Horniman Museum targeted by “Topple the Racists” activism

Concerned to discover the activists threatening historical monuments in the U.K. have added @HornimanMuseum to the hit list:

image1125×1999 704 KB

I wouldn’t describe the group as a mob, not sure which part of their purpose statement would suggest that… or am I missing something?

Ah ok I see you’ve changed the title

Actually the title never included the word “mob”

What did it say?

The same title as currently. I edited a word in the post content on advice from moderators.

Anyway, surely the safety of the Horniman Museum is the important subject for discussion here?

Right so it’s a question of it being the text not the title. My original point still stands

I had a quick look and even on the horniman website they acknowledge that the family’s associations with the tea industry and the collection itself is to be viewed critically. I can’t remember the exact signage in the museum but maybe they can include (or already do) wording to educate people on history. That’s the point of a museum right? To learn about history?..

Edit: on the word “mob”. Thank you Nadia for calling it out. It was edited, which is good! Our language right now is powerful, which is not to say we must be politically correct 100% of the time. But please be aware.

In my view, groups of people that roam the streets arbitrarily destroying other people’s (or public) property are indeed mobs. But I will give “Topple The Racists” the benefit of the doubt for now, hence the edit.

I despair at this selective editing of our history and art. Gone with the Wind has been banned now. What next? Digging up Trafalgar Square? Burning Shakespeare’s plays and Burns’ Poetry? Burns Night will obviously need to be banned and all artefacts of the African kings who sold their captors into slavery destroyed.

We should learn from our history, not deny or erase it. I’d like to see a fraction of the energy going into this turned to opposing slavery and debt bondage today. But I guess we’d have to give up the constant upgrading of our mobile phones for that and that’s a bit more of a sacrifice than 18th Century society women boycotting sugar, isn’t it?

I think you are being alarmist. I don’t think there is reasonable cause for concern for the museum’s “safety”. From the website in question:

Q&A

Who have we included?

We have included cases where there is responsibility for colonial violence. History is complicated so we have made some judgment calls. We welcome feedback.

What do we want?

To promote debate. It’s important to shine a light on the continued adoration of colonial icons and symbols.

Are you saying the statues should be torn down?

It’s up to local communities to decide what statues they want in their local areas. We hope the map aids these much-needed dialogues.

Clearly there is a debate to be had concerning the legacy of Horniman— the museum itself is quite clear about this. Not only about the name, but also some items in the collection, most famously Benin bronzes.

On the topic of Colston, this is a good article by historian David Olusoga. The toppling of his statue was a protest following a long and stifled campaign to get it removed (or even to add a plaque commemorating the victims of slavery) peacefully. It was not a “mob” of people roaming the streets of Bristol looking to “arbitrarily” destroy property.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/08/edward-colston-statue-history-slave-trader-bristol-protest

Monuments glorify individuals, they are not effective at educating people about negative parts of their legacy. Movements like this clearly are effective at raising awareness of figures like Colston and of the lasting influence of slavery on cities like Bristol (and London).

Others have said it far better than I

Almost all museums are beginning to face up to this- the Horniman is actively acknowleding this and envolving its approach. The massive investment in the world gallery and the change in its curation style was part of this. They actively seek community engangement with projects such as this https://www.horniman.ac.uk/project/community-action-research-african-and-caribbean-collections/

As @neilw states the activist group are asking for feedback - it also unclear who this group are and how much this wesites reflects opinion generally. It is not part of the ‘official’ BLM movement as far as I can see. The is a plurality of opinion in any group and these may well be on the fringes.

I’ve noticed this too. The Horniman put out a statement recently, and it’s in a really good position to educate about the dubious moral landscape that existed in Victorian times (in which few people were morally pure by 21st century standards).

It would be devastating if this “Topple the Racists” listing caused activists to harm the museum.

From https://www.horniman.ac.uk/our-history/

In my opinion, the Horniman has got the discussion absolutely right here.

Acceptance that the collection is only there as a result of the wealth gained through Imperial exploitation - and a commitment to engage in critical discussion about how best to respect the various cultural heritages - whilst still retaining a valuable educational resource.

I really can’t see how anyone might take umbrage at this policy.

