The toppling of colonial statues is easy. What replaces them is more complex

During the reformation in the 16th century, religious icons were destroyed on an unprecedented scale, under the Protestant view that they were idolatry and therefore sinful, writes Melissa Baksh

We are forced to ask important questions around the purpose of art, and why people seek to destroy it (PA)

The tearing down of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol has been divisive, sparking protests and counter-protests around the country.

Many celebrate the act of tearing down colonial art, whereas some condemn it, calling it “lawless destruction”. It forces us to ask important questions around the purpose of art, and why people seek to destroy it. Though iconoclasm is inherently destructive, it can signify a defining moment in history that can ignite social change. The toppling of Colston therefore signals a turning point in how Britain confronts its colonial past. Rather than an erasure of history, it is a confrontation with it – and a call to end public displays that celebrate oppression and violence.

This debate sits within a long history of British iconoclasm. During the reformation in the 16th century, religious icons were destroyed on an unprecedented scale, under the Protestant view that they were idolatry and therefore sinful. Images carried such potency for the country’s leaders that their destruction was one of the main tools used in the fight for the dominant faith at the time.