Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Junkyard Tom

nullzero wrote: »

As with most of the opinions you share on this site, this one is half baked, ill thought out and devoid of logic, but as always you have the magic ingredient of righteous indignation, it can make a meal out of the most rudimentary of ingredients.

Where did your life go so wrong that the idea of remorse and reparation for the descendents of people who were enslaved, tortured, murdered, massacred, and raped, (not just black people if that's your issue) pisses you off?

You should have a look in the mirror and ask yourself that.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So you think Irish tax-payers have no responsibility for clerical abuse? Of course taxpayers should make a contribution, but you do have a point. If the world was just the Church would have had its assets seized and turned over to the state to be used to compensate victims/relatives and pay reparations. Ideally the corporations that profited from past crimes should be made pay reparations and apologise.

But, alas, corporations are legal entities that are designed with the express purpose of distancing shareholders from 'externalities' like inter-generational torture, murder and rape.



And you seem to be unable to grasp that not having a defined cut off point doesn't mean that there shouldn't be reparations, apologies and remorse.



Wait a second.. are you keeping a little journal of most of my opinions? That's a bit creepy. Who are you?

Irish taxpayers footed the bill for the residential redress board (which I'm sure you're aware of naturally) and the sums paid out to victims of abuse.
Those people are alive now, and paying them reparations isn't something I disagree with, the church however should have paid the majority of those monies but instead the Irish taxpayer carried the can for the most of it, and while yes the Irish people bear some responsibility for allowing the Church to facilitate the abuse of people in its care the church have a greater moral responsibility to that end.

Paying reparations to descendants of clerical abuse victims in 200 years time isn't a reasonable idea however, even though their ancestors suffered greatly,as have plenty of other peoples throughout history.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Where did your life go so wrong that the idea of remorse and reparation for the descendents of people who were enslaved, tortured, murdered, massacred, and raped, (not just black people if that's your issue) pisses you off?

You should have a look in the mirror and ask yourself that.

So we should punish people for the sins of their fathers?

Where do you get off making statements like that?

Junkyard Tom

nullzero wrote: »

Paying reparations to descendants of clerical abuse victims in 200 years time isn't a reasonable idea however, even though their ancestors suffered greatly,as have plenty of other peoples throughout history.

If a golden palace was built by an enslaved, tortured, raped, murdered, tribe then in your bizzaro immoral world the descendants with the deeds have more right to it than the descendants of those who suffered to build it.

Your morals are fucked.

LillySV

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So you think Irish tax-payers have no responsibility for clerical abuse? Of course taxpayers should make a contribution, but you do have a point. If the world was just the Church would have had its assets seized and turned over to the state to be used to compensate victims/relatives and pay reparations. Ideally the corporations that profited from past crimes should be made pay reparations and apologise.

But, alas, corporations are legal entities that are designed with the express purpose of distancing shareholders from 'externalities' like inter-generational torture, murder and rape.



And you seem to be unable to grasp that not having a defined cut off point doesn't mean that there shouldn't be reparations, apologies and remorse.



Wait a second.. are you keeping a little journal of most of my opinions? That's a bit creepy. Who are you?

Get a job and pay some tax in the first place ... if your so passionate about this get off the internet and get afew jobs.... save up and pay as much of your money as possible to people who U believe could be descendants of people treated badly hundreds of years ago .....

ExMachina1000

Didn't they erect another statue without council permission?

Junkyard Tom

LillySV wrote: »

Get a job and pay some tax in the first place ... if your so passionate about this get off the internet and get afew jobs.... save up and pay as much of your money as possible to people who U believe could be descendants of people treated badly hundreds of years ago .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgPJSBd18MU

LillySV

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgPJSBd18MU

You have to go and find a clip from a dumb film to reply to me? Says enough about you.. go onto Facebook/Twitter/tictoc and ask them what u think

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If a golden palace was built by an enslaved, tortured, raped, murdered, tribe then in your bizzaro immoral world the descendants with the deeds have more right to it than the descendants of those who suffered to build it.

Your morals are fucked.

That is quite possibly the most childish response I have ever witnessed on this site. You have completely ignored every piece of layered, nuanced qualifying argument put forward to this point and made a completely nonsensical argument which you believe gives you the moral high ground. To be honest it's actually hilarious.

mick087

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Didn't they erect another statue without council permission?

It is a statue Black Lives Matter protester Jen Reid called a surge of power.
It was created by artist Marc Quinn and designed to be a temporary installation to continue the conversation about racism.

