Fallen Idols: Twelve Statues That Made History

by Alex von Tunzelmann

In this timely and lively look at the act of toppling monuments, the popular historian and author of Blood and Sand explores the vital question of how a society remembers—and confronts—the past.

In 2020, history came tumbling down. From the US and the UK to Belgium, New Zealand, and Bangladesh, Black Lives Matter protesters defaced, and in some cases, hauled down statues of Confederate icons, slaveholders, and imperialists. General Robert E. Lee, head of the Confederate Army, was covered in graffiti in Richmond, Virginia. Edward Colston, a member of Parliament and slave trader, was knocked off his plinth in Bristol, England, and hurled into the harbor. Statues of Christopher Columbus were toppled in Minnesota, burned and thrown into a lake in Virginia, and beheaded in Massachusetts. Belgian King Leopold II was set on fire in Antwerp and doused in red paint in Ghent. Winston Churchill’s monument in London was daubed with the word “racist.” As these iconic effigies fell, the backlash was swift and intense.

But as the past three hundred years have shown, history is not erased when statues are removed. If anything, Alex von Tunzelmann reminds us, it is made.

Exploring the rise and fall of twelve famous, yet now controversial statues, she takes us on a fascinating global historical tour around North America, Western and Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia, filled with larger than life characters and dramatic stories. Von Tunzelmann reveals that statues are not historical records but political statements and distinguishes between statuary—the representation of “virtuous” individuals, usually “Great Men”—and other forms of sculpture, public art, and memorialization. Nobody wants to get rid of all memorials. But Fallen Idols asks: have statues had their day?

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, Art, Audiobook, World History, Cultural

257 pages, Kindle Edition

First published July 8, 2021

About the author

Alex von Tunzelmann is a British historian, screenwriter and author. Tunzelmann has worked primarily as a researcher.

Reviews

[Jill H. · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author states, Statues are not really about history but are about how we see ourselves reflected in history....historical memory. She goes on to support this statement with the story of 12 statues that were erected at various times in history and in various countries which have since been destroyed or moved to less prominent locations, due to the realization that "historical memory" and "history" are very different, although sometimes subjective. People tend to defend statues that in some way reflect their identities and values which at times may seem controversial.

The list of these 12 statues gives a background on each person represented and what caused their destruction in modern times. Many were dictators, tyrants or colonial invaders and I was surprised that their statues stood as long as they did. In the United State, the destruction of statues honoring the Confederate States of America are the most recent and public. Controversy continues to rage about this as the Civil War will probably forever cause anger due to the issue of slavery and its horrors and inhumanity.

This is an interesting book and the author writes without prejudice. It is a quick read and I would recommend it.

[Holly Cruise · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cards on the table from the outset, I am one of those historians who saw Colston's statue getting yeeted into the sea in Bristol and immediately thought "Yes, good, History is happening". I have no time and no patience for those who say incidents of statue removal erase History, not least because the number of people I know who knew anything about Colston went from two (me and a mate from Bath) to dozens once his statue took a dunk.

Fall Idols is a book about statues getting pulled down in twelve specific instances, and also about the very idea of pulling down statues and what it means for History (capital H). It's no spoiler to say that Alex von Tunzelmann does not think that removing statues erases History, because she is a historian and we know that it doesn't work that way.

Indeed, this book looks at why statues go up in the first place. The answers are fairly consistent: it's all about glory and trying to write History in place of what is actually happening or happened.

Stalin gets pulled down, and the chapter looks at his efforts to rewrite everything about himself from his name to his relationship with Lenin. Robert E. Lee's statues weren't about celebrating his military prowess (he lost the Civil War) but were put up decades after he died in an attempt to assert white supremacy. Lenin didn't even want statues of himself but the apparatus around him did.

There is so much interesting detail in here. Examples are sometimes obvious, but also sometimes less well known, like the awful Rafael Trujillo. Some of the stories are also hilarious - the Portland Elks is a classic farce, but the trolling vandal who spraypainted the Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen with "Racist fish" in 2020 now has my heart.

Maybe even give this book to your angry uncle/friend/colleague who thinks statues are always good. It's certainly well written and argued and they might have some new thoughts after reading.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

What’s in a statue? British historian Alex von Tunzelmann seeks to answer this as she pens this book that explores twelve statues that have been erected and taken down over the years. Drawing on much of the global reaction to stone and metal monuments to glorify political or historical figures that have been yanked down, von Tunzelmann seeks to better understand why this global movement is gaining momentum and what these statues mean, as well as how they are depicted today. Her exploration is both amazing and detailed, as she tries to parse through rhetoric and get to the core understanding so that the reader has some educated background should they wish to engage in some conversation about the topic.

While I could go through the list of statues that von Tunzelmann lists in her book, I would rather leave that to the reader. Rather, it would make sense to look at some of the reasons statues were built. From the pages of the book, I can ascertain three specific reasons that von Tunzelmann feels statues appeared, which correlates with some of what I know about statues in general:

* To serve as a form of hero-worship for leaders who hold a firm grip on a country’s people
* To commemorate a leader whose service was remarkable to the country’s success
* To remind future generations of the impact a person had on society during their lifetime

As von Tunzelmann mentions, these sentiments are in the eye of the beholder, which can cause triggers.