I hope this will be a proper consultation, rather than an armchair click vote. Genuine unbiased and thorough research needs to be published before any statue or monument is removed. I don’t recall anything in any previously published manifesto about any proposals to remove monuments. No one is a saint. Ghandi had his faults and we should acknowledge and remember them but he’s also revered by many for the good he did and tried to do. We don’t cleanse history by hiding or selectively editing it. If we do so it will be repeated in other ways. Far better to see these monuments in context - of their times and of the whole life of the person - and to add footnotes and links.

History is no longer the propaganda of the victors because good research access is now easily available to all. But it is in danger of knee jerk reactions to ill informed surface research and biased wiki type posts.

Hitler said (vastly paraphrasing from memory here) that he would in effect get away with his “final solution” because no one remembered what the Turks did to the Armenians. Maybe if there had been some kind of physical memorial people would have remembered?

It’s not arbitrary, and actually very few of these colonial icons have been “destroyed” thus far.

The “targets” are specifically figureheads of the slave trade who profited from the pillaging of bodies, resources, and artefacts, and are celebrated with statues in prominent positions and buildings named after them.

If there is a proper public consultation (ie democratic process), and the public wants a statue to be toppled, then the toppling is not arbitrary.

The democratic processes of which you speak have failed to bring about change quickly enough. Do you think the anger at these monuments is unjustified? Is it too much of an affront to see a metal statue tipped into a dock in response to a man’s neck being knelt on until he died?

Even the policeman in charge of keeping the peace sympathised with the actions of those activists.

The reality of racism operates in many ways, particularly through the lack of education and understanding of Black British history. The Macpherson Report produced 20 years ago, showed that cultural diversity within the curriculum is one of the ways to prevent racism. Similarly, The Windrush Review recommended that colonial and migration history should be taught. So why are we still here today?

https://www.theblackcurriculum.com/

If there are problems in the process, let’s address those problems, as opposed to abandoning democracy and going out in the street and smashing things up, based on the untested assumption that we represent a majority.

Bear in mind that the anti-democratic precedent you set here may be used to justify hostile action by those who have completely different worldviews to yours

So is this democratic enough for you?

A commission selected by Sadiq Khan, who has already taken a personal stance on the matter? Some of Khan’s personally-led bans/awards have brought his objectivity into doubt, IMO, but that’s a debate for another topic.

Would you accept a similar commission if it were run by Boris Johnson, say?

I’d rather the treatment of individual landmarks, museums and monuments was put to a fair and representative public vote.

I would vote for the Horniman Museum to remain exactly as it is - reflective, honest and brilliantly community-focussed.

Sometimes protest is needed to address those problems. If you have never been part of a group that has had to resort to protest to make their voices heard, then you can count yourself lucky.

I don’t think any resident of Forest Hill would disagree with you that it should remain “reflective, honest and brilliantly community-focussed”. But if more attention were drawn to the uncomfortable truths of its origins then that’s no bad thing, or do you disagree? In which case it would no longer be “exactly as it is”…

Agreed. Peaceful, non-violent, non-destructive protest is the way forward here, I’m sure we both agree on that.

Please see the insightful posts in this topic which demonstrate @HornimanMuseum is already self-aware, and has publicly acknowledged this.

I suspect there are some people who would want these acknowledgements to take centre stage at the Horniman, but I don’t.

The Horniman is so much more than just a monument to slavery, and it certainly doesn’t attempt to promote or justify it. Here in the 21st century, we don’t need to live in constant guilt of our past, any more than people of other empires (who have also engaged in slavery, plunder and worse)

Actually not entirely. I have no issue with Colston’s statue ending up in the drink. And neither did his only descendant (recently hounded off Twitter).

So I guess we’ll agree to differ on this.

I find one of the weird things that if Robert Milligan hadn’t founded the West India Docks (and arguably turned around the hitherto struggling London docklands) and if John Colston hadn’t given so much money to Bristol to fund almshouses, schools, hospitals and the university - as well as bailing out the Council - we’d not have the statues and comparatively few would have heard of them and would have been unaware that much of their cities’ infrastructure was built on profits from slavery.

