Read on Twitter
"Local people should have the chance to be consulted whether a monument should stand or not." Sounds like a reasonable statement but even though it's Sunday I'm going to do my job and explain why it's nonsense that fuels flames 1/n https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-55693020?__twitter_impression=true
Firstly, in the case under discussion, the statue was already 'protected' there had been a long consultation over adding extra information (that Tory favourite) blocked again and again by 'local' people. This formulation overlooks both power and diversity at a local level 2/n
Despite the fact that this is framed as local concerns, all local decisions for change would have to be signed off by a minister. This conflict between different scales of government is common of course, this suddenly gives statues more 'protection' than any other heritage 3/n
Sadly, we still have to clarify that you can't erase history. 1. The past has already happened 'warts and all' 2. the power relations and legacies of those pasts continue into the present 3. as do some material remains. The relations between these 3 are complex 4/n
Engaging with the material remains of the past is one way of challenging the power relations and legacies of that past. This can include valuing material that has been overlooked, changing the location and interpretation of things that were valued, and getting rid of things 5/n
These activities are not new. I hate universals, but I have seen these negotiations in many times and places, they are normal ways to engage with the past, codified more recently this l through academic, professional and legal structures 6/n
The statues that have caused this sudden concern for heritage by a government that has cut short for heritage at every turn are a case in point. Many erected long after the men depicted had already been discredited, they established power in the present by reference to a past 7/n
Because these practices are common, people *do* and will create their own engagement with the past, in the context of current or structures and conflicts. The past is powerful and pervasive not rare and fragile. All kinds of material can be used in these struggles, everywhere 8/n
So when governments talk about protecting the past for the future, what they mean is managing that the corner state of the argument must not change. Denying both present and future people's the right to engage in the negotiation. But it doesn't work 9/n
Because the past is powerful and pervasive, these 'protections' can't stop engagement, they just slow it down. And when the process is slower than the political mood, it breaks. Which is what happened this summer. Pouring cement in a fault line won't stop an earthquake 10/10
My apologies for the many typos throughout this thread. If any are confusing, let me know and I'll clarify
Sorry, I should say that I've focused here on the question of control, but we also need to remember that Jenrick's outburst & the 'culture war' is an attempt to maintain structural racism stemming from colonialism. That's the power referenced throughout this thread