Another theme throughout the book that von Tunzelmann explores is the reaction of those who saw the statue on a daily basis. The first half of the book depicts colonial or suppressed peoples and their having to view these statues on a regular basis. Once there was a change in political or imperial tides, the statues fell, usually desecrated in a variety of ways. That statues represented a past that was never really accepted or supported, simply lived through as oppressed peoples.

While this may be true, the more modern push for statue removal is symbolic by a people who did not live through events and simply ride a wave of historical selective retelling. I know that this will likely land me in some hot water, but it bears discussing. Those who decry removal of statues based on historic figures simply because today’s lens is placed upon them miss the point of the statue’s original placement. Was a George Washington statue placed to highlight and cheer on slave holding? Would one of Canada’s first prime minister, John A. Macdonald be erected to celebrate his overseeing residential schools across Canada to indoctrinate indigenous populations? Could Winston Churchill’s statue have been meant to honour racist sentiments? Likely not, but this is what the movement is (naively?) missing. They cannot see these statues as anything but through modern perspectives. I understand triggers and symbolism as much as the next person, but to erase any mention or depiction of our past is only to forget it and not learn from it. To deny that the reason these statues may have been created, grounded, and viewed is not to show an iron fist, but rather celebrate achievements for the populace to enjoy (and which they did when the statue emerged). It is ignorant not to take a step back and see this as a possibility. While Alex von Tunzelmann may not bluntly be saying this, it bears mention in a book that explores statues and was penned in reaction to 2020 mass global hysteria over the need to remove such statues.

By the conclusion, Alex von Tunzelmann looks back at the twelve men who are explored in this book and tried to decipher how their mark on history was bettered (or worsened) by the statues that were erected. While none were free from controversy, some were more in line with what I mention above as heroes for their efforts at the time. Discussion arises about how removing statues will help the cause, other than serving as a symbolic destruction of the past, as history is not changed and society does not have their minds erased to what took place. The topic is surely controversial, which I hope von Tunzelmann wanted, but it also bears beginning a conversation about history, statues, and how we depict people from the past. School names, public edifices, and even towns remain other pathways that may be scrubbed, which open up additional conversations and I am ready to have them all!

Looking at the book from an analytical perspective, not for content but how the reader can enjoy the journey, I cannot say that I was disappointed. Alex von Tunzelmann offers great analysis of twelve men whose statues have been removed at various points in time. She offers detailed analysis of each, providing readers some context to better understand who they were and potentially why there might have been issues with the statues depicting them. She is level-headed, not grabbing for Kool-Aid to guzzle down, though she is also not dismissive of the arguments made by those who sought to remove the statues. This well-rounded book offers education and entertainment in equal measure while forcing the reader to open their mind up to what could be happening. There are surely those who feel protest means destroying things, but the conversation might be more effective by stepping back and trying to see the lens through which things were crested, rather than using today as the sole perspective for determining usefulness. I am eager to see what others think and am sure there will be those who do not espouse the views I take on this. That being said, freedom to disagree is at the core of this discussion and I applaud its foundational presence.

Kudos, Madam von Tunzelmann, for a book I put off for much too long. I am glad that I took the time to read it and hope others will too!

Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/

[Andrew Oldham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book. I would recommend. The writing style for what could be a dry subject keeps you turning the pages. The book has energy with unexpected moments of humour that genuinely make you smile. Piqued my interest in areas of history I had not previously invested time in trying to understand. In my opinion the weakness in the book is the author’s arguments surrounding the removal of statues, which lacked depth and somewhat jumped from presenting evidence to presenting conclusions.

[Liam Ostermann · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not a long book and, while some might dismiss it as simplistic (and there is a strong argument that in summarizing some of the history behind the statues she deals with there is a lack of subtlety and depth), overall this is a wise and sensible introduction to the whole 'statue' question that has developed in the public arena in the past few years. Put very simply removing, or even destroying a statue is not automatically iconoclasm, nor is it ignoring, denying, or rewriting history. In most of the most contentious cases the sculptures (of various colonialists like Rhodes or the Civil War generals and politicians) the statues were erected to propagate not only a particular version of history but to rewrite or deny history. It is particularly amusing when the more vociferous right wingers in The USA and Britain decry the often violent removal of statues because invariably they are the same people who praised the violent and destructive removal of statues with the collapse of communism or in Iraq - never mind the fact that the American rebellion against Britain began with the toppling of a statue of King George III - a definite example of 'rewriting' or 'denying' a past history.

People use the excuses of bringing Democratic processes into the removal of statues while not acknowledging how often this process has been tried and frustrated - usually by undemocratic special interest groups. Nor do those against the removal of statues care to be reminded how undemocratic the process was and still is around the choice of who gets a statue erected to them. Invariably most people are not against the removal of statues - only of 'their' statues or statues that reflect or support their version of history.

An excellent, thought provoking book, which should provide anyone with answers, but also questions. What more could such a book want of a reader?

