Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

osarusan

There's definitely a discussion to be had about removing public monuments and when it's justified or not, but a statue of a guy who traded more than 80,000 slaves doesn't seem to be the best hill to die on.

mick087

Watching the news and listening to whats been said about the statue it seems to me it was done by the young educated middle class.

In 20 years time these will be married with good jobs ie Solictors accaountants etc. Some will have nannies to mind there children and cleaners to clean there homes, all paid minimum wage and less if they can get away with it. They will brag and say, i have a great person look after my kids and an excellent cleaner to there friends, like they have an obedient pet. Colston was a of his time and yes the statue should of been taken down but not in the way it was.

The slave trade still goes on today, Cleaners, careers, security, shop assistants, cheap labour few rights living in tiny shackson estates or crammed in the same appartments like sardines.

Slavery is still there but your not called a slave now your called uneduacted or working class.

Look at the multi nationals look at who they have doing what they call out sorced contracted jobs and you tell me this is not modern day slavery.

is_that_so

Mitch Connor wrote: »

How is it not?

He was a slave trader.

It is a monument to him.

Its a monument to a Slave Trader.

It was a monument to a man who did a lot for Bristol and charities but yes he was also a slave trader.

FVP3

Gradius wrote: »

With all the people of Irish ancestry living in the UK it's a wonder that Cromwell stuff hasn't been ransacked, considering two nations that live beside each other with centuries of antagonism.

Mustn't be trendy enough for all these busy people on a mission handed down by social media.

The English left love cromwell:

https://www.socialist.net/oliver-cromwell-english-revolution.htm

Lefty Bicek

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It was by building a statue. And, no. I do not feel like I'm exaggerating.

You're not only exaggerating, you're full-on wrong.

When the statue was built and erected, his trading activities were not known.

They were not known until 1920.

I told you this already.

FVP3

The statue deserved to go, but in its wake plenty more will go. I'd prefer the mob didnt do it.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Also I'm genuinely lost on what historic merit there is to the statue. But I'm totally fine with throwing it in a museum and adding a description of the man.

None whatsoever. As I said, I think the best compromise would be to plant the thing in a museum so that it can play a role in informing the public. There are flags from the Third Reich in museums and nobody has a problem with that.

Nermal

osarusan wrote: »

There's definitely a discussion to be had about removing public monuments and when it's justified or not, but a statue of a guy who traded more than 80,000 slaves doesn't seem to be the best hill to die on.

Amateurs. My statue presided over the sale of a quarter of a million each year!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Have you nothing constructive to add?

Perspective.

Nozebleed

so what statues buildings would people like to see torn down in dublin?

Lefty Bicek

Mitch Connor wrote: »

How is it not?

He was a slave trader.

It is a monument to him.

Its a monument to a Slave Trader.

It is not.

Fact.

Read the thread.

is_that_so

is_that_so wrote: »

It was a monument to a man who did a lot for Bristol and charities but yes he was also a slave trader.

Jimmy Savile did a lot for charity. Still wouldn't have a statue up for him and choose to whitewash out the bad bits, don't think anyone would find it outrageous to tear one down either.

Colston traded tens of thousands of slaves. So the good he did does not outweigh how he made his wealth.

super_furry

FVP3 wrote: »

? Why the false equivalence? Cromwell was viciously anti-Irish, anti-Catholic and brought near genocide to this Island, followed by a century or two of massive discrimination.

Indeed, and are there any statues to him standing in Ireland? Would it be OK to tear them down if there were? Of course it would.

seamus

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Talk of previous petitions is a red herring; if they had sufficient support for a mandate the statue would be removed.

We all know this is mealy-mouthed. Local councils rarely operate on democracy and more often than not are personal little fiefdoms for local busybodies.

The erection of a statue in a public space, should not be democratic matter anyway IMO.

Monuments to political figures are by definition polarising and place credit for important changes at the feet of an individual rather than the society who allowed it. By placing a single individual on a pedestal, you will always be doing someone else a disservice.

They should always be avoided in favour of monuments to important events or important movements. IMHO.

super_furry

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

It is not.

Fact.

Read the thread.

You're going to have explain yourself a bit more that 'read the thread' if you want to argue that a statue of a slave trader is not a monument to a slave trader.

Mitch Connor

is_that_so wrote: »

It was a monument to a man who did a lot for Bristol and charities but yes he was also a slave trader.

So its a monument to a slave trader.

Its not a monument to slave trade. but it is to a slave trader. How can people actually argue against that?

BuboBubo

Nozebleed wrote: »

so what statues buildings would people like to see torn down in dublin?

Nah, we don't do "torn down" here.

We do blown up - e.g. Nelsons Pillar.

El_Duderino 09

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Everything I've seen online suggests that the popular perception of Churchill will merely change from:

"Hurr durr British Bulldog hero, Spitfire go zoom"

To

"Hurr durr nasty racist deliberately perpetrated the Bengal famine all on his own"

Neither position has any nuance or historical understanding behind it, in fact neither would brook any challenge. If you think the mob taking it on themselves to topple statues would give you the oportunity to disagree with them if they were ever in power I've got a bridge to sell you.

I don't control how much history other people learn. They might only remember him for the bengali famine but that would require them to actually forget about the PM during the war and that's not likely.

I never heard of this character in Bristol until yesterday. Now I know he was a merchant who rose to prominence in the African Trading Company and was head of that organisation for a number years. They traded all sorts of objects including human slaves and he made money through money lending and lot of other things. He do acted loads of money to Bristol and some of the institutions he established are still in operation today. He defended slavery as an MP for Bristol and told anyone who disagreed with his religious and political views that they weren't welcome in his hospitals l, almshouses and schools.

