Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

is_that_so

Mitch Connor wrote: »

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?

Nobody is but then you risk rewriting history to suit yourself. As local historian suggested the statue should really have been in a museum somewhere.

nullzero

Mitch Connor wrote: »

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.

I quoted a post that said his statue belonged in a museum. I pointed out that it is currently submerged, and I would have assumed anyone reading that would be able to understand that to get it to a museum now will involve the statue being retrieved from the water, which will be a costly exercise.
But by all means get on your soapbox.

Lefty Bicek

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's objectively what it was.

No, absolutely wrong.

Extremely subjectively that is what it is.

But it is not the reason for it's commission. Philanthropy is objectively what it is for, because that is what it was commissioned for.

kowloonkev

robinph wrote: »

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.

Why stop there then? Burn down Buckingham Palace then as well? And Westminister? Would you be okay with that?

Nermal

Mitch Connor wrote: »

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.

I look forward to the mob tearing down the building as well.

In fact, tearing down every building funded by the slave trade in the UK would be quite the economic stimulus.

I can't wait to see the architectural marvels that will be built in their place.

seamus wrote: »

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

The future is so woke, only abstract art is allowed.

super_furry

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

No, absolutely wrong.

Extremely subjectively that is what it is.

But it is not the reason for it's commission. Philanthropy is objectively what it is for, because that is what it was commissioned for.

Cool. So if someone puts up a statue of Hitler to honour his life as a vegetarian, that's all anyone should take from that statue?

ancapailldorcha

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

No, absolutely wrong.

This isn't an argument. It might have been commissioned because of his philanthropic activities but those were based on the suffering of tens of thousands of slaves who were mercilessly exploited.

super_furry

kowloonkev wrote: »

Why stop there then? Burn down Buckingham Palace then as well? And Westminister? Would you be okay with that?

Now we're talking! Brother you should come to our next meeting.

Mitch Connor

is_that_so wrote: »

Nobody is but then you risk rewriting history to suit yourself. As local historian suggested the statue should really have been in a museum somewhere.

Yes they are.

Left Bicek clearly said it is not a monument to a Slave Trader. That is very much arguing agaisnt it being a monument to a Slave Trader.

When I said it is, you said:

"It was a monument to a man who did a lot for Bristol and charities but yes he was also a slave trader." which I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say in response.

The council refused to move it to a museum.
The council refused to place a second plaque acknowledging his slave trading. One councilor said if a plaque was placed, it would be right and understandable for it to be vandalised and removed.

Gradius

You would think these people would be more interested in abolishing actual current day slavery rather than some dudes statue centuries ago.

But they are not, I presume, because breaking stuff of no significance is..

1) Trendy
2) Easy

It's an interesting map above when you consider where righteous protests take place, which also happen to be the same places targeted for outrage.

Lefty Bicek

super_furry wrote: »

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.

Then I would be explaining what I've already explained.

Why should I explain myself twice for you or anyone else ?

Basic etiquette as always, to read the thread.

Failing that, the search function is working.

Mitch Connor

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

It is not.

Fact.

Read the thread.

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

No, absolutely wrong.

Extremely subjectively that is what it is.

But it is not the reason for it's commission. Philanthropy is objectively what it is for, because that is what it was commissioned for.

What it was commisioned for is not relevant at all.

The man was a Slave Trader and it was a monement to him.

Therefor: It is a monument to a Slave Trader.

mick087

kowloonkev wrote: »

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.

We should not compare ourselves to what is happening in other countries. We should lead the way forward in removing such low paid jobs and paying a decent living wage.

In 200 years how will history look back on multi nationals and the rich and famous of today. As we look back on how life was 200 years ago.

Nermal

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

Take it up with the electorate.

It took three years from the toppling of Saddam's statue for him to face the drop.

Who will this mob place in a noose in three years, in place of Colston?

robinph

kowloonkev wrote: »

Why stop there then? Burn down Buckingham Palace then as well? And Westminister? Would you be okay with that?

What has Buckingham Palace or Westminster got to do with the removal of a statue?

Bannasidhe

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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.

Which is one of the things that was proposed. That Bristol create a museum of slavery similiar to Liverpool and the monuments to those who grew rich can be placed there along side the stories of their victims.

And as a historian - one of those 'progressive academics' referred to earlier - I have no issue with this statue being torn down, no more than I have an issue with a statue of Stalin, Franco, Mussolini, Hitler etc being removed.