But what about all those who don’t have statues to remind us? What of the Portuguese and the Dutch and the Belgian slave traders? And if course the many whose pension funds continue to invest in companies that profit from forced labour - in much the same way Thomas Guy (whose statue is also on the hit list) used profits from his investments in the South Sea Company to fund the hospitals we rely on today.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I was a member of the Anti Slavery Society for many years. Slavery is the most abhorrent and evil thing in the world today. But remember Britain led the world in abolishing the slave trade. I mean abolishing the form of the slave trade that everyone’s been talking about - not the slave trade that still exists and that we should be doing something about: the debt bondage, the forced labour, the human trafficking, the descent-based slavery still endemic in parts of Africa today. Imagine that. In 2020. Being born into slavery, because your mother was, and her mother was And unless something changes, your daughter will be.

Yes, I’m one of them. I’ve been visiting the Horniman since I was a kid (I’m now 45) and I wasn’t aware of his connections to the slave trade. I guess that makes me naive as practically all of the wealth amassed during the 19th century came via the slave trade and the British colonial project.

I don’t feel guilty. Would it be too much for you then?

The problem with the “democratic process” argument is that somewhere down the line, something hasn’t worked.

It’s the same democratic process that waves through unjust decisions through western courts, disproportionately targeting non-white people.

As a country we’re only as good as our last action. We are still riding the waves of imperialism, and it’s right to acknowledge that and try and appreciate that perhaps statues of great people who were also slavers might be construed differently by communities other than our own.

Can we not be proud to lead the world in acknowledging and removing the relics that insult the descendants of people who were treated so poorly, and continue to serve as a relic and a reminder of white supremacy to their descendants?

Exactly.

Actually no. He has no mandate to do so.

As the democratically elected London Mayor he has a mandate to conduct a review.

If it was on his manifesto I’d wholeheartedly agree with you.

Khan arguably shouldn’t even be in office right now. There was an election due, and it was postponed.

Thomas Guy, founder of Guys Hospital, was also involved in the slave trade.

Should we topple him too? Maybe, maybe not – that’s the point of the review, surely?

The world we live in today is very different; despite modern complaints it’s better than it ever has been for many.

I find it funny that people are arguing about the importance of statues of figures that are frankly not that relevant in modern life. Some people did great things, a statue is a token gesture and a physical thing that one day, one way or another, is going to disappear. Forcefully removing it now does not undo the person’s acts, good or bad. This lockdown has allowed me and my partner to discover the beautiful local cemeteries. Walking through there, you’ll notice that even the fanciest gravestone will fall victim to entropy eventually.

If we’re expending so much energy about statues, it’ll be good fun when it comes to discussing amendments to the education curriculum…

I think as a white guy who’s never experienced this sort of subtle insult while walking around a city, it’s probably more important to try and listen more than pick an obscure hill to die on. It’s strange the funders of universities etc, who are overwhelmingly of the same demographic, don’t even entertain the idea that maybe the values the statues implicitly convey could be insulting.

As people are fond of doing right now, I’m going to employ the “Jimmy Saville argument”. All of his charitable good works and deeds do not erase his crimes. And neither should they in the case of slavers…

The truth of the colonial past needs to shift from being represented by monuments that glorify it to critical understanding through education at a root and branch level… It needs to be in the history books and curriculum. It’s really not that complicated.

The statues can be moved to museums as relics of the past. Milligan and Colston can be discussed in the text books with their philanthropy represented alongside their profiteering from human misery.

Nope, that’s not what we’re arguing about. We’re arguing about the notion that people in the street can arbitrarily destroy public monuments and buildings that don’t fit their present day moral framework.

The question is a much bigger one than any individual statue.

For the record I couldn’t care less about the Colston statue. But I do care about Horniman.

There is a monument to Karl Marx in London which I find offensive (as his ideology led to the deaths of over 100M people). Does my offence give me the right to destroy the monument?

Except they can’t. Because some Covidiots have dumped one of them in the harbour his company built.

That’s not really true. Leninism and Stalinism led to that… Marx’s philosophies underpinned certain modes of thought that led to the gulags and five-year plans which resulted in mass starvation and all those deaths you speak of.

And many of Stalin’s and Lenin’s statues HAVE been destroyed.

By your logic we should therefore destroy all of Jesus’ statues due to all of the subsequent deaths that have been committed due to his philosophy?

A fitting resting place, some would argue

[quote=“featherbelly, post:66, topic:14823”]

Quote from Featherbelly: “As people are fond of doing right now, I’m going to employ the “Jimmy Saville argument”. All of his charitable good works and deeds do not erase his crimes. And neither should they in the case of slavers…”

I didn’t say they did! Please read my post in its entirety if you’re going to comment on it. (Sorry I’ve messed up the quote formatting).

