Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

ThunbergsAreGo

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

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

Of course not, sure Al Sharpton is involved.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/opinion/al-sharpton-trump.amp.html

Cupatae

The Floyd p wrote: »

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?

It really is when alot of these Imbalances are imaginary, Police brutality badly needs to be addressed over there, the rest is absolute nonsense .

There's gonna come a point when black people need to stop blaming racism for all there problems and start taking responsibility themselves.

Cupatae

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

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

So racism less than selling slaves is acceptable then ?

dwayneshintzy

Cupatae wrote: »

So racism less than selling slaves is acceptable then ?

Well I'm not sure, Cupatae. What incidents of Muhammad Ali's racism are you comparing to that of a slave trader?

dwayneshintzy

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

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

Go on. Prove that he literally enslaved tens of thousands of people.

This is one of my problems with this whole crapfest. It encourages lazy/inaccurate thinking about history.

Colston, traded slaves as a member of the Royal African Company. He didn't (to my knowledge, which you're welcome to prove) go around chasing Africans in the interior, manacling them and enforcing that slavery. He didn't Captain the vessels which transported the slaves. Other people did that. During a time when slavery was commonplace. Colston worked for the Royal African Company, which many others also did, which by the logic of this thread would make them all complicit. From the highest to the lowest. Fine. No problem really with that..

The Royal African Company had permission to buy slaves. Not seize, and enslave slave.

So... lets see your evidence that he literally enslaved tens of thousands of people. Surely, the people his company bought the slaves from did that? He enabled and encouraged the trade while he worked for that company, but then, slavery was a legal trade back then, without many of the negatives associated nowadays.

I get that he engaged in an awful trade. I'm not seeking to defend him or his character. He did make a fortune through the trading and transportation of slaves. But not actual enslavement... unless someone can find me a paper that has evidence that he did? I couldn't find anything to verify that he did.

Best/most comprehensive article I could find on him:
[For Colston’s involvement in the Royal African Company see: Ball, R. Edward Colston Research Paper #2: The Royal African Company and Edward Colston (1680-92) Bristol Radical History Group, 17 June 2017 https://www.brh.org.uk/site/articles/edward-colston-research-paper-2/]

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

... And the mob doesn't like being ignored by the rich old white guys who tend to be holding on very tightly to the reins of power. That's kind of how we are in the situation of both a statue being thrown in the harbour in Bristol and all the other protests around the US and rest of the world.

Bristol will fish the statue out of the water, stick him in a museum and have a more up to date statue put up that represents their current world view better. Bristol isn't proud of Colston, they have just been too lazy to do anything about it so far. The nudge of his statue going for a swim is very useful and there will be minimal people upset about him coming down, and they will just be old rich white people who really should know better by this stage.

Cupatae

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

Well I'm not sure, Cupatae. What incidents of Muhammad Ali's racism are you comparing to that of a slave trader?

To me racism is racism , Churchill didn't trade slaves, yet his statue was defaced actually he fought against the likes of Hitler.. who was slightly worse than him

So is all racism bad or ?

dwayneshintzy

Cupatae wrote: »

To me racism is racism , Churchill didn't trade slaves, yet his statue was defaced actually he fought against the likes of Hitler.. who was slightly worse than him

So is all racism bad or ?

How's that an answer to my question? I asked you about Muhammad Ali's racism, since you've brought him up as a comparison to Colston. Let me see the examples you're talking about.

Cupatae

robinph wrote: »

... And the mob doesn't like being ignored by the rich old white guys who tend to be holding on very tightly to the reins of power. That's kind of how we are in the situation of both a statue being thrown in the harbour in Bristol and all the other protests around the US and rest of the world.

Bristol will fish the statue out of the water, stick him in a museum and have a more up to date statue put up that represents their current world view better. Bristol isn't proud of Colston, they have just been too lazy to do anything about it so far. The nudge of his statue going for a swim is very useful and there will be minimal people upset about him coming down, and they will just be old rich white people who really should know better by this stage.

I fear the day the BLM crowd get any power anyway clearly good level headed people !

I love the good ole big bad white man excuse aswell , always those pesky whites

The protests in the UK are nonsense the UK abolished slavery, black people are equal there and are just bandwagoners and thugs looking to do damage, the Irish guy that got stabbed in cork because of it and other attacks , no I don't think I'll support this form of organised scum .