I think its become a total farce now.

robinph

mick087 wrote: »

It is a statue Black Lives Matter protester Jen Reid called a surge of power.
It was created by artist Marc Quinn and designed to be a temporary installation to continue the conversation about racism.

I think its become a total farce now.

What is farcical about people having an opinion about, and being part of, the discussion about statues that their city puts up?

mick087

robinph wrote: »

What is farcical about people having an opinion about, and being part of, the discussion about statues that their city puts up?

Whoever pulled it down did not discuss, the artist who put the new statue up did not discuss. A total farce.

robinph

mick087 wrote: »

Who ever pulled it down did not discuss, the artist who put the new statue up did not discuss. A total farce.

It has been discussed for years about the updating of the plaque, but the descendant "charity' from the one which the guy who funded putting it up in the first place had inserted themselves into the process of approving the changes and made a nonsense of it.

So the people took it down. And at some point something else will get put up. Meanwhile loads more people know about Colston, the slave trade and Bristol. Other than some gammony types who all of a sudden have specialist knowledge of planning permission regulations nobody much is upset about it.

biko

Suddenly everyone's a ****ing expert.

mick087

robinph wrote: »

It has been discussed for years about the updating of the plaque, but the descendant "charity' from the one which the guy who funded putting it up in the first place had inserted themselves into the process of approving the changes and made a nonsense of it.

So the people took it down. And at some point something else will get put up. Meanwhile loads more people know about Colston, the slave trade and Bristol. Other than some gammony types who all of a sudden have specialist knowledge of planning permission regulations nobody much is upset about it.

Yes it was discussed for years by the locals and the elected. Yes this had become nonsense to.

Who pulled down the statue?
Who did they discuss pulling the statue down with?

Yes the statue should of come down or a plaque explaining the true story of this monster. My concern are with the people who pulled down the statue and the artist who put the new one up. I feel they might not believe in democracy, they well may be of the opinion the few know whats best for the majority.

Hence id like to know who pulled the statue down, why they did it, and who are they accountable to for pulling the statue down?

Donald Trump

mick087 wrote: »

Yes the statue should of come down or a plaque explaining the true story of this monster.

Did he do anything else? Genuine question


He was involved in the Royal African Company for a number of years. Part of their trade, perhaps a very large part, involved transatlantic slave trade. this is horrifying by the standards of today but might have been perfectly acceptable and normal back then.


Many of the great thinkers and philosophers that you read about in your history (or philosophy) books owned or logicalised slavery. Aristotle had a concept of "natural slavery" for example. That facet of him was simply of his time.





Are you yourself a monster? Would you consider yourself as such? Perhaps in 200 years people looking back at you might consider you one for doing something that you think is perfectly normal and acceptable today. Perhaps you have bought shares in McDonalds for example.





Don't try to twist what I am saying, Colston could very well have been the greatest cunt that ever walked the face of the earth. And I am not saying that McDonalds is the same as slavery. 200 years from now people might consider eating burgers to be as horrific as we today consider slavery to have been. (obviously in 200 years, they would still consider slavery to be magnitudes worse relative to eating burgers).



You might think it's a ridiculous concept but there are even now a minority of hardcore vegans who get more upset at footage of animals being killed than they would of a natural disaster and footage of tens of thousands of people being destitute or lost. I think that is ridiculous, but there are a tiny minority that think like that. Who is to say whether or not that "standard" could become mainstream over time


So I guess my general question was whether this trade was generally condemned in its time? There obviously was a time when it became unacceptable because they did outlaw it. Was it still considered a dirty trade then or was it just a normal thing for them? If I were to take a guess, I would perhaps guess that they considered slavery evil for white Europeans but acceptable for Africans or Indians etc. (Of course, their concept of "white" being far less encompassing than one would understand today)

mick087

mick087 wrote: »

Yes it was discussed for years by the locals and the elected. Yes this had become nonsense to.

Who pulled down the statue?
Who did they discuss pulling the statue down with?

Yes the statue should of come down or a plaque explaining the true story of this monster. My concern are with the people who pulled down the statue and the artist who put the new one up. I feel they might not believe in democracy, they well may be of the opinion the few know whats best for the majority.

Hence id like to know who pulled the statue down, why they did it, and who are they accountable to for pulling the statue down?

