In June 2020, protesters in Bristol toppled a statue of merchant and Edward Colston and launched it into the harbour below. It came after months of international protest at the killing of George Floyd in America- killed by a police officer during an arrest. That it was tragic and needless is not an opinion; but it has to be acknowledged that this was not a singular event. The protests demanded the address not only of justice systems which have for centuries unfairly persecuted, prosecuted and even executed black people but of the socio-political structures which continue to facilitate them.

The toppling of Edward Colston, then, represented this need. The statue of Colston was a marker of place. It memorialised not only the life of a single, powerful man who died several centuries ago but also the institutions he represented. It shares with the public one expression of history, but it was not commissioned by it. Perhaps even more pertinent is the fact that there does not exist one unified public: rather, a rich collections of publics which overlap and intersect. It cannot speak to one public because it does not exist. However, the memorialisation of Colston and in turn organisations such as the Royal African Company with which he was involved is one that is at odds with contemporary culture.

Monuments therefore have the power to burying and memorialise in one fell swoop. The statue of liberty; commemorating the welcoming of thousands of immigrants to Ellis Island and to America, eclipses in its physical and social enormity the plight of those immigrants denied entry for conviction, mental illness or simply being Chinese labourers.

These monuments may also have the opportunity to challenge received histories by opening them to question and inspection. This would be an argument in favour of such statues remaining in place. However, it could also be argued that that questioning came in the form of the protest and subsequent removal. The ‘public’- in so far as it exists- took ownership of a statue that was a raised, massive and distant in its form and historic significance. What remains on the spot today is just the plinth.

TL;DR - The destruction of monuments can be justified when it symbolises society's growth from forgone ideals and practices, but where do we draw the line?

When can the destruction of monuments be justified?

When monuments are destroyed in war-time acts to weaken and wound a nation, the destruction is spiteful and difficult to justify. When monuments are destroyed by natural disasters, well, we don't have much to discuss or justify. When monuments are destroyed in the name of a social movement, however, the deed might be justified for several reasons.

• A monument commemorating an outdated principle can be destroyed to signify the abandonment of old beliefs. The purpose of a monument is to celebrate an individual or event that holds significance in a community's history; upon deciding that it represents ideals that are no longer deemed respectable, its removal is symbolic. It may be argued that this is an erasure of history; however, monuments themselves do not preserve history and their removal in this case is a direct acknowledgement of the history they represent.

• The George-Floyd protests have led to the defacement and destruction of several monuments considered to be associated with racial injustices. The removal of these monuments sent a powerful message and fueled the rhetoric of the movement. We could thus claim that the destruction of a monument, if contributing to a greater good, is justified, if we value the outcome over the memorial.

• Another example is the removal of Christopher Columbus statues, performed in acknowledgement of the explorer's role in indigenous genocide and the establishment of the slave trade.

The last two examples are arguably easier to condone (assuming a generalisation of public opinion). The question remains, however, of when the subject of a monument's flaws 'outweigh' the events it was erected to memorialise. For example,

• A statue of Pablo Picasso exists in his childhood home, La Merced, in Spain. He is celebrated for his artistic brilliance as a pioneer of Cubism and inventor of collage, and for the revolutionary perspectives he invoked in his sculptures and paintings.

• Pablo Picasso was also a serial adulterator. His granddaughter articulately describes his relations with women in her memoir: “He submitted them to his animal sexuality, tamed them, bewitched them, ingested them, and crushed them onto his canvas. After he had spent many nights extracting their essence, once they were bled dry, he would dispose of them.”

The revered painter was a misogynist, and it is difficult to argue that his treatment of the romantic women in his life was anything but deplorable. Should we, then, remove his monument? The statue celebrates a man whose contributions to art were truly commendable, but the man himself was fundamentally flawed.

• Given that human beings are all flawed in some way, does the destruction of monuments as described above set a precedent that prevents us from celebrating most historical figures? If so, is this precedent itself an argument against the justification of monument destruction in general - i.e., if we can't define a limit, does that mean we must refrain entirely?

• Going even further, if we decide to remove Picasso's statue, should we cease to celebrate his art as arguable 'monuments' of his talent?

Removal from the open, public view? Sure. But these statues are works of art. Trying to erase history by destroying artwork is some low key Hitler shit.

Toss em in a museum where they belong. No need to deface the masterpiece itself.

The destruction of monuments serve as signs that we recognise wrongdoings in the history of our predecessors. As such they are justified in that we refuse to continue celebrating their life achievements

• Statues and monuments are used to celebrate the life achievements of an individual. However, why do we continue to still celebrate those who were heavily involved in the slave trade? The destruction of monuments is justified in that we refuse to continue to celebrate those individuals and their actions.
• Edward Colston was heavily involved in the Atlantic Slave Trade. During a Black Lives Matter protest in June of 2020, protestors removed the statue commemorating Colston before throwing it into the Bristol Harbour. One article described this as an ‘act of living history’ The Mayor of Bristol himself even said that this was ‘an iconic moment for the city.’
• The protest movement ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ is a campaign that originally started in the University of Cape Town, South Africa in March of 2015. This movement was in protest of a statue in memory of Cecil Rhodes. Rhodes was a British Imperialist ‘who played a dominant role in southern Africa in the late 19th Century’ This protest also signalled a move to decolonise the curriculum of the university which reflected a ‘Eurocentric Heritage.’
  What once started as a campaign to remove one statue gained global attraction.
  Students within the University of Oxford stood in solidarity with the Rhodes Must Fall movement, calling for the removal of a statue within the institution that too commemorated the memory of Rhodes.
• People who argue against this line of reasoning and the justification of the destruction of monuments, would say that we are destroying history. I don’t think we can destroy history. However, I do think we can choose to acknowledge the wrongdoings of our history. The slave trade will never be forgotten but we don’t need to continue to have monuments and statues that glorify these people.
• You will find no statues of Hitler or remains of monuments from the Nazi period. As this article articulates ‘Germany Doesn’t Have Statues Of Hitler, So Why Do We Have Confederate Monuments’. It is in fact illegal to display any Nazi imagery in Germany. I don’t know anyone who would have argued in favour of keeping up such monuments. As such we should approach the destruction of monuments that celebrate the lives of those involved with the slave trade with the same attitude.

You can't judge yesterday's heroes by today's standards, removing a monument should be done with community support, not a mob

The only statue that needs to be destroyed is the statue of Lenin in Seattle.

If statues have to go, couldn't we just send them to museum for historical and artistic value? It seems wasteful to just destroy them.