BLM more racist than anyone else only they get the moral high ground and backing of all the Twitter Facebook insta snowflakes who love a good old issue to rally behind even if they haven't a clue

Cupatae

Cupatae wrote: »

To me racism is racism , Churchill didn't trade slaves, yet his statue was defaced actually he fought against the likes of Hitler.. who was slightly worse than him

So is all racism bad or ?

Google is your friend if you don't know what racism I'm talking about .

dwayneshintzy

Deleted User wrote: »

Go on. Prove that he literally enslaved tens of thousands of people.

This is one of my problems with this whole crapfest. It encourages lazy/inaccurate thinking about history.

Colston, traded slaves as a member of the Royal African Company. He didn't (to my knowledge, which you're welcome to prove) go around chasing Africans in the interior, manacling them and enforcing that slavery. He didn't Captain the vessels which transported the slaves. Other people did that. During a time when slavery was commonplace. Colston worked for the Royal African Company, which many others also did, which by the logic of this thread would make them all complicit. From the highest to the lowest. Fine. No problem really with that..

The Royal African Company had permission to buy slaves. Not seize, and enslave slave.

So... lets see your evidence that he literally enslaved tens of thousands of people. Surely, the people his company bought the slaves from did that? He enabled and encouraged the trade while he worked for that company, but then, slavery was a legal trade back then, without many of the negatives associated nowadays.

I get that he engaged in an awful trade. I'm not seeking to defend him or his character. He did make a fortune through the trading and transportation of slaves. But not actual enslavement... unless someone can find me a paper that has evidence that he did? I couldn't find anything to verify that he did.

Best/most comprehensive article I could find on him:
[For Colston’s involvement in the Royal African Company see: Ball, R. Edward Colston Research Paper #2: The Royal African Company and Edward Colston (1680-92) Bristol Radical History Group, 17 June 2017 https://www.brh.org.uk/site/articles/edward-colston-research-paper-2/]

Well, what's your definition of "enslaving" someone? Literally only the person who initially kidnapped them? That was a terrible crime that was committed upon those people. I feel that those who then continued that slavery were guilty of the same terrible crime. My view is that someone who led a company taking part in the selling and transportation of slaves, and profited from that trade, was literally enslaving them, yes.


Any talk about how this was grand at the time.......do you think that the people traded by Colston's company weren't aware that slavery was a brutally horrific crime?

dwayneshintzy

Cupatae wrote: »

Google is your friend if you don't know what racism I'm talking about .

So not remotely willing to back up any "argument" you make.

dwayneshintzy

Cupatae wrote: »

I fear the day the BLM crowd get any power anyway clearly good level headed people !

I love the good ole big bad white man excuse aswell , always those pesky whites

The protests in the UK are nonsense the UK abolished slavery, black people are equal there and are just bandwagoners and thugs looking to do damage, the Irish guy that got stabbed in cork because of it and other attacks , no I don't think I'll support this form of organised scum .

BLM more racist than anyone else only they get the moral high ground and backing of all the Twitter Facebook insta snowflakes who love a good old issue to rally behind even if they haven't a clue

Cupatae, this is out and out racism.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

... And the mob doesn't like being ignored by the rich old white guys who tend to be holding on very tightly to the reins of power. That's kind of how we are in the situation of both a statue being thrown in the harbour in Bristol and all the other protests around the US and rest of the world.
.

The mob doesn't like being denied... which is why I don't like encouragement of people to form mobs.

dwayneshintzy

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

Well, what's your definition of "enslaving" someone? Literally only the person who initially kidnapped them? That was a terrible crime that was committed upon those people. I feel that those who then continued that slavery were guilty of the same terrible crime. My view is that someone who led a company taking part in the selling and transportation of slaves, and profited from that trade, was literally enslaving them, yes.

So.., that's a no then. No evidence that he literally enslaved tens of thousands.

Any talk about how this was grand at the time.......do you think that the people traded by Colston's company weren't aware that slavery was a brutally horrific crime?

Many weren't aware, because they hadn't been educated to believe that the institution of slavery was wrong. We have been. You're applying modern day morality to a very different time.

dwayneshintzy

Deleted User wrote: »

So.., that's a no then. No evidence that he literally enslaved tens of thousands.




Many weren't aware, because they hadn't been educated to believe that the institution of slavery was wrong. We have been. You're applying modern day morality to a very different time.

We've been educated to believe that slavery was wrong, so that's why we no longer think it's OK?