[donna_ehm · Rating 2 out of 5]

The title of this book really caught my eye as it seemed such a niche topic. It wasn't about twelve pieces of art in general but statues specifically. I thought it was rather delightful that the author got into a subject that particular. I was really curious as to what she uncovered and the insights she was going to share about it.

The opening was very promising. In the introduction von Tunzelmann discussed some of the themes and ideas tackled in the book, such as statues are not neutral and “our reactions to them depend on who they commemorate, who put them up, who defends them, who pulls them down, and why.” More than “lumps of stone”, statues “represent the individual but also national, cultural, or community identify.” She points out that “raising questions about flaws in the individual depicted also raises questions about flaws in the nation itself.”

One observation in particular really stuck with me, that being:

Statues of individuals are a three-dimensional freeze-frame of a moment, willing you to examine the person they represent as the tangible human they once were. This may be one reason why some people react so strongly when they are destroyed. Seeing a mob smash in the face of something that looks like a person is shocking. Many cultures throughout history have made statues into idols, bathing and dressing them, bringing them offerings, and talking or praying to them. It’s hard to form that human connection with an obelisk.

It seems so obvious at first and yet it was a perspective I had never considered before.

von Tunzelmann also proposes to answer four common reactions to the desecration and destruction of statues, those being:

1. It is a destruction of history
2. You can’t judge the past by the morals and attitudes of the present
3. You can’t have “the mob” deciding what should go, and
4. It’s a slippery slope

In the conclusion von Tunzelmann comes back to these questions and reviews what she’s presented throughout the book in response to them. I found this to be a tidy wrap-up and a clear summarization of these key ideas, especially number two, which is the “a man of his time” argument (use the answer to clap back the next time you hear someone using this as a defense against turfing a statue). von Tunzelmann gets into this in the Colson chapter and I enjoyed her arguments (and receipts) debunking of this particular chesnut.

But in between the opening and the conclusion, the content proves disappointing. The bulk of each chapter consists mostly of a very broad, high-level biographical sketch of the person in question of whom a statue has been made or who commissioned statues be made (of themselves and/or others). This sketch is no different than what you’d get via Wikipedia and rarely offers any deeper insights or analysis.

Past that, discussion of the statue (or statues) in these chapters often does not show the kind of thoughtful insight and analysis promised by the introduction. At worst, a chapter may be little more than the summary biography and some basic discussion of the statues that went up and, eventually, came down. This is particularly true of the Rafael Trujillo and Lenin chapters: Trujillo put up a lot of monuments to his dick; Russians put up a lot of monuments to Lenin.

(To be fair, with respect to the Lenin chapter, von Tunzelmann touches on the fact that Lenin’s preserved body constituted a “living sculpture” and that was a thought-provoking bit of analysis I liked.)

I think the strongest chapters were Saddam Hussein and Edward Colston. Hussein’s chapter really stuck with me, not because of the inevitable Wiki-bio but for a really interesting connection and analysis von Tunzelmann makes between the pulling down of Hussein’s statue and the theory of hyperreality (“a state in which you cannot tell the difference between reality and a simulation of reality”) as put forth by French philosopher Jean Baudrillard. At first I couldn’t understand why von Tunzelmann was suddenly discussing this theory but as she got into the events leading up to the toppling of the statue it became clear. Not only was it a genuinely fascinating discussion, one that stayed with me after I finished the book, but it really gets you thinking about how that same concept applies in the information we consume today.

(Check out this 2021 Guardian article where von Tunzelmann discusses this. It’s essentially the chapter minus the biographical bits: The topping of Saddam’s statue: how the US military made a myth)

And that’s the thing I found frustrating about much of the book: I wanted more of that type of insight, not a regurgitation of basic information.

[Malcolm · Rating 4 out of 5]

The wave of iconoclasm that accompanied and was part of that widespread reckoning with race, slavery, and empire during 2020 and 2021 provoked some intense debates about how we remember, construct our pasts, and the politics and powers of history (as in the stories we tell ourselves). There was also some welcome and valuable discussion of the public nature of much of that remembering when it involves representational sculpture forms (statues of individuals).

I was often reminded as I listened to voices from the US elite, in particular, fulminating on iconoclasm as the destruction of history, and how that’s not the American way, of the American revolutionary soldiers in New York city who, on the first day Washington read the Declaration of Independence as a public pronouncement, went out and pulled down a statue of George III. Seems that removing statues of rejected political icons is precisely the American way, embedded in the deified war of independence – Washington’s anger at the soldiers’ actions was not that they dethroned the king, but that they had acted without orders and as if a ‘mob’.

Neither was that establishment anger there when a nondescript status of Saddam Hussein was pulled down in Baghdad, in an action Alex von Tunzelmann shows convincingly in this excellent discussion of wrangling over statuary was largely engineered by US soldiers – again, acting it seems without orders, but not decried as a ‘mob’. Von Tunzelmann bookends her discussion of a dozen statues (or subjects of statues) with the fall of George III in New York City in 1776 and the fall of (Declaration of Independence reader on that day) George Washington in Portland, OR, in 2020. Along the way we meet some well-known subjects of iconoclasm – Stalin, Lenin, Cecil Rhodes, Robert E Lee, Saddam Hussein, Edward Colston (at least he’s well-known in my part of south-west England) – along with less globally recognised – Rafael Trujillo, Leopold II of Belgium, William, Duke of Cumberland (still well-known and widely hated in parts of Scotland), and the ostentatious monolith of George V that once occupied the New Delhi skyline. (I was delighted to see Trujillo in the list – an especially repugnant figure shored up by Cold War calculus; the Mirabel sisters – key figures in the opposition – are particular heroes of mine.)

