Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

nullzero

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah semiotics matter and this is a fairly big symbol.

They asked the council for long enough. The council refused and it was taken down on the momentum of the protests. The longer you ignore a reasonable request the more likely people will take matters into their own hands. I'm absolutely fine with it.

Nobody has suggested this statues absence will fix any specific problems. It's an important symbol. You claim you understand but then keep saying things that suggest you don't actually understand it at all.

I understand perfectly.

My opinion is just different to yours.

You could benefit from working on your manners, just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I have to accept your attitude. Grow up a bit.

Kermit.de.frog

Anyone have an opinion on that lad Russell standing in Fairview?

Lefty Bicek

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Anyone have an opinion on that lad Russell standing in Fairview?

How many slaves did he own ?

ExMachina1000

I believe the statue was erected due to his establishment of schools and hospitals.

Cupatae

I wonder how long before people start fighting back dangerous game destroying historic statues Ina country you are the minority in it could easily start a race war.

nullzero

Cupatae wrote: »

I wonder how long before people start fighting back dangerous game destroying historic statues Ina country you are the minority in it could easily start a race war.

I'm sure the EDL will see this as a rallying cry.

Cupatae

nullzero wrote: »

I'm sure the EDL will see this as a rallying cry.

There both as bad as each other, I'd imagine the Churchill one tho might ruffle a few feathers

ExMachina1000

Cupatae wrote: »

There both as bad as each other, I'd imagine the Churchill one tho might ruffle a few feathers

Where are all of the natives at? A monument
to a leader who fought the nazis is vandalised and the union Jack set alight yet nothing happens.

Kermit.de.frog

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

How many slaves did he own ?

Didn't have something to do with nazism?

Lefty Bicek

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Didn't have something to do with nazism?

I hope you know I was joking.

Cupatae

The new racists these days call themselves anti racists , your either only black lives matter or your racist and lynched they have free reign to attack loot and destroy ,

I don't care what anyone says BLM are the most racist of the lot! And the people that support it.

Destroying the Churchill statue is a sure fire way to make a lot of people racist and against what ever shambles of a cause they had

Outlaw Pete

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Yesterday Churchill's statue was defaced ..

Aye:





Wonder has anyone told them what the other guy was like yet.

Lefty Bicek

Cupatae wrote: »

The new racists these days call themselves anti racists , your either only black lives matter or your racist and lynched they have free reign to attack loot and destroy ,

I don't care what anyone says BLM are the most racist of the lot! And the people that support it.

Destroying the Churchill statue is a sure fire way to make a lot of people racist and against what ever shambles of a cause they had

It won't make people racist, but I think once too often and people will have just had enough of being called that.

It's an odd word now, it's power to offend undiminished, yet it's meaning totally diluted by cynically inappropriate overuse.

Guy:Incognito

https://twitter.com/intelligence2/status/1269700311926681610?s=19

They had plenty of opportunity to removed something that shouldn't have gone up in the first place.

dwayneshintzy

Are the posters so outraged about the Colston statue being torn down in favour of Nelson's Pillar being restored in Dublin? Or at least re-dedicating the Spire to him?

(apologies if this point was brought up already, search seems to be broken for me.....)

BlitzKrieg

Deleted User wrote: »

Well... from what I've seen online is that the local community was split on the topic, and the mob removed the choice from the community as a whole. That doesn't seem to me to be positive progress...

What choice was removed?

I touched on this earlier

statues are vandalised all the time

This statue has been vandalised in the past numerous times.

It's not been destroyed, it can be fished out of the bay, repaired easily and restored if thats what people feel should be done and that may be what will happen. But considering bristol's mayor's position on the statue it may not be fully restored or it may be restored finally with that second plaque.

I pretty much find how the bristol post is reporting the issue to be the most on the point with the issue of the statue, what happens now is a a Bristolian matter, the lead up to the act was also something almost uniquely Bristolian, the fact the act itself went worldwide just puts a brief spotlight on long running issue.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/mike-norton-felling-colstons-statue-4202263

Cupatae

Muhammad Ali was racist, should we deface his statue? How does this defacing statue craic work is there a set criteria for it

The Floyd p

Cupatae wrote: »

I don't care what anyone says BLM are the most racist of the lot! And the people that support it.

Is it really racist to want to redress the imbalance and barriers that are in place for African Americans, or more broadly speaking, black people in general? Does that actually make sense to you?

dwayneshintzy

Cupatae wrote: »

Muhammad Ali was racist, should we deface his statue? How does this defacing statue craic work is there a set criteria for it

Aye right enough, Muhammad Ali was just as bad as Edward Colston, a man who literally enslaved tens of thousands of people.

BlitzKrieg

Cupatae wrote: »

Muhammad Ali was racist, should we deface his statue? How does this defacing statue craic work is there a set criteria for it

From observation of years and years and years of defaced statues for a whole variety of reasons from the virtuous to the religious to the downright stupid the criteria seems to be how people feel about it the morning after.

Lefty Bicek

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

https://twitter.com/intelligence2/status/1269700311926681610?s=19

They had plenty of opportunity to removed something that shouldn't have gone up in the first place.

'Shouldn't have gone up in the first place' is subjective, anachronistic, and uninteresting.

