Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Mitch Connor

Nermal wrote: »

Only inaccurate if you're small-minded enough to think that great is synonymous with good.

Sorry, greatest was not there.

"Erected by citizens of Bristol as a memorial of one of the most virtuous and wise sons of their city AD 1895'

Thats the plaque on the statue, that would have made Lefty think of the abhorance of Slavery.

I would argue that does paint him as one of the cities greatest sons, but it isn't in the description itself.

Having the highest of moral standings is perfectly in keeping with the slavery of tens of thousands, and murder of many.

Bannasidhe

Cal4567 wrote: »

Also, they are on fairly dodgy historical ground when it comes to slavery. It was as much a black on black crime within Africa before the white man realised its value.

WOW.

Can't believe someone actually went there.

The importation of slaves from Africa to the US was outlawed in 1808. Slavery was abolished in 1865.

You know what - I read the personal letters of a Virginian slave owner who was advising a fellow slave owner to rape 'his' black women to produce 'pickininnies' for sale. He boasted how much money he had made selling the livestock he and his 3 sons had produced this way. One of his sons was 13 at the time.

Think about that. This man had his 13 year old son (his other sons were aged 15 and 17) rape women and then sold then resulting children. He SOLD his own children and grandchildren and felt this was a fine practice - all because their skin was a different colour to his. He was far from being the only one.
The only Africans involved were those being raped and sold.

This is what historians like myself read day in and day out and we don't give a flying about a bloody statue. Our job is to tell the TRUTH about what happened using the words of the people who were there. Unvarnished.

And the unvarnished truth is the economy of many European Countries, South American Countries, and the US was based on the exploitation of Africans.
It's beyond time the truth was told. If tearing down a statue is what it takes to get the truth out there - I'm good with that. And I am far from being the only one.

Lefty Bicek

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The statue that made no reference to Slavery.

That's the fault of the mixed-race Mayor of Bristol, who vetoed the reference. Have to wonder why !

That statue as you walked past it last week would have made you think of Slavery and its place in a civilised nation. Bull.

I didn't walk past it last week, what are you fabricating that for ?

But if I were a resident of Bristol, considering the ongoing controversy about it over a long period now, I would certainly know who he was.

I often walked past the statue of Rhodes in Oxford, or Cromwell and Churchill in London, and certainly thought about people on the wrong side of their legacy more than how great they were as individuals.

But then I'm a literate, and thinking person, not an under-employed member of the perpetually offended class.

Different for you, is it ?

Lefty Bicek

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I did link an article earlier that goes extensively into the history of the funding and presentation of the statue and there is a quote of the mayor at the presentation mentioning his links to the slave trade in a sanitised manner

https://www.brh.org.uk/site/articles/myths-within-myths/



Though I am having difficulty looking through the source: https://www1.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results/1895-11-14?NewspaperTitle=Bristol%2BMercury&IssueId=BL%2F0000035%2F18951114%2F&County=Bristol%2C%20England

Newspapers of the 1890s are difficult to read. (also I could only pick 3 pages to look at until tomorrow)

So if the source is accurate then it does appear there was a knowing acknowledgement at least within political sources of where his wealth came from and what he was.

I also think it's more important how the article highlights how much his importance to Bristol is fabricated by select groups and organisations.

Many thanks, appreciated.

If you come across any reference to this H.J. Wilkins guy, would you pass it on, please ? Interested to know what his agenda was in 1920.

completedit

History is not set in stone. There are no statues of Hitler for a reason. He lost and history has declared him a tyrant. In another world, all of Europe would be decorated with monuments of our deceased fuhrer, as we enter the second hundred years of the Reich. These guys like this Bristol geezer are now on the wrong side of history. We have literally conventions about the the rights of all humankind and people like this geezer directly violated these. Same with Leopold and whoever else.
Roman Emperors are on the good side of history, their misdeeds resigned to a foreign time

robinph

suicide_circus wrote: »

would an additional large plaque in front of the statue stating something like

"Edward Colston traded in human beings. He sent X amount of men, women and children to the new world in chains never to see their homes again. The impact of his actions revererate to this day"

have been of any use? Or is smashy smashy the only way?

That is almost exactly what was proposed a few years ago, the wording was then sanitised to within an inch of its life such that you'd have been hard pressed to notice the mention of slavery on it and quite rightly the mayor said no to that sanitised version as not suitable. They hadn't got back around to coming up with another revision of the wording.