And let’s not forget other religious prophet(s) who by modern standards are pedophiles and war criminals.

Yes, if we’re going to judge the past by modern standards, we’d better be prepared to destroy churches, temples, mosques and more. Is that acceptable?

Yes — we have lost one statue to a watery grave which has now provoked a huge and instant rethink of policy towards these monuments across institutions and government. Clearly showing that by and large these curators and decision makers realise that changes need to be made, and soon.

Without this bold and symbolic act this would probably not be happening.

It’s not exactly the Taliban* (edit. ISIS) in Palmyra.

*It was the Taliban who destroyed the Buddhas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan#2001,_destruction_by_the_Taliban.

I did read your post. What have I misunderstood?

I think you’ll find that was Daesh.

Indeed:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/09/150901-isis-destruction-looting-ancient-sites-iraq-syria-archaeology/

But let’s not get off topic.

It seems you’re saying if these if these statues had never existed in tribute to their good deeds then no one would know about them, and by extension their bad deeds would also be unknown/forgotten?

Which works on the premise that you need a statue of any historical figure in order for them to be remembered, which probably isn’t completely valid…

I will try to be clearer. The statue of Colston came about because he had donated so much money to Bristol. If he hadn’t done so there would have been no statue and he would have been long forgotten. There were hundreds of others who also invested in companies that profited from slavery. But as they have no monuments they are sanitised. Portuguese, Dutch, Belgian and African slavers fall into these categories. No memorials therefore no memory of their appalling deeds.

There are many who continue to profit from or feed the profits of those who benefit from modern day slavery. The monuments to those people are pension funds and the latest mobile phones and gadgets (powered by batteries produced in the most appalling circumstances) yet I see no rioting to tear those down.

[Edit to say this post crossed in the ether with @featherbelly’s previous post]

If I were responsible for the public realm I may similarly be tempted to make a knee-jerk response to the recent activism, purely for appearances, self-preservation and to keep the peace.

But if I were more noble, I’d stand up for the rule of law and for democratic action instead.

By the way, @moderators, I’m happy for my non-Horniman related posts (alongside those of others) to be migrated to a new topic in #ethikos where we could continue the broader debate without distracting from the local issue of the OP

I’m pleased the map of monuments to people with questionable pasts is encouraging debate, and I hope some are removed in due course. Although I don’t think the horniman museum which serves a greater purpose than a simple monument, and is open about its founders past, is in the same category as monuments to slave traders. Moreover, I’m not sure that all parts of this discussion and the language used from the outset are apolitical as this forum strives to be…

Okay I think it’s time for a tea break here to slow things down a little

Let’s please keep this on topic and avoid political discussions as per the site FAQ.

This topic was automatically opened after 16 minutes.

Possibly true, but impossible to know. One thing is for sure, there would have been no statue of him to send for a swim, so perhaps some other statue would have met this fate.

Slavery itself, of course, would not have been forgotten.

If there is no memory of their deeds then it stand to reason you that no one (including yourself) would have knowledge of them…

If there is a lack of common knowledge then this of course should be addressed by making sure any evidence of this past is properly recognised and taught in schools so the next generation does not live in ignorance, as well as through information boards by any buildings or monuments that do exist, or a remodelling of monuments to reflect our modern understanding (as Banksy suggest).

This is a lot to unpack. But firstly I would say — there have been lots of protests against capitalism and for social justice and democracy (e.g. the Occupy movement, Extinction rebellion). The pension funds and modern day wage slaves you mention are part of the capitalist firmament… And these are continually and regularly protested against.

The #BlackLivesMatter protests are not “riots” and are legitimate and largely peaceful demonstrations. Like many protests sometimes violence occurs but this is sometimes down to police tactics, agitators planted into otherwise peaceful demonstrations, and of course the occasional bad actor.

The #BlackLivesMatter protest in Bristol could have potentially erupted in violence had it been policed differently. Of course you may believe that the toppling of Colston’s statue was itself a violent act — I would disagree. It was not state sanctioned but it was a focussed and deliberate act to remove a specific symbol of colonial glorification, and not an act of spontaneous or random violence.