Olusoga is not the definitive word on it. Biased, actually.

dwayneshintzy

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

'Shouldn't have gone up in the first place' is subjective, anachronistic, and uninteresting.

Olusoga is not the definitive word on it. Biased, actually.

What's his bias?

Guy:Incognito

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

'Shouldn't have gone up in the first place' is subjective, anachronistic, and uninteresting.

Olusoga is not the definitive word on it. Biased, actually.

Ok, so youre the "pro slave trade statue" side? Why should a statue have gone up of him 174 years after he died? And why did they leave out any mention of all the people he was responsible for the death of and sent to slavery? Seems like a fairly important part of his life to just forget to put on a statue. People like this shouldn't be commemorated.

What was said in the video that was wrong or biased btw?

Lefty Bicek

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Ok, so youre the "pro slave trade statue" side?

I'm on the anti-mindlessthugidiotvandal side.

It isn't a slave trade statue. Didn't you know that much even ?

Why should a statue have gone up of him 174 years after he died?

His philanthropy, as it was perceived. Fact.

And why did they leave out any mention of all the people he was responsible for the death of and sent to slavery?

Because they didn't agree with slavery, presumably.

Nobody's all bad though. Look at all the philanthropy.

Seems like a fairly important part of his life to just forget to put on a statue.

They didn't forget. They probably wanted to forget, but... his philanthropy is what they chose to commemorate.

People like this shouldn't be commemorated.

Wouldn't be now. That's besides the point though.

What was said in the video that was wrong or biased btw?

I don't need to watch the video. I know Olusoga's perspective and background as I was aware of him before the video. Were you ?

Guy:Incognito

Lot of wishy washy reasons there, nothing of substance. It's a statue of a prominent slave trader. Throwing some money at setting up some charitable services that didn't allow access to people that didn't share your views isn't my idea of actual philanthropy. I'll agree with the video that it was an attempt to whitewash his bad deeds. I havnt seen anything that would prove otherwise.



1895 was long after the world woke up to slavery being wrong.

dwayneshintzy

Lefty Bicek, how would you describe Olusoga's bias? In what way is his perspective biased?

Lefty Bicek

Lot of wishy washy reasons there, nothing of substance.

I gave you facts.

It's a statue of a prominent slave trader. Throwing some money at setting up some charitable services that didn't allow access to people that didn't share your views isn't my idea of actual philanthropy.

So what ? Should you have been consulted ?

1895 was long after the world woke up to slavery being wrong.

But his slave trading activities weren't uncovered until 1920, by H.J. Wilkins. (Wiki, but whatever)

Can you contradict that with facts ? I am perfectly open to that.

Why should a statue have gone up of him 174 years after he died?

And I told you why. Your intellectual fragility that you can't accept a FACTUAL answer is your problem.

Are you aware of the very informative plaque that was to be added to the statue, that was agreed a couple of years ago ? It's very clear on the overall picture -

Edward Colston (1636–1721), MP for Bristol (1710–1713), was one of this city's greatest benefactors. He supported and endowed schools, almshouses, hospitals and churches in Bristol, London and elsewhere. Many of his charitable foundations continue. This statue was erected in 1895 to commemorate his philanthropy. A significant proportion of Colston's wealth came from investments in slave trading, sugar and other slave-produced goods. As an official of the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, he was also involved in the transportation of approximately 84,000 enslaved African men, women and young children, of whom 19,000 died on voyages from West Africa to the Caribbean and the Americas.

Vetoed, FYI, by a soi-disant 'mixed-race' Labour (:rolleyes:) Mayor of Bristol.


.

coffeepls

It’s a shame that plaque wasn’t added to the statue, though I do think it’s also a shame that the statue wasn’t moved to a museum. History, no matter how ugly it is, shouldn’t be destroyed.

The plaque (that never was) would’ve linked his name to everything he brought to Bristol. There is nothing as vile as slave trading, and it is a disgusting part of history.

kowloonkev

Do you think museums are safe from these animals?

Whatever about the US but people protesting in Dublin and across the UK maybe ought to look at the actual oppression occuring in pretty much all African nations today. Black people keeping black people hungry and in real poverty, starving to death, still being bought and sold. But I don't see them outside the embassies of Eritrea, Nigeria,Kenya, etc.

BlitzKrieg

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

What choice was removed?

The choice for those who didn't want the statue moved or modified. There was a process involved through the council, and voting regarding how the statue would be handled. By bypassing that council, the mob removed the choice for those other people.

I touched on this earlier

statues are vandalised all the time

This statue has been vandalised in the past numerous times.

It's not been destroyed, it can be fished out of the bay, repaired easily and restored if thats what people feel should be done and that may be what will happen. But considering bristol's mayor's position on the statue it may not be fully restored or it may be restored finally with that second plaque.

There is a bit of a difference between causal vandalising and being removed by unskilled people and thrown in the river. And, I'm sure you're aware of this, but any further decisions to repair/return the statue to its place, will be heavily influenced by the cost... you're making it sound like throwing it in the river doesn't have any impact on decisions to be made...

I pretty much find how the bristol post is reporting the issue to be the most on the point with the issue of the statue, what happens now is a a Bristolian matter, the lead up to the act was also something almost uniquely Bristolian, the fact the act itself went worldwide just puts a brief spotlight on long running issue.

And I have no problem with that. I just don't like mob "justice", and lynchings. Simple as that.