Art exhibit goes up briefly, taken down. Pretty much the same thing Banksy does so he must not believe in democracy either. In terms of pulling down the statue, sometimes civil disobedience is what's required to get results. You could equally say that Suffragettes didn't believe in democracy cause they engaged in civil disobedience. Or pretty much most major protest movements in 20th century tbh. Vietnam protests for example.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Art exhibit goes up briefly, taken down. Pretty much the same thing Banksy does so he must not believe in democracy either. In terms of pulling down the statue, sometimes civil disobedience is what's required to get results. You could equally say that Suffragettes didn't believe in democracy cause they engaged in civil disobedience. Or pretty much most major protest movements in 20th century tbh. Vietnam protests for example.

Talk about false comparisons.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

Talk about false comparisons.

I think you mean a "false equivalence", I would say that whitewashing history does tend to contribute to modern day racism. Eg the myth of Britannia while ignoring how the empire came about. So yes, I think the contrast is fine even if it riles you.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think you mean a "false equivalence", I would say that whitewashing history does tend to contribute to modern day racism. Eg the myth of Britannia while ignoring how the empire came about. So yes, I think the contrast is fine even if it riles you.

Equivalence or comparison are both acceptable terms, they mean the same thing, but nice try with your attempt to make a fool of me, good to know you are comfortable getting your hands dirty with some good old fashioned intellectual grandstanding.

Nobody is suggesting history is being or should be whitewashed, nobody but you that is but you. Modern day racism isn't informed by some attempt to deny historical injustices, it is informed by stupidity on the part of racists.

Herein is the problem people like you seem incapable of overcoming, I disagree with you on a subject like this and in your simplistic world view I must be "one of them", a racist or a racist sympathiser of some sort.

In my opinion there is more to be learned from an honest approach to history. Ripping down statues is a form of historical whitewashing, while it satiates the likes of you the result in the future is that the people whose statues so offend you will be forgotten about, and the lessons of their mistakes will be lost.

Nothing you said has riled me in any way shape or form, I'm happy to discuss things with people who don't agree with me.

robinph

nullzero wrote: »

Ripping down statues is a form of historical whitewashing, while it satiates the likes of you the result in the future is that the people whose statues so offend you will be forgotten about, and the lessons of their mistakes will be lost.

Nobody is going to be forgetting about Colston. Even when the museum gets bored and replaces him with another display in 50 years time the name Colston is so embedded into the history of Bristol his name will live on even if it takes a historian in another 200 years to wonder why at some point in the early 21st century half the city of Bristol suddenly went from being named after him to his name disappearing from the buildings and maps of the city and they will dig it all up again. It will be such an obvious change that it's not getting forgotten about.

Now for one of the other very temporary residents of the same plinth last week, Jimmy Saville, it is entirely possible that his historical record could get lost in time as any mention of him gets deleted and in that case it is important that the history is recorded despite nobody wanting to name their streets or building after him or build statues of him.

Nobody is suggesting that building a statue of Jimmy Saville is the correct way to ensure that we don't forget about him though. There are other ways of recording history.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

Equivalence or comparison are both acceptable terms, they mean the same thing, but nice try with your attempt to make a fool of me, good to know you are comfortable getting your hands dirty with some good old fashioned intellectual grandstanding.

Nobody is suggesting history is being or should be whitewashed, nobody but you that is but you. Modern day racism isn't informed by some attempt to deny historical injustices, it is informed by stupidity on the part of racists.

Herein is the problem people like you seem incapable of overcoming, I disagree with you on a subject like this and in your simplistic world view I must be "one of them", a racist or a racist sympathiser of some sort.

In my opinion there is more to be learned from an honest approach to history. Ripping down statues is a form of historical whitewashing, while it satiates the likes of you the result in the future is that the people whose statues so offend you will be forgotten about, and the lessons of their mistakes will be lost.

Nothing you said has riled me in any way shape or form, I'm happy to discuss things with people who don't agree with me.

Putting statues of figures that never deserved veneration in the first place and lobbing them in a museum and adding historical context is far more useful. It makes no effort to forget history. Pulling down the statue in the first place actually gave people far more context of its origins and purpose than the statue ever did.

