The Manchester Guardian reports on efforts being made to create a more substantial monument to the Peterloo Massacre than the small plaque that currently exists.

Events this Thursday - the massacre’s 188th anniversary - will highlight concern that Peterloo is in danger of being forgotten. “We’re talking about something here on the scale of Tiananmen Square in terms of democratic history,” said Paul Fitzgerald, who draws radical cartoons under the name Polyp and is one of the organisers of the Peterloo Memorial Campaign. “It’s ridiculous that all we have is this euphemistic plaque. We intend to commission a sculpture in the end, but in the meanwhile, let’s get people talking.”

I’m not sure if I completely agree with the comparison of the Peterloo Massacre with the Tiananmen Square demonstrations in 1989. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to compare the political liberties and level of democracy of early nineteenth century Britain with late twentieth century China. And, the argument in favor of commemorating Peterloo hinges on the belief that it set the stage for Britain’s nineteenth century electoral reforms which incrementally expanded the franchise and made the nation more democratic. That outcome does not seem to have happened yet following the Tiananmen Square uprising.

Part of what is interesting to me about Peterloo is the way that it was a media phenomenon that received widespread coverage in the nineteenth century. The name itself is a product of the burgeoning newspaper culture of Britain at the time:

The name Peterloo, combining Manchester’s traditional meeting place St Peter’s Fields with the battle of Waterloo fought four years earlier, was coined immediately by the radical Manchester Observer. The immediate result of the tragedy was a complete crackdown on reform, but it proved hugely influential in the longer run.

“It is fundamental to the history of our democracy,” said Tristram Hunt of Queen Mary College, London University, who last year organised a national competition in the Guardian for radical landmarks in need of better commemoration which saw Peterloo come second only to Putney parish church, site of the 1647 Putney debates where rank and file members of the Roundhead army argued the case for a transparent democratic state.

Additionally the Massacre is connected with newspapers because of the fact that it marks the beginning of the Manchester Guardian.

One of the lasting memorials of Peterloo crosses the former site of St Peter’s Fields daily, tucked under the arms of passers-by or downloaded to their computers and iPods.

It is the Guardian itself, which was founded by a group of moderate Manchester reformers as a direct result of the massacre, when it became clear that demonstrations and direct action were not going to change the government’s mind on widening the vote.

In a sense, then, the “memorial” to Peterloo already exists in Britain — as a part of every day life in terms of the newspaper as well as the political freedoms that citizens enjoy. It is interesting to consider whether an incident with so many far-reaching cultural implications really needs a grandiose monument, or if the implications underscore the missing monument.

Finally, of note, is the fact that the memorial to those who died at Waterloo is little more than a plaque containing a few names of some soldiers who died there. Not that different from what exists at Peterloo.

The complete article from The Guardian: “Battle for the memory of Peterloo: Campaigners demand fitting tribute”