The erection & removal of British colonial monuments in Ireland

Rebelheart · 29-10-2010 12:32pm #1

I came across this very informative article written by one Yvonne Whelan on the construction of monuments across Ireland to honour British imperialists and their removal following independence. It's entitled The construction and destruction of a colonial landscape: monuments to British monarchs in Dublin before and after independence.

Anyway, as there were so many erected I thought it might make a good idea for a new thread.

The size of this one below in St Stephen's Green, Dublin, shocked me. Absolutely enormous. The egos of these bastards as they propagated their British royalist nationalism in Ireland, and some people here would contend that the only 'nationalists' are those who have opposed this culture. But don't get me started.

Anyway, it was erected by the British in 1752 and removed by the Irish in 1937. I had never even been aware of its existence until I read the above article.

GeorgeIIStephensGreen.jpg?t=1288350486

What other monuments around Ireland, now forgotten by most people, have been removed?

Morlar · 29-10-2010 12:49pm

That's an interesting article. I don't necessarily agree with ripping down every monument, nor with your characterisation of this subject/area either.

I always find ripping down statues/replacing them a very brutal stalinistic kind of approach to changing uncomfortable history. The way this has been handled in Ireland was pathetic imo.

I actually saw the Queen Victoria one in Sydney a few years back (that the Irish govt gave them), the more I think about that the more I believe that one belongs in an Irish museum & not on the streets of Sydney. I think a sculpture park or museum would have been a better location for them, they are an important part of our history whether you like it or not and should not be forgotten.

JohnFalstaff · 29-10-2010 1:05pm

The statue of Prince Albert that currently nestles amongst the hedges by the entrance to the National History Museum originally sat in a more prominent location on Merrion Square in front of Leinster House.

It was designed and sculpted by one of Ireland's great artists, John Henry Foley, and although it has been relegated to a more out-of-the-way locale it thankfully survives to this day. Foley was also responsible for the statue of Daniel O' Connell that stands at the entrance to O'Connell Street.

The Prince Albert statue is worth searching out, especially if you are interested in 'reading' statues from this era.

Rebelheart · 29-10-2010 1:30pm

Morlar wrote: »

I always find ripping down statues/replacing them a very brutal stalinistic kind of approach to changing uncomfortable history.

Nonsense characterisation. The alternative is to allow the ethno-political viewpoint of a foreign elite to represent all of this society. This is what was happening under British rule. How is that right? Removing these monuments is a far more accurate reflection of Ireland than the cult this minority wanted to represent at the time.

Indeed, I'm still looking for monuments erected by the British to people who fought against British rule - or maybe they didn't want to recognise that "uncomfortable history"? As far as I recall Mountjoy wasn't exactly too enthusiastic about commemorating the ancient Ó Néill inauguration site in Tulach Óg when he visited in 1603. What? Does history just begin after the British have destroyed as much of the "uncomfortable history" of Ireland that they didn't like?

Erecting monuments to all sorts of British warlords, but none to Irish warlords, is not about "acknowledging history"; it's about the British creating a culture, consensus and acceptance in favour of their culture, their nationalist myths and their nationalist heroes. It's about giving all of this a dominant position in Irish public memory. That is a fact. Removing them, and their disproportionate say in this society, is an accurate reflection of their true position in Irish society and Irish memory. Anglo-Irish and Irish society are not synonymous, by the way.

Morlar wrote: »

I actually saw the Queen Victoria one in Sydney a few years back (that the Irish govt gave them), the more I think about that the more I believe that one belongs in an Irish museum & not on the streets of Sydney.

Why? Are you not satisfied with the €500,000 spent in 2003 by the loyal lieges of Kingstown in erecting a statue to the same Famine Queen? Why should something erected to honour such people remain in a society which patently does not honour them?

Morlar wrote: »

I think a sculpture park or museum would have been a better location for them, they are an important part of our history whether you like it or not and should not be forgotten.

They're not. They are heroes of "our society" if you share their views and support giving their culture and politics even more recognition than it already has in Ireland. By the precise same logic you're using to justify these monuments in Ireland, the French should erect a statue to Hitler in Paris - to not do so is to be in denial of their "uncomfortable history", it would appear.

If you want to go down the erecting monuments road, how about erecting monuments to honour the victims of policies rather than to honour the perpetrators?

MarchDub · 29-10-2010 1:44pm

One of the ways to misread history IMO is to view the past without the passions, emotions and perspective of the time it happened.