The subjects of the statues are explored, the debates and controversies outlined clearly (of course specialists are going to quibble – but this is not a book for specialists even as it notes some of the key debates), the character of the actions and debates about the statue’s presence or otherwise explored. This is an excellent case of scholarly work being brought into play to explore and unravel a significant current public debate and issue. Von Tunzelmann opens outlining four key arguments the statue defenders often use – the ‘erasure of history’, that he was a ‘man of his time’, ‘law and order’, and it’s a ‘slippery slope to censorship’ and through her cases debunks each. It’s a good instance of letting each argument do its own work, rather than the tendentiousness or didacticism we too often see.

Implied but not explicit in the case also is the notion arguments such as the ‘erasure of history’ and others are more about the currently powerful trying desperately to protect their ability to control our understanding of the past, while the statues themselves are about asserting presence in and control over public space. Colston’s statue was an offence, but its place in the centre of Bristol overlooking a key central city pedestrian and transport interchange also put him symbolically at the heart of the city, its business, and daily life: it takes more than a new plaque to change that. These issues and questions are implicit in this discussion, and are topics we need to explore further and better. We see some of that in Robert Bevan’s Monumental Lies , the two books complement each other well.

This is an engaging, highly readable, accessible book that grapples with a pressing current issue and public debate – and is highly recommended.

[Shreya Prakash · Rating 5 out of 5]

#goodreads rating 4.12

Fallen Idols. It's a book about statues around the world that have been felled or taken down, and the movements and the people behind them.

The book spans 350 years as it tells us the stories of these 12 men (all men), notable in their lifetimes, famous or perhaps even infamous, but who certainly encountered far more notoriety after their deaths than they might have hoped for.

From King George III who was toppled around the time of the American Revolution as an act of showing Britain the middle finger (as that moment in history demanded), to Stalin whose enormous bulk came crashing down, all except for his boots, through the efforts of hundreds of thousands of charged Hungarians, to the real story behind the much televised historic tumble that Saddam took in Baghdad, this book covers histories we know and many we don't.

It's informative in all the broad and finer details it reveals, but for me, perhaps, more hearteningly, it shines a light on how history has marched on, from being written and "owned" by a few white men, to now being something alive and dynamic that all of us have access to. Where voices hitherto unheard of, matter.

We Indians fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, as a former colony, on the world stage our story is authentic and our voices find representation. But we have failed to look within, failed to confront our own past, look it straight in the eye and acknowledge, apologize, reconstruct.

This book though. It's the best thing I have read all year. Highly recommend.

[Joe O'Donnell · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Conservative Right have spent much of the last 18 months with their collective knickers in a twist over the issue of statue removal – principally inveighing against the demolition of sculptures of various colonialists, segregationists, and racists. Right-wingers have variously decried this global phenomenon as another example of ‘wokeism’ and (slightly less lazily) to a liberal-left attempt to erase parts of our collective history that we now find embarrassing or inconvenient. Thankfully, historian Alex von Tunzelmann is on hand with a necessary corrective to these complaints in the form of “Fallen Idols”. In part, this book is a history of such iconoclasm, from the toppling of Royalist figures at the outset of the American War of Independence through to the destruction of the slave trader Edward Colston’s statue in Bristol in 2020. But “Fallen Idols” is also about what statues – both in their construction and their demolition – can tell us about historical memory, and how that memory is constructed and challenged.

Von Tunzelmann views statues as a form of historical storytelling, in that which figure goes up on the plinth – and when they are put up – “reflect(s) what some people, some time, thought we should think”. Statues are almost always political statements, echoing the elite opinions and ideologies of their day, and are more a form of propaganda rather than art, holding a place as Von Tunzelmann observes “somewhere between the secular and the religious”. She analyses a dozen examples of statue removal, from the Duke of Cumberland (responsible for the slaughter of the Scots at Culloden), Joseph Stalin (whose figure stood for 5 years in Budapest before being unseated during the 1956 uprising), King Leopold of Belgium (notorious for his genocidal regime in The Congo), Saddam Hussein, and the white supremacist robber-baron Cecil Rhodes.

Through these examples in “Fallen Idols”, we see that the phenomenon of statue-smashing is almost as old as the tradition of putting them up in the first place. Such iconoclasm shows us that there is rarely such a thing as ‘a settled history’, and what statues go up (and stay up) are more a representation of “whose stories we tell” and who at any particular point in time is getting to define our histories.

