Regarding the legacy of colonialism and empire people are behaving as if we stand before a moral choice now, when in fact that choice was made centuries ago. Empires were by nature expansionary. The traces are all over the world: the Levant, Korea, South America, Australia...
... most of Africa, and of course the USA. It is not a coincidence that the Sansad Bhavan in New Delhi, the Union Buildings in Pretoria, the Congreso in Buenos Aires, the Capitol Building in Washington DC, and many others around the world are grand edifices in Neoclassical style.
Initial simpler buildings were almost always replaced or substituted by grand designs. It was never just about the function of buildings. They always represented more. The export of (Western) culture and ideas was most certainly a massive part of what these buildings represented.
I am of course focusing on the Anglo-, Franco-, Luso-, Néerlando- and Hispanosphere (since nobody seems worried about colonialism in the East or Middle East). The imprint of Empire and - seen through the eyes of the time - the achievement of imperial expansion.
In fact these buildings are a celebration and glorification of Empire. This is not limited to buildings of government, but is evident in churches, theatres, opera houses, libraries, etc. Now, the notion of pulling down statues and monuments for their representative value....
... and because they "glorify" or "celebrate" seems to me an unsatisfactory argument. Because by extension all of these structures would need to be pulled down because of what they represent or represented. They are not mere buildings, but are monuments in their own right.
So why stop at statues and monuments? Why not all these buildings and institutions? Why not the railroads (how many of them have the word "Great" in their names?)? Realise how expedient, but utterly hollow, the tearing down of monuments and statues are in the bigger picture.
But also realise the madness (not to mention impracticability) of following this argument to its logical conclusion. I often see the argument "statues don't teach us anything about history". This can be both true and false. But it is symptomatic of a culture (or generation)...
... that wants everything presented instantly and neatly packaged at once. The fact that a monument may induce further thinking, reading, research or discussion is a bridge too far for them. By analogy, books also teach us nothing until we actually open and read them.
Problematising colonialism today as if we are at a moral fork in the road (to colonise or not to colonise) is to wish away the legacy (some say scars) of the expansion of European influence over many centuries. At the same time it problematises the mere presence of European ....
... descendants in various corners of the world - in many cases people whose ancestors came to these parts of the world centuries ago and who have known no other "home" or "motherland". The presence of white people in Africa, Australia, Latin and North America isn't something...
... that can be wished away or changed in 2020. It should not be the consciousness of the time to relentlessly vilify hundreds of millions of people whose mere presence is evidence of a painful past over which we have NO influence. Additionally, historical revisionism can never..
... achieve what time travel theoretically could. The bloodletting of tearing down monuments and renaming buildings, erasing films and cultural artefacts may lead to an ephemeral satisfaction. But for those who want this, it will never be enough. There is no logical end to this.
@threadreaderapp Unroll
