I think there are some strong arguments against how Colston's statue was removed (as well as reasons why a jury may choose not to convict those who did it). One thing that this did not do is 'efface the memory' of history: most people have obvs now heard much more about it since.
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1479806584918351872
There are so many distinct, pretty unique aspects of the Colston in Bristol debate (which was not well known outside Bristol). I personally think this is by far the strongest general point against removing statues in this way. The 'erasing history' intuition doesn't stack up. 
This has been a message from the Campaign for Centrist Compromise on Statues.
- Remove Colston legally
- Keep *almost* all the others (99%+)
- Retain and Reinterpret (and argue over how)
- Above all, focus much more on who to recognise, not who to remove.
- Remove Colston legally
- Keep *almost* all the others (99%+)
- Retain and Reinterpret (and argue over how)
- Above all, focus much more on who to recognise, not who to remove.
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1369403761425285120
Towards common ground on statues?
capx.co/how-talking-mo…
capx.co/how-talking-mo…
Not all centrist compromises on statues will work!
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1270340600227934208
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
