Professional Communication Essay: Analyzing Statue Removal Debate

This essay delves into the complexities of professional communication by analyzing the debate surrounding the removal of a statue, likely related to historical figures and monuments. The essay examines three different articles presenting varied perspectives on the issue, including arguments for and against the removal. It critically evaluates these viewpoints, considering factors such as historical context, anti-racism movements, and the impact on communities. The author ultimately presents a conclusion that the removal of the statue is unethical, emphasizing the importance of respecting history and human rights. The essay recommends focusing on strengthening legal frameworks and promoting peace rather than removing historical artifacts. The document also stresses the importance of understanding diverse perspectives and the potential negative consequences of such actions on tourism and historical preservation.

PROFESSIONAL
COMMUNICATIONS

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY .................................................................................................................................3
Argument in essay.......................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
Professional communication is denoted as communicating at a professional level. This
report demonstrate opinions and views at an individual level about certain articles demonstrate
different views about the removal of slave trader Edward Colston stature from university. This
report is structured in such a way that three different articles cover different areas related to the
topic will be discussed to reach to the best level of conclusion against the article. On the basis of
critical evaluation of all the three articles views will be presented under this project over removal
of statue.
MAIN BODY
First article involved in the brief favoured of removing the statue of Victorian imperialist
Cecil Rhodes. Article favoured the removal on the ground that with the pace of time certain
modifications must have been introduced in the practices. This article favours the campaign
started in 2015 after the student graduated and reignited by the recent Black Lives Matter
demonstration all around the United Kingdom (Baillie, Duker and Nsele, 2019). Over the time
the racism cases with BAME people that include black, Asian and minority ethnic peoples. The
support of the removal is granted based on the ground that the stature is not letting diversity to
be spread across the United Kingdom which should be resulted into removal of the statue. Other
factual statements also granted to favour the article that Simukai Chigudu an associated
professor of African Politics at the University of Oxford said that there is a substantial shift in
the position due to amount of pressure on Oriel College from various constituencies has been
greater this time. The article also feel that there is plenty of time remaining to marinate the wider
anti-racist, anti colonial arguments.
The second article do not favour the decision of removing the respective statue. The
article state that despite the fact that the increasing pressure protestors are creating to remove the
statue this must not be removed and stick to its existing position at the university. This article
states that the stature give strength to the anti-racism debate with BAME people (Simon, 2021).
This further spread awareness related to not to offer discrimination in society as all peoples must
be treated in the same manner as other individuals are treating in the society. The statue further
protecting history of the pastime related to the Colston – a slave trader (Hicks, 2018). The stature
symbolises the history and contribute in saving the pastime of Britain.

Third article also demonstrated its views over the key treason behind the removal of
statue. This article majorly focused over key reason why the stature is removing from its current
place. The moment of anti-racism is spreading in United Kingdom that made government taking
decisions to remove the monument that can promote anti-racism sentiments.
Article 2 that favoured of not removing the stature is seems to be right. This article stated
clearly that the monument belong to the history of United Kingdom. Even if the monument can
be erased from its existing location it is not feasible to actual demolish or remove the stature just
because anti discrimination or anti-racism moment is being active in UK. Ancient monuments
are always special and precious as they reflect the ideology and respect the past history. In order
to gain the complete advantage and development of travel and tourism sector ancient history
play huge role. Removal of any statue just for controlling certain movement in society is not an
effective solution to deal with a certain situation or movement. The decision related to removal
of a statue or monument do not seems to be right just to stop a certain anti-racism movement in
United Kingdom. The monument that is removed belong to history of United Kingdom. The
monument symbolises anti-racism sentiments that is also famous (Hope, 2018). Many tourist
come to United Kingdom just because of the inspiration history provide to such travellers.
Across the globe people are highly interested in historical paces and explore different places
associated with the history. Every time any monument associated with the past history remove or
demolish it creates negate impacts over the mindset of travellers and tourist. This creates a
negative impacts over travellers as it directly affect the history.
Monuments are specific elements that is always established at the place where history
actually created. They do not plant over any location. There are always a key reason behind
plantation of statue over a specific location. If any statue is removed from its actual or original
location than it also effect the significance of such property as it completely demolish the key
essence behind the monument established. Decision related to removal of statue clearly proved
as an attack over history (Kohlke and Gutleben, 2020). Further it damages the sentiments of
people attached with the statue or monument. Any time in case of any decision taken to remove
a certain property that is located there from many years there must always be a key reason
behind removal of such property otherwise people or the society do not respect such decision-
making. Removal of any statute without any key fundamental reason create negative image of
government and also people look it as an attack over the sentiments of people.

Decision making related to removing the statue is totally wrong and unethical. The
reason was that anti-racism movement has bee spread across the United Kingdom. This must not
be a possible reason behind removal of any historical property. The conclusive part of this that
the protestor who are protesting against the racism in United Kingdom will also never stop
opposing just because a statue symbolises anti-racism sentiments. It will only get stop once
proper decision-making and are taken to stop a certain behaviour and also by strengthening law
or legal regulations against (Siddiqi, 2020). Racism is further demonstrated as a crime which
further needs not to be stooped by government. All possible actions must have been taken to stop
the criminal action. BY removing the statute government further supported the racism which
itself is a crime. This action is completely unethical; as it not only damaging the past history
along with it also harming the rights of people against racism. Rather than focusing over this
action government must give its focus to strengthen the legal implication or laws. This is also
not practically possible to stop any movement just by removing a certain statue symbolising a
specific activity. Racism is also against the moral values of people. All the individuals belong to
BAME community will commit a serious opposition of this action of government. This decision
will directly affect the sentiments of people that will only increase the protest and make people
against the government. This decision is clearly not right and it can be conclusive stated that
removal of statue is completely wrong.
CONCLUSION
The conclusion based on all the three articles clearly reflect that the decision related to
removal of a certain statue is completely unethical. This is not convenient to remove a statue just
to oppose a certain movement of people. This could also hurt the sentiments of people which is
complete unethical. It is recommended that this kind of actions must not repeat in future. Rather
government should emphasis over increasing peace and support the human rights in country.
Recommendations can be on this is that it could have been implemented with support of strong
laws and legislations impose strong actions and punishments.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Baillie, G., Duker, M. and Nsele, Z., 2019. Grasping the regimes of language, space and identity
in the visual of post-apartheid higher education in South Africa. Journal of Student
Affairs in Africa. 7(1). pp.123-143.
Hicks, M., 2018. Empire of the Imagination: Imperialism and the Child Reader of Victorian and
Neo-Victorian Children's Literature.
Hope, C., 2018. The Café de Move-on Blues: In Search of the New South Africa. Atlantic Books.
Kohlke, M. L. and Gutleben, C., 2020. Taking Biofictional Liberties: Tactical Games and
Gambits with Nineteenth-Century Lives. In Neo-Victorian Biofiction (pp. 1-53). Brill
Rodopi.
Siddiqi, A. I., 2020. The University and the Camp. Ardeth. A magazine on the power of the
project. (6). pp.137-151.
Simon, Z. B., 2021. Judging the Past, Blaming the Past, Hailing the Past. In A Dialogue Between
Law and History (pp. 129-150). Springer, Singapore.