I would also defend the Churchill statue. But what Johnson offers here is a very muddled defence, which misunderstands both the wider debate around public monuments and our relationship with the past. A few quick thoughts [THREAD]
1. No one is trying "to edit or censor our past", let alone "pretend to have a different history". On the contrary: campaigners are asking us to *stop* editing out those, like Colston's slaves, who had been erased from public memory. This is about *remembering*, not forgetting.
2. Johnson seems to share a vague assumption that, while "campaigners" want to remove statues, "history" put them up. Yet "previous generations" argued bitterly over figures like Clive and Colston. If we can revisit other contested decisions - like joining the EU - why not these?
3. If statues really do "teach us about our past", they teach a particular interpretation: for example, that Colston was "a philanthropist", or "a friend of humanity". They may even "lie about history". Challenging those lies can *enrich* our education.
4.Good historians constantly test & challenge their understanding of the past, rethinking previous interpretations. Statues are simply another form of historical writing. That they cast their interpretations in metal & put them in the public square does not lift them above debate
5. The case for Churchill's statute stands on its own merits: it does not require us to treat *all* statues as sacred relics. History involves a living relationship between past and present. Let's celebrate that, not fossilise our public spaces & the stories they tell. [ENDS]
