Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

statesaver

Liverpool city, other UK cities and some universities were built from slave trade money, when do we knock them buildings down ?

TheAsYLuMkeY

Sonics2k wrote: »

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.

This is not an example of Racism,

I am 100% non racist, for some kind of legitimacy on that statement i can refer you to this post i recently made,

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113624931&postcount=394

I really dont care who you are or where your from or your skin colour.

I take people as i find them, some white people are sound, some are pr1cks, some black people are sound, some are pr1cks.

The ad put out by Lidl was a source of discontent,

if you seen an ad up in Lidl with 'the O'Reillys' shopping, both white folk, it sends a message to foreign folk or mixed race or first generation folk that this is the norm, white Irish folk, it makes the aforementioned people feel unwelcome and abnormal.

When you do the same, an advertisement of mixed race, foreign race etc etc it make the white Irish feel abnormal and unwelcome.

the solution is to not alienate anyone, remove the people and stick to product.

I didn't like the posters either.

Nothing against the family in the picture, sure they could have been standing beside me in the shop and you wouldn't take notice.

But when the shop owners erect an advertisement designed to convey a message in full colour, it gets into people heads, what was the message supposed to be without making another part of society feel alienated.

Bad marketing it was and should stick to products only.

Mitch Connor

statesaver wrote: »

Liverpool city, other UK cities and some universities were built from slave trade money, when do we knock them buildings down ?

Liverpool has a museum of slavery.

They aren't whitewashing it as this statue did.

BlitzKrieg

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?

the biggest expose on his involvement in the slave trade came in 1920, 25 years after the statue was erected.

But also the claim that the statue was a process from the people to celebrate his philanthropy also appears to be a bit of a myth

https://www.brh.org.uk/site/articles/myths-within-myths/?fbclid=IwAR0Kk1_uVpAlBEhDxhAbxCdCOid2AeLnauWFQwcfsUjVvoW-qSiKDJkirBg

But it does appear that it was known his business was primarily funded from slave trade as the mayor said at the unveiling:

However, the Mayor made one major indirect reference in his speech in stating that Colston’s “business was mainly with the West Indies”; essentially code for involvement in slavery and the slave trade.[27] It is interesting that in 1895 there was at least some clarity about this aspect, albeit indirect. This should be compared to clumsy attempts by apologists over a century later to ‘airbrush the history’ by portraying Colston as merely an Iberian, Mediterranean or Levant merchant with no direct connections to trans-Atlantic slavery.

It's an interesting read more from the perspective that the will of the people seems to be much more the deep deep pockets of one man.

Lefty Bicek

H. J. Wilkins, who in 1920 uncovered his slave trading activities, commented that "we cannot picture him justly except against his historical background".

Wilkins, H. J. (1920). Edward Colston (1636–1721 A.D.), a chronological account of his life and work. Bristol: J. W. Arrowsmith.


Taken, as I have already said, from the Wiki page on the statue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Edward_Colston#cite_note-Wilkins_1920-8


Call me old-fashioned, but 1920 came after 1895, no ?

I would genuinely appreciate a reference to the contrary.

Certainly in preference to any more fulmination from under-informed and over-wrought posters.

osarusan

TheAsYLuMkeY wrote: »

When you do the same, an advertisement of mixed race, foreign race etc etc it make the white Irish feel abnormal and unwelcome.

Speak for yourself pal, the Lidl ad with the mixed race couple didn't cause me, a white Irish person, to feel even the slightest bit abnormnal or unwelcome. I didn't give it a moment's thought.

robinph

statesaver wrote: »

Liverpool city, other UK cities and some universities were built from slave trade money, when do we knock them buildings down ?

Why would there be a need to knock down a building?

Rename them and put up plaques explaining the history of the building. No need to pull them down though if they are still providing a function.

Bannasidhe

Gradius wrote: »

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.

When the monument was erected it wasn't a foreign power, and no effort was made by the Irish authorities to remove it. They were content to have a monument to 'a foreign power' remain.

We are still creating monuments to foreign powers by the way, in 2005 a monument to Francis Drake was put up in Cork - a man who was involved in the slaughter of hundreds of Irish people and the conquest of Ireland. And yes, it was opposed by historians but the county council decided an invader and mass murderer 'deserved' to be celebrated.

ancapailldorcha

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Liverpool has a museum of slavery.

