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.
4 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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?
2 Likes
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.
17 Likes
“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.
3 Likes
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.
5 Likes
No no no, “Museum of the Walrus” please!
4 Likes
Finally a suggestion that nobody can argue with 
2 Likes
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?
1 Like
No. Big game hunting is vile. The walrus will be one of the things to go 
1 Like
Frederick Horniman was not a slave trader. He was born 2 years after slavery was abolished in the British Empire.
3 Likes
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?
7 Likes