By Rhodes Bray, First Year, English
It’s been five years since the Colston statue has been ripped from its pedestal and dragged through the harbour, before he met his second demise in the river. This brutal – and perhaps overtly symbolic – dismissal of Colston and his active participation in the transatlantic slave trade rallied Bristol natives, bringing together an entire community in the violent outrage that accompanied the BLM protests.
Its often viewed as an active, physical example of the process of decolonisation. Decolonisation in itself is literally defined as the undoing of colonialism. In the tearing down of Colston, the colonial celebration of his furthering of the slave trade is also demolished.
This is all well and good. Seems fair right? Simple even.
Besides the fact that Colston currently resides in a museum.
Alongside the fact that the Colston-less plinth has a new plaque.
Which begs the question,
Is this a successful act of decolonisation if he is still remembered and discussed five years after the fact? Or is this exactly how we should be moving forward?
In his vandalised state though he may be, he still remains on a sort of figurative plinth in his erection in the museum. This can be controversial as museums in themselves are commonly acknowledged as inherently colonial spaces; an institution that often celebrates and perhaps even glorifies colonial rule and practice. Recent debates ask whether or not the returning of artefacts qualifies as a means of decolonisation. Can museums even be fully decolonised? Is their very existence a sort of furthering the celebration of archaic racial prejudice?
Perhaps this enlightens us to the fact that decolonising such a prominent city in the slave trade is much more difficult than it appears. The (somewhat) simple removal of Colston is a first step, he has been literally, rather forcefully removed from his pedestal.
But what next?
The importance now is the way with which we treat his history. It’s a fine line between the complete erasure of him as a historical figure: problematic, ignorant, the memory of him could promote a healthy acknowledgment of the travesty that was the slave trade and remind future generations why it cannot ever happen again. And then having him up on display: even more problematic, celebratory? Implies Bristolians are fine with his complicity in slavery.
This is where the new plaque comes in:
This plaque ensures that Colston is condemned for his ‘prominent’ role in slavery in. Bristol, and removes any sort of acknowledgement of him as a benefactor of the city.
This type of information allows us to realise his importance as a historical figure, but that this idolisation and celebration is rooted firmly in the past. It also informs us as to the discourse surrounding him and the dismantling of colonial bias in Bristol.
It’s important to note that this somewhat problematic memorialisation has, in a way, adapted with the times. Colston is in a museum, but is splattered with red paint. He is displayed there not as a glorification of his participation in enslavement, but to note the events that led him to be rolled into the harbour. This then educates people about colonial Bristol without justifying it.
This is similar to retrospective justice, meaning that whilst modern people cannot be held directly accountable for the crimes of colonial figures, they can engage in reparations in the modern world.
Decolonising Bristol entirely is a mammoth task, and begs the need for an intersectional approach. It will require a range of disciplines working together in order to establish a fully decolonised city, especially when Bristol itself has such an entrenched history with slavery. For example, we still have a Jamaica Street. It is argued that using these street names, even unknowingly, can be viewed as colonial participation. But in renaming the streets do we then erase the history?
It is easy to become tangled up in an endless spiral of decolonial discourse, yet this discussion becomes much easier when a group of academics can work together to find solutions.
There is no concrete end to the decolonisation process, which is part of what makes it so difficult to gauge. Five years post toppling Colston seems to be a step in the right direction. It’s a notable start, and hopefully a positive indicator for the rest of Bristol.