They aren't whitewashing it as this statue did.

It's excellent as I recall. Was there years ago.

Bannasidhe

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.

:rolleyes: yourself.

It was never a secret how Colston made his fortune. No matter how much you wish it was.

TheAsYLuMkeY

osarusan wrote: »

Speak for yourself pal, the Lidl ad with the mixed race couple didn't cause me, a white Irish person, to feel even the slightest bit abnormnal or unwelcome. I didn't give it a moment's thought.

Accepted, but it is a fact that it did have that effect.

The reason i offer is a reasonable assessment of why so many did feel that way.

It is important not to alienate any one in society if we are all to live and move on together.

markodaly

A picture paints a thousand words and what millions saw yesterday was nothing less than frenzy of mob rule destorying public property.

Now, before one responds with a high-horsed resposne, I dont care about Edward Colson, or his bronze statue but do people honestly expect this to help ones causes to defeat racsism. All it will do is get people on the defensive and cast a poor imagine on those who are protesting.

However, I am a democrat and will always will be. The route for its removal was through democratic means. If you dissagree then you are not a democratic. Think about that for a minute before you respond.

People excusing actions, taking matters into their own hands is essentially what the Provos did in the past and RIRA do currently, with tragic circumstances.

Mob rule, essentially means going about change by any means nessesiarily, with no mandate. Are people that stupid to realise the issues that causes?

ancapailldorcha

https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1269668425493815301

CrankyHaus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

When the monument was erected it wasn't a foreign power, and no effort was made by the Irish authorities to remove it. They were content to have a monument to 'a foreign power' remain.

We are still creating monuments to foreign powers by the way, in 2005 a monument to Francis Drake was put up in Cork - a man who was involved in the slaughter of hundreds of Irish people and the conquest of Ireland. And yes, it was opposed by historians but the county council decided an invader and mass murderer 'deserved' to be celebrated.

Wasn't this part of a then-fashionable Quid Pro Quo with the British to make our respective official histories more at ease with one another?

I recall from the same period they officially pardoned some Irish people who'd been executed a long time ago. We also pardoned everyone who deserted in The Emergency, with the general history rewritten to pretend every one of them had gone off to punch a Nazi in the face.
It's tokenistic and ahistoric, but understandable in the broader context of improving bilateral relations.

Lefty Bicek

Bannasidhe wrote: »

:rolleyes: yourself.

It was never a secret how Colston made his fortune. No matter how much you wish it was.

I do not wish that it was. Have no intrinsic interest in his reputation at all.

I have given a scholarly (I assume) reference for what I have said, and have asked people to give me a countervailing one.

Will you ?

BlitzKrieg

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1269668425493815301

There's actually a lovely mural and piano in Bristol bus station to them, I've stopped and admired it multiple times when passing through

If we are looking for Rich 18th century businessmen who gave loads of money to Bristol charities then Richard Reynolds donated more then Colston and was not a slave trader.

osarusan

TheAsYLuMkeY wrote: »

Accepted, but it is a fact that it did have that effect.

It is a fact that the Lidl ad with a mixed race couple caused some ("so many") white Irish people to feel abnormal or alienated?


That's about as 'snowflake' as it gets.

Gradius

Sonics2k wrote: »

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.

My point was, and remains, that these people are full of shyt.

As you correctly point out yourself, people don't care unless it affects them directly.

European people (read white people) tearing down anything on their own doorstep, that doesn't affect them directly are nothing but trendy.

Equally, African people tearing down anything that has no direct affect on them, on their own doorstep, in the most free countries of the world, are full of shyt too.

The pungent point is that this is all about stuff centuries ago, while current slavery, the thing they pretend to be so upset about, is rife in their own countries of origin (and not exclusively).

These are people, in my opinion, who have so little meaning in their lives thar they latch onto anything trendy as a means to fill the void and lash out. They are about as genuine as utterly butterly.

Bannasidhe

statesaver wrote: »

Liverpool city, other UK cities and some universities were built from slave trade money, when do we knock them buildings down ?

The University of Glasgow in acknowledgement of how it benefited from the slave trade has pledged £20m to a joint research centre with the university of the West Indies.

Liverpool has a museum of slavery that fully acknowledges the role the city played.

Bristol had a statue of a slave trader with no mention of slavery.

See the difference?

