“Retain & Explain”

“RETAIN AND EXPLAIN” POLICY OF STATUES VERSUS THE BLM IDEOLOGYBy Pa Modou Faal

The removal of statues following the mass protests of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement in 2020 has been countered by a strict law passed by government. The law states that all historic statues, plaques, and other monuments will now require permission to be removed. They are meant to be “retained” and “explained” for future generations. The purpose of the law is aimed at safeguarding the historical monuments at the risk of removal.

The concept of BLM through mass protest nationwide, will be used to interpret why statues were toppled during the civil racial and political uprising with specific emphasis on the Edward Colston statue in Bristol, with a view to understanding why the government has come up with the “retain and explain” law. Enactment and implementation of cultural policies are the key constructs of what describe our cultural industry. The industry is a composition of legislations, cultural products and services, and monuments and statues are part of the creative industries. The need to “rethink and indeed remake our world”, exposes the inept decision by the policy makers. The decision to obtain permission for the removal of historic statues serves as a pathway to the claim brought forward by BLM for decolonisation of the system, cultural and racial diversity, and intergenerational tolerance. The basis of this argument here focuses on why policymakers came up with this highly disputed law at the hype of socio-political disgruntlement. The new law according to the ministry, is meant to legally protect historic statues for the purpose of “retain and explain” and individuals who want to remove any historical statue would require permission of which final decision shall come from the Communities Secretary. This according to the ministry is in conformity with the 1967 Civic Amenities Act. To retain statues that represent an ideology, event or society that is criticised for inhumane acts by a part of society and challenged through mass protests by the same marginalised voices and their supporters, explains how unpopular such regulations will be met. To explain the history behind the motive of keeping such statues, the question would be who is telling the story, under which perspective, and who are the target audience; will arise. This can bring about unresolvable dilemma within the society. If heritage is objectively critiqued in conformity with the intended historical explanation in a disinterested manner, then the policymaking dilemma is resolved. Whereas if the critiqued is subjective and done in a biased and implicit manner, then it is understood in different ways today. The value judgements of the time when these statues were erected were befitting to the socio-cultural set up of the Victorian era. They were revered structures of tangible heritage but in the contemporary era, they are highly criticised and challenged by a section of the society that sees some statues as insulting and unfit for what that represents today. Uprising against statues is not a new phenomenon especially in the last two decades. Toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad, “Rhodes Must Fall” movement, Leopold II in Belgium among many others, came from politically and historically charged reaction from a united perspective which regarded them as unfit in our public spaces. The drowning of Edward Colston’s statue was metaphorical but in no exception with others across UK and the rest of the world. One may attribute it as a representation of tens of thousands of drowned African captives enroute to Britain for slavery. Of course, his statue was not ordinarily attacked and destroyed; having it stood in the heart of the city of Bristol, was deemed a mismatch of history, diversity, and modernity. It represented a dark history of slave trade, “White Supremacy” and “Upper Class” ideologies of which the BLM is against. It also idealises the historical negativity and systemic marginalisation people of colour are faced with. In a politically charged argument, this policy to “retain and explain” is implicit and is aimed legitimising the privileges and racial benefits enjoyed by the “white and upper class” in British society. Is the law a political masterclass or blunder? As argued above, policy makers are faced with a daunting challenge during decision making because no matter their decisions, it is subject to political, social, and cultural challenges.