Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Cupatae

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

Right, so you refuse to back up the claim that Muhammad Ali was a racist and you now call me stupid.



I'm not being stupid. Either your post was disingenuous or it was outright wrong. You've literally said Ali was a racist, why did you pick him? You can't back it up. Fair enough you want to throw edgy little bombs into threads, but that's all it seems to be unless you can explain yourself.

Prove me wrong ali wasnt racist come on. Its true till u prove me wrong so since u insist on fixating on ali rather than the point as a whole cause u are clutching at straws... i also said ur deliberately acting stupid, and ignorant to the point as a whole.

Fr Tod Umptious

Who would have thought that Luke Kelly was involved in the slave trade too.

dwayneshintzy

Cupatae wrote: »

Prove me wrong ali wasnt racist come on. Its true till u prove me wrong so since u insist on fixating on ali rather than the point as a whole cause u are clutching at straws... i also said ur deliberately acting stupid, and ignorant to the point as a whole.

I'll just leave things here, so. I'd just like to say this is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on Boards.


You can make an assertion about anything you like, and other people have to prove you wrong or it's "true". Most people will disingenuously argue from this point of view, but it's rare to see it outright stated.

Fuascailteoir

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Pretty much. We're conditioned by society and education to hold certain values and beliefs.



More revisionism. /sigh. Where do morals come from, and how do they develop over time?



Ok. We're changing the meaning of words then. Seems to be a trend of that these days. Which is why I'm objecting to your claim.... since it was inaccurate/misleading. Words are important, and their meaning is important. Blurring the lines simply makes our language less useful.

You said he literally enslaved tens of thousands of people. That's inaccurate. He traded in slaves. The company he worked for (and was a shareholder of) bought slaves and transported them. There's a difference from your statement.

Your line of argument is rubbish. There were people agitating against slavery in the 1600s. It was known it was a brutal and barbaric practice but companies and individuals placed a higher value on enriching themselves than for the welfare of Africans

super_furry

That statue tripped and fell.

J_E

Fuascailteoir wrote: »

Your line of argument is rubbish. There were people agitating against slavery in the 1600s. It was known it was a brutal and barbaric practice but companies and individuals placed a higher value on enriching themselves than for the welfare of Africans

There might have been some agitating about it, but it sure didn't stop it happening for the 400 years that followed...

dwayneshintzy

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

Just on this.....the evolution of language makes a language less useful? Without regard to this specific example, you really believe that to be the case? I wouldn't be nearly so prescriptivist about language.

There's a difference between evolution of a language and changing the meaning of words. And yes, I know you wouldn't be so fixed on language usage since that's what you did.

Claiming that slavery is wrong isn't "revisionism".

Which is not even remotely what I said. Seriously?

I'm not revising the historical record, I'm explaining my view. Any person who is kidnapped, tortured and sold to an owner who forces them to work will know that slavery is wrong. There's a whole different philosophical conversation about where morals come from, sure. But I think slavery is inherently wrong, just as I think the Holocaust was inherently wrong, and Apartheid was inherently wrong.

Which I would agree with... all of those things are wrong. However, at one time, slavery was an accepted form of business. It was an accepted mode for lifestyles to be built around.

You have no evidence to show that Colston kidnapped or actively engaged in the capturing/enslaving of anyone. The evidence is that he encouraged the purchasing, transportation and sale of slaves. There's a difference. Does it make him a better person? Nope. But it is more accurate to what happened.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope. I'm applying a belief that historic monuments should be respected, and that mob rule shouldn't be encouraged.

Had the council removed the statue due to pressure from the people, I would have no issue.

What's historic about this? It's a monument to a slave trader. You'd think it was the original Magna Carta the way the usual suspects are going on here.

When Colin Kaepernick took the knee, there were plenty of people wailing here like the snowflakes they claim to detest. If the council did start proceedings to take the statue down, there'd be the usual nonsense here.

dwayneshintzy

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is not even remotely what I said. Seriously?

You said, "More revisionism" about my post.


Where was the revisionism?

Fuascailteoir

Fuascailteoir wrote: »

Your line of argument is rubbish. There were people agitating against slavery in the 1600s. It was known it was a brutal and barbaric practice but companies and individuals placed a higher value on enriching themselves than for the welfare of Africans

Which argument would that be?

That trading in slaves was a legal activity at the time? That's a fact.
That people in many countries bought and used slaves? That's a fact.
That it was an activity done in many territories around the world? That's a fact.

That everyone considered it to be a barbaric practice to be removed? Nope. That's not a fact. There was a movement to ban slavery and a movement to destroy the slave trade worldwide. It took time for it to gain popular support... quite a lot of time really.

The argument being that it wasn't a moral perspective that all people shared, and that everyone wanted the trade to end. Fact is, most Europeans had no exposure to it, and didn't think about it at all, because they had their own problems/difficulties to concern them. Ownership and use of slaves within European territories was relatively rare, so it wasn't a subject that came up often.. until the anti-slavery movement managed to make it relevant. And a large part of that relevance came from the British Empire who wanted to destroy the slave trade because it would weaken the economies of their enemies.

suicide_circus

can we destroy any structure we dont like or is it only statues?