A monumental statue is not history. A monumental statue is an artifact marking a particular viewpoint that city leaders feel should be celebrated.
Coulson's statue was erected decades after slavery was abolished - and if you read any British account they claim to have nearly single handedly been responsible for abolition - by Bristol city leaders who obviously didn't have an issue with how he made his money.
Over 11,000 Bristolians petitioned for it's removal as they felt a slave trader should not be celebrated by their city. The city council ignored them.
It was forcibly removed.

The events are the history.
The statue was just a lump of metal. It commemorated what was once acceptable, it's removal marks that is no longer acceptable.

It is in no was similar to iconoclastic frenzies by the likes of ISIS - or indeed Calvinists in 16th C Geneva who also went on a smash fest - what it is similar to is the removal of Nelson's Column in Dublin.

How many here believe monuments to British military heroes should be on the main street of our capital city?

ancapailldorcha

robinph wrote: »

What has Buckingham Palace or Westminster got to do with the removal of a statue?

It doesn't. It's just pathetically edgy whataboutery.

Lefty Bicek

super_furry wrote: »

Cool. So if someone puts up a statue of Hitler to honour his life as a vegetarian, that's all anyone should take from that statue?

How many times do I have to say it ?

His slavery activities were not known when the statue was commissioned.

Pulling down the statue, in the way it was pulled down, is a very bad development. Mob rule.

There is some mental feebleness at work in all these silly gestures.

I suppose it isn't half as much fun to walk past that statue and reflect on the abhorrence of slavery. Resolve to investigate it's contemporary incidence in Britain.

Social media requires a more overt attention-seeking.

El_Duderino 09

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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



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.

That's really interesting about the demographics of council members. It's not necessarily their fault though. I would love if young people voted more reliably. The world would actually have to change with purpose if young people votes. Old people want to go back to the past while young people want to make a better future. And politicians are torn because older people want terrible policies but they vote more reliably.

I'd love if a later phase of George Floyd/BLM was to really push those protesters to vote and push them to push their family and friends to vote. The US elections in November are an ideal time to move to the vote drive phase. The UK elections are likely a couple of years away.

Mitch Connor

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

How many times do I have to say it ?

His slavery activities were not known when the statue was commissioned.

Pulling down the statue, in the way it was pulled down, is a very bad development. Mob rule.

There is some mental feebleness at work in all these silly gestures.

I suppose it isn't half as much fun to walk past that statue and reflect on the abhorrence of slavery. Resolve to investigate it's contemporary incidence in Britain.

Social media requires a more overt attention-seeking.

Yes they were.

Do you think he was secretive about his slave trading?

And it also doesn't matter. It is known now. He was a slave trader and it was a monument to him. Therefor: Monument to a Slave Trader.

If the statue had ackowledged the abhorance of slavery it as likely would have remained. But no, it only extolled his virtue.

Christy42

is_that_so wrote: »

Nobody is but then you risk rewriting history to suit yourself. As local historian suggested the statue should really have been in a museum somewhere.

What history has been rewritten? For history to be rewritten you would have to change what you teach about it. So what lines in particular have been rewritten?

There has been calls to move it to a museum for years so blame the council for not having it in a museum.

Lefty Bicek

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

How many times do I have to say it ?

His slavery activities were not known when the statue was commissioned.

Pulling down the statue, in the way it was pulled down, is a very bad development. Mob rule.

There is some mental feebleness at work in all these silly gestures.

I suppose it isn't half as much fun to walk past that statue and reflect on the abhorrence of slavery. Resolve to investigate it's contemporary incidence in Britain.

Social media requires a more overt attention-seeking.

Being known after the fact gives good enough reason to remove it.(Although I'm doubtful that they were oblivious) The plaque on the statue doesn't reference his role in the slave trade and portrayed him as an all round great guy. There is absolutely zero historical value in it.

robinph

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

His slavery activities were not known when the statue was commissioned.

Yes they were.

They were just not top of the agenda for the rich traders who were funding the statue or making the decisions about any statue though. And the rest of the population of Bristol didn't have a vote and had other things to worry about at the time.

El_Duderino 09

Nermal wrote: »

Take it up with the electorate.

It took three years from the toppling of Saddam's statue for him to face the drop.

Who will this mob place in a noose in three years, in place of Colston?