The removal of statues erected during the British imperial presence to booster and support that presence [because that's what it was about as the OP states] was felt very deeply by those who had clear memories of the Black and Tans, the army atrocities, the Land War, the Famine [many still alive in the 1920s and 30s were children of that period or closely connected to those who were alive then]. It was important for them after independence to dismantle the British imperial presence - not just politically, but visually also. Place names were also changed. It's all understandable to me. The same thing happened in many of the former colonies also. In India, in Africa.

An interesting perspective on this from a Kenyan view is Barack Obama's book "Dreams of my Father" when he visits Kenya and they are taking down similar edifices and renaming regions and mountains back to their own African names.

getz · 29-10-2010 2:01pm

there are many monuments to the irish people in england,there is even monuments to the IRA, [manchester martyrs]

FiSe · 29-10-2010 2:11pm

...and a lot of monuments to Habsburg monarchs in the Czech-land too. Might be a bit too far away, but similar in the overall context.

Judgement Day · 29-10-2010 2:20pm

'Why? Are you not satisfied with the €500,000 spent in 2003 by the loyal lieges of Kingstown in erecting a statue to the same Famine Queen? Why should something erected to honour such people remain in a society which patently does not honour them?'

Rebelheart - I assume that the above is the monument to which you refer and it would not have had to be replaced had the heroes who smashed it down left well alone. Can you explain to me precisely what the destruction of the original achieved for Ireland? As far as I'm concerned that sort of carry on is part of the reason why I'll never feel at home in the country where I lived most of my life, and where my family have lived for more than 350 years. Little enough care is taken of our historic buildings, monuments etc and at least the replacement of the Victoria fountain sends out a message to the village idiots that they are wasting their time. Incidentally, if you check my Sunny South East blog here you will see me complaining about the defacement of 'your' monuments. http://countywexford.blogspot.com/

Morlar · 29-10-2010 2:28pm

Originally Posted by Morlar View Post
I always find ripping down statues/replacing them a very brutal stalinistic kind of approach to changing uncomfortable history.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Nonsense characterisation.

No it is not.

In fact I collect World War 2 photo albums and many of them are from Russia. Many of the russian ones show stalinist statues erected in place of neutral folk figures. In fact non communist/stalinist statues in Russia during ww2 were quite rare. In fact I can only think of one example. Many of these Stalin/communist monuments came and went during various purges but the ones that remained during Operation Barbarossa were of course destroyed by the germans as they advanced. Many german ones and architecture were in turn intentionally destroyed by the communists as they made their way through Germany (as were churches etc). So a person making the observation that removal of statues from a national landscape has overtones of stalinism is not a nonsense observation. You are free to disagree with it but to dismiss it as nonsense because 'you say so' is not convincing.

Rebelheart wrote: »

The alternative is to allow the ethno-political viewpoint of a foreign elite to represent all of this society.

No it is not.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Removing these monuments is a far more accurate reflection of Ireland than the cult this minority wanted to represent at the time.

To define yourself by what you are 'not' is pretty limited in my view. Removing something is not an accurate reflection of who we are as a people. All you are doing is you are continuing to define yourself in terms of victimhood, in terms of and in relation to an imposition by a foreign power.

The options on how to deal with them are not as limited as the extent of what you can imagine.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Indeed, I'm still looking for monuments erected by the British to people who fought against British rule - or maybe they didn't want to recognise that "uncomfortable history"?

There is a difference between deciding not to destroy something and the act of creating it which is a difference you seem to be trying to sidestep.

Rebelheart wrote: »

As far as I recall Mountjoy wasn't exactly too enthusiastic about commemorating the ancient Ó Néill inauguration site in Tulach Óg when he visited in 1603. What? Does history just begin after the British have destroyed as much of the "uncomfortable history" of Ireland that they didn't like?

Again I would say you should not define your own behaviour as a people in terms of how it compares to the behaviour of your historical enemy (enemy in the context of this discussion). What britain does or did or will do is irrelevant in determining how Ireland should steer it's OWN course on ALL matters.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Erecting monuments to all sorts of British warlords, but none to Irish warlords, is not about "acknowledging history";

I never said the british acknowleged our native Irish history - however the very fact that they did not acknowlege our traditions and heritage, culture and history - that act itself as manifested by the britannic statues that IS itself a part of our history.

Rebelheart wrote: »

it's about the British creating a culture, consensus and acceptance in favour of their culture, their nationalist myths and their nationalist heroes. It's about giving all of this a dominant position in Irish public memory. That is a fact.