Cupatae

Bannasidhe wrote: »

WOW.

Can't believe someone actually went there.

The importation of slaves from Africa to the US was outlawed in 1808. Slavery was abolished in 1865.

You know what - I read the personal letters of a Virginian slave owner who was advising a fellow slave owner to rape 'his' black women to produce 'pickininnies' for sale. He boasted how much money he had made selling the livestock he and his 3 sons had produced this way. One of his sons was 13 at the time.

Think about that. This man had his 13 year old son (his other sons were aged 15 and 17) rape women and then sold then resulting children. He SOLD his own children and grandchildren and felt this was a fine practice - all because their skin was a different colour to his. He was far from being the only one.
The only Africans involved were those being raped and sold.

This is what historians like myself read day in and day out and we don't give a flying about a bloody statue. Our job is to tell the TRUTH about what happened using the words of the people who were there. Unvarnished.

And the unvarnished truth is the economy of many European Countries, South American Countries, and the US was based on the exploitation of Africans.
It's beyond time the truth was told. If tearing down a statue is what it takes to get the truth out there - I'm good with that. And I am far from being the only one.

His not wrong though its the truth, blacks were the first to sell blacks, should we go through black crimes? and what they ve done throughout history little bit of a spoiler they werent always the victims.

Mitch Connor

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

That's the fault of the mixed-race Mayor of Bristol, who vetoed the reference. Have to wonder why !



I didn't walk past it last week, what are you fabricating that for ?

But if I were a resident of Bristol, considering the ongoing controversy about it over a long period now, I would certainly know who he was.

I often walked past the statue of Rhodes in Oxford, or Cromwell and Churchill in London, and certainly thought about people on the wrong side of their legacy more than how great they were as individuals.

But then I'm a literate, and thinking person, not an under-employed member of the perpetually offended class.

Different for you, is it ?

You don;t have to wonder why. Its becuase the plaque after fights and ammendments was not considered truthful enough and the Mayor wanted a full account on the plaque.

Perpetually offended class.

Black people walking past a monument to a Slave Trader extolling their virtue and wisdom, and nothing else. "Black Lives Matter".

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

you could well be right but things like the destruction of monuments and burning of books require scrutiny.

isn't it getting scrutiny? the people who did it were very happy to do it publicly and to say why.

i mean ive just set out my scrutiny there, like.

scrutiny should be proportionate and should come to a conclusion

imo, after scrutiny, good riddance to a boring monument to a very problematic figure.

what's for tea.

El_Duderino 09

suicide_circus wrote: »

i feel duty bound to offer a devil's advocate position on such things. The tearing down of monuments, the burning of books...these things are not trivial and deserve to be questioned. Actions taken by mobs in the throes of moral fervor need to be looked at.

Yeah but wouldn't you prefer to play devil's advocate with good arguments? Why the jump to off-the-wall hypotheticals? If you have good arguments then do yourself a favour and stick to them. If you don't have good arguments then that should tell you something about the merit of your position.

Do you actually believe you're making good arguments or just going through the motions as you're "duty bound"?

completedit

Cupatae wrote: »

His not wrong though its the truth, blacks were the first to sell blacks, should we go through black crimes? and what they ve done throughout history little bit of a spoiler they werent always the victims.

I think maybe the idea is that there is some sort of link between our modern structures and people from around the Industrial Revolution. History before that is pretty much a closer book. If it happened then, it doesn't count apparently

Bannasidhe

Nermal wrote: »

Addressed in the very post you quoted: for all the comparisons to Iraq, Ireland, Soviet states: precisely what oppressive, undemocratic and colonial entity are the Bristol branch of BLM engaged in violent rebellion against?

Are they taxed without representation? Ruled by an absolute monarch? Unequal before the law?

Don't tell me they're repressed by the jackboot of that sorry excuse for a policeman I quoted earlier.

For many many many years the people of Bristol have requested that statue be removed. As the posters who actually live in Bristol have been saying over and over.
The favoured solution was create a museum of slavery similar to Liverpool and place it there - alongside the story of the victims of slavery.
They were ignored.
While an annual procession by a select number of worthies held an annual procession in top hat and tails from the statue to a local church to sing the praises of Edward Colston.
In 2017, the church involved refused to participate as they did not feel Colston should be praised.

Does the city of Bristol belong only to the worthies or do all the people get to say who is and who is not honoured in their city?

