or board explaining their full history.
"The Mannie" (the Duke of Sutherland) on Ben Bhraggie now has metal sheeting round its base after various attempts to blow the bloody thing up. I think the statue with its ugly metal protective sheeting, with an information board explaining why the metal sheeting is needed, would be far better than removing it.
FWIW, I have mooned the statue (there was no one else there at the time, other than my daughter who took photos) and found that more satisfying than seeing it removed.
My gt gt gt grandfather was one of the "grateful tenantry" who, given the choice between donating and eviction, donated towards its erection, so I have an interest in this one.
That's a serious question. I don't know the answer. But I recognize that past crime can continue to have deleterious effects, and that serious attempts can be made in the present time to mitigate the damage of past acts.
ISTM the current generation of British folks are like the descendants of a biker gang. You yourselves have done nothing wrong! You have nothing to feel personally ashamed of in terms of bad acts. And yet, you remain the inheritors and beneficiaries of crimes. What to do?
You might feel it's terribly unfair to point that out, and even more unfair to suggest that perhaps there might be material reparations to be made to the descendants of those who were unjustly deprived of their property. Do two wrongs make a right? And is that the correct way of framing it?
It must be very pleasant to live so far away, geographically and socially, from the ramifications of those crimes. I do not enjoy that luxury. I recognize that I too am the beneficiary of not-terribly-historic crimes. Although I have no immediate expectation of being driven from my home from a crowd with torches and guns, that is exactly what happened to the forebears of the people on this land. I did not participate in that initial crime, nor did my own ancestors. Would it be justice if that happened to me?
In Canada, we had the Truth and Reconciliation commission, concerning our history with indigenous people. The "reconciliation" part includes finding a way forward together. Cynics will say "well they just want money." But when you read the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation commission, most things don't actually cost money. Some things do.
De-colonizing includes the attempt to set up a new framework. Here in a former colony, there really was - and there are remnants of - a belief that the British way was best, in all things. But that's not really true, is it? What will it look like to build a society in which that belief is no longer the default?
Citizens of the United Kingdom, whatever their provenance or the antiquity thereof, continue to benefit from past colonization. The riches that were brought to the UK, and the vulnerable people removed from the UK (and no longer requiring consideration), reshaped the society into what it is today.
Which leads me back to my first question. When is a crime not a crime anymore? Enclosure would now be considered a human rights violation.
ISTM that this subject is going to be difficult to discuss in Purgatory, because of the inevitable links to racism, classism and so forth, all of which belong in Epiphanies.
I'm suspending this temporarily while I discuss the best way to proceed with my colleagues backstage.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
When the perpetrators are dead criminality is largely irrelevant. Reparation where people continue to benefit from those actions is another matter. Enclosure benefited the church and other large landowners (like the current Duke of Westminster) who continue to profit from it to this day. The difficulty with reparations is identifying a category of people who might be considered victims of it. My ancestors were farm labourers, so may well have been affected, but the impact was so broad that (unlike slavery or the clearances) you can't necessarily identify specific effects. It's true that the Duke of Westminster's wealth is obscene, but that's a problem with inequality and inherited wealth, not the specific source of the money. Should the church surrender the land it gained as a result of enclosure? Maybe, but to whom, and to what end?
Doublethink, Admin
In fact, if all would please look over this article from Priyamvada Gopal, it is a good explanation of why this issue is tied up with racism and why we need more and different voices.
For those interested in a longer and more academic article, I recommend this article as well.
So please continue the thread, but please continue it in a way that is aware of disadvantaged and non white voices.
Gwai,
Epiphanies Host
And lots of British people aren't the descendants of colonisers at all.
But that is not really the issue, regarding decolonising history. It is about not omitting large chunks of our own history in order to paint ourselves a more flattering picture of the past. And not assuming that “our” history is solely the history that the white English ruling class deemed important.
Certainly when I was at school, we were taught about the existence of the empire and the slave trade - but learned almost nothing about pre colonial Africa or the nature of the societies in which the colonisers took power. I know more about Rome 2000 years ago than I do about Ugandan history for example, despite the fact the country was colonised by the British.
Removal of those statues is very much about understanding what they were really erected to communicate and perpetuate.
* FWIW, in my 60+ years, I’ve rarely heard a Southerner use “the War of Northern Aggression” as anything other than a somewhat tongue-in-cheek term for the Civil War. Not that very problematic ideas can’t be prettied up through humor, and if it is used seriously it’s certainly a sign of much bigger issues. In my experience, the more “serious” alternative term to “Civil War” is “War Between the States,” and I don’t hear it as much as I used to.
Of course, others’ mileage may vary on this, and I’m aware that “War of Northern Aggression” was used (and perhaps first popularized) by mid-20th C. segregationists who used the term in the context of their opposition to federally-imposed integration. I’m merely speaking about how I’ve tended to hear the term used.
This is the opening scene of Ivo Andric's novel "The Bridge on the Drina" and the forces are those of the Ottoman Empire.
This is Canada, all through the twentieth century. The last "Indian residential school" closed in 1996. So not exactly as far back in time as Adam and Eve, Kwesi, and much more recent than the Ottomans.
A colonial historical view of residential schools: "We built and staffed schools for the education and benefit of [Indian] children. It was more economical and effective to bring them to centralized educational and residential facility than to have localized education. We tried to bring children of the Stone Age into modern times, and fit them for the society in which they must earn a living. Boys were to be taught trades, girls to be housekeepers, with basic literacy and numeracy for both."
A decolonized historical view of residential schools: "We forcibly removed children from their parents and homes, and forbade them contact with their siblings in the school. We subcontracted education to religious organizations, with many teachers appointed by their bishops to this role, whether they wished to be teachers or not. We permitted every sort of heinous abuse to occur. We provided one-half of the food budget and one-half of the medicine budget otherwise allocated in the cases of 'white' residential schools, so [Indian] children were malnourished and sick. We provided no healthy role models for home life, familial or romantic relationships, no means for establishing generational wealth, and punished communication in their native languages and attempts to transmit ritual or culture."
The first version valorizes the brave little empire for attempting to educate the children of "Indians." The second version lays out the horror of the planned imperial structures of isolation, cruelty, neglect, and systematic destruction of culture and language of the people of these nations.
I live amongst the wreckage that residential schools created.
This is just one small example of what it means to de-colonize history. But I think it's more than an anti-imperial view, although it certainly includes it. Decolonizing is not just an "against" of being anti-imperial; I think it includes a "for" as well. Decolonizing is an attempt to build a society not grounded in the assumptions of imperial power and social structures.
When I encounter the "War of Northern Aggression" types online I tend to refer to it as the "Slavers' Rebellion".
This is why the American Civil War is something of a misnomer. It's more akin to a failed secessionist conflict (part of a polity seeking independence) rather than a true civil war (rival factions fighting for sole control of a single polity). Still, the name has the been around long enough semantic corrections at this point are unlikely.
Yes, but it does underline the importance of semantic subtleties in defining political agendas.
When I was in seminary, I got to know a person who is Kikuyu. Fact was, his village was attacked by the King's Rifles. He himself was shot in the leg. To hear his version of the story helped me realize it was the other way around.
And I know the term Mau Mau is a misnomer.