Throughout “Fallen Idols”, Von Tunzelmann takes a wrecking ball to the various right-wing arguments against statue removal; not least that conservatives can quite hypocritically be in favour of pulling down certain statues when it suits them (see Stalin and Saddam), but also the bogus contention that these monuments are adequate way of educating ourselves about our shared histories. What sustains her case is that “Fallen Idols” is written with a sly, mischievous wit (just one example being the peculiar case of Rafael Trujillo – dictator of the Dominican Republic – whose monuments to himself tended to take on a rather priapic form). It’s no mean feat to write such a frequently entertaining book, particularly when you are dealing with such a rogue’s gallery of psychopaths, slave traders, and genocidal maniacs.

What “Fallen Idols” is about is not just a defence of iconoclastic statue removal, but also of the whole concepts of historical analysis and free debate. As Von Tunzelmann so adroitly puts it: “In a free democratic society, there can be no limits on which historical figures can be discussed and reassessed ... statues do not have rights - they stand at the pleasure of those who live beside them”. Recommended for anybody with an interest in how historical memory is constructed ... or anybody who recognises the necessity of continually debating and reassessing our historical myths.

[Thy Tran · Rating 4 out of 5]

definitely different and stands out to the ones i’ve read and heard about. i would say it’s especially relevant to this current time period, however not the most urgent nor pressing manner. still thought provoking

[Daisy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really thought-provoking and enlightening book about the role of historical memory in public conscience. Learnt a lot and made me think

[Tony · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the first of the six books on the Wolfson History Prize shortlist. I'm planning to read all of them before the winner is announced.

Fallen Idols by Alex von Tunzelmann is, if I look at the other titles on the list, probably the book most aimed at the general reader. It is also the book that ties itself most obviously to contemporary politics. The impact of the "culture wars" is the background to this book and how that has impacted on how we talk about and study history. As von Tunzelmann says in her introduction, "This is a book about how we make history." *It would link nicely with "What is History, Now?" edited by Helen Carr and Suzannah Lipscomb. A book which features an essay by Alex von Tunzelmann.

The book looks at the removal of the statues of twelve people, starting with the removal of the statue of George III in New York by American revolutionaries in 1776 and finishing with the fall of a statue of George Washington in Oregon in 2020. Each statue is contextualised and their falls are contextualised. Or, in the case of Leopold II of Belgium, why some of the statues haven't been removed.

Two of von Tunzelmann's examples - the statue of George V in Delhi and the various 'imposing erections' of Rafael Trujillo's Dominican Republican dictatorship - are drawn from areas she has written about in other places books: Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire (2007) and Red Heat. Conspiracy, Murder, and the Cold War in the Caribbean (2011). But there's talk of Stalin, Lenin, the Duke of Cumberland, Saddam Hussein, Cecil Rhodes, Robert E Lee and Edward Colston also.

This breadth of examples offers up different reasons for their fall and different results, but it allows von Tunzelmann to challenge the arguments presented by those who would use the fall of statues to defend a status quo. She shows how statues represent a 'great man' mythologised version of history that - and forgive the pun - can't be set in stone because how we see ourselves and the world changes. History is a dynamic subject. It is an ongoing debate between what we think we know, what we'd like to think of ourselves and 'what really happened'.

The examples are all stories interestingly told. Von Tunzelmann writes clearly and well. The best reason for reading this book though is that it is a defence of history as a subject and an explanation of how it works:

"Any written history, even the blandest series of historical documents, can only ever be a map, not the actual territory of history, which vanishes as soon as it has happened. History is gone. What we have is the memory of history, and that is always contested. " (p. 8)

It would actually make a good book for teaching history at schools or as introductory parts of university courses. When I did my history degree the first part of our course was 'What is History?' and they used historical 'mysteries' to introduce us to the methodologies and practices of historical study. We looked at things like 'Was there a Robin Hood?', 'Who Killed JFK?', 'What Happened to the Romanovs' etc. It gave you an insight into the subject that opened it up in a fun and intelligent way. That's what von Tunzelmann's book does. It tells the stories of twelve statues to show us what history is, which I can only applaud.




*It would link nicely with "What is History, Now?" edited by Helen Carr and Suzannah Lipscomb. A book which features an essay by Alex von Tunzelmann.

[Nicolas Chinardet · Rating 3 out of 5]

An easy and enjoyable primer on the issue surrounding the current removal of problematic statues, which I read in preparation to visiting the newly supine Edward Colston statue in Bristol (mentioned in the book).

As the subtitles makes clear, the book presents the stories of 12 such statues, together with potted histories (each around 10 pages) of their subject and of the erection and downfall of the statues. It's all very portable and reader-friendly.

This only real criticism that can be levelled here, (and probably to most books of similar intent) is that von Tunzelmann is very likely to be preaching to the choir, and that the people who need to read this book and gain some perspective on statue removals are very unlikely to hear her clear and intelligent voice.

In addition to the case studies she presents, von Tunzelmann also provide a handy argumentation to answers the four main constantly recurring objection to the taking down of statues. This can be useful for discussions on social media...

[Susan Paxton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great reading that manages to be both very informative and entertaining at the same time, not easy to achieve. Alex von Tunzelmann analyses the recent kertuffle over removing statues by analyzing in detail 12 cases, ranging from rebelling colonists tearing down King George III in 1776 to more recent removals like Robert E Lee and Edward Colston. I'm not going to review in detail, but I leave you with this quote: "Minds can change, when they want to." Highly recommended.