I'd argue that slavery is wrong because it's inherently horrific. I don't think there's anything "modern day" about the morality of slavery being wrong. Slavery is morally wrong, full stop. Those were actual people that Colston traded, and THEY knew that slavery was wrong.


I don't think that enslaved people were simply "enslaved" at the point they were kidnapped. They were enslaved all through the process; by their kidnappers, their slave traders, their subsequent slave owners, etc. If you want to be pedantic about the term "enslave" to simply mean those who kidnapped them, grand. But it doesn't really change my view here.

Cupatae

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

So not remotely willing to back up any "argument" you make.

What do you want instances of Ali being racist? do you actually not know this do i have to type it out?

dwayneshintzy

Cupatae wrote: »

What do you want instances of Ali being racist? do you actually not know this do i have to type it out?

You compared him to Colston. So yes, give me the instances of racism from Muhammad Ali that made you think of him as a comparison to Colston.

Cupatae

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

You compared him to Colston. So yes, give me the instances of racism from Muhammad Ali that made you think of him as a comparison to Colston.

The originally comparison was they were both racists, yet we only deface one statue, your reply was ali was ok basically because it wasnt as extreme racism as colston.

My reply to that was racism is racism especially if we are randomly defacing statues like churchill and ghandi ect ect

Im confused how you need more that pretty much explains itself, i think you completely missed the point actually.

dwayneshintzy

Cupatae wrote: »

The originally comparison was they were both racists, yet we only deface one statue, your reply was ali was ok basically because it wasnt as extreme racism as colston.

My reply to that was racism is racism especially if we are randomly defacing statues like churchill and ghandi ect ect

Im confused how you need more that pretty much explains itself, i think you completely missed the point actually.

You said Muhammad Ali was racist. That's an assertion that you don't seem to be able to back up other than insisting it's true.

If Ali was such a racist, show us examples of his racism.

dwayneshintzy

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

We've been educated to believe that slavery was wrong, so that's why we no longer think it's OK?

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

I'd argue that slavery is wrong because it's inherently horrific. I don't think there's anything "modern day" about the morality of slavery being wrong. Slavery is morally wrong, full stop. Those were actual people that Colston traded, and THEY knew that slavery was wrong.

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

I don't think that enslaved people were simply "enslaved" at the point they were kidnapped. They were enslaved all through the process; by their kidnappers, their slave traders, their subsequent slave owners, etc. If you want to be pedantic about the term "enslave" to simply mean those who kidnapped them, grand. But it doesn't really change my view here.

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.

Cupatae

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

You said Muhammad Ali was racist. That's an assertion that you don't seem to be able to back up other than insisting it's true.

If Ali was such a racist, show us examples of his racism.

ur getting bogged down now and struggling.. muhammad ali was the example, it wasnt the point. As was clearly illustrated in the last post. Im surprised it comes as news to you that Ali was racist. I actually thought it was common knowledge. But you seem so adamant he wasnt come on then prove me wrong he was never once racist.

dwayneshintzy

Cupatae wrote: »

ur getting bogged down now and struggling.. muhammad ali was the example, it wasnt the point. As was clearly illustrated in the last post. Im surprised it comes as news to you that Ali was racist. I actually thought it was common knowledge.

I'm not getting bogged down. I'm responding to other posters here as well. But you've said something you can't back up. Why would you say it? If it's "common knowledge", give the examples so. Should know them off the top of your head.

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're applying modern day morality to a very different time.

You're applying the morality from a very different time to who should be celebrated by our cities today.

Cupatae

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

I'm not getting bogged down. I'm responding to other posters here as well. But you've said something you can't back up. Why would you say it? If it's "common knowledge", give the examples so. Should know them off the top of your head.

Its not my problem your fixated on one part and litterally cant see the point that was being made. You are deliberately being stupid now.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

You're applying the morality from a very different time to who should be celebrated by our cities today.

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.

dwayneshintzy

Cupatae wrote: »

Its not my problem your fixated on one part and litterally cant see the point that was being made. You are deliberately being stupid now.

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.

robinph

[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.

Had the council removed the statue due to the pressure from the people then it wouldn't be at the bottom of the harbour.

dwayneshintzy

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.

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.



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

NIMAN

If they start tearing down other statues, it might make Britain take a critical look at it's murky past. They might not like what they find.

And watching the anger of some of the protesters yesterday, this is going to turn violent in the UK. There will be rioting and looting in the next few days.

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.