Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

conorhal

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.

Equating BLM's behaviour with that of the Suffragettes is actually a pretty apt comparison (though not for the reason you think), because the Suffragettes DIDN'T believe in democracy or equality at all!

The Suffragettes were the upperclass proto-SJW's of their day with a similarly skewed interpretation of 'equality' that (surprise, surprise) only extended equality as far as their interests were served. The Suffragettes, for example, only wanted propertied women to have the right to vote.


The Suffragists were working class women that wanted the right to vote extended to all, including working class men without property, in other words they wanted equality in the true sense of the word.
Just like BLM however, the sufferagettes were only interested in the kind of equality that benefited their specific demographic or in fact advantaged it over others, they were a sullen bunch of loons that did more harm then good and probably delayed real equality for years as a result.

nullzero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

Stick it in a museum? OK fine.

Have an angry mob rip it down and throw it into a nearby body of water and have it removed by the council at cost to the tax payer? Not so fine.

ohnonotgmail

nullzero wrote: »

Stick it in a museum? OK fine.

Have an angry mob rip it down and throw it into a nearby body of water and have it removed by the council at cost to the tax payer? Not so fine.

when you ignore people for a long time then people have a habit of acting rashly. In the end no harm has been done. Nobody wants it put back.

nullzero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

when you ignore people for a long time then people have a habit of acting rashly. In the end no harm has been done. Nobody wants it put back.

The money spent removing it from the water could have gone to a more worthy cause surely?

ohnonotgmail

nullzero wrote: »

The money spent removing it from the water could have gone to a more worthy cause surely?

i'm sure it put a massive whole in the council budget.

nullzero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i'm sure it put a massive whole in the council budget.

It's money diverted to deal with something unnecessary that could have been directed elsewhere.

ohnonotgmail

nullzero wrote: »

It's money diverted to deal with something unnecessary that could have been directed elsewhere.

it may have covered the biscuit budget for the council head office for a month. if even that.

nullzero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it may have covered the biscuit budget for the council head office for a month. if even that.

A typically glib response.

CrankyHaus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

when you ignore people for a long time then people have a habit of acting rashly. In the end no harm has been done. Nobody wants it put back.

Which people though? That's the point.

If a mass of far right mouth breathers did something similar to a statue that annoys them, as they have repeatedly to the Cable Street Mural, would you say the same?

Endorsing mob rule as a valid method of resolving these issues will blow back at you eventually. A democratic society needs to have the same rules for everyone, or it breaks down.

ohnonotgmail

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Which people though? That's the point.

If a mass of far right mouth breathers did something similar to a statue that annoys them, as they have repeatedly to the Cable Street Mural, would you say the same?

Endorsing mob rule as a valid method of resolving these issues will blow back at you eventually. A democratic society needs to have the same rules for everyone, or it breaks down.

the people of bristol that had been complaining for years about the statue.

CrankyHaus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the people of bristol that had been complaining for years about the statue.

If the people of Bristol wanted it gone then surely the Council would have removed it long ago. Pretending that there was a democratic mandate for it's removal is very dishonest.

ohnonotgmail

CrankyHaus wrote: »

If the people of Bristol wanted it gone then surely the Council would have removed it long ago. Pretending that there was a democratic mandate for it's removal is very dishonest.

yeah you clearly dont know how councils work.

robinph

nullzero wrote: »

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

No he wasn't. It was looooong after his death before the statue was put up, it was commissioned by someone from one of the "charities" that Colston created, and nobody other than the person whose idea it was could be bothered to fund it.

Odhinn

CrankyHaus wrote: »

If the people of Bristol wanted it gone then surely the Council would have removed it long ago. Pretending that there was a democratic mandate for it's removal is very dishonest.

No, because they werent prepared to foot the bill, I'd imagine. It was the same here with Nelsons pillar - they wanted it gone but didn't want to spend the money.

conorhal

robinph wrote: »

No he wasn't. It was looooong after his death before the statue was put up, it was commissioned by someone from one of the "charities" that Colston created, and nobody other than the person whose idea it was could be bothered to fund it.