4/22/2022 - the book made the Wolfson History Prize shortlist. An even better recommendation than mine!

[Miles Row · Rating 4 out of 5]

An accessible pop history introduction to the role of statues in the last few hundred years linked to western European approach to putting notable white men on plinths.

[Delilah · Rating 5 out of 5]

heard it as a lecture first & simply had to read the whole book - she’s just so witty and thought-provoking 🤝

[Joe Keefhaver · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a well-written book on the issues involving the controversies over statues erected to prominent men of the past and present. von Tunzelmann explains the custom of erecting statues down through the centuries, noting that raising such monuments and then removing them is nothing new. While the author isn't necessarily in favor of removing all statues, she points out the problems with the "Great Men of history" approach. These "Great Men" are often found to have issues. von Tunzelmann addresses the major reasons people fight against the removal of statues -- 1. The Erasure of History, 2. The Man of His Time, 3. The Importance of Law and Order, and 4. The Slippery Slope. One possible approach for the future may be to memorialize groups of people (such as slaves lost during the Middle Passage) and events, rather than individual great men...or women.

[Keenan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fallen Idols goes into the stories of twelve statues, specifically their reasons for going up and the (always political) reasons they came back down to earth. The author does a great job providing details that move along each story while also giving the necessary context about why statues go up in the first place and the back-and-forth in the public sphere about why they should or shouldn't remain. A good pop history read, especially if you enjoy tales of megalomaniacs and their places in history being rightfully challenged.

[Sesana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Examines twelve statues that have been removed, starting in 1776 and going to 2020. Each statue is thoroughly covered: who it represents, why it was erected in the first place, why it was controversial, and why it was ultimately removed. Fairly even handed throughout, though of course the author has a bias. Their arguments are persuasive and backed up with plenty of evidence.

[Dipra Lahiri · Rating 4 out of 5]

An intriguing construct, featuring a star cast of rogues (with an exception or two) whose evilness and hubris is astonishing to read about. AVT does well to dispel the feeble arguments that indirectly support such abhorrent historical figures.

[Gauthier · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought-provoking and insightful, this book is the kind of work that brings history to its relevance today. It is the kind of book that makes you think critically at every page and that helps you widen your understanding of the complex issues that surround the toppling of statues in general.

Von Tunzelman starts her book with an introduction on the meaning of statues and what they represent. She proceeds to list the 4 main arguments that people who criticize the pulling of statues usually make:
1. The erasure of History
2. The Man of His Time
3. The Importance of Law and Order
4. The Slippery Slope
Then, she outlines a thought experiment that claims to show all 4 arguments are fallacies. However, I consider that her thought experiment only addresses 2 of them: The Man or His Time and The Slippery Slope. And in my view, her experiment comes as unconvincing. First, because she takes the most radical examples that one can find: Hitler and Stalin, 2 of the most murderous men of the 20th century. Relying on a comparison with Hitler or Stalin is overused and has become a weak argument because it's an easy one and takes the most extreme approach possible. In addition, the Man of His Time argument usually applies to individuals who lived in periods where it is demonstrated that people had different mindset and values. Stalin and Hitler both lived less than 100 years ago, which is very recent. As for her thought experiment claiming that no one used the Slippery Slope argument when US troops blew up the Nuremberg marble swastika on April 22, 1945, it is again a weak comparison: comparing the destruction of a Nazi symbol by soldiers who endured suffering and losses in the final days of one of the most brutal conflicts that humankind has ever known. This was not the protest of civilians contesting the existence of offending symbols supported by their government. It was the destruction by the victors of a vanquished enemy whose defeat came at a terrible price. The context is widely different.
Therefore, Von Tunzelman's thought experiment is, in my view, a failure. However, I do agree with her that most of the arguments are fallacies. She could just have used a better example to refute them.
The Importance of Law and Order argument is actually mentioned by Georges Washington in the first chapter regarding the toppling of King Georges III's statue in NY, who disapproved of the act. Von Tunzelman goes on to say: "Of course, revolutions are not always carried out with perfect decorum, no matter how much their commanders might wish it" (p. 31). She basically says that "we don't make an omelette without breaking eggs". This kind of violence is inevitable when a just cause such as a revolution is taking place. This gives an insight in the author's point of view because she makes it sound as if she did not agree with Washington's wish. For her, that's how things are and we should accept it. I personally find that a poor argument. While I recognize that revolutions do not happen without violence, it does not mean we should condone it or be happy about the destruction they cause. In the case of the French Revolution for example, how many works of arts were lost due to the rage of individuals who had no knowledge of what they were destroying? Washington should not be chastised for wishing that such events occur peacefully. While it may be naive, it is still commendable.
In any event, it is not really an honest comparison to compare the pulling down of a statue representing someone considered a symbol of a present enemy in the heat of passion resulting from tensions and a conflict that are occurring at the moment. Georges III's statue was pulled down during the American Revolution, not after. This is very different from pulling down a statue representing someone from another era, sometimes centuries later, especially when the author rightly points out that it any case, most people don't even know the statue of such person exists or that they might pass in front of someone's statue everyday and never know who it is.

