There is a debate running in Bristol at the moment regarding the Colston Hall. Or more particularly, it being named after Edward Colston, who was, amongst other things, a slave trader.
The arguments run that to retain his name on the building is both an insult to sections of the Bristol community, and an indication of acceptance of his trade.
I would suggest that neither of these arguments are true.
If a new concert venue was built and named after him then there would be a totally valid outcry. But this name is of extremely long-standing, from a very different time, with very different considerations to the fore.
To remove the Colston name would be to remove a piece of evidence of Bristol’s history, and a part of its history which shouldn’t be denied or hidden.
And the same applies to all the other statues and commemorations of past figures with less than savoury curriculum vitae.
To remove and hide doesn’t correct a historical wrong. What it does is reduce the indications of an unsavoury past, and slowly that history fades away.
If the intention is to learn from history, and to ensure that the wrongs of the past are not repeated – if only that were possible – then the evidence must remain.
Colston’s name should remain on the building. What should also be there is a large plaque explaining his history.
And shouldn’t the next target for renaming be the Wills Memorial Building, constructed with the proceeds of the tobacco industry?
The retention of historical monuments is not an indication of their acceptance, it should be an acknowledgement of a past that is universally regretted, and a reminder that it should not recur.
The clearest example is the retention of Auschwitz-Birkenau. All of history’s worst offences should remain visible, as reminders to each generation.
Explained, exposed, exhibited. Not removed, renamed, cleansed.
cherokoffdotcom 