Snickers Man

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

The British are facing the prospect of facing a overdue reckoning with their colonial past and how they celebrate it going forward, ..... I'm still surprised Cromwell's statue still stands in Cambridgeshire given he was a brutal mass murderer and tyrant.

He was a great republican. One of the first in Britain, and probably the very first to influence Irish affairs.

With such a heritage, it's surprising he's not remembered more fondly here, no?

(Don't get me wrong; the man was a complete c-word, but when you look at the broad sweep of his politics, he was ahead of his time. Overthrew the monarchy, bumped off the king, insisted on parliamentary, representative democracy, championed the role of the "little guy" and freedom of conscience.
What's not to like?)

Oh, and he and his supporters were so-o-o-o woke. Man, they knew how to transform society from the bottom up.

mick087

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1269668425493815301

Great artical but we need to look at ourselves.
How many non irish faces work R.T.E how many ethnics do we see sitting in The Dáil. We have a long way to go here in Ireland

Snickers Man

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its literally fascism.

mcbert wrote: »

Literally?? OK, if you say so...

Well, anything can be "literally fascism" because fascism is a universal term of abuse for anything you don't like.
Literally.

Snickers Man

mick087 wrote: »

Great artical but we need to look at ourselves.
How many non irish faces work R.T.E how many ethnics do we see sitting in The Dáil. We have a long way to go here in Ireland

Well, there's this BAME guy in the Taoiseach's chair.......

osarusan

Snickers Man wrote: »

With such a heritage, it's surprising [Cromwell] is not remembered more fondly here, no?

Seriously?

mick087

Snickers Man wrote: »

He was a great republican. One of the first in Britain, and probably the very first to influence Irish affairs.

With such a heritage, it's surprising he's not remembered more fondly here, no?

(Don't get me wrong; the man was a complete c-word, but when you look at the broad sweep of his politics, he was ahead of his time. Overthrew the monarchy, bumped off the king, insisted on parliamentary, representative democracy, championed the role of the "little guy" and freedom of conscience.
What's not to like?)

Oh, and he and his supporters were so-o-o-o woke. Man, they knew how to transform society from the bottom up.

Cromwell i guess some would say was the ultimate republican.
What he did not only here in Ireland but England was of its time.



What is important is how we move forward and live in a socity that's not only equal in wealth but equal in education and health otherwise we are just the same as we were 300 years ago repackaged under a diferernt name.

Annasopra

Maybe they should have just debated the statue

Lefty Bicek

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Bristol had a statue of a slave trader with no mention of slavery.

You just make it up as you go along.



The reason there is no mention of slavery is because the mixed-race Mayor of Bristol vetoed the informational plaque.

mick087

Snickers Man wrote: »

Well, there's this BAME guy in the Taoiseach's chair.......

I know that but my point is we dont have many from ethnic back gounds involved in politics as in TDs. No news readers tv hosts nothing much really.

robinph

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

The reason there is no mention of slavery is because the mixed-race Mayor of Bristol vetoed the informational plaque.

Did you actually read the sanitised version that they came up with. Think he was right to veto it so as to force things to be looked at in a fairer light.

Bannasidhe

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

the biggest expose on his involvement in the slave trade came in 1920, 25 years after the statue was erected.

But also the claim that the statue was a process from the people to celebrate his philanthropy also appears to be a bit of a myth

https://www.brh.org.uk/site/articles/myths-within-myths/?fbclid=IwAR0Kk1_uVpAlBEhDxhAbxCdCOid2AeLnauWFQwcfsUjVvoW-qSiKDJkirBg

But it does appear that it was known his business was primarily funded from slave trade as the mayor said at the unveiling:



It's an interesting read more from the perspective that the will of the people seems to be much more the deep deep pockets of one man.

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

I do not wish that it was. Have no intrinsic interest in his reputation at all.

I have given a scholarly (I assume) reference for what I have said, and have asked people to give me a countervailing one.

Will you ?

All I saw from you was a wiki - did you provide an actual scholarly reference?
If so can you post again as I missed it.

BlitzKreig posted that the mayor made reference to the West Indies in his speech. Colston and his brother owned a sugar refinery in Bristol which processed cane grown on slave plantations in the West Indies.

Do you expect us to believe that people in 1895 - a mere 30 years after the American Civil War - were unaware of the nature of 'business in the West Indies' in the 18th century?