Seems to me the talk of jackboots suits the narrative of only the powerful get to decide.

Tell me- are you equally upset by the Belgians defacing the statues of King Leopold?

Yellow_Fern

Bannasidhe wrote: »

WOW.

Can't believe someone actually went there.

The importation of slaves from Africa to the US was outlawed in 1808. Slavery was abolished in 1865.

You know what - I read the personal letters of a Virginian slave owner who was advising a fellow slave owner to rape 'his' black women to produce 'pickininnies' for sale. He boasted how much money he had made selling the livestock he and his 3 sons had produced this way. One of his sons was 13 at the time.

Think about that. This man had his 13 year old son (his other sons were aged 15 and 17) rape women and then sold then resulting children. He SOLD his own children and grandchildren and felt this was a fine practice - all because their skin was a different colour to his. He was far from being the only one.
The only Africans involved were those being raped and sold.

This is what historians like myself read day in and day out and we don't give a flying about a bloody statue. Our job is to tell the TRUTH about what happened using the words of the people who were there. Unvarnished.

And the unvarnished truth is the economy of many European Countries, South American Countries, and the US was based on the exploitation of Africans.
It's beyond time the truth was told. If tearing down a statue is what it takes to get the truth out there - I'm good with that. And I am far from being the only one.

So its offensive to point out that slavery was endemic in Africa and Asia? A lot whataboutery there

robinph

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

It's up to the viewer to decide.

If I look at that statue, I think of the victims of slavery, not of Colston.

Actually, the statue serves two useful purposes in remaining -

1. the abomination of slavery as a notion
2. the acceptance of it in a 'civilised' nation.

Removing it is just pandering to bleeding hearts. Weaklings, unless part of a mob.

You'll have to explain how a statue in the most prominent place in the city, on a street named after him, infront of a tower block named after him and round the corner from a concert venue named after him tells the population anything about the abomination of slavery or does anything to show that slavery is unacceptable?

El_Duderino 09

markodaly wrote: »

So you oppose mobs sometimes but agree with them sometimes.

Very convienent, dont you think? Still makes you a hypocrtie mind.

I guess those 'sometimes' are decieded by your ideological position on the current affaris of the day, not anyting fundamental in your own moral, ethical or belief system.




Correct, they were mobs damaging public property. A mob none the less, dont you agree?



Its the same things. The manifestation of mob rule is 'a great thing'. Your words, not mine. At least own it.

They were certainly a protest. But they weren't proposing violently attacking and hanging people who they thought might be criminals. I oppose that and I hope you do to. So these things are not the same.

The protrest yesterday was peaceful as far as I know (which is great) and they took down a statue which I think should have been done long ago (which is also great).

So yeah, yesterday's protest was great. That other thread was about proposing violently attacking and hanging people who they thought might be criminal, and I oppose that. I hope you can understand the difference. If not let me know and I'll talk you through it.

suicide_circus

Funny that Bristol has had a Labour mayor since 2016 and a Lib Dem before that!

robinph

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

More powerful, where fewer people will see it.

More people who see it will get to learn the history behind the man, why the city named so much after him, why they put up a statue to him and why later on the population decided to throw the statue in the harbour.

Or leave it in the middle of the city with a plaque saying how virtuous the guy was.

Lady Spangles

Yamanoto wrote: »

The mindset has absolute echoes of both ISIL & the Taliban - it offends our sensibilities, no discussion, we know best.

But there has been discussion. Lots of it, in fact. The campaign to remove this statue began in the early 1970s and has gained the support of pretty much the whole of Bristol and the Avon area. There's been scores of peaceful protests, petitions which the good people of the area signed in a very orderly manner. All went ignored and a slave trader continued to be celebrated. People have had enough now. It was shameful that the statue existed, shameful it was allowed to stand. And finally something's been done.

It's also good to see that the council in Bristol is also in the process of removing the man's name from building/street names etc. It's high time my home city of Liverpool did the same thing.

El_Duderino 09

suicide_circus wrote: »

would an additional large plaque in front of the statue stating something like

"Edward Colston traded in human beings. He sent X amount of men, women and children to the new world in chains never to see their homes again. The impact of his actions revererate to this day"

have been of any use? Or is smashy smashy the only way?

I'd absolutely agree with that information being in front of his statue in a museum.

Why the urge to justify keeping the statue in place?