This is one strand of the history we should remember. Tearing it down and pretending it never happened is deluded. The options here are not
a)
Destroy all british era /colonial statues monuments
b)
leave them where they are

There are more options to that, as I mentioned a sculpture park would be one, putting them in museums would be another. Contextualising them and explaining them is preferred to destroying them which serves no useful purpose for anyone. History is forgotten and you have generations of younger Irish people ignorant to our history.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Removing them, and their disproportionate say in this society, is an accurate reflection of their true position in Irish society and Irish memory. Anglo-Irish and Irish society are not synonymous, by the way.

? ?

Rebelheart wrote: »

Why? Are you not satisfied with the €500,000 spent in 2003 by the loyal lieges of Kingstown in erecting a statue to the same Famine Queen? Why should something erected to honour such people remain in a society which patently does not honour them?

I pass by that statue quite regularly - Personally I think it serves as a powerful historical reminder.

Doubtless there are handfuls of people who look at that statue in a way that is different to how I view it but that is life.

Rebelheart wrote: »

They're not. They are heroes of "our society" if you share their views and support giving their culture and politics even more recognition than it already has in Ireland.

I have never said they were heroic.

Rebelheart wrote: »

By the precise same logic you're using to justify these monuments in Ireland, the French should erect a statue to Hitler in Paris - to not do so is to be in denial of their "uncomfortable history", it would appear.

That is not the 'precise same logic'. Hitler does not compare to Wellington, nor does France v Germany. France declared war on germany and lost, their country split and half it occuppied for about 4.5 yrs. Not exactly the same thing really now is it. 4.5 yrs is not enough time to seep through the national conciousness of all time. So no it is not 'precisely the same thing' by a long shot. A better analogy would be the statue in Nantes to Louis XVI.

Rebelheart wrote: »

If you want to go down the erecting monuments road, how about erecting monuments to honour the victims of policies rather than to honour the perpetrators?

Again I would say the act of not destroying part of our heritage is not the same thing as creating statues to foreign powers. I have nowhere said that we should favour british statues over Irish ones. The reason I have not said that anywhere is because it's a ridiculous thing to say.

Morlar · 29-10-2010 3:04pm

getz wrote: »

there are many monuments to the irish people in england,there is even monuments to the IRA, [manchester martyrs]

The Manchester Martyrs were fenians not IRA. I was over there last weekend and looking for mentions of this but found nothing at the time (had no internet access). I found this now today and if I had known would have paid a visit (maybe next time)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Martyrs#Monuments

Worth pointing out that it is a monument in a graveyard so not exactly in the same league as a public statue.

Also it has (acc wiki) been repeatedly vandalised. So I would not say the british handling of this kind of thing is any way more enlightened than our own :

Commissioned by the Manchester Martyrs Central Memorial Committee, it stands just over 20 feet (6 m) high and takes the form of a Celtic cross. On three sides of the pedestal are medallion portraits of the three men, originally surmounted by figures of the Irish wolfhound, now removed. The site of this monument has been the scene of several disturbances, as it has been the tradition for Republican sympathisers to parade there on the anniversary of the deaths of those hanged. The monument has suffered several attacks to its structure, as well as acts of vandalism, and is listed as being "at risk" by the Public Monument and Sculpture Association National Recording Project.[51]

getz · 29-10-2010 3:36pm

its well worth checking out,manchester has a long irish culture, also check out the history of the ship canal and the town of irlam[built and lived in by the irish who was digging the canal] the canal is 34 miles long built in 1894 and it is said it claimed many irish lives

PatsytheNazi · 29-10-2010 3:40pm

Rebelheart wrote: »

Indeed, I'm still looking for monuments erected by the British to people who fought against British rule

You have clinched the argument there Rebelheart.

If you want to go down the erecting monuments road, how about erecting monuments to honour the victims of policies rather than to honour the perpetrators?

Yes. A good example of the hypocrisy of commerating victims is the Holocaust day in Britain on the 27th of January. Naturally it's for victims of Germany, no holocaust day for victims of British war crimes of course.

ILA · 29-10-2010 3:42pm

An interesting read. In recent years, I've been majorly concerned by a proliferation of new housing estates which happen to be either named after former colonial tyrants (brutal landlords, administrators) or direct references to the pre-Independence place names.

Morlar · 29-10-2010 3:46pm

getz wrote: »

its well worth checking out,manchester has a long irish culture, also check out the history of the ship canal and the town of irlam[built and lived in by the irish who was digging the canal] the canal is 34 miles long built in 1894 and it is said it claimed many irish lives

Not meaning to take the thread more offtopic than it already is but I did check out the Imperial War Museum, the Science and Industry one & had a quick look in the Peoples History one.

I am aware of the Irish tradition and contribution to Manchester but I would have to say it's very, very poorly presented in my view. Particularly when you compare it to how the jewish contribution to manchester is treated. Even in the IWM there is basically 2 occassions when Ireland is mentioned.