There is of course human-trafficking and genuine slavery which is a somewhat different thing, and equally as abhorrent as that which occurred in the past. And there are many organisations dedicated to tackling such modern injustice, e.g.
https://hopeforjustice.org/modern-slavery/

This isn’t a valid comparison.
No one is falsifying or destroying history here.
In fact it is about reassessing whether those figures deified by statues are worthy of praise when the subtotal of their lives is appraised with the virtue of a true historical record.
It is righting the wrong of whitewashing all of the unpalatable parts of history that were never taught. Modern freedom of access to information has shone a bright light in the darker corners of history and we should all be willing to reassess our opinions accordingly.

How would be have conducted this at present? I don’t see a viable alternative to postponement

Sorry, but this is off topic, as @ForestHull noted, so I won’t respond here.

Agreed- so it should be removed from the thread.

I stand by the comparison as a worrying attempt to nullify history and the context in which it was created. As a society we have made progress in leaps and bounds - and the Horniman has done a great job of acknowledging this. If you haven’t already, do go and visit the World Gallery. I am BAME (Jewish) and am in no need of being schooled about my own history or that of other minorities or to be told what should offend me and what should not.

Is there an actual statue of Horniman at the Horniman museum?

I thought the info on the museum site was really interesting, including the community action piece
https://www.horniman.ac.uk/project/community-action-research-african-and-caribbean-collections/

I’ve been to the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam it’s an absolutely harrowing experience - museums are there to preserve history: in some cases to remind people not to make the same mistakes again.

So the ‘topple the racists’ site says “We believe these statues and other memorials to slave-owners and colonialists need to be removed so that Britain can finally face the truth about its past”

I think statues ‘removed’ should be ‘moved’ to a museum and properly documented so people can learn. I’m not sure why they tagged the Horniman as a ‘memorial’ and what the definition is regarding removing museums - that doesn’t make sense.

I just don’t understand how it is doing that- I have visited the world gallery and in fact praised it earlier in the thread. I don’t doubt that you don’t need a history lesson but how history is presented is critical and there is no escaping that statues placed without context or criticism have the effect of glorifying their subjects. This is not about offense and to suggest it is lessens the debate- we must continue to asses (as the world gallery did) how to present historical artefacts and the context they are placed within.

For example- this suggestion from Banksy is a method of modernising historical artefacts without ‘deleting’ them.

Agreed and as far as I aware there isn’t a statue of him anyway…

I think the idea would be to rename the museum, going by the campaign against the Colston Hall in Bristol.

A post was split to a new topic: Should the Horniman Museum be renamed?

I’m all in favour of renaming it. There should be a section of the museum explaining the history and why it got renamed. There will be people offended either way though.

Can we get a Banksy on the Horniman wall too?

We drag him out the water, put him back on the plinth, tie cable round his neck and commission some life size bronze statues of protesters in the act of pulling him down.

I loved this - ‘everybody’s happy’ - haha.

Should we consider how Frederick John Horniman would have felt / feel (in the afterlife) if the museum were to be renamed for the reasons currently being discussed?

Understandably, emotions are running high at the moment and what is perhaps missing is a sense of objectivity on both sides.

When I used to work in regulatory strategy (admitting to my own shameful past) we used to use words like “appropriate” and “proportionate” a lot. What I’m seeing at the moment on FB, Twitter etc. is people applying crude comparisons across different contexts and situations.

For example, one of my more rabid right wing acquaintances on FB has taken to posting things like “well the pyramids were constructed with slave labour, shall we tear them down too?”. I don’t think that is what anyone is advocating.

I think of it like this:
A lot of things have a murky past, be it a statue in Bristol, a museum in Forest Hill or a pyramid in Egypt. We should not cut off the nose to spite the face, especially where there is a real opportunity of using a dark past to educate people about a brighter future.

So yes, remove the statue of a slave trader because its only purpose is to glorify his memory - that is appropriate and proportionate.

By the same token, do not rename the museum - its purpose is not to glorify a slave trader, it has evolved (beautifully so) into a force for educational good. Renaming it, thereby wasting years of established IP and branding investment would cause more harm than the good it would achieve.

Similarly the Pyramids - a huge opportunity to educate in a way that a statue (even with a plaque) isn’t.

Balance should be the watchword.