THE_SHEEP

completedit wrote: »

History is not set in stone. There are no statues of Hitler for a reason. He lost and history has declared him a tyrant. In another world, all of Europe would be decorated with monuments of our deceased fuhrer, as we enter the second hundred years of the Reich. These guys like this Bristol geezer are now on the wrong side of history. We have literally conventions about the the rights of all humankind and people like this geezer directly violated these. Same with Leopold and whoever else.
Roman Emperors are on the good side of history, their misdeeds resigned to a foreign time

^ Exactly . Another example is Stalin . Similar to Hitler and was responsible for killing a lot more . But , he was " one of the good guys " , so gets a bye in history .

Yellow_Fern

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This is what historians like myself read day in and day out and we don't give a flying about a bloody statue. Our job is to tell the TRUTH about what happened using the words of the people who were there. Unvarnished.

And the unvarnished truth is the economy of many European Countries, South American Countries, and the US was based on the exploitation of Africans.
It's beyond time the truth was told. If tearing down a statue is what it takes to get the truth out there - I'm good with that. And I am far from being the only one.

Have you any data to show the economies of many European countries were based on slavery or is more historical dataless rambling, as you call yourself a historian after all?

robinph

Truthvader wrote: »

Don't be a Dick.

Thanks for your input to the discussion.

What was damaged other than a lump of bronze and the feelings of some old rich white guys?

The only person who has possibly lost out from what happened will be the bloke responsible for cleaning pigeon poo off the statues head, but I doubt they were on an hourly rate anyway.

THE_SHEEP

THE_SHEEP wrote: »

^ Exactly . Another example is Stalin . Similar to Hitler and was responsible for killing a lot more . But , he was " one of the good guys " , so gets a bye in history .

No, Stalin has not been written as a good guy in history...

Nermal

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Whether you accept it or not, there is a very real feeling

Plenty of feelings around alright, not a lot of facts.

Bannasidhe

Cupatae wrote: »

His not wrong though its the truth, blacks were the first to sell blacks, should we go through black crimes? and what they ve done throughout history little bit of a spoiler they werent always the victims.

His implication was that this was primarily how people of African origin came to be slaves.
It is simply not true.
He ignored the 57 years between the banning of imports and abolition of slavery in the US when the slave trade still flourished - in fact the number of slaves in the US increased four-fold in that time period.
The vast vast majority of slaves in the US were born into slavery on plantations owned by white people of European descent.

Did Africans also sell Native American slaves to the Spanish?

Classic victim blaming.

El_Duderino 09

GreeBo wrote: »

Going to be very few statues around if we can only venerate people who have nothing in their lives that *current* society can deem "bad".

So? What's the problem with that? There are plenty of good people to hold up as an example of good behaviour wihh ouy resorting to slave traders. That's an exceptionally low bar and I think we can do better.

suicide_circus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah but wouldn't you prefer to play devil's advocate with good arguments? Why the jump to off-the-wall hypotheticals? If you have good arguments then do yourself a favour and stick to them. If you don't have good arguments then that should tell you something about the merit of your position.

Do you actually believe you're making good arguments or just going through the motions as you're "duty bound"?

i'm not too bothered about your analysis of my posts tbh, perhaps you have a higher IQ than me, lets call it your "IQ privilege" for want of a better phrase. The quality of my arguments vary but i dont think i'm unique in that.

suicide_circus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'd absolutely agree with that information being in front of his statue in a museum.

Why the urge to justify keeping the statue in place?

i'm not urged to keep it in place at all. I'm just looking at the act of tearing it down from all angles.

THE_SHEEP

robinph wrote: »

More people who see it will get to learn the history behind the man, why the city named so much after him, why they put up a statue to him and why later on the population decided to throw the statue in the harbour.

Or leave it in the middle of the city with a plaque saying how virtuous the guy was.

So , in this in this context .

If a statue / statues of George Floyd were to be erected , should these statues have a plaque explaining he was a criminal ?

Or the just that he was a martyr ?

Would " woke people " in the future , remove his statue on account of this ?

nullzero

robinph wrote: »

Thanks for your input to the discussion.

What was damaged other than a lump of bronze and the feelings of some old rich white guys?

The only person who has possibly lost out from what happened will be the bloke responsible for cleaning pigeon poo off the statues head, but I doubt they were on an hourly rate anyway.

Who are these "old rich white guys" exactly and how have their feelings been hurt?