/ Back on topic.

ILA wrote: »

An interesting read. In recent years, I've been majorly concerned by a proliferation of new housing estates which happen to be either named after former colonial tyrants (brutal landlords, administrators) or direct references to the pre-Independence place names.

I hadn't noticed that - would you have any examples ?

Eliot Rosewater · 29-10-2010 3:48pm

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

You have clinched the argument there Rebelheart.

No he didn't That particular point was clearly rebuffed by Morlar when he said

Morlar wrote: »

There is a difference between deciding not to destroy something and the act of creating it which is a difference you seem to be trying to sidestep.

I wouldn't erect a monument in praise of the British, but I wouldn't destroy one either. Like it or not, those monuments were/are part of our historical record. Removing them is/was a very lame attempt at historical whitewash; trying to act as if the British weren't here. They were here, and thus their statues are a part of our cultural heritage.

As Morlar also said, the whole scheme reeks of victomhood.

PatsytheNazi · 29-10-2010 3:48pm

Didn't Obama send back a statue of Churchill that George Bush had in the White House. Appearently his Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned without trial for two years and was tortured on Churchill's watch, for resisting the British empire.

johnny_doyle · 29-10-2010 3:52pm

shouldn't lots of the old buildings and structures be taken down too for the sake of policitical correctness? Dublin Castle, Kilmainham Gaol, Four Courts, GPO, Trinity, Ha'penny Bridge, the Wellington monument, Collins Barracks, Leinster House, Bank of Ireland etc..

Like them or not, the buildings and statues are a part of the history of Ireland. Something much bigger than the last 100 or so years. Those with an interest in history should be looking to preserve and enhance all aspects of Ireland's history from the Hill of Tara thru to the 1916 buildings in Moore St and beyond where feasible.

Blisterman · 29-10-2010 4:04pm

This is a topic that interests me hugely.

It's worth noting that the British Royal Family were very popular among many people in Dublin particularly. You could argue that's down to cultural genocide, brainwashing etc. But anyway, it was only in the 20th century that these statues began to be seriously opposed.

So its interesting how opinions change, and monuments, which are supposed to be permanent markers in a city, can lose respect or change meaning.

It's interesting that very few monuments have been erected since independence to Irish political figures. I might be wrong, but I don't think any of the 1916 leaders have statues, nor does Michael Collins.
Instead we have statues to artistic figures, James Joyce, Oscar Wilde, Phil Lynott, etc.

MarchDub · 29-10-2010 4:04pm

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Didn't Obama send back a statue of Churchill that George Bush had in the White House. Appearently his Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned without trial for two years and was tortured on Churchill's watch, for resisting the British empire.

Yes, Obama removed the statue of Churchill that Bush had in the Oval Office and sent it back to the Brits.

Symbols are strong - and Obama's family did not have good memories of the British presence in Kenya.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html

MarchDub · 29-10-2010 4:10pm

Don't know if anyone read the OP's article that he gave the link to. It contains some interesting archival material. Here are some quotes:

As a reviewer in the Dublin University Magazine put it in 1856:

Dublin is connected with Irish patriotism only by the scaffold and the gallows. Statue and
column do indeed rise there, but not to honour the sons of the soil. The public idols are
foreign potentates and foreign heroes . . . the Irish people are doomed to see in every place
the monument of their subjugation; before the senate house, the statue of their
conqueror within the walls tapestries with the defeats of their fathers. No public statue
of an illustrious Irishman has ever graced the Irish Capital. No monument exists to which
the gaze of the young Irish children can be directed, while their fathers tell them, ``This
was to the glory of your countrymen.'' Even the lustre Dublin borrowed from her great
Norman colonists has passed away.

These sentiments were echoed in The Nation where it was observed that:

We now have statues to William the Dutchman, to the four Georges all either German
by birth or German by feeling to Nelson, a great admiral but an Englishman, while not a
single statue of any of the many celebrated Irishmen whom their country should honour
adorns a street or square of our beautiful metropolis.

brianthebard · 29-10-2010 4:19pm

Blisterman wrote: »

It's interesting that very few monuments have been erected since independence to Irish political figures. I might be wrong, but I don't think any of the 1916 leaders have statues, nor does Michael Collins.
Instead we have statues to artistic figures, James Joyce, Oscar Wilde, Phil Lynott, etc.

