Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Tony EH wrote: »

No. They are a reminder of history.

Good and bad.

they are a reminder of whatever aspect of history those who erected the statue wish to put forward. in this case it was "this is a great guy who did a lot for the local area". no mention of the bad side of how he gained his fortune.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I say this respectfully, but that point on Frederick Douglass in Ireland is quite the reach. He was here for a few months, he spent a year in Britain.

Lets not make like a British media outlet and start claiming foreigners as our own.

Who claimed him?


I merely said that people here would be familiar with him. I explicitly said the UK probably have their own equivalent of him. Not being a UK citizen, I do not know of any, but I am sure they exist.


Given that Ireland was not a hub of the slave trade, we wouldn't exactly expect to have had a history of people protesting here against it. So I can't think of an Irish black slave who tried to change things here 150 years ago. Daniel O'Connell did give speeches against the treatment of blacks in NY, but then again he has the wrong skin pigmentation for consideration were there to be some kind of statue here for that purposes. It is more likely that there were some such people in the UK. I do not know of any but I am sure that there were.


You can read my post again if you still confused about "claiming"


You can understand my post if you yourself know who Douglass was but cannot, off the top of your head, give an example of a UK "equivalent". Google doesn't count.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is not difficult.

It really isn't.

There are lots of statues and monuments around the world that remind us of questionable pasts.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Except in this instance that's a nonsense argument. They even tried to add some nuance with a plaque so neutered that the mayor had to veto it.

No it isn't. Nobody was walking by Colston's statue thinking "There's that cool slave trader fella. What a guy".

Tony EH wrote: »

No it isn't. Nobody was walking by Colston's statue thinking "There's that cool slave trader fella. What a guy".

because there was no indication that he was a slave trader.

Donald Trump wrote: »

How many of Colson's business acquaintances or competitors can you name? I assume he did not have a monopoly on the trade during his time.



How many families over there still have old money accumulated from that time? There are probably many.



You don't know who they are because the slave traders perhaps kept the money themselves. There are probably not statues or buildings named after them. Their descendants can conveniently ignore and forget the origins of their wealth while they look out of their country houses across their vast estates, patting themselves on the back for liking your one Jen's post on facebook and thinking "we're quits now"

I imagine Colston's descendents likely have the same thing? I don't know who any of the descendents are so they could do the exact same thing. They still have their wealth if it hasn't been squandered through generations. I doubt many know his exact line?

I really don't get your point here. Slave trading was not a cult of personality. It was a big business pursued by many who are all now dead (modern slavery is a different but still evil beast). I don't see the benefit to naming names but I do see the benefit of reminding us of our past. The blm statue does that right now. The Colston statue did not.

Did you want statues of other slave traders as well or what? I feel like I am misreading your post a bit because I can't see the point.

Tony EH wrote: »

There's nothing on Cromwell's statue outlining his more egregious actions either.

cromwell is slightly better known. but if somebody wanted to add a plaque to every cromwell statue that says he was a mass murderer i would have no issue with that. a lot of english people would probably object though.

suicide_circus wrote: »

i get that its not really about her as an individual but rather the blm thing as a whole but it seems a bit shallow to me.

blm folk tore down a statue which was then replaced with a blm statue, what did they actually achieve? the latest flavour of the month or hottest hashtags dont generally get statues, feels like putting up a statue of Jedward in 2011.

The fact that millions of English racists are enraged by a statue of a female black BLM protester means it has served its purpose. They are being confronted with their racist beliefs and having to defend them.

That it was put up at night, without consultation and might not last there is largely irrelevant.

I like the statue by the way, it's impressive.

Deleted User wrote: »

whitewashing

Please refrain from problematic words like these.

I think a statue of Boadicea would be nice.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Do you not think that there is a chance that there could have been another black female from the history of that town who might have achieved something more impressive than this one did in posing for a photo?


I assume there have to be many many examples.. If someone thinks that there won't be any then maybe they need to examine that bias themselves!



It would surely enrage those millions of racists even more if you put up a statue of a black woman who maybe became a doctor and started a hospital or one who invented something and used her wealth to help build a school or something. If they think black people are inferior, then you'll surely enrage them off more by highlighting a black person who objectively achieved more than they have!

The statue is not of that woman per se. It's meant to represent "a BLM protester" of no particular name. It's actually more of an art installation than a statue.