The purpose was veneration, never to educate for the record. It neither has any specific artistic value or historical. It's probably more significant in terms of history after being pulled down. So off to a museum with it and everyone knows far more about Colston than they ever did.

nullzero

robinph wrote: »

Nobody is going to be forgetting about Colston. Even when the museum gets bored and replaces him with another display in 50 years time the name Colston is so embedded into the history of Bristol his name will live on even if it takes a historian in another 200 years to wonder why at some point in the early 21st century half the city of Bristol suddenly went from being named after him to his name disappearing from the buildings and maps of the city and they will dig it all up again. It will be such an obvious change that it's not getting forgotten about.

Now for one of the other very temporary residents of the same plinth last week, Jimmy Saville, it is entirely possible that his historical record could get lost in time as any mention of him gets deleted and in that case it is important that the history is recorded despite nobody wanting to name their streets or building after him or build statues of him.

Nobody is suggesting that building a statue of Jimmy Saville is the correct way to ensure that we don't forget about him though. There are other ways of recording history.

Outside of Bristol, pre statue removal, how many people had even heard of Colston?
His statue by modern standards should have never been erected, but to the standards of his time it was erected. Does his statue being there give people the impression that he only did good in his life? Obviously not, people tore it down, and in doing so there is a possiblity that in the future he will not be remembered.
It's surprising how quickly people are forgotten, my wife had to explain to a Co worker this week who Jack Charlton was when he died. People forget.

O'Connell Street in Dublin was known as Sackville Street until it was renamed, the majority of people will either not know that or will have forgotten it. Do I believe that's a good or a bad thing? No it's just human nature, the idea that Colston will not be forgotten in a similar way is only something that makes sense through a very narrow perception.

Statues aren't something I generally give a lot of thought to, as you said there are other ways to record history, however the fact remains that Mob rule and removing uncomfortable parts of history from our surroundings does little to right the wrongs that were committed in the past. The whole enterprise strikes me as hollow and somewhat pointless, as opposed to the way in which a lot of people see it as being some sort of apology to history through personal catharsis.

ohnonotgmail

nullzero wrote: »

Outside of Bristol, pre statue removal, how many people had even heard of Colston?
His statue by modern standards should have never been erected, but to the standards of his time it was erected. Does his statue being there give people the impression that he only did good in his life? Obviously not, people tore it down, and in doing so there is a possiblity that in the future he will not be remembered.
It's surprising how quickly people are forgotten, my wife had to explain to a Co worker this week who Jack Charlton was when he died. People forget.

O'Connell Street in Dublin was known as Sackville Street until it was renamed, the majority of people will either not know that or will have forgotten it. Do I believe that's a good or a bad thing? No it's just human nature, the idea that Colston will not be forgotten in a similar way is only something that makes sense through a very narrow perception.

Statues aren't something I generally give a lot of thought to, as you said there are other ways to record history, however the fact remains that Mob rule and removing uncomfortable parts of history from our surroundings does little to right the wrongs that were committed in the past. The whole enterprise strikes me as hollow and somewhat pointless, as opposed to the way in which a lot of people see it as being some sort of apology to history through personal catharsis.

his statue was erected long after slavery was outlawed.

Donald Trump

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

his statue was erected long after slavery was outlawed.

I didn't see any evidence or claim that this fella participated in slavery after it was outlawed though either.

ohnonotgmail

Donald Trump wrote: »

I didn't see any evidence or claim that this fella participated in slavery after it was outlawed though either.

so what? how is that relevant to my post?

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

I didn't see any evidence or claim that this fella participated in slavery after it was outlawed though either.

It was erected long after he was dead. He engaged in philanthropy in later life as it was the done thing, they assumed charity would override their transgressions in earlier life allowing them to go to heaven.

The fact he engaged in the slave trade while it was legal doesn't suddenly make it better...

Donald Trump

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so what? how is that relevant to my post?

Well if he broke no laws and only invested in what was acceptable at the time, who are you to castigate the people who were grateful for the money he gave to them.


Those people seem perfectly happy to have accepted and benefited from the fruits of that same tree. Who are you, or any of us, to retroactively impose a current version of morality on them now?

nullzero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

his statue was erected long after slavery was outlawed.

And?

By the standards of the time the statue was erected he was worthy of commemoration.

Do we have to agree with those standards? Of course not, but they contextualise why it was erected.

ohnonotgmail

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well if he broke no laws and only invested in what was acceptable at the time, who are you to castigate the people who were grateful for the money he gave to them.


Those people seem perfectly happy to have accepted and benefited from the fruits of that same tree. Who are you, or any of us, to retroactively impose a current version of morality on them now?

legal is not the same as moral. even in his own time it was not considered moral.