He has a lot of history and I I know some of it now and I couldn't unlearn any of it even if I wanted to.

Lefty Bicek

olestoepoke wrote: »

Wasn't Pearse a pedophile? Should we rename Pearse Street?

No, he was not.

Ronaldinho

mick087 wrote: »

.

Look at the multi nationals look at who they have doing what they call out sorced contracted jobs and you tell me this is not modern day slavery.

It's not slavery.

robinph

kowloonkev wrote: »

The kid and his family are not slaves anymore. They can leave Bristol and stop being cry babies using the suffering of their ancestors to whinge about whatever little problems they have living in the UK today. Or better yet they can move to Africa and experience real oppression which will be alright because they will be oppressed by their own colour.

The funniest part of it all is a bunch of white Irish people whingebags supporting their calls for history to be changed while speaking English when they wouldn't fight for their own people to warm themselves, as history also tells us.

Why should they leave Bristol? They were born there, but the city powers still felt it appropriate to glorify a slave trader in the most prominent position in the middle of the city.

BlitzKrieg

Nermal wrote: »

People of Germany, France and Iran, did you know that a statue of a man who enslaved and murdered your ancestors stands unmolested to this very day in the Vatican?


Statue-Augustus
Vatican Museums
/ Public domain

It does not matter that today you are free and equal before the law.

From two millennia ago, this man insults you as a barbarian. Are you going to let this go unchallenged?

There is a whole different can of worms when it comes to greek and roman statues, its mostly that people want to colour them in, not destroy them

Icepick

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

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

hello, false equivalence


Nobody is tearing down buildings associated with this flawed character.

Nermal wrote: »

People of Germany, France and Iran, did you know that a statue of a man who enslaved and murdered your ancestors stands unmolested to this very day in the Vatican?


Statue-Augustus
Vatican Museums
/ Public domain

It does not matter that today you are free and equal before the law.

From two millennia ago, this man insults you as a barbarian. Are you going to let this go unchallenged?

In a museum, where Colston's statue belongs too.

FVP3

super_furry wrote: »

Indeed, and are there any statues to him standing in Ireland? Would it be OK to tear them down if there were? Of course it would.

?

Colston's statue wasn't in Jamaica or Africa. The question is whether it should stay up in England ( in a very prominent position too).

mick087

Ronaldinho wrote: »

It's not slavery.

Your quite right its not classed as slavery your 100% right.

nullzero

Icepick wrote: »

hello, false equivalence


Nobody is tearing down buildings associated with this flawed character.



In a museum, where Colston's statue belongs too.

Isn't Colston's statue currently submerged in water?

Mitch Connor

nullzero wrote: »

Isn't Colston's statue currently submerged in water?

Yep, in the dock where his ships carrying 80k people to slavery would have set off from. 20k of which were dead before the ship made their destinations.

But, yeah, he should totally be celebrated for the using some of the money he made off their slavery and murder to build stuff in Bristol.

kowloonkev

mick087 wrote: »

Watching the news and listening to whats been said about the statue it seems to me it was done by the young educated middle class.

In 20 years time these will be married with good jobs ie Solictors accaountants etc. Some will have nannies to mind there children and cleaners to clean there homes, all paid minimum wage and less if they can get away with it. They will brag and say, i have a great person look after my kids and an excellent cleaner to there friends, like they have an obedient pet. Colston was a of his time and yes the statue should of been taken down but not in the way it was.

The slave trade still goes on today, Cleaners, careers, security, shop assistants, cheap labour few rights living in tiny shackson estates or crammed in the same appartments like sardines.

Slavery is still there but your not called a slave now your called uneduacted or working class.

Look at the multi nationals look at who they have doing what they call out sorced contracted jobs and you tell me this is not modern day slavery.

Not to mention actual slavery still occuring in Africa, India and China today. And of course our old nemesis the sex trade where little primary school girls are abducted and sold off for a lifetime of being f**ked and drugged. But oh no the main problem of today is the poor black people in America being killed at a lesser rate (propertionally) by police than other races.

Icepick

Truthvader wrote: »

Nothing like destroying public art to free people

Those Eastern European fools removing Lenin and Stalin statues. Didn't they know it's public art?!?1!?

FVP3

BuboBubo wrote: »

Nah, we don't do "torn down" here.

We do blown up - e.g. Nelsons Pillar.

WE have torn down some in the past as well.

https://comeheretome.com/2012/07/04/king-billy-on-college-green-ireland-in-pictures-1898/

Wellington's pillar is still up there. Maybe time for a second spire?

ancapailldorcha

seamus wrote: »

We all know this is mealy-mouthed. Local councils rarely operate on democracy and more often than not are personal little fiefdoms for local busybodies.

The erection of a statue in a public space, should not be democratic matter anyway IMO.

Monuments to political figures are by definition polarising and place credit for important changes at the feet of an individual rather than the society who allowed it. By placing a single individual on a pedestal, you will always be doing someone else a disservice.

They should always be avoided in favour of monuments to important events or important movements. IMHO.

They also tend to be old and are almost all white people.

There's a census of local authority councillors here:

https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Councillors%27%20Census%202018%20-%20report%20FINAL.pdf

The average age of councillors in 2018 was 59 years; 15 per cent were aged under-45 and 43 per cent were aged 65 or over.

96 per cent described their ethnic background as white;

If councils were more diverse and not skewed so badly, a compromise solution could have been found that everyone could have lived with. Instead, one group prioritised themselves, discontent simmered and now erupted.