Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

FVP3

Icepick wrote: »

Wanna help me with my Oliver Cromwell statue in every Irish city project?

Well thats not the same. The would be like building statues to slavers in Africa or Jamaica.

The same would be toppling the Cromwell statue which is in a fairly prominent place outside parliament, which he prorogued, like a dictator.

I can pretty much guarantee that Cromwell will survive for generations. Ain't that fashionable to hate on him.

Goldengirl

Goldengirl wrote: »

Plenty of statues bombed and pulled down in Ireland to remove any sign of British Imperialism ...Nelson's Pillar for one , and we are none the worse for it.

Indeed. Nelson's pillar would have reminded me about the English imperialism. Thank god you told me that in my native tongue of English. I wouldn't have known how Irish I was. Chucky our law.

Icepick

Icepick wrote: »

Do you believe slavers should be honoured in public space?

No. But I disagree that people should be allowed remove it by force without permission. There are means and methods to apply to councils.

Just because you don't like something and because that cause is popular, doesn't mean you can do **** without going through proper channels.

Craaaazy idea I know.

Eric Cartman

I suppose the real question is, what statues don't deserve to be torn down then, what character from the past, if viewed through modern moral standards, is worthy of remaining ?

FVP3

Icepick wrote: »

Do you believe slavers should be honoured in public space?

As I said before Queen Elizabeth was a slave trader ( personal investment). She also pretty much facilitated the beginnings of the slave trade as Queen. So both personally and politically she is a huge factor.

This Colston guy seems easy to get rid of.

Getting rid of the statues of Liz, or changing the names of all monuments, schools, universities, streets or any public utility or public buildings referencing Liz the 1st would be a bit less theatre and a bit more action.

But this is all fashion, and theatre.

El_Duderino 09

FVP3 wrote: »

I am in favour of removing the statue, as I would be of any statue of any slaver, but legally.

It is however mere symbolism. When our northern supremacist friends riot in the North in a few weeks there will be no protests in blighty, although those supremacist parades are celebration of Empire and colonialism. When Britain continues to support the war against Yemen by arming the Saudis, there will be -- as with the US -- no real protest anywhere.

Attacking the past is easy.

Well, you say attacking the past is easy but they've been trying for decades to stop the veneration of this guy and it hasn't worked. So its not that easy.

There might not be effective protests against orange parades or selling weapons to Saudis. But that had nothing to do with this issue. It might be better if there were more effective protests to lots of other issues but there isn't.

Clarence Boddiker

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Don't be sacred, snowflake.

Why would I be scared of a bunch of useful idiots? And we all know what happens to useful idiots once their usefulness has ended..

El_Duderino 09

Calhoun wrote: »

That's just like saying its completely predictable which posters will look to stroke their own ego and smug self importance that they are right and others are wrong.

Everyone is at it and for the most part its the same posters who are just arguing, Its ridiculous on both sides in thread after thread the same old cyclical arguments..

What happened today shouldn't have happened because the council themselves should have gotten ahead of this when they got the chance many times before. They did not so the crowd took it into their own hands to do it which is a good thing.

However if they just started taking down statues that they did not like without going through proper channels it will build a stick to beat them with.

We as Irish want them to reflect in a good way because we do have a vested interest in them looking at their colonial past considering the question of the north.

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.

nullzero

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.

I wasn't pretending removing the statue erased slavery from history, I was employing sarcasm.

Sure the statue should be removed, my take on what happened today was that it doesn't do anything practical. It's a stunt, you can call it a "good thing" but it won't stop racism in any practical way. The truth of history remains.

If you're an oppressed person, when you wake up tomorrow, a statue having been torn down won't have made your life any better.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can we take down all mosques cos we don't agree with child marriage?

Churches because we don't believe in virgin births?

Where's your line?

Oh my line is way, waaaay before any of this guff.

JohnnyFlash

The colosseum is a symbol of oppression and slavery. I trust my Italian comrades to tear it down brick by brick.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh my line is way, waaaay before any of this guff.

Great. Tell us where it is.

When is it ok to remove statues, buildings, or anything else not belonging to you because you don't like it?

Tell me where your defined line is.