What is interesting as well is that that last sentence also goes both ways and Von Tunzelman mentioned it: most people who criticize the toppling of statues oftentimes have no idea whose statue it was until they learned of the toppling. It is therefore funny that they should suddenly care. But as I said, it goes both ways: most people who support statue toppling never knew about the statue in the first place until they heard about it in the news and suddenly they started caring.

Beyond this consideration, Von Tunzelman goes on to provide context surrounding the different figures who have had statues commemorating them and the latter being the target of human passion decades or even centuries later. She does so effectively, addressing Stalin, Lenin, Cecil Rhodes, Sadam Hussein, King Leopold II, and some more, including, surprisingly, Georges Washington himself. In many cases, she shows that the person was not even appreciated during their lifetime. Cecil Rhodes and Leopold II for example, or the Duke of Cumberland were notoriously criticized. As a result, Von Tunzelman pushes us to question why those statues exist in the first place and why we shouldn't assume they represent men worth celebrating just because they exist. This effectively debunks the Man of His Time argument although I am personally not entirely convinced the argument is invalid. Indeed, Von Tunzelman explains that since there was no pollsters in those days, we can't measure whether or not topics such as slavery were widely accepted. She also goes on to say that we know for sure that slaves themselves did not view slavery as a good thing ans since they represent a non negligible part of society, they (rightly) cannot be discounted. Finally, she explains that we have numerous testimonies of individuals criticizing slavery or men such as General Lee or Edward Colston. Therefore, it is proof that in those days, people did not think very differently from today. This makes sense, until it does not.
First, it is true there were no pollsters in the days. However, if we could not measure whether or not slavery was viewed positively, we cannot measure whether or not it was viewed negatively either. Furthermore, if there are a lot of testimonials from people criticizing those men or slavery and colonialism, there are also a lot more texts that support slavery and colonialism. One just has to observe the strength of abolitionist movements to understand that the majority of society either supported slavery or, at least, did not care for it. Which brings me to another point: that the vast majority of people in European societies during the times when slavery was practiced in the last few centuries did not support or condemn slavery for a very simple reason: they were too busy getting by, living difficult lives with high mortality rates in births and from disease or malnutrition. Therefore, the vast majority of people did not really consider the issue of slavery and of those who could, the elites, most of them supported it. And it does not take a genius to conclude that someone who lives in a violent society, or a society where death is much more common, will have a different outlook on life than a privileged individual living in the Western world in 2022. This has been demonstrated by historians such as George Minois in his monumental history of the Hundred Years War where it could be observed that even in those violent times, there were incredible bouts of violence, even for those times, not because those people were inherently bad, but because they lived in violent societies that were experiencing numerous crises: war, famine, plague, etc.
Therefore, in my view, the Man of His Time argument still stands. Yet, it does not work for everyone and the best way to counter it is by actually relying on the other individuals of the time. If the people who lived at the same time of the person commemorated by the statue despised him, then there is a good chance we should judge him by their standards as well. One just has to think about King Leopold II to understand that Belgians of his time were appalled by him.

All in all, this makes us understand that we should not take the view that toppling statues is inherently wrong or right. Statues were put up by certain people to convey a message. This message might not be relevant today and/or it might be a far cry from the actual truth about the figure it represents. As the author says, statues are poor ways of telling us who a person was when human beings are complex beings. Every case where a statue has been removed or is asked to be removed should be considered on a case by case basis. And we should not put statues on a pedestal where no one has the right to question them. In fact, we need to keep the right to question anything and everything. That is what makes the study of history so alive.

Finally, I'll take a jab at Von Tunzelman and her critic of the Great Man theory. Although I would not go as far as saying that it is the dynamic that drives society and drove the world until today, in my view the place of exceptional individuals to make changes through their inner capabilities cannot be downplayed. Yes, those individuals, men and women, could not have done what they did without the support of the masses. But the masses could not have done what they did without the out of the ordinary individuals, or when they did, their impact was limited. A good example is the Yellow Vests movement in France in 2018, which shook French society but eventually dissolved itself as there was no leader to give it direction. And it is difficult to deny that our societies remain fascinated by the possibility of things being changed by the will of a single individual. There is something inspiring in this belief although there is also something inspiring in the belief that we can do so much as a group. Those two views are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

In any case, Von Tunzelman's book is, as I said earlier, thought-provoking and highly relevant. It was a pleasure reading it and challenging or agreeing with its arguments.

[Clare Russell · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this absolutely fascinating - both in its descriptions of contentious statues and their removal, and in its account of how history is reinterpreted and contextualised throughout time. Highly recommended

[Jackie · Rating 3 out of 5]

ARC provided by the publisher via Netgalley in exchange for review.

Overall, a good introduction to the topic of historical statuary and when and why they come down. It's clearly aimed a general audience and doesn't make assumptions about what you do or don't know about history, which is important because not every historical person in the book is widely taught in your average curriculum. I think a lot people would find the chapters to be enjoyable bite-size sections, and for that reason I suspect the audiobook will be a popular version.

