Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Clarence Boddiker

Strazdas wrote: »

UK is a very right wing country in 2020. They've just elected a government with an 80 seat majority which closely resembles the Brexit Party and their media landscape is totally dominated by the right wing press (80% of newspaper sales).

Does wanting to leave the EU make you far right?

BlitzKrieg

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Yes

its almost as if before we got here that is all that was asked.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/row-breaks-out-merchant-venturer-1925896

2 years ago all that was asked was that the plaque got updated to be more accurate on the fact that he was a slave trader and that his much vaulted philanthropy was actually limited in specific areas.

And? I went through the site. The revisions seemed appropriate. So they didn't agree on the wording (version 1-3), and nothing was changed?

So, it was better that a mob took the decision out of their hands? Am I understanding this right?

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But lets' talk about differences then. I had a look at the statue, and what it was put up for. There was no reference to his slave trade anywhere on or near the statue. The statue and plaque made reference to his helping of the poor and donations to the community.

Hardly surprising that they didn't write "slave trader" on their newly commissioned statue though is it? That really doesn't tell us anything.

I'm not sure that his "charitable" credentials are all that great either. Been seeing mentions about there being some fairly strict religious requirements set on exactly who was allowed to benefit from his charity donations. Sure, he spent loads of money on Bristol, which he'd earned from kidnapping people from Africa, but that money was then apparently only spent on the right kind of needy people back in Bristol.

That kind of thing should be taught in the museums, not celebrated by a statue in the city centre. The population is allowed to change their minds about who they want to recognise as the great and the good from their city.

Thinkingaboutit

JL555 wrote: »

He did, but he also lead the British in WW2, the only European nation left to do so at a time when Hitler had blitzed his way through the whole continent, while we hid in the shadows.

He did oversee a fearsome counterinsurgency, mainly against Kurds in the newly formed (by and for Britain as it made a useful air stop and while having no real common history, its resources would be a good earner), which pioneered dropping poison gas. However, for that's negative about Churchill, his efforts meant another, better known use of poison gas, ceased. WW2 strained the British Empire beyond breaking. A calculating Britain PM might have made a deal with Nazi German. A hale and hearty Nazi Empire lasting longer than it did, cannot be contemplated.

Smashing statues, pulling them down, is caveman stuff.

Calhoun

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah of course tha same old posters look for any old reason to not see the good in what happened today.

I think lots of councils will become more serious about listening to the people and changing who the venerate in statues and namesakes. That's great and I don't see it as much of a slippery slope to worry about.

Exactly its like a merry-go round and you see it on lots of threads. Its not just these instances that we should look to for wider change but even in ourselves, if we can stop the BS fighting and open our minds things would move in the right direction.

I think this is a pretty big win that councils will start listening, in some cases not all. I still don't think they are ready for the conversation around Churchill, so how to bring that conversation up is going to be the question.

BlitzKrieg

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok. So do you think it's appropriate that people can just form a mob and forcibly remove statues they don't want from public places? How many people need to be present to make it valid? What reasons do they need to give?

statues are defaced, damaged or vandalised all the time, sometimes with a point to be made and sometimes just out of sheer stupidity. The size of the mob is pretty irrelevant,

The important action is what happens next, not so much the act itself. How people feel about both the statue itself and the circumstances of the action.

As has been highlighted here this action has drawn attention to Colston and Bristol's history to those primarily outside of Bristol, in Bristol this has been a long running controvert. Not some back murmer in the local pub, it's openly stated as something Bristol is coming to terms with on many other public landmarks and museums, so yes local people felt the Colston statue was out of touch not addressing these concerns and what the Bristol local council does next will be the actual important thing and a substantial number of people including local mps will oppose it being restored.

Despite talk of slippery slope, statues and war memorials are already vandalised and broken on a fairly regular basis, the difference is when it is from a group that is lacking local support what usually comes of it is a news story of vandalism and a local effort to repair the damage and move on.

I think even during these protests already another statue was broken during a protest in the USA but the circumstances were less focused so it got a mere mention in a wider article and efforts to repair the damage.


If you want to talk about controversial statues that have been put back together despite being destroyed multiple times we could talk about the Sean Russell statue in Dublin

https://www.thejournal.ie/sean-russell-statue-3549072-Aug2017/

Strazdas

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Does wanting to leave the EU make you far right?

Not in itself but they seem to be mostly on board with the entire right wing populism thing, not just the stance on Europe,

Piers Morgan says the people who attacked him over Cummings, over his criticism of Donald Trump and who are now condemning the BLM movement are all the exact same people.....he even recognises many of the Twitter handles (they're all Brexiteers as well).

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

Not in itself but they seem to be mostly on board with the entire right wing populism thing, not just the stance on Europe,

Piers Morgan says the people who attacked him over Cummings, over his criticism of Donald Trump and who are now condemning the BLM movement are all the exact same people.....he even recognises many of the Twitter handles (they're all Brexiteers as well).

****... Piers Morgan said it? I'm convinced

Calhoun

Strazdas wrote: »

Not in itself but they seem to be mostly on board with the entire right wing populism thing, not just the stance on Europe,

Exactly allot of xenophobic rhetoric used by those who supported Brexit. Which is ironic considering that the UK was a colonial power and allot of the foreign population followed them home, some were even invited to prop up the NHS.