I think it's really interesting that you've resorted ro such OTT rhetoric. "In a noose". Nobody will be in a noose in 3 years time.

But the fact that you've to resort to this kind of scare tactics is very instructive. If you had solid reality based arguments, you'd probably stick to them. But instead you've gone for this guff about nooses.

Lots of other posters have done the same so you're not in the same boat. Talking about mob rule and asking when they can start demolishing mosques. Maybe jury stick to reality if you think you've got good arguments.

Gradius

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which is one of the things that was proposed. That Bristol create a museum of slavery similiar to Liverpool and the monuments to those who grew rich can be placed there along side the stories of their victims.

And as a historian - one of those 'progressive academics' referred to earlier - I have no issue with this statue being torn down, no more than I have an issue with a statue of Stalin, Franco, Mussolini, Hitler etc being removed.

A monumental statue is not history. A monumental statue is an artifact marking a particular viewpoint that city leaders feel should be celebrated.
Coulson's statue was erected decades after slavery was abolished - and if you read any British account they claim to have nearly single handedly been responsible for abolition - by Bristol city leaders who obviously didn't have an issue with how he made his money.
Over 11,000 Bristolians petitioned for it's removal as they felt a slave trader should not be celebrated by their city. The city council ignored them.
It was forcibly removed.

The events are the history.
The statue was just a lump of metal. It commemorated what was once acceptable, it's removal marks that is no longer acceptable.

It is in no was similar to iconoclastic frenzies by the likes of ISIS - or indeed Calvinists in 16th C Geneva who also went on a smash fest - what it is similar to is the removal of Nelson's Column in Dublin.

How many here believe monuments to British military heroes should be on the main street of our capital city?

This isnt about foreign monuments of foreign powers though.

If you want to draw a more correct parallel, consider English people in Dublin tearing down Irish monuments because of offence.

Lefty Bicek

Mitch Connor wrote: »

What it was commisioned for is not relevant at all.

It's highly relevant.

If it were not, then there was no need for this question -

Why should a statue have gone up of him 174 years after he died? And why did they leave out any mention of all the people he was responsible for the death of and sent to slavery?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113667763&postcount=294

So, someone else gave it relevance, and I obliged with the facts. Then he ran away.

ancapailldorcha

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's really interesting about the demographics of council members. It's not necessarily their fault though. I would love if young people voted more reliably. The world would actually have to change with purpose if young people votes. Old people want to go back to the past while young people want to make a better future. And politicians are torn because older people want terrible policies but they vote more reliably.

I'd love if a later phase of George Floyd/BLM was to really push those protesters to vote and push them to push their family and friends to vote. The US elections in November are an ideal time to move to the vote drive phase. The UK elections are likely a couple of years away.

I don't think the problem is necessarily younger people not voting though it would help tremendously if they did.

I ran for a local councillor role a few years back. You get £10,000 a year so if you're younger, you need to either have to be working a flexible and well paid job or just be fairly wealthy. It's perfect for older people looking to top up their pensions and who want something to do.

Older people tend to be more conservative if the old adage holds true but if things were more diverse, I do feel like a sensible compromise could have been reached. Instead, this demographic yet again put their own beliefs and feelings first at the cost of community relations.

CrankyHaus

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.

An emphasis on democracy is "mealy mouthed" - gotcha.

Councillors are elected. Maybe that's a little fiefdom to you, but to me it's got more of a mandate than a mob.
Incidentally the problem with Nelson's Pillar was that it was a public monument that was privately owned, by a trust which stymied attempts to alter it to make it more acceptable to all Irish people. The result was it was blown up, which I think was wrong.
If the monument had been under democratic control it need not have happened.

Mitch Connor

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

It's highly relevant.

If it were not, then there was no need for this question -



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113667763&postcount=294

So, someone else gave it relevance, and I obliged with the facts. Then he ran away.

It isn't relevant to the argument of whether it is a monument to a Slaver Trader.

Edward Colston was a Slave Trader.
It was a monument to Edward Colston.

Which of these things are you saying is not a fact, when you say it is FACT that it was not a monument to a Slave Trader.

Lefty Bicek

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Coulson's statue was erected decades after slavery was abolished ... - by Bristol city leaders who obviously didn't have an issue with how he made his money.

Another one.

:rolleyes:

They did not have an issue with it because they did not know about his slavery activities until years after the monument was erected.