Should we rename racist historical landmarks?

It cannot be understated that the murder of George Floyd in 2020 started a worldwide
conversation about systemic racism and police brutality, which continues to this day. In the
aftermath of this tragic event, lots of protests took place on a global scale, where many
asked for one thing: change.
Part of the discussion about racism has been heavily concerned with historical landmarks
such as statues and various buildings bearing the name, or the likeness of a figure deemed
too racist to be put on display. The most recent example concerns the University of Bristol,
that refused to rename buildings such as the Wills Memorial Building, named after a family
with ties to the transatlantic slave trade. On the other hand, the university did decide to
amend its logo, part of which was associated with Edward Colston, a known slave trader,
whose statue was dragged into Bristol Harbour during protests, a few months after Floyd’s
tragic passing. This begs a few questions. Why change a logo associated with a problematic
figure but not the names of buildings? Why not change both or none at all? Part of the
reason might be that, according to university officials, the Wills family for instance did not
directly participate in the trafficking of slaves – although they absolutely profited from their
labour through their dealings in sugar and tobacco – while Colston did when he was working
with the Royal African Company. Another component might be the cost of renaming but then
again, for a university that asks for 9,250 GBP in annual tuition, cost can hardly be an issue.
This is all part of a much bigger question. Indeed, should we rename buildings at all? What
are the consequences of such a decision? Do we not run the risk of forgetting history and
repeating the past? But then again, has knowing history ever stopped us from repeating our
mistakes? And can these problematic representations teach us something or are they
instead glorifying a dark moment in our past? In my opinion, people’s feelings regarding
these buildings should absolutely be heard, considered, and if possible and reasonable, be
put into action. But as an avid 1984 reader, I also worry about erasing our history, forgetting
our mistakes, and making it easier to repeat them in the future. However, keeping these
names and these statues, which are painful reminders of a time where inequality went
completely unchecked does not sit well with me either. I suppose what I’m saying is: this is a
complex issue.
In the recent past, different approaches have been taken worldwide regarding these
problematic buildings, in an attempt to satisfy all sides of the argument. Problematic statues
and landmarks all over the United Kingdom – and in other parts of the world – gained
explanatory plaques which contextualised the problematic person’s history. Statues were
removed from public spaces and put into museums. But some feel this isn’t enough and the
problematic figure it’s associated with and all that they represent will still be glorified in some
way. Other institutions all over the world have taken a more final approach, like in
Switzerland, a country that has continually tried to distance itself from claims that it
participated in the slave trade.
In Geneva for instance, students have held many protests condemning the university
building, statue, and street named after the German-Swiss scientist Carl Vogt. Most of the
criticism stemmed from Vogt’s belief in polygenism, a theory arguing that all human races do
not share the same origin. This has often been used to assert white supremacist ideas due to
its positioning of white people as superior to any other races. Due to renovations, the statue
has been temporarily – for now – put away, while university officials come to a decision
concerning its display. However, unlike Bristol, the institution has taken the decision to
rename the Carl Vogt university building, after lengthy discussions.

While it seems that no decision will ever satisfy all sides of the argument, one thing is clear: if
any action is to be taken, it should not be so without a fair discussion with the concerned
communities and an examining of the reasons for the removals of these names and
monuments. History has not always – and some might say has never – been glorious, and
many events do not deserve to be celebrated and put on display. However, we should still
think at length about what erasing them completely might accomplish. It is important to move
on and look to the future without forgetting our past, or we might run the risk of repeating our
mistakes.