Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

nullzero

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?

Cancel the past, how dare it have existed.

nullzero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

That's a fallacy.
It is recorded that the controversy surrounding it only began in the 1990's.
People had a different outlook on Colston when his statue was erected, particularly in Bristol.

Donald Trump

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?

There was never a point where slavery should have been viewed as moral. He traded in 84,000 lives. Up to 19000 died on the voyages. You can try to downplay but these people were the architects of the slave trade, they were well aware it was not moral, they exposed those people to inhumane treatment in the process. Hence all that charity in later life to alleviate their guilt and assuming they're off to heaven.

Either way seems pretty reasonable that statues of veneration for slave traders are not needed in the streets...

Also worth looking back at the time. Plenty of churches of the period viewed slavery as immoral. Lincolns family for example were abolitionists and their church was. In the UK, you had Quakers, Presbyterians etc who supported the abolition of it.

ohnonotgmail

nullzero wrote: »

That's a fallacy.
It is recorded that the controversy surrounding it only began in the 1990's.
People had a different outlook on Colston when his statue was erected, particularly in Bristol.

try to read a post before responding.

mick087

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.

We know the names of the Suffragettes we know in there own words what they did and why they took such actions.

Yes sometimes direct action needs to be taken but when you take direct action explain yourself like Suffragettes and the Vietnam protesters did.
Reveal yourself tell us who you are.



When you take direct action and and don't explain who you are why and why you are taking such actions then then you become something sinister.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There was never a point where slavery should have been viewed as moral. He traded in 84,000 lives. Up to 19000 died on the voyages. You can try to downplay but these people were the architects of the slave trade, they were well aware it was not moral, they exposed those people to inhumane treatment in the process. Hence all that charity in later life to alleviate their guilt and assuming they're off to heaven.

Either way seems pretty reasonable that statues of veneration for slave traders are not needed in the streets...

Again, complete nonsense.
Morality is constantly evolving, and at the time of the slave trade it was seen as perfectly moral, we of course know that it was unjust and our modern morality reflects our disgust at the very notion of slavery.

You put forward and extremely simplistic view of history, free of nuance and context.

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

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...

It puts things into context though.


As I mentioned above, Aristotle wrote about the concept of "natural slavery". That in itself does not make me think Aristotle was evil. Perhaps it does for you. I don't know.




(In reality, Aristotle's writings on the matter had huge impact as they were actually used in more recent centuries to justify and prolong slavery).




Lets be honest here. 150 years after that man's death, English newspapers were still printing comics of Irish people as perpetually inebriated pseudo-apes. All this faux outrage at a man who did something terrible by todays standards but, unless someone else can prove to me otherwise, something perfectly acceptable by standards of his own time. Were people in England protesting n the streets about it then?

nullzero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

try to read a post before responding.

You are completely incorrect in your assertion.
I pointed that out and you try to take the moral high ground? Hilarious.

ohnonotgmail

nullzero wrote: »

Again, complete nonsense.
Morality is constantly evolving, and at the time of the slave trade it was seen as perfectly moral, we of course know that it was unjust and our modern morality reflects our disgust at the very notion of slavery.

You put forward and extremely simplistic view of history, free of nuance and context.

at the time colston was trading in human misery it wasn't considered moral. there was a strong campaign in england to outlaw it.

ohnonotgmail

nullzero wrote: »

You are completely incorrect in your assertion.
I pointed that out and you try to take the moral high ground? Hilarious.

you couldn't even figure out what i saying so perhaps go annoy somebody else.

nullzero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

at the time colston was trading in human misery it wasn't considered moral. there was a strong campaign in england to outlaw it.

You're wrong.

The first phase of the anti slavery movement in Britain is said to have began in 1787.
Edward Colston died in 1721.

nullzero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you couldn't even figure out what i saying so perhaps go annoy somebody else.

You said slavery was not considered moral in Colston's lifetime, which is historically inaccurate. You just don't like having your half baked ideas shown up for what they are. Sorry if that annoys you.

ohnonotgmail

nullzero wrote: »

You're wrong.

The first phase of the anti slavery movement in Britain is said to have began in 1787.
Edward Colston died in 1721.

no, you're wrong. the quakers campaigned against it in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Donald Trump

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

Do you think so?


About 100 years after Colston's involvement in the Royal African Company, the USA declared independence. A fair few of the oul' signatories were slave owners. And this was the US which was built on Protestant puritanism.

Seems like you want it to be the case. Not that it actually was!

nullzero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no, you're wrong. the quakers campaigned against it in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Those early campaigns were centred in the America's, the date I provided shows when their campaign took off in Britain.

Donald Trump

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no, you're wrong. the quakers campaigned against it in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Some group campaigning against it does not mean it was viewed as morally wrong.




Plenty of vegans campaign against eating of meat but it's not correct to extrapolate that to saying that the general population thinks it is morally wrong in 2020 to have a steak

ohnonotgmail

Donald Trump wrote: »

Do you think so?


About 100 years after Colston's involvement in the Royal African Company, the USA declared independence. A fair few of the oul' signatories were slave owners. And this was the US which was built on Protestant puritanism.