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What's historic about this? It's a monument to a slave trader. You'd think it was the original Magna Carta the way the usual suspects are going on here.

Ahh well, it was a monument to a benefactor. His participation in the slavery business wasn't being lauded.

And you're exaggerating about the objections here.

When Colin Kaepernick took the knee, there were plenty of people wailing here like the snowflakes they claim to detest. If the council did start proceedings to take the statue down, there'd be the usual nonsense here.

Fine. There might be. However, we are talking about a mob throwing a statue into the river.

dwayneshintzy

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

You said, "More revisionism" about my post.


Where was the revisionism?

Suggesting that modern morals were universal and accepted in the past.

suicide_circus

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Who would have thought that Luke Kelly was involved in the slave trade too.

Black velvet band...

Akrasia

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its literally fascism.

Lol. No it isn’t

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh well, it was a monument to a benefactor. His participation in the slavery business wasn't being lauded.

And you're exaggerating about the objections here.

It was by building a statue. And, no. I do not feel like I'm exaggerating.

Deleted User wrote: »

Fine. There might be. However, we are talking about a mob throwing a statue into the river.

Not what would have been my first recommendation but if the council isn't going to do anything about it then they're going to escalate. It's human nature.

My preference would have been to move the thing to a museum and stick up some info about his slaving and philanthropic activities so as to give a balance view of this man.

olestoepoke

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

that's going a bit far now...

Wasn't Pearse a pedophile? Should we rename Pearse Street?

Akrasia

TheValeyard wrote: »

Always wary of people destroying monuments. It's bit like trying to remove history. Then again who would complain when Eastern Europeans tore down the monuments to Stalin or when Iraqis blew up the shrines to Saddam.

But like our own Sean Russell monument. Should it stay or should it go?

Removing venerated statues to monsters is not forgetting history, it’s correcting it

History isn’t an immutable fact, it’s a story told by the winners of past conflicts. If Hitler won WW2 our ‘history’ classes would have been very different growing up

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

My preference would have been to move the thing to a museum and stick up some info about his slaving and philanthropic activities so as to give a balance view of this man.

Ditto.

dwayneshintzy

Deleted User wrote: »

Suggesting that modern morals were universal and accepted in the past.

I didn't suggest that, I said it was inherent. That whether it was accepted as wrong or not, it was wrong.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Removing venerated statues to monsters is not forgetting history, it’s correcting it

:eek:

dwayneshintzy

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

I didn't suggest that, I said it was inherent. That whether it was accepted as wrong or not, it was wrong.

It's wrong today. Accepted. Not wrong back then.

Macdarack

Was slavery mention in the bible? Justified even? It's long overdue to throw every bible into a fire imo.

Hector Savage

So in 100/150 years time when eating meat will be seen as absolutely abhorrent, will they be ripping the statues of Obama down ?

dwayneshintzy

Hector Savage wrote: »

So in 100/150 years time when eating meat will be seen as absolutely abhorrent, will they be ripping the statues of Obama down ?

Are you comparing eating meat to the slave trade?


What does Obama have to do with anything?

olestoepoke

Macdarack wrote: »

Was slavery mention in the bible? Justified even? It's long overdue to throw every bible into a fire imo.

Did the Catholic Church support the Facist's during the Spanish civil war. Let's pull down all their statues and get rid of their churches.:D

Mitch Connor

The statue should have been taken down long ago.

Petition after petition has been ignored.

A plan to put up a 2nd plaque on the statue that would detail his horrid history in the Slave Trade was rejected, with one Tory councilor saying if it was put up, that vandalism and distruction of the plaque would be understandable.

There were attempts to have it removed and put in a museum, also rejected. People tried to have it removed or moved or updated in many ways. And they were rejected. So they eventually took it upon themselves to remove a celebration of Slavery. Fair play to them.

Hector Savage

muddypaws wrote: »

Bristol council have been petitioned to move the statue to a museum or to put an educational plaque beside it. They have refused. It may not make tearing it down the right thing to do, but when people feel that they aren't being listened to, sometimes they take more extreme measures.

Good point, it being moved to a musuem would be more appropriate I think, this trying to erase history reminds me of the ministry of truth in 1984 - I think it's time to give that book a re read ...

super_furry

How do people feel about the 'removal' of Nelson's Pillar?

Hector Savage

alchemist33 wrote: »

The parallels with ISIS here are ridiculous. ISIS destroyed ancient monuments because they weren't Muslim. The protestors today tore down the statue because he made his money from trading slaves. Honestly, who wants to celebrate slave trading?

Not about slave trading, it's about history, he did a lot of good for Bristol, sorry to say but back then slave trading wasn't such a big deal - not saying any new statues should be put up, but either leave it be or move it to a museum.

It's not a good idea to judge past characters on todays morals, what we do today that's considered normal will be considered utterly disgusting and cruel in time.