Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Nermal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think it's really interesting that you've resorted ro such OTT rhetoric... Talking about mob rule.

Mob rule.

FVP3

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

Well, not yet. Who knows where the Great Awokening Leadeth. The problem for the English is where to stop. As I said Queen Liz owned a slave ship. She also expelled Africans from England. Maybe her statues will stay but it seems a bit hypocritical. She no doubt did some good for England, and stopped an armanda, but Colston did some good for Bristol.

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

We have "decolonised" already, mostly. See the Past public art here

I think Wellington's monument will survive as there is no real statue there and Irish people were anti-Napoleon.

But it's not about us and British military heroes but about the British and their history. When to stop.

Lefty Bicek

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Yes they were.

Evidence ?

Lefty Bicek

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

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.

Can you provide a source for this claim? I've looked up the history of the statue and there is no reference to this.

Lefty Bicek

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Not removal by the mob though. That's not acceptable.

The plaque that would have referenced the slaving activities was vetoed two or three years ago, by the Mayor of Bristol.

Who, by the way, is mixed race. You'd wonder why he would want to suppress such knowledge.

One way or another, the mob is a bad thing.

Lefty Bicek

robinph wrote: »

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.

As I've already said, I'm happy to be corrected on that score.

Can you give me a reference for that ?

Christy42

CrankyHaus wrote: »

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.

The good news is that it wasn't blown up and we know where it is.

After a few touch ups it should be grand again once the people vote in councillors willing to dredge it up and stick it back up. Democracy can fix this mob rule issue and I am sure people will vote for those promising to bring it back if they were so in favour of it.

robinph

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

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.

Who didn't know about the slave trade?

The opinions on it may have changed, but it wasn't a secret.

Lefty Bicek

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

As I've already said, I'm happy to be corrected on that score.

Can you give me a reference for that ?

You're claiming they weren't aware of what he did and have specifically claimed they didn't know for decades. Can you provide us with the source that you got this information from?

Mitch Connor

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

As I've already said, I'm happy to be corrected on that score.

Can you give me a reference for that ?

He was one of the people in charge of the Royal African Company, which had the legal rights to the Slave Trade in the late 1600's.

How the feck are you thinking they didn't know this in 1895?

mick087

You have to be really careful of living in a socitey where its accepted to pull down staues with no process in place to do so by the elected officals.

11000 people i beleive wanted this statue removed, because the elected council did not remove or change the wording on the plauge a group of young people removed it themselves. But who are these people, who are they accountable to?

That statue i believe was to have a plaque put on the otherside explaing how Colston was invoved in the slave trade, this was back in 2018. For some reason the Mayor of Bristol did not do this.

Mitch Connor

Deleted User wrote: »

You're claiming they weren't aware of what he did and have specifically claimed they didn't know for decades. Can you provide us with the source that you got this information from?

not just mere decades. Apparently his, and the Royal African Company, involvement in the slave trade was a well kept secret from about 1670 or 80 to some point in the 1900's.

Sonics2k

Gradius wrote: »

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.

This is an interesting argument, but you're coming at it wrong. You're looking at this with a "aha gotcha" attitude, as opposed to a legitimate issue.

Y'see, people as a whole will respond and react to issues that are going to directly impact their lives, or their society and culture.

For example, if you go to India right now they largely don't give a flying donkey about the societal oppression of black people in the USA because it has no impact on their culture or society.

People in Cambodia don't care about the Womens rights in Brazil, because there is no impact on their culture or society.

However, western society is typically strongly connected. The death toll in Italy played a massive impact on the EU during the Covid-19 outbreak, the marriage referendum in Ireland had echoing effects across Europe.

People in Ireland care about the actions of the US president because it will have an impact on Ireland, whether it be via trade or policies.

While Ireland doesn't have an outright systemic racist culture, it does have a systemic class culture. Racism is also alive and well here in Ireland, I'm sure we all remember the Lidl ad from a year or so ago that saw people refusing to shop at Lidl for using a mixed race couple on their advertising.

robinph

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

As I've already said, I'm happy to be corrected on that score.

Can you give me a reference for that ?

The company that he ran had been granted the monopoly on English slave trading. None of that would have been secret:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_African_Company

markodaly

Akrasia wrote: »

Removing venerated statues to monsters is not forgetting history, it’s correcting it

History isn’t an immutable fact, it’s a story told by the winners of past conflicts.

So, who are the winners of todays 'conflict'?

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

not just mere decades. Apparently his, and the Royal African Company, involvement in the slave trade was a well kept secret from about 1670 or 80 to some point in the 1900's.

Referring to decades after the statue was put up. :P I hate it when people make up stuff...

Bannasidhe

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

How many times do I have to say it ?

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

.

Absolute B.S.

It was never a secret how Colston made his money. Not during his lifetime or when, in 1895, the statue was erected to him.