Unfortunately for von Tunzelmann, she is likely preaching to the choir. Those who would most benefit from considering a broader perspective of the history of statue removal are precisely those least likely to pick up the book. The choir will likely enjoy it anyway, and that's probably all any history author can hope for these days.

[Ralphz · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book starts and ends with George Washington. The general of the Continental Army, he's upset when a mob pulls down a statue of Britain's King George III, saying that this is not how to confront history. At the end, a Washington statue is pulled down during the Black Lives Matter protests.

Obviously written from the left, mostly attacking the right, this book takes a stance you'd expect: Take down statues however you like when they offend.

The problem for me is the violence inherent in a mob pulling down a statue, whether that mob is BLM protesters in Portland or the U.S. Army in Iraq.

With the push to commemorate more minorities and women, how comfortable would the author be if an angry crowd pulled down one of those statues, for actual or perceived grievances? How about Gandhi, who by anyone’s account is quite “problematic” now for his own treatment of women? Or how about MLK because of communist leanings?

The author dismisses several arguments against taking down statues, deeming them not worthy. But I believe there needs to be further examination of why we should at least hesitate to pull down statues because of current politics, whatever those politics might be. 

One of the arguments she rejects, that taking down statues erases history, is then subtly acknowledged to be true in the story of William, Duke of Cumberland, whose statue went up and then went down, and then he went forgotten. I don’t think, though, that pulling down statues erases history, as the author contends is the argument, but that it erases memory. 

History happens whether we acknowledge it or not. But if we erase statues and other memorials – which are explicitly about remembering people and events – then we lose memory of those people and events. In the United States, in particular, we have a tenuous relationship with history, not really understanding or engaging with it. Taking down memorials won’t help.

The author acknowledges this herself in the conclusion:

"Does it really change anything? The answer, generally, is no."

[Irene Schneider · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really solid analysis of the motivations behind toppling civic statues of men, and the arguments on both sides. (Has a woman's statue ever been toppled? There aren't many to start with.) Even if you're only mildly interested in the subject, it's a page-turner.

There's quite a lot of range in the 12 "idols" she chose. Stalin and Lenin are included, of course, but so are Edward Colston and Rafael Trujillo. Von Tunzelmann cleverly devotes her first and last chapters to the demise of two Georges-- statues of our last king and our first elected president. (NB: There were 10 presidents of the Continental Congress before the 1789 elections.)

The context for each toppling could hardly be better stated-- a Goldilocks formula, neither too much nor too little to understand the background of the man and what brought about both his monument and its demise. If I have a disappointment, it's that she occasionally lapses into statements that are so general and obvious that they're silly, e.g. "Removing statues is not enough [to reform a nation]" (duh) and "It is impossible for a process of truth and reconciliation to work without the truth" (ditto). But on the whole, a lively study of a persistent political phenomenon.

[Adrian]

Historian Von Tunzelmann takes twelve statues that have been torn down and reviews the history of each and what changed in history that made people want to pull them down. These histories are well done and interesting enough but what any reader to day wants is a discussion of controversial statues-where the rationale for letting them stand is at least as strong as reasons for pulling them down. Only her number 12, George Washington, fits that bill. A statue of Washington was pulled down in Portland at the height of the Black Lives Matter protest. It comes as no surprise that Von Tunzelmann agrees with BLM that it deserved to come down. Why? Washington owned slaves. Therefore his claim to greatness is an offense to the people who tore it down. She throws out any idea that men should be judged by the precepts of the age they lived in. On the contrary, she thinks we should judge all characters by what we now see as proper and right. By this measure all bad men are equally bad- Stalin, Pol Pot, Washington- because they offend modern sensibilities. A very disappointing book.

[Kathleen Gray · Rating 5 out of 5]

Delightful look at not only why statues have been defaced and pulled down but also why they went up in the first place. Well, we know that- there's an ego thing as well as a desire to commemorate something or someone that some people feel important. But why? In each of these 12 cases, von Tunzelmann has done extensive research on the subject and in a clear eyed way, laid out the bad (and the good) and what happened. King Leopold - he comes down in a lot of places! So do others, of course (Columbus for one) and you, like me, might learn something about each of these individuals and the context in which the statues were both erected and destroyed. I read this as a sort of short story collection - one a day-and found myself seeking out additional info. Thanks to Edelweiss for the arc. A good read.

[Hannah · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my favorite books read this year. Anyone else find it entertaining as much as it was informative? Wish all nonfiction was that engaging. Love that the premise of the book is to dismantle the four fallacies for why we cling to our stories and heroes and love that the book ends on them too. A very easy must-read for anyone who wants to know what is critical thinking.

[Thijs · Rating 4 out of 5]

An insightful book that puts some of history in an interesting perspective. I personally found it a well written and enriching read.

Gets you thinking about your own opinions, so for that reason alone I will already recommend. Also, the handful of illustrations (eventhough not many) are pretty nice! They're also on the cover but I like them a lot.

[Bill · Rating 2 out of 5]

Disappointing. Seems like a good idea but the author didn’t do enough research to substantiate a book. After an intro tackling the various views on the phenomenon of taking statues down, we are then treated to the individual chapters that are more a generic bio + journalistic anecdote rather than contributing to our understanding.