“Hey Fred, things have changed a bit in the last couple of centuries and society has moved on to be more inclusive. You seem like you were a smart educated bloke, so please understand that while it used to be convention to run colonial plantations, and building museums is great, as is philanthropy in general (look at all the cool community stuff your museum is doing now!), the fact that you made money from it is no longer considered cool. We’ve had a public consultation on it and the majority feel it would be appropriate to rename the place to the Forest Hill Museum”

*edit - assuming that were to be the case…

Good post Tim.

Given Frederick Horniman was born two years after the abolition of slavery in the British Empire did he have much to do with the transatlantic slave trade - notwithstanding working conditions in the tea trade were pretty horrific and can still be now.

No no no, “Museum of the Walrus” please!

Finally a suggestion that nobody can argue with

Yes although the statue was not erected to glorify the memory of his involvement in slavery but his philanthropy and benevolence — but it still does so by association.

Yes although the museum was not named to glorify the memory of his involvement in slavery but his philanthropy and benevolence — but it still does so by association.

What involvement in slavery did Frederick Horniman have?

No. Big game hunting is vile. The walrus will be one of the things to go

Frederick Horniman was not a slave trader. He was born 2 years after slavery was abolished in the British Empire.

I take your point. As @HannahM says he was born after the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 however this notably excluded “the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company” including Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) which was obviously known for its tea plantations. I don’t know when abolition was expanded to include those territories? So I’m not sure of his personal involvement (perhaps none?) but undoubtedly the family whose name he bore (and which now adorns the museum) would have been involved.

Whether this means a museum name change should take place in Forest Hill is a matter for debate (including this one) but I believe the more transparency the better.

Reevaluating and updating the names of certain buildings and prominence and location of certain statues seems like the minimum that should be done.

Maybe it pays to be sure before you call for things to be renamed?

The archives of Hornimans Tea are held at London Metropolitan Archives. Perhaps a research project?

There is no doubt affordable tea that made John and Frederick Horniman their fortune was produced in part through horrific exploitation of workers throughout the British Empire. A fact the museum very rightly acknowledge. However is our moral ground so high? Thought recently about how the food on your plate, the clothes you wear or electronics you use are so affordable and disposable?

Only if the public, as opposed to an activist minority, want to do so.

Our straw poll (admittedly just a small handful of voters so far) suggests forum members prefer to keep the Horniman name intact:

image993×907 343 KB

So I would be skeptical of any suggestion that a majority of people want to rename the Horniman.

Does it? We’ve been family members there for years and I had absolutely no idea. While I’m falling foul of my own mistrust of straw polls with a sample of 1, surely you only take action if there is a significant problem and you have to weigh the pros and the cons.

Like I said, balance.

The obvious thing to do is rename it Colston Hall and then erect a statue of Horniman at the bottom of Bristol canal. That way the people upset about Colston are happy, the people wanting the Horniman museum renamed are happy, and the group who like statues in canals are happy.

I agree it’s important to separate the links to trans-Atlantic slavery with the wider legacies of (British) colonialism, as both issues are raised by the various campaigns to remove/rename memorials.

To be clear: Horniman is not associated with the slavery of Africans. Rather his and his family’s fortunes were made importing tea from British holdings in India (as well as China).

Tea production was (and in some places is to this day) carried out by “indentured” and forced labour. I think this is where the Horniman Museum gets singled out as part of a problematic legacy. This is combined with debates around the removal of artefacts from their countries of origin, which of course applies to many museums in London and worldwide and is a separate, but related issue.

Personally I agree that there is a distinction to be made between the likes of Colston (who directly profited from the slavery and murder of African people) and the likes of Horniman (who built capital on the exploitation of workers and expropriated land). The latter is obviously still an important and uncomfortable issue, which, let’s face it, is hardly consigned to the past.

I think the Horniman Museum does a good job of bringing this legacy up, and think it is a much more useful educational resource with the name and legacy of Horniman intact and open for critical reflection. I think a generic renaming of the museum would potentially weaken this message.

The same cannot be said for statues, which generally do nothing to educate people on the history of the figures who are glorified.

So it’s OK for me be told to start a research project? But I can’t suggest someone else start a protest movement? @ForestHull how do the rules apply?

Yes Although I’m not sure that’s what we are discussing…

It was a bit of a tongue in cheek suggestion featherbelly!

I’ve never heard of anyone suggesting changing its name outside of this thread so this seems to be a storm in a dolls-house tea set…

And the point is Horniman made money from something that was seen by most as a legitimate and acceptable part of the economic system at the time. Plenty of people see the exploitation of workers and animals to produce very cheap consumer goods as a legitimate and acceptable part of our economic system today. Let he who is without sin and all that.

