Historical statues – a battle field

In yesterday’s SABC News Prime Time, the fights around various statues in South Africa was described in terms of the statues as a battle field.

So, what is the battle all about? As far as I can assess, it is about who controls history. This is of course a very general statement. If we dig a bit deeper it is not only about how the history is written but also how it should be present in the public spaces.

In my own understanding it is important to reflect about artifacts like old statues. Very few people would be of the opinion that statues of Adolf Hitler should have been kept in Germany after the end of the World War II. (If there were any such statues – I am not sure).

But which statues should remain and which should be either moved or destroyed? Not easy. This discussion takes places, as far as I can understand, in most societies. In today’s South Africa the discussion is animated and sometimes violent.

It all started – I think – with the Cecil Rhodes statue at the University of Cape Town (UCT). It is now clear that the statue will be removed. Cecil John Rhodes caused a lot of suffering and death in southern Africa. Whether it was more than Hitler caused is not easy to say. Personally I doubt it. But I think it is a valuable standpoint that the statue must go.

But is this what the discussion in today’s South Africa is really about? Isn’t it rather about a reconciliation process that is contested? Many young, black students regard much of the reconciliation process as flawed. Today even Mandela is being criticised.

So, it is not only the statue at UCT that is under fire. Literally some EFF members placed a tyre around a colonial statue, situated in Uitenhage’s Market Square and set it alight. According to Eyewitness news the EFF takes responsibility for this.

On the website of the EFF one can also read that the party are fully behind the demand at the UCT that Rhodes must fall.

Interestingly enough ANC members cleaned another colonial statue that the EFF allegedly tried to deface. This according to News24.

On the website of the ANC, the party supports the demand for accelerated transformation, as the party writes:

The calls for Rhodes and other statues to fall are a symptom of the underlying problem of a lack of transformation in the institutions and in society in general. Twenty one years into democracy transformation can no longer be negotiated. The ANC unequivocally supports the calls of students for accelerated action to drive change. For too long, deep seated and institutionalised resistance to transformation has been the hallmark of many sections of our society and this untenable situation must change.

But I get the impression that the ANC rather wants discussions than violence:

We must also debate the meaning our different people attach to these symbols. As a nation we must find each other, in the absence of emotive racial polarisation, to build and unite around symbols that are an embodiment of the values and ethos of a democratic South Africa and the overarching principles of reconciliation and a common nationhood.

Another party, the DA, is critical when it comes to the methods used by the EFF. They refer to Mandela and write on the website:

President Mandela did not support the destruction of monuments, but rather the building of new ones, and the incorporation of existing monuments into an inclusive vision for the future of our society.

At the other end of the spectrum we find the Afrikaner organisation AfriForum that exists to protect the rights of the Afrikaners a community. They reacted to a statue at Church Square in Pretoria, that was painted green last week. On the website the organisation writes:

AfriForum launched a petition a week ago, asking for a moratorium to be placed on the removal and relocation of all statues and monuments in public areas. The organization also proposes that a national heritage summit be held where all concerned parties can discuss the future of the country’s cultural heritage.

It will be interesting to see what will happen in all this. Will for example the statue of Gandhi in Pietermaritzburg remain? Can anything bad be said about him? Yes, of course. He was, according to many, a racist and there are numerous quotes that support this. But the good that he did, can it maybe weigh up the thoughts that he held? And how many politicians or world leaders do we find without faults? Surely they are all placed on a continuum.

I think I have come to the conclusion that we would manage quite well without statues. Let us use the money for other things. Like food and shelter for the poor.