Ceannt has a statue in Galway, above Eyre Square. There is a bust to Collins in Merrion Square (think that is the name of the park). I'm sure there are many many monuments to 1916 tbh. There are a number of monuments to Connolly outside of Ireland as well, at least two that I know of; one in Cowgate, Edinburgh and one in New Jersey (I think) where he lived for a time. And of course the train stations are named after the leaders, which aren't necessarily monuments but are in the same vein.

Personally I can see both sides of the argument. It is undoubtedly true that Britain is a part of Ireland's history, and blowing up statues doesn't erase that. On the other hand should Nelson look down on Dublin city in an Independent Ireland? Psychologically the act of taking apart, vandalising or demolishing these statues has clear significance. While buildings can be appropriated and made to mean something else, these statues only ever have one meaning.

JohnFalstaff · 29-10-2010 4:27pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Ceannt has a statue in Galway, above Eyre Square.

Is that not a statue of Liam Mellowes?

Owen · 29-10-2010 4:35pm

I thought this would be an interesting thread with some historical buildings/monuments to learn about that are no longer around. Then I read the OP's post, got as far as the word bastards, and tuned out.

brianthebard · 29-10-2010 4:44pm

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

Is that not a statue of Liam Mellowes?

I think you might be right, sorry. Have to say I am not the best with names.

PatsytheNazi · 29-10-2010 4:47pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

No he didn't That particular point was clearly rebuffed by Morlar when he said

I'm not going to bother getting into a kids pantomine of " Oh no he didn't, oh yes he did " charade. As I said he clinched the argument with " Indeed, I'm still looking for monuments erected by the British to people who fought against British rule "

I wouldn't erect a monument in praise of the British, but I wouldn't destroy one either. Like it or not, those monuments were/are part of our historical record. Removing them is/was a very lame attempt at historical whitewash; trying to act as if the British weren't here. They were here, and thus their statues are a part of our cultural heritage.

As Morlar also said, the whole scheme reeks of victomhood.

Ah yes, the Eoghan Harris line of when anyone points out an injustcie perpetrated by the British the lowlife accuses us of "victimhood". Next he'll be stating how we should be more mature as a nation.......:rolleyes:

And then this is coming from people like yourself who in any discussion about Sinn Fein or the north they start screaming " What about Jerry McCabe.....What about little Johnathon Ball " etc, etc :rolleyes:

charlemont · 29-10-2010 4:48pm

even where i live all the placenames are british, its horrible and an insult to the generations who suffered over the british here.

the placenames refer to places where the british won battles, naval heroes, etc, pathetic but it was a previously protestant neighbourhood anyway but now its multi cultural..

charlemont · 29-10-2010 4:51pm

Blisterman wrote: »

This is a topic that interests me hugely.

It's worth noting that the British Royal Family were very popular among many people in Dublin particularly. You could argue that's down to cultural genocide, brainwashing etc. But anyway, it was only in the 20th century that these statues began to be seriously opposed.

So its interesting how opinions change, and monuments, which are supposed to be permanent markers in a city, can lose respect or change meaning.

It's interesting that very few monuments have been erected since independence to Irish political figures. I might be wrong, but I don't think any of the 1916 leaders have statues, nor does Michael Collins.
Instead we have statues to artistic figures, James Joyce, Oscar Wilde, Phil Lynott, etc.

michael collins has two statues in clonakilty and in bandon, i think cork airport should be named after collins, its a scandal cork city doesnt have a statue of him...

ejmaztec · 29-10-2010 5:20pm

Destroying old monuments isn't good for "warts and all tourists". Too many historic buildings and monuments have been destroyed, and I think it's time to put up with the remainder.

Seeing film of the Taliban blowing up centuries old Buddhist monuments, for instance, pissed me off no end.

As mentioned above, former Austro-Hungarian territories preserve theirs, and are quite happy taking money from tourists. They're even making money out of most of the Soviet-era left-overs (after dumping a few giant Stalin statues).

Some people are unneccessarily over-sensitive.

Morlar · 29-10-2010 5:24pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

Some people are unneccessarily over-sensitive.

Would you say sensitive or insecure ?

Judgement Day · 29-10-2010 5:33pm

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Didn't Obama send back a statue of Churchill that George Bush had in the White House. Appearently his Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned without trial for two years and was tortured on Churchill's watch, for resisting the British empire.

Link?

Judgement Day · 29-10-2010 5:35pm

charlemont wrote: »

even where i live all the placenames are british, its horrible and an insult to the generations who suffered over the british here.

the placenames refer to places where the british won battles, naval heroes, etc, pathetic but it was a previously protestant neighbourhood anyway but now its multi cultural..

Where do you live? Not your actual address.

Interesting username you have too - is it after Viscount Charlemont?

The erection & removal of British colonial monuments in Ireland

Comments