Debate to rename statues heats up

The debate was inspired by the current US controversies over statues of Confederate heroes in some southern states being removed and was taken up by Indigenous author and broadcaster Stan Grant, who queried the appropriateness of the inscription on a Sydney statue of Captain Cook describing him as 'discovering' Australia.

All hell broke loose despite Grant's standing and respectability. According to the Prime Minister such thinking was Stalinist and to Cabinet minister Peter Dutton it was left-wing nonsense. Some media described it as like the horrors of the Taliban destroying precious archaeological heritage. Grant's crime apparently was re-writing history.

Vandals then added fuel to the fire by attacking some Sydney historical statues of figures like Governor Lachlan Macquarie. Despite thoughtful and moderate contributions by the artist Ben Quilty and the author and media host Julia Baird, the community discussion got off to a terrible start and the inflammatory role of senior political leaders was central.

History is remembered all around us. We try to capture moments in history through static memorials like statues and the names of places, streets and buildings. However, while these memorials are static history moves on and historians and activists are constantly learning more through research.

Rewriting history is a very natural thing to do and every new biography of great historical figures does that if it is worthy of the name. The reputation of individuals changes and forgotten individuals are unearthed who deserve greater recognition.

This process can proceed with passion but without too much over-heated controversy in the academic realm, but it is different in public affairs. As historical knowledge evolves and social mores change so some static recognition in public memorials will be challenged. This can happen in big and small ways.

Here in Canberra, for instance, there have been intense public debates about how we should or should not recognise public figures. Canberra is a modern city and so does not have colonial era statues but this has not stopped heated controversy surrounding statues, such as that of former federal minister, Al Grassby, and places, such as Haig Park.

Recently the electorate of Fraser was renamed Fenner. The background to this decision was complex and the outcome was controversial. The credentials of the two outstanding individuals concerned, Jim Fraser and Frank Fenner, were not disputed, but ultimately only one could be honoured in this way and those who supported Fraser's claims were hurt by the change.

Not so long ago local Liberal MLA Andrew Wall criticised the naming of streets in the new suburb of Denman Prospect, arguing some of those honoured were unworthy because they were left-leaning feminists, unionists and environmental activists. He was taken to task by the ACT Place Names Committee which described the individuals remembered as inspiring people linked to activism. Wall accused the government of ideological bias and his critics returned serve along similar lines.

Another quite different take on the matter arose out of the child sex abuse scandals which led to a student house at a local Catholic school, named in 1986 after a leader later found to be guilty of failing to deal effectively with such abuse, being renamed in 2016 to signal a change of heart.

These examples could be multiplied hundreds of times across the country. Sometimes they are one off, sometimes there is a pattern. They raise the same issues as the bigger national controversies.

One disturbing pattern occurred during and after World War 1 when many German place names were obliterated in the heat of anti-German feeling, most never to return. Despite the contribution of German settlers to Australia many towns and localities were renamed with British names. Such re-writing of history because of hysteria was indefensible.

Sometimes the decision to rename public spaces is more prosaic. When the historic Adelaide Oval was rebuilt recently to wide acclaim, most of the names of cricket and football administrators from the turn of the 20th century memorialised in the old grandstands were replaced. They were essentially overtaken by the passage of time, replacing the old with the new, and by a recalibration of thinking about what type of people, administrators or players, should be commemorated.

Sometimes renaming is cultural vandalism as with the German place names.

At other times renaming or revision of plaques is inevitable. Individuals may have their reputations reassessed or with the passing of time are just not seen as important enough to withstand the competing claims of individuals of greater substance who have come later.

No harm is done by reassessing situations from time to time and at times changes will be made. But culture warriors prevent this from being done in an adult and civilised way. Once the tabloid press gets hold of it then all hope of reasonable conversations is lost.

There may be a case for the outright removal of a name or of a statue. But generally there is a moderate compromise, such as balancing existing statues with additional new ones to provide remembrance of forgotten categories of people, like Indigenous Australians or women, or by rewriting plaques to take into account modern language and scholarship. Sometimes individuals can be remembered in less prominent ways, such as moving the statue or name to another location.

That is exactly what Grant, Quilty and Baird are suggesting. They have a point. Listen to them respectfully.

John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University.