El_Duderino 09

Calhoun wrote: »

Exactly its like a merry-go round and you see it on lots of threads. Its not just these instances that we should look to for wider change but even in ourselves, if we can stop the BS fighting and open our minds things would move in the right direction.

I think this is a pretty big win that councils will start listening, in some cases not all. I still don't think they are ready for the conversation around Churchill, so how to bring that conversation up is going to be the question.

I'd agree with most of that but why is the conversation about Churchill the big question?

We don't have to have every single conversation around every single historical figure in relation to slavery or whatever other issue.

It's a means to an end. If race was no longer an issue then the protests wouldn't have happened and the statue wouldn't be a big issue

robinph

robinph wrote: »

Hardly surprising that they didn't write "slave trader" on their newly commissioned statue though is it? That really doesn't tell us anything.

I'm not sure that his "charitable" credentials are all that great either. Been seeing mentions about there being some fairly strict religious requirements set on exactly who was allowed to benefit from his charity donations. Sure, he spent loads of money on Bristol, which he'd earned from kidnapping people from Africa, but that money was then apparently only spent on the right kind of needy people back in Bristol.

Ahh well, if we're really looking to be educated, we'd be searching for real facts on the situation. Like your reference of kidnapping people from Africa, when African tribes had been selling other Africans to all comers for centuries.. and being selective as to where his charitable donations were directed towards, is hardly unique considering the time he lived in. But then, we're not really considering the time he lived in, but rather dealing with his actions, out of time.

That kind of thing should be taught in the museums, not celebrated by a statue in the city centre. The population is allowed to change their minds about who they want to recognise as the great and the good from their city.

And I agree with you about the population (I don't agree about the restriction on museums for teaching history). The population is allowed... which is why it had been debated for so long without any definite agreement being reached.

Basically, those who objected to the statue being changed or removed, don't have the same rights as those who did the removing. okay. Message received.

BlitzKrieg

Deleted User wrote: »

And? I went through the site. The revisions seemed appropriate. So they didn't agree on the wording (version 1-3), and nothing was changed?

So, it was better that a mob took the decision out of their hands? Am I understanding this right?

Not so much better but understandable why it was a target. as I mention in another post, statues and monuments are defaced, vandalised and outright broken all the time, but whats important is how the local community feels about that statue and what it stood for because that affects what happens next more then anything.

JL555

hotmail.com wrote: »

Thankfully as well. Lots of us around now because of that decision to stay neutral.

And thankfully some of those Irish around at the time with a bit sense went anyway and fought the fascists and the nazis. Pity though, fascism is still real, just changed its clothes.

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Basically, those who objected to the statue being changed or removed, don't have the same rights as those who did the removing. okay. Message received.

Basically, those who wanted the statue removed don't have the same rights as those in the council who didn't. The message wasn't received, but I think it is now.

BlitzKrieg

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Not so much better but understandable why it was a target. as I mention in another post, statues and monuments are defaced, vandalised and outright broken all the time, but whats important is how the local community feels about that statue and what it stood for because that affects what happens next more then anything.

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...

If there had been a majority support within the community to remove the statue, then the statue would have been modified, or moved elsewhere to somewhere less visible. That it was still being debated, suggests to me that there wasn't majority support..

robinph

robinph wrote: »

Basically, those who wanted the statue removed don't have the same rights as those in the council who didn't. The message wasn't received, but I think it is now.

Ahh yes. The message that if protocols and rules don't get you what you want, form a mob, and just do it. Yup. Makes sense. That kind of logic definitely won't come back to haunt people on other issues... :rolleyes:

I'll leave it at that. Little point discussing it further.

c.p.w.g.w

Will these same folks be looking to get Malcolm X statue removed in New York, and renaming his park...That's a man who had some very questionable views on white folks...but that kinda racism is ok...and it's certainly more recent than the actions of Colston which were legal in his day

Calhoun

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'd agree with most of that but why is the conversation about Churchill the big question?

We don't have to have every single conversation around every single historical figure in relation to slavery or whatever other issue.

It's a means to an end. If race was no longer an issue then the protests wouldn't have happened and the statue wouldn't be a big issue

The Churchill question has arisen from his statue being targeted yesterday. So the two of them got merged together, Churchills past in India is being brought up which is very interesting history.

c.p.w.g.w

Calhoun wrote: »

The Churchill question has arisen from his statue being targeted yesterday. So the two of them got merged together, Churchills past in India is being brought up which is very interesting history.

If his statue was in Calcutta or New Delhi maybe i"'d understand...but it's in London

Lefty Bicek

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you get what happened, why did you waste time pretending that it eraced slavery from history?

Symbols are important. The idea that it's not OK to venerate people who were actively involved in the slave trade, is fine by me. The symbolism (tokenism as you call it) is important.

I think it's interesting that it's completely predictable which posters will look for any reason to see avoid seeing the obvious good thing that happened today.

The presence of the statue in 2020 is not indicative of any veneration of the individual or his deeds hundreds of years later.

Seriously, how many people who pass that statue every day think 'slavery was good, wish we had that back' ?

Nobody does.

There's no obvious good about it. It was a moronic thing to do. Braindead vandalism.

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.