@neilw thank you for articulating what I was failing to!

I think in part the emotive nature of this thread was caused by the language of the original post (which was subsequently edited and toned down) certainly from my perspective.

The point is that we are being asked to listen to a minority, however you want to label them (activists, political movement, a m*b, etc). And what the “majority” want is not necessarily going to align.

Is it right that Horniman should come under scrutiny? Yes. Is the debate over? No.

Let’s see where this leads.

Apologies if I upset anyone.

So was mine… Winky face and all but my post got pulled.

We should all go and knock this topic about in the pub, putting the world to rights.

Oh.

No apologies needed. The Horniman is much loved in these parts and people feel very protective of it. That does not mean we can shy away from the more problematic parts of its history.

We should never glorify people who exploited others. However as a history student and former archive researcher I am wary we do not judge the the decisions and actions of those in the past by the morals of today. If we do that everyone, including our past selves will be found seriously wanting.

Yes. I know that. I was asking another poster, who seemed to think Frederick Horniman was involved in slavery why he thought that.

Of course, I understood that, sorry for making it seems as though you didn’t. Limitations of the reply system!

I was saying it for the benefit of those who might not know, as there didn’t seem to be some confusion/conflation of the issues.

@ neilw please accept my apologies. I’m feeling a bit over sensitive I guess.

There had actually been an earlier act - the Slave Trade Act 1807 - which attempted to ban the slave trade throughout the British Empire. Any ship’s captain found to be carrying slaves would be fined. Very sadly this resulted in some captains throwing their captives overboard if they saw a British warship about to intercept them.

The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 made the ownership of slaves illegal throughout the British Empire, except as you say in East India Company controlled territory. The East India Company had had some prohibitions against slavery since the 1770s and in 1843 further legislation was introduced to prohibit employees from owning or dealing in slaves.

The organization of which I was a member - the Anti Slavery Society - was formed in 1839, working to outlaw slavery worldwide.

In the 1850s-60s David Livingstone did great work in bringing slavery back to the attention of the public, having witnessed the Arab Slave Trade in East Africa. Now - in my opinion - there’s a man that deserves a statue.

Amongst many other campsigns, the Anti Slavery Society campaigned against Belgium’s slave trade in the 20th Century.

The Society changed name again in the 1990s. It’s now called Anti Slavery International.

Here is a very brief potted history:

Your edits have made my responses seem confusing but thank you for toning your post down. Just to clarify Anti Slavery International is the renamed Anti Slavery Society to which I’ve been referring.

Reported in the NewsShopper:

And here is thier comment:

https://www.horniman.ac.uk/story/frederick-hornimans-colonial-legacy/

Thanks Lee. Full text:

ARC_HMG_PH_001_001_002__001-D_web-2000x1500926×1489 190 KB

That’s a fantastic response, I think. Both informative and humble where needed.

It would be good if the original ‘topple the racists’ website could at least link to this statement, though I don’t see any option to add that in despite the site being setup so that it “aids these much-needed dialogues.”

They say to email them on info@stoptrump.org.uk which is a bit of strange email address for a UK based group it has be said…

They’re the group that tried to prevent the democratically elected leader of the free world from entering the U.K. for a diplomatic trip. I don’t think they’re the kind of people that want to “aid dialogues”

How disappointing. Now there’s no reason to start a petition, letter-writing campaign, protest or boycott. Spoilsports.

Anyone is perfectly within their rights to protest such things if they so desire…
This seems a bit off-message mind, trump might be a lot of things but responsible for placing statues across the UK is not one of them…

indeed. It was a serious accusation, and a terrifically timely and sensitive response by the museum whose website and displays have in recent years been extremely clear on their awareness of culture and heritage. Hope this will all be a bit of a storm in a teacup…

A very good response from the Horniman Museum I think.

It seems pretty well balanced to me.

https://artdaily.cc/news/6473/The-Horniman-Museum-Returns-collection#.Xu4mpz14XDu

Thanks for sharing that @jonfrewin
Whilst it’s sad to see the Teddy Roosevelt statue go - children loved that one - I guess the Night at the Museum movies will also go on the bonfire. Every cloud …

But if anyone comes for my teddy bear, they’ll have a fight on their hands.