El_Duderino 09

nullzero wrote: »

I wasn't pretending removing the statue erased slavery from history, I was employing sarcasm.

Sure the statue should be removed, my take on what happened today was that it doesn't do anything practical. It's a stunt, you can call it a "good thing" but it won't stop racism in any practical way. The truth of history remains.

If you don't think symbols matter then you're just wrong. The whole field of semiotics demonstrates that.

If you think the statue should be removed, then why would you not also see removing it as a good thing?

nullzero

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you don't think symbols matter then you're just wrong. The whole field of semiotics demonstrates that.

If you think the statue should be removed, then why would you not also see removing it as a good thing?

I think angry mobs removing statues is a negative even if I disagree with the statues presence.

I also never stated that I believed that symbols don't matter, I just don't believe tearing down a statue will change the lot of the oppressed in any meaningful way. Removing it was a means of those tearing it down feeling good about themselves.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Great. Tell us where it is.

When is it ok to remove statues, buildings, or anything else not belonging to you because you don't like it?

Tell me where your defined line is.

I haven't looked into it enough to tell you where is the defined line. I don't have a defined line.

I'm absolutely certain it was wayyyyyy before the guff you proposed in your last post. That was just nonsense.

goose2005

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The colosseum is a symbol of oppression and slavery. I trust my Italian comrades to tear it down brick by brick.

It probably would have been torn down if the church hadn't decided it was a site of martyrdom (which is not certain; Christians were put to death at Nero's Circus and the Circus Maximus but maybe not at the Colosseum)

Icepick

Icepick wrote: »

Do you believe slavers should be honoured in public space?

I feel that history should be honored. I don't like this push to rewrite history and only remember the "good". Having such a statue reminds people that we (humans) had a dodgy past, and that we are (hopefully) evolving towards something greater.... but that includes remembering the past as it was.

It was a statue put up in the past when there wasn't the agenda's we have today. If a statue of that type was proposed to be put up now, I'd question how appropriate it would be to do so. However, it was a statue put up over a hundred years ago, and therefore, it was part of history. I'd say that deserves some respect.

Considering that just about any part of history will offend someone, and considering the "multicultural" aspect of modern nations... what will the world be like when all statues or memorials that might offend someone are torn down...? Is that really a world worth encouraging?

robinph

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The colosseum is a symbol of oppression and slavery. I trust my Italian comrades to tear it down brick by brick.

No, it's the historic location that those things happened.

If modern Italy were to erect a statue of some slaver and then put a plaque on it telling us about how misunderstood that slaver was and how they had once donated some money to a charity and they were Romes greatest and most virtuous son, and then they renamed some primary schools, roads and modern theatres after them you might be approaching something similar.

JohnnyFlash

robinph wrote: »

No, it's the historic location that those things happened.

If modern Italy were to erect a statue of some slaver and then put a plaque on it telling us about how misunderstood that slaver was and how they had once donated some money to a charity and they were Romes greatest and most virtuous son, and then they renamed some primary schools, roads and modern theatres after them you might be approaching something similar.

Ok. Using that line of thinking, should we remove statues of Marx from around the world? The most virtuous and wise of men to some people, yet a notorious racist and anti-Semite, and one whose teachings lead to the death of 10’s of millions of people.

Where is the line here? Who gets to decide the line?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I haven't looked into it enough to tell you where is the defined line. I don't have a defined line.

I'm absolutely certain it was wayyyyyy before the guff you proposed in your last post. That was just nonsense.

Ah now.

You haven't looked into your own opinion enough to tell me where your defined line is?

It's not a tough question. Should a crowd of people be able to destroy property that isn't theirs because they don't like it?

If yes, why? And should anyone be able to do it and what defines reasonable cause?

If no, how can you support this?

BlitzKrieg

suicide_circus wrote: »

Protesting about slavery in modern Africa wouldn't look quite so good on twitter i suppose. Colston was born in 1636. His crimes, while obvious to us, were committed in a very different time, a different context. The abolitionist movement only started about 80 years after his death.

The statue was put up 100 years after his death.

nullzero

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

The statue was put up 100 years after his death.

Probably to commemorate his philanthropic work in Bristol. His also being a slaver wasn't a big deal for people then.

robinph

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Ok. Using that line of thinking, should we remove statues of Marx from around the world? The most virtuous and wise of men to some people, yet a notorious racist and anti-Semite.

