New IBA report released for decision-makers in response to ‘statue toppling’ following the killing of George Floyd

The killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on 25 May 2020, led to mass protests across the world, often characterised by attacks on monuments and the toppling of statues. This report seeks to aid understanding as to why these historical legacies are so often the focus of public protest. It also explores the complex social, political and legal dynamics involved in such debates, including:

• How a dispute over an equestrian monument of Robert E Lee, in Charlottesville, became entangled in a judicial process that resulted in violent protest and tragic loss of life.
• Why a statue of Cecil Rhodes at the University of Cape Town fell after thirty days of student protest, but a Cecil Rhodes statue at Oxford University still stands.
• How the toppling and dunking of the Edward Colston statue in Bristol Harbour was viewed by some officials as a criminal act of public vandalism and by others as an understandable act of historic vindication.
• Why a ‘comfort women’ statue in Seoul disrupted diplomatic relations in East Asia and found its way into an amicus curiae brief at the United States Supreme Court.

Dr Timothy W Ryback, Director and Co-founder of the Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation, and editor of the report, said: ‘With the ambition of presenting lessons from around the world, we selected ten iconic cases from across Africa, the Americas, Asia and Australia as well as Europe. Learning from the experience of others is the true value of this volume. As important as doing the right thing, is not doing the wrong thing.’

Jeffrey Golden, Joint Head of Chambers, 3 Hare Court, and Contested Histories Task Force member, commented: ‘Public space is valuable space and, by definition, shared. In an ideal world, allocation of that space and the names and representations that adorn it should project a sense of inclusiveness, through historical legacies that reflect the diversity and multiple perspectives of those who share it. It is incumbent on officials responsible for public spaces to help shape a commemorative landscape that is both representative and inclusive’.

The report explores key questions that policy planners and decision-makers need to ask when seeking to resolve disputed historical legacies in public spaces:

1. What triggered the contestation, for example political or social change, a single event, or social media?
2. How does the contested object ‘interact’ with collateral spaces? What is the signalling of its iconography?
3. What is the range of remedies available: contextualisation, placarding, resignification, counter monument, relocation, removal, or destruction?
4. What are the legal constraints to potential remedies? Local ordinances, state or provincial law, national legislation, or international conventions?
5. What are the deeper societal or political issues that precipitated the dispute, such as historical injustices, systemic discrimination, inequalities, and so on?

The Chair of the Contested Histories Task Force Baroness Usha Prashar of Runnymede, CBE, a crossbench member of the House of Lords, writes in the Preface: ‘Pervasive attacks on public monuments are generally symptoms of more profound changes in a society, whether they be political transitions, shifting public values or demographics, or the empowerment of previously disenfranchised communities giving expression to a sense of alienation or injustice.’

This landmark report provides the first global analysis designed specifically for policy planners, decision-makers and other professionals involved in the shaping of historical memory in public spaces.

The Contested Histories project benefited from the support of the IBA, All Souls College, Oxford, and the office of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation in Senegal.

ENDS