Seems like you want it to be the case. Not that it actually was!

well we can argue over the perceived morality during his lifetime but by the time the statue was erected it was most definitely considered immoral.

nullzero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well we can argue over the perceived morality during his lifetime but by the time the statue was erected it was most definitely considered immoral.

They considered the weight of his other actions as outweighing his involvement in the slave trade and went ahead and erected a statue that wasn't considered controversial for the best part of a century after it was erected.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

Again, complete nonsense.
Morality is constantly evolving, and at the time of the slave trade it was seen as perfectly moral, we of course know that it was unjust and our modern morality reflects our disgust at the very notion of slavery.

You put forward and extremely simplistic view of history, free of nuance and context.

Can you explain why slave traders tended to engage in large amounts of philanthropy in later life? It tended to be because of their pasts, philanthropy much of the time acted as an exercise to excuse your past. Resulting in going to heaven.


But still it goes back to. He doesn't deserve to be venerated and by the time the statue was put up. Slavery was categorically immoral and illegal.

ohnonotgmail

nullzero wrote: »

They considered the weight of his other actions as outweighing his involvement in the slave trade and went ahead and erected a statue that wasn't considered controversial for the best part of a century after it was erected.

they erected a statue that ignored how he earned that fortune. they thought they could whitewash him. or maybe they just didnt care. either way a statue venerating a slave trader has no place in modern society.

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you explain why slave traders tended to engage in large amounts of philanthropy in later life? It tended to be because of their pasts, philanthropy much of the time acted as an exercise to excuse your past. Resulting in going to heaven.

By the time of Colston, that had become a real concern. The like of Presbyterians and Quakers were actively highlighting the immorality of slavery. The likes of Colston was well aware of those debates which occurred throughout the country.

But still it goes back to. He doesn't deserve to be venerated and by the time the statue was put up. Slavery was categorically immoral and illegal.

Slavery was still present in the US almost 150 years after his death.

In terms of comparing morality across time, just think, the distance in time for morality between when Colston was involved in the Royal African Company and when the US managed to achieve abolition is just a little more than between morality at the time of as An Gorta Mor and today

People engaged in Philanthropy for many of the same reasons as today

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they erected a statue that ignored how he earned that fortune. they thought they could whitewash him. or maybe they just didnt care. either way a statue venerating a slave trader has no place in modern society.

The statue received very little actual funding from the public, it was put up in the wake of worker's protests. Had feck all to do with what the public wanted even back then. Also statues rarely get put up to describe a person's awful dealings in life. They're specifically for veneration.

https://twitter.com/KateWilliamsme/status/1270729584728854529?s=19

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can you explain why slave traders tended to engage in large amounts of philanthropy in later life? It tended to be because of their pasts, philanthropy much of the time acted as an exercise to excuse your past. Resulting in going to heaven.

By the time of Colston, that had become a real concern. The like of Presbyterians and Quakers were actively highlighting the immorality of slavery. The likes of Colston was well aware of those debates which occurred throughout the country.

But still it goes back to. He doesn't deserve to be venerated and by the time the statue was put up. Slavery was categorically immoral and illegal.

I agree they were most likely soothing their guilty consciences by engaging in charitable works, they after all had a better understanding of the workings of the slave trade than the average person.

Had public perception been so against Colston when the statue was erected surely it wouldn't have taken until the 1990's for it to become an issue. Perhaps people in Bristol at that time had more pressing things to worry about.

nullzero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they erected a statue that ignored how he earned that fortune. they thought they could whitewash him. or maybe they just didnt care. either way a statue venerating a slave trader has no place in modern society.

You're right, it has no place being erected in modern society, but it wasn't erected in modern society. The devil is in the detail.

ohnonotgmail

nullzero wrote: »

You're right, it has no place being erected in modern society, but it wasn't erected in modern society. The devil is in the detail.

there you go not reading posts before replying. it has no place in modern society. full stop.

nullzero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there you go not reading posts before replying. it has no place in modern society. full stop.

Hilarious.

You say it has no place in modern society, I'm reminding you it wasn't erected in our times. It was erected at a time when people didn't have a massive problem with it.

This notion of telling other posters they are not reading posts before replying is childish in the extreme.

ExMachina1000

Council removed the illegal statue. They picked it up with a crane and placed it on a flatbed trailer.

They didn't spray paint it, burn it or throw it in the river

nullzero

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Council removed the illegal statue. They picked it up with a crane and placed it on a flatbed trailer.

They didn't spray paint it, burn it or throw it in the river

They obviously don't know what they're missing.

ExMachina1000

nullzero wrote: »

They obviously don't know what they're missing.

Probably is good craic in fairness

ohnonotgmail

nullzero wrote: »

Hilarious.

You say it has no place in modern society, I'm reminding you it wasn't erected in our times. It was erected at a time when people didn't have a massive problem with it.

This notion of telling other posters they are not reading posts before replying is childish in the extreme.

and that time has past. Now it is gone and good riddance. stick it in a museum along with a detailed described of the misery he brought to 10s of thousands of people.