So, it was a bit like the BLM statue that replaced it then.

CrankyHaus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yeah you clearly dont know how councils work.

I know that they have elected officials making decisions, which is more than can be said for a mob.

But by all means enlighten me and explain how Bristol City Council was in fact an oppressive monolith that frustrated the people's clearly expressed yearnings to have the statue removed.

robinph

CrankyHaus wrote: »

A democratic society needs to have the same rules for everyone, or it breaks down.

Which is fine in theory, but even in democracy not everyone has the same voice. The rich and powerful remain, well rich and powerful, and tend to be the ones writing the rules of the democracy that everyone else has to follow.

The group descended from the "charity" that the person who put up the statue was from, were the main body which prevented a reasonable adjustment to the plaque being put up and made the proposed rewrite still barely mention anything but his good deeds. They just represented a handful of very rich traders and most certainly not representative of the people of Bristol.

They have since acknowledged that they should have kept out of it, as other than being vaguely linked with the person who funded the statue it's place in Bristol today was bugger all to do with them.

ohnonotgmail

CrankyHaus wrote: »

I know that they have elected officials making decisions, which is more than can be said for a mob.

But by all means enlighten me and explain how Bristol City Council was in fact an oppressive monolith that frustrated the people's clearly expressed yearnings to have the statue removed.

the "mob" made a decision and carried it out without delay. councils should take note.

robinph

conorhal wrote: »

So, it was a bit like the BLM statue that replaced it then.

Nobody asked for any funding for the temporary statue that was put up, so nobody got the chance to say either yes or no to funding it. It was also never expected to be there for more than a very short time and was just a temporary installation to make a statement.

Nobody is upset about it's removal.

Tony EH

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Because people were harmed and others profited - it is a well established method of accepting guilt and expressing remorse. It's self-explanatory. It's regretful that this is hard for you to grasp.

So who pays? Who gets paid? Where is your cut off point?

It's all fine and dandy stating "reparations" and whatnot, but it just doesn't stop there. There are a large amount of other considerations to be brought into account after that statement, which you're completely avoiding.

CrankyHaus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the "mob" made a decision and carried it out without delay. councils should take note.

Right, so you can't explain. I thought so.

robinph wrote: »

Which is fine in theory, but even in democracy not everyone has the same voice. The rich and powerful remain, well rich and powerful, and tend to be the ones writing the rules of the democracy that everyone else has to follow.

The group descended from the "charity" that the person who put up the statue was from, were the main body which prevented a reasonable adjustment to the plaque being put up and made the proposed rewrite still barely mention anything but his good deeds. They just represented a handful of very rich traders and most certainly not representative of the people of Bristol.

They have since acknowledged that they should have kept out of it, as other than being vaguely linked with the person who funded the statue it's place in Bristol today was bugger all to do with them.

That is a ****ty situation. But I believe that "the cure for the evils of democracy, is more democracy". If those opposed to the statue did the hard yards of campaigning and informing the public on the shamefulness of having a slaver's statue up then they could have gotten a mandate for it to be removed. Choosing mob rule instead was the more convenient but worse option. They may have conquered but they did not convince.

robinph

CrankyHaus wrote: »

That is a ****ty situation. But I believe that "the cure for the evils of democracy, is more democracy". If those opposed to the statue did the hard yards of campaigning and informing the public on the shamefulness of having a slaver's statue up then they could have gotten a mandate for it to be removed. Choosing mob rule instead was the more convenient but worse option. They may have conquered but they did not convince.

People who were not aware of the issues and campaigning surrounding the statue, the tower, the primary school, the secondary school, the concert venue, the street, the avenue, the pub and whatever other things around Bristol before the statue was pulled down were either not paying attention... or more likely were not from Bristol.