We?

How about leave it to the local population to decide if that statue represents them or not.

But I think you may have missed the difference between a statue as a memorial to someone and a building that happened to be used for bad things.

El_Duderino 09

nullzero wrote: »

I think angry mobs removing statues is a negative even if I disagree with the statues presence.

I also never stated that I believed that symbols don't matter, I just don't believe tearing down a statue will change the lot of the oppressed in any meaningful way. Removing it was a means of those tearing it down feeling good about themselves.

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.

So... let me get this straight. If something represents slavery, oppression, etc, the it should be torn down?

Wouldn't that include every symbol of the British Empire, including it's palaces? Or the White House as it probably represents oppression/persecution to many Middle Eastern Muslims? I'm wondering where is the line to be drawn. Statues? Buildings?

What about war memorials? Should they be torn up, and destroyed because of what it might represent to either anti-war groups or the victims of that particular war that's being remembered? Like Vietnam memorials in the US...

I'm genuinely trying to understand the logic here. Is it just about statues, and if so, why? And if not, then where is the line drawn (and who gets to decide that)?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

So... let me get this straight. If something represents slavery, oppression, etc, the it should be torn down?

Wouldn't that include every symbol of the British Empire, including it's palaces? Or the White House as it probably represents oppression/persecution to many Middle Eastern Muslims? I'm wondering where is the line to be drawn. Statues? Buildings?

What about war memorials? Should they be torn up, and destroyed because of what it might represent to either anti-war groups or the victims of that particular war that's being remembered? Like Vietnam memorials in the US...

I'm genuinely trying to understand the logic here. Is it just about statues, and if so, why? And if not, then where is the line drawn (and who gets to decide that)?

No line needed.

I've exhumed my grandad and have my dogs pissing on his remains out the back. He didn't believe in pangenderism and referred to people of colour as coloureds.. I reckon he deserved it.

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah now.

You haven't looked into your own opinion enough to tell me where your defined line is?

It's not a tough question. Should a crowd of people be able to destroy property that isn't theirs because they don't like it?

If yes, why? And should anyone be able to do it and what defines reasonable cause?

If no, how can you support this?

Think the population of Bristol can claim ownership of the statue that was erected by the population of Bristol.

Would have been better if certain elements of the council and city powers had paid a bit more attention previously to the populations view, but they have been told for long enough and just decided to ignore it.

It's was a statue, not a building or anyone's private property.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I feel that history should be honored. I don't like this push to rewrite history and only remember the "good". Having such a statue reminds people that we (humans) had a dodgy past, and that we are (hopefully) evolving towards something greater.... but that includes remembering the past as it was.

It was a statue put up in the past when there wasn't the agenda's we have today. If a statue of that type was proposed to be put up now, I'd question how appropriate it would be to do so. However, it was a statue put up over a hundred years ago, and therefore, it was part of history. I'd say that deserves some respect.

Considering that just about any part of history will offend someone, and considering the "multicultural" aspect of modern nations... what will the world be like when all statues or memorials that might offend someone are torn down...? Is that really a world worth encouraging?

This is a total misunderstanding of the distinction between a statue and actual history. History can't be destroyed by simply removing a statue. The history is completely independent of the statue.

I'm fine with this guys history being remembered and retold (he has loads of history apart from his involvement in the slave trade) I'm not OK with veneration of this guy. The statue wasn't put there as a cautionary tale. It was there to celebrate a great man.

So what if the statue was put up 125 years ago? It's simple to remove it. And now it's been removed. Job's a good'n.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No line needed.

I've exhumed my grandad and have my dogs pissing on his remains out the back. He didn't believe in pangenderism and referred to people of colour as coloureds.. I reckon he deserved it.

OK. If you ever get back to reality and want to discuss the issue, I'll be here.

Clarence Boddiker

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Ok. Using that line of thinking, should we remove statues of Marx from around the world? The most virtuous and wise of men to some people, yet a notorious racist and anti-Semite, and one whose teachings lead to the death of 10’s of millions of people.

Where is the line here? Who gets to decide the line?

There is no line, this is just the beginning.