Colston didn't even live in Bristol as an adult, he ran his slave trade activities from London far from the human misery that poured out onto Bristol's docks.
What he did do was after he had made his vast fortune was divest himself of his interests in the slave trade (sold his shares to King Billy) and move into moneylending, eventually he used a small amount of that vast fortune to fund philanthropic works in Bristol.

Colston is unlikely to be forgotten in Bristol, besides the statue, there is Colston’s (an independent school), Colston Hall (a concert hall),Colston Tower (a high-rise office office block) named after him, along with Colston Street and Colston Avenue.

How much commemoration does one slave trader who tried to salve his conscience (after he made his fortune) need?

Nermal

https://twitter.com/colinsutton/status/1269692573943291906

The police, completely abdicating responsibility.

Mob rule.

Lefty Bicek

Mitch Connor wrote: »

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.

I am saying that it is a monument to his philanthropic activities, until someone gives me evidence of otherwise. I would appreciate some reference to that.

The monument is to what the people put it up thought it was to.

Anything else is just after-the-fact, unhistorical, anachronistic hand-wringing.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

It was agreed in 2018 to change the wording on the plaque to reflect how he made his money but no agreement on the wording could be reached with the city council.

BlitzKrieg

mick087 wrote: »

That statue i believe was to have a plaque put on the otherside explaing how Colston was invoved in the slave trade, this was back in 2018. For some reason the Mayor of Bristol did not do this.

As far as I can find he vetoed it because the plaque had gone through multiple revisions and the last one had basically sanitised away the point of the plaque due to the involvement I think of Colston's own charity. In his opinion this was going against the point of the plaque so he vetoed it with the intent that the plaque would be rewritten again. But it looks like the fourth rewrite got trapped in beuracratic hell.


Also I think this is a good list to see how much Colston is everywhere in Bristol:

https://counteringcolston.wordpress.com/who-celebrates-colston/

Lefty Bicek

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you provide a source for this claim? I've looked up the history of the statue and there is no reference to this.

I have already done so.

kravmaga

Its criminal damage, plain and simple, take out all the emotions behind the statue.

Mob rule with Police looking on and doing nothing. Very sad state of affairs

CrankyHaus

Christy42 wrote: »

The good news is that it wasn't blown up and we know where it is.

After a few touch ups it should be grand again once the people vote in councillors willing to dredge it up and stick it back up. Democracy can fix this mob rule issue and I am sure people will vote for those promising to bring it back if they were so in favour of it.

Fair point, and no tears cried over a slaver's statue; I just don't think it's the right way to do it.
In the broader context I can see a lot of these monument defacements driving people to the right and undermining support for the BLM cause. If it shores up the position of Trump and BoJo just so a mob can have a fun day out then I'd consider it a poor exchange.

El_Duderino 09

Nermal wrote: »

Mob rule.

And absolutely no nooses but that was just an example of how quickly the people on your side of this issue have to lose touch with reality.

What exactly do the mobs rule?

robinph

Nermal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/colinsutton/status/1269692573943291906

The police, completely abdicating responsibility.

Mob rule.

The police knowing that a lump of bronze ending up in the harbour is a better result than a bunch of police and protesters in hospital and a load of shops smashed up. And knowing that the statue of a slave trader being glorified in the centre of the city wasn't worth fighting over.

ancapailldorcha

Nermal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/colinsutton/status/1269692573943291906

The police, completely abdicating responsibility.

Mob rule.

Some might call it policing by consent.

Mitch Connor

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

I am saying that it is a monument to his philanthropic activities, until someone gives me evidence of otherwise. I would appreciate some reference to that.

The monument is to what the people put it up thought it was to.

Anything else is just after-the-fact, unhistorical, anachronistic hand-wringing.

It doesn't matter what they thought it was to.

It was a monument to a man. not a monument to an act. It isn't a monument to philanthropy any more than it is a monement to the Slave Trade.

It is a monument to Edward Colston. that makes it a monument to a philanthorpist. it also makes it a monument to a Slave Trader, because that is who he was.

If I put up a statue of Jimmy Saville and said it was for his caritable work, it would still be a statue of a peadophile.

You wouldn't argue 'No, its not a monument to a peado, its to a charitable worker!'.

robinph

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Also I think this is a good list to see how much Colston is everywhere in Bristol:

https://counteringcolston.wordpress.com/who-celebrates-colston/

We really need more Brunel about the place, and a few more statues of Wallace and Gromitt wouldn't go amis.

mick087

kravmaga wrote: »

Its criminal damage, plain and simple, take out all the emotions behind the statue.

Mob rule with Police looking on and doing nothing. Very sad state of affairs

Yes it can be classed as criminal damage, but socitey needs to know who this group was, who they are and why they done it. Its important for socitey to know they are.



Im a firm beliver in direct action does change things, but if you use direct action you need to explain yourself who you are and why you have taken direct action.