Bristol has been discussing Colston for years and the only thing to have changed it's name previous to the statue being toppled was the primary school, which was only done a year ago. There was still pretty much zero movement in getting any other changes through, even with a mayor from a BAME background who was in support of the changes.

I think the statue getting toppled in the way it did was actually far better for highlighting the issues than if a decision was made behind closed doors in a council office and it then pulled down during the night without anyone noticing and then melted down. It is now of actual historical significance and will be remembered, has people around the world hearing about it and discussing it.

Not seeing the downside really.

Junkyard Tom

Tony EH wrote: »

So who pays? Who gets paid? Where is your cut off point?

To be worked out after. The compensation that was handed out to British slavers was only paid off in 2015, so its payees includes all the Afro-Caribbeans who've been living in Britain since Windrush.

So what we have is reparations paid to slavers by the descendants of those who were enslaved, and people ****ting the bed over the details of paying reparations for one of the greatest crimes in human history.

As I said, you guys' morals are ****ed, it's really really weird and particularly for Irish people who should know better than the average twisted Daily Mail reader.

Tony EH

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

As I said, you guys' morals are ****ed, it's really really weird and particularly for Irish people who should know better than the average twisted Daily Mail reader.

You're unreasonably angry.

Junkyard Tom

Tony EH wrote: »

You're unreasonably angry.

I'm perfectly calm. It's only the internet and the people left in these threads crying over the statue of a British slaver are, let's just say, not exactly representative of the Irish public.

mick087

Donald Trump wrote: »

Did he do anything else? Genuine question

He was philanthropist and Member of Parliament in the UK.
He was involved in schools, hospitals and churches in Bristol and London.

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.
Yes you have a point and i would not argue he was of his time.

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.
Again im noting going to argue its a valid point.

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.
Your right in 200 years (or less i hope) people will look back on us and say we are monsters. They will say how we valued a solictor more than a cleaner. Yes your 100% right we will be viewed as monsters. But i already argue for equity and dont believe one person sholud be valued more be it through wealth education or housing than another.
So here i disagree they will not be calling me a monster no.

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).
No im sure your not twisting anything like me im sure you belive equity for all.

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
We all have a right to campaign protest be unhappy about something once its not forced upon us and change is done in a democratic way.

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)
It was of its time yes and the people involved in the slave trade im sure would of been the educated of its day. Slavery was as is today is for profit and greed and not for the good of man.

The statue should of come down in my opinion but not by a cloaked secret mob.

Who are they?
Why did they do it?
who are they accountable to for doing this?

Junkyard Tom

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes. Unless it is within living memory and the victims are still with us. That's my cut off.

Victims/survivors of systematised brutality have been calling for reparations for generations and have been ignored. But never mind, some genius on the internet has decided the claim for reparations is no longer valid because 'sorry, you're dead now'.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Victims/survivors of systematised brutality have been calling for reparations for generations and have been ignored. But never mind, some genius on the internet has decided the claim for reparations is no longer valid because 'sorry, you're dead now'.

So free money for descendants of people who suffered who most likely haven't suffered in any way themselves? And all paid for by the tax payer? Surely money could be allocated to solve problems in todays society instead of some tokenistic handover of funds to alleviate some residual feeling of societal guilt.

Junkyard Tom

nullzero wrote: »

So free money for descendants of people who suffered who most likely haven't suffered in any way themselves? And all paid for by the tax payer? Surely money could be allocated to solve problems in todays society instead of some tokenistic handover of funds to alleviate some residual feeling of societal guilt.

There's no such thing as 'free money'. Consider it 'settling a bill' if it makes it easier for you to cope with.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

There's no such thing as 'free money'. Consider it 'settling a bill' if it makes it easier for you to cope with.

But the people who owe the debt are dead and aren't paying the bill, people completely innocent of these historical crimes are paying, this is where your logic falls flat on its face. But by all means keep pulling on heart strings.