THE trouble with those who commit vandalism is that by nature they are stupid, warped, ignorant and cowardly. There is no chance, for example, of those who daubed "racist king" on the statue of Robert the Bruce ever coming forward to argue their point in a lucid and educated manner, for by definition such vandals are pathetically dense.
It could, of course, be just a wind-up by some knuckle-headed nitwit trying to have a thrill by causing upset. Well, you might say, the current Tory government does that every day, so why shouldn’t a wee nyaff of an eejit not be allowed to do the same?
READ MORE: Robert the Bruce statue at Bannockburn defaced by 'BLM' graffiti
It should not be necessary to defend the reputation of King Robert but for the record let’s deal with the accusation of racism. It is blindingly self-evident that the Bruce could not have been involved in racist slavery or the suppression of black people because the slave trade did not involve Scotland or the Scots until a few centuries after he died in 1329.
Most Scots of that time, including the Bruce, had no idea about Africa or indeed any country outside Europe, save for the Holy Land to where King Robert wanted to go on Crusade. There had been what is known as white slavery but by the year 1200 it was no longer extant in the British Isles due mainly to its prohibition by the Church. There was serfdom, but that was a white-on-white imposition.
Some might argue that the Bruce was racist in his views about the English. Undoubtedly he was biased against England, but the English monarchy and its followers had been trying to kill him for a large part of his life. That, and the declared intention of Edward Longshanks and his son to subjugate the Scots, seems a reasonable excuse for having a poor opinion and dislike of the English. But racist? I think not.
On a general point you do not unmake history by simple negations such as toppling statues or changing names, otherwise Washington DC or Washington state might now be facing identity change - President George Washington owned dozens of slaves, after all.
As a rule, we should not impose our modern sensitivities on the past. We should explain, however, with information at statues and elsewhere why we have progressed from the days of powerful white men, the slavers and racists, but of course to do that we must ensure that racism and modern slavery is eradicated in the present day. That's much harder than defacing statues, so probably won't happen, and the paintcan pipsqueaks will carry on regardless.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel