A Guy’s View: Monuments and their symbolism

Just as the nation was in the midst of Independence celebrations, some person or persons decided to give the statue of Lord Nelson a paint job. The light paint in the national colours could do no permanent damage, but it may have been deeply significant.

The position has been expressed that the painting of the Nelson statue was wrong because it amounted to the disfigurement of a national monument. This reasonable argument is grounded in the pure legality of the act. However, Barbadians no longer place law above what is thought to be in the interest of persons. In this matter, there may be a great divide between what is legal and the collective conscience of the people.

This apparently simple act of painting Nelson raises a fundamental question which begs consideration. Should a people be compelled to worship the symbol of their oppression? And here, I will try my best to stay clear of religion.

Is it conscionable to impose a character like Horatio Nelson on the psyche of black Barbadians? Persons who understand what he did and stood for cannot now be persuaded by the limp attempts to rewrite his role in the oppression of our people. Should a law that imposes an affirmative answer to this question be obeyed? Mine is not a call to lawlessness, but a heads-up to the drafters and guardians of our laws.

If Parliament were to pass a law tomorrow which reintroduces slavery, should that law be obeyed? Should all laws not reflect the values of the society in which they are intended to operate? If there is ever a time when a law may be disobeyed, when is that threshold reached?

Law is a social contract between the state and citizens. The law must be morally legitimate in order to be worthy of obedience. Only when the law is morally legitimate may one expect the wide citizenry to collectively accept the rule of law within their society. It may be a little short of wise to tempt fate, to use an old local saying, by trying to enforce unethical laws.

Without expressing a position on the painting of the statue, one must honestly say that it is indeed surprising that it has taken so long for some grass-root act to be taken against that structure. The statue of Lord Horatio Nelson is offensive to most Barbadians. I hear the sentiments which are not broadcast because those who live the ordinary Barbadian experience do not have access to the media, except to complain about the Government.

For example, I have heard it said that the statue should have been painted black. It has been said that a sledge hammer should be taken to its head. There is the view that it should be dumped into the wharf. I have never heard a positive word spoken about that statue from any black Barbadian who does not depend on another group for his survival.

No Government can encourage lawlessness. By the same token, a wise government must understand the people that it serves, feel their pulse and act in their best interest. In the case of a former slave and colonial society, such governance includes doing everything to heal the wounds that are naturally suffered by people who have gone through such an experience. The biggest threat to such a people is psychological re-enslavement. This is most effectively conducted through the establishment of monuments that glorify their oppressors and, therefore, seek to legitimize their oppression.

The power of those who wish to retain the Nelson idea is greater than those who suffer from it, so Nelson will stay. But only as long as the oppressed remain psychologically impoverished. When mental freedom comes, Nelson will go.

Some context may be given to this issue by looking at it against the background of similar arguments in the United States. There, monuments of persons who played a similar role to Nelson have been the centre of great discussion and controversy. Persons who are not proud of the division and oppression associated with the persons immortalized by these monuments have been fighting for years to have them removed. But others of a different world view have stoutly resisted these efforts. The big difference is that in America, the descendants of the slave owners are still the majority population and control power at every level.

Americans teach that they fought a civil war over the issue of slavery. That may not be true, but what is certainly true is that the victory of the North over the South dealt a death blow to the formal enslavement of black people there. The Southern Confederate states rallied around their desire to maintain their lifestyle, which included slavery. They were forced to end formal servitude, but to this day, they continue to hold on to the idea of the inferiority of black people.

Only this year, the Alabama Senate candidate, Roy Moore, was reported as saying that the last time America was great was when they had slavery. Now we can understand why President Trump is willing to endorse Moore. He clearly understands what Trump means when he says that he will make America great again.

Notwithstanding protests and loud calls for the removal of Confederate monuments, the South Carolina lawmakers have remained adamant that those monuments will remain. They understand the value of keeping these symbols in place to the maintenance of their power structure and the preservation of the current race relationships.

In the State of Virginia, after the city had decided to remove the statue of Robert E. Lee, white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis, came out in strong protest. This caused considerable disquiet. As a result, limitations were placed on persons accessing the area.

Emergency regulations were put in place. They included limiting crowd size to 500 persons. Prior to these regulations, the limit was 5 000. Also, any event attracting more than 10 people would require a permit. The Governor said that these regulations were necessary to protect public safety.

Those who argue for the retention of the monuments say that they are a part of their heritage. So too was slavery. Listening to those discussions at the height of the protests, one could not escape the similarity between what was said in defence of those monuments and what is said here in defence of keeping the statue of Lord Nelson.

I have heard it said that there are some things in our culture that we should preserve and others that we should rid ourselves of. I agree. Where does Lord Nelson fall in that scenario? Is he a part of our heritage which is worthy of preservation? Whose heritage? Should he remain or be removed?

Recently the talk of Republican status has emerged again. Could Barbados become a Republic with Lord Nelson standing at the centre of our city?

Uncritical observance of laws is swiftly becoming a thing of the past. We should not wait until the people become bold enough to take matters into their own hands and employ violent self-help measures to secure their dignity. I fully appreciate the need to placate the base of power in Barbados, but wisdom teaches that there is a time for everything. We should get ahead of the coming storm and take down Nelson.