Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Nermal

THE_SHEEP wrote: »

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 ?

'Erected by citizens of Minneapolis as a memorial of one of the most virtuous and wise sons of their city AD 2020. He once robbed a pregnant woman at gunpoint.'

Yellow_Fern

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.

What old rich guys you refer too? You do realise most of the protesters were white? Absolutely unhelpful and wrong to racialize the discussion, unless you mean the original people involved in which case I follow your point.

robinph

THE_SHEEP wrote: »

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 ?

If a statue gets put up for some purpose but a future generation then sees the history of that person through a different lense then that's fine. It will be their city, their statue and their history that they want told.

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

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

Complaining about whataboutery but failing to mention Europe. Hmmmm...

Slavery was endemic in Europe.
Who do you think rowed all those galleys so beloved of Louis XVI?
I'll give you a clue - an awful lot of them were French.

What's your point?

We are talking about an English man who made his considerable fortune from a)the transportation and sale of Africans into slavery.
b)the processing of crops grown and harvested by African slaves in the West Indies.

And whether the current inhabitants of the city of his birth feel he should be honoured with a monument.

Do you want to have a general thread about slavery throughout the ages and how different cultures viewed it? While also complaining about whataboutery....

El_Duderino 09

suicide_circus wrote: »

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.

Ah yeah but that's just avoiding the issue altogether.

Do you actually believe the arguments you're making or are you just making them because you feel "duty-bound"?

fly_agaric

completedit wrote: »

Roman Emperors are on the good side of history, their misdeeds resigned to a foreign time

I don't think that's it.

It is all so long ago that no one about today ("people"/"ethnic group"/"race" whatever you're having yourself) has a bone to pick with the Romans or bears any grudges over what they did/did not do when they were in their pomp.

The Roman empire has been gone a long time, the people they oppressed are either long gone also or recombined/changed into new ethnic groups, new nation states etc.

It's not the same with the British/English and the peoples who feel they were "wronged" by them + are looking to set the historical record straight as they see it (e.g. descendents of their former colonial subjects who now make up an increasing proportion of population of the former colonial master's homeland, living in cities surrounded by monuments to the former colonial masters...).

robinph

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

What old rich guys you refer too? You do realise most of the protesters were white? Absolutely unhelpful and wrong to racialize the discussion, unless you mean the original people involved in which case I follow your point.

The rich old white guys who have objected to the rewriting of the plaque and used to hold the processions through the city honoring Colston. Can't be certain they are all rich old white guys, but would be surprised if they were not.

El_Duderino 09

suicide_circus wrote: »

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.

No you're not looking at it from all angles. You're looking at it from the angles that presume it was a bad idea, or was done in the wrong way, or shouldn't have been done at all and should have had more information on the plaque or he slippery slope of what might happen next or absurd arguments about what else should be taken down.

That's not "all angles". That's a very specific set of angles which begin from the conclusion that it was right to do it.

suicide_circus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah yeah but that's just avoiding the issue altogether.

Do you actually believe the arguments you're making or are you just making them because you feel "duty-bound"?

I think the arguments may have some validity yes. We have to be allowed to voice arguments publicly in fora such as this to kind of test drive them dont we? if someone comes out with an argument you dont agree with it dosnt automatically make them a bad person, an unsolid citizen - its just a different point of view.

suicide_circus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No you're not looking at it from all angles. You're looking at it from the angles that presume it was a bad idea, or was done in the wrong way, or shouldn't have been done at all and should have had more information on the plaque or he slippery slope of what might happen next or absurd arguments about what else should be taken down.

That's not "all angles". That's a very specific set of angles which begin from the conclusion that it was right to do it.

The "slavery is bad" argument is pretty well covered i think, i'd be pushing at an open door there. i'm trying to provide a counterpoint. whats the problem?

El_Duderino 09

fly_agaric wrote: »

I don't think that's it.

It is all so long ago that no one about today ("people"/"ethnic group"/"race" whatever you're having yourself) has a bone to pick with the Romans or bears any grudges over what they did/did not do when they were in their pomp.

The Roman empire has been gone a long time, the people they opressed are either long gone also or recombined/changed into new ethnic groups, nation states etc.

It's not the same with the British/English and the peoples who feel "wronged" by them + are looking to set the historical record straight as they see it (e.g. descendents of their former colonial subjects who now make up an increasing proportion of population of the former colonial masters homeland, living in cities surrounded by monuments to the formwer colonial masters...).

I love a good podcast or documentary about Rome. One major difference is that they tell the whole story. They don't say the Romans were lovely lads who were kind and generous and clever and never hurt a fly. That would be ridiculous.

The statue was not trying to tell a balanced story. It was veneration, not telling the history.

El_Duderino 09

suicide_circus wrote: »

The "slavery is bad" argument is pretty well covered i think, i'd be pushing at an open door there. i'm trying to provide a counterpoint. whats the problem?

It's the scrambling around for any old reason to justify the conclusion thrt it wasn't right to get rid of the statue. It's an example of where the conclusion comes first and the arguments come second.

So what counterpoints have you found? Any good ones?

robinph

nullzero wrote: »

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

Don't know who they are or why their feelings have been hurt, but you seem to be on their wavelength so maybe you could ask them for us as to why they think the statue deserved its place in the centre of the city with a plaque ignoring his history and how he earned the money that he then spent on the city?

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

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?

Yes. I do.
And like all historians I will point you to where you can do your own research and thereby take control of your own education.

We'll start with the big three of the Triangular Trade shall we?

The British
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/british-transatlantic-slave-trade-records/

The Spanish in South America, and the Asiento

http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra-visor/historia-general-de-chile-tomo-cuarto--0/html/ff2f1efc-82b1-11df-acc7-002185ce6064_69.html#I_15_

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1349550/

The Dutch

http://www.ethesis.net/wic/wic_inhoud.htm

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/4734

https://books.google.ie/books?id=HGoyvMF7xw8C&redir_esc=y

Enjoy!

El_Duderino 09

suicide_circus wrote: »

I think the arguments may have some validity yes. We have to be allowed to voice arguments publicly in fora such as this to kind of test drive them dont we? if someone comes out with an argument you dont agree with it dosnt automatically make them a bad person, an unsolid citizen - its just a different point of view.

OK. Did you think the machu Picchu argument was a good one? Because it looked like really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

suicide_circus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's the scrambling around for any old reason to justify the conclusion thrt it wasn't right to get rid of the statue. It's an example of where the conclusion comes first and the arguments come second.

So what counterpoints have you found? Any good ones?

if i think of any i'll be sure to run them by you first for quality control

El_Duderino 09

suicide_circus wrote: »

if i think of any i'll be sure to run them by you first for quality control

Does that mean you haven't found any good ones yet?

suicide_circus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Does that mean you haven't found any good ones yet?

lets leave it there, people will begin to talk

Nermal

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The statue was not trying to tell a balanced story. It was veneration, not telling the history.

No one is hiding this information from you.

Adding this information to the statue only displaces the argument from the existence of the statue to the content of the plaque.

These malcontents will never be happy. Make no compromise with them.

mick087

This incident will keep the English middle class in a more protected bubble.

El_Duderino 09

suicide_circus wrote: »

lets leave it there, people will begin to talk

Sure but first at least let us know if you think you've come up with any good arguments.

It would add something to the veneer of "just playing devil's advocate" if you have actually come up with some good arguments as a result.

El_Duderino 09

Nermal wrote: »

No one is hiding this information from you.

Adding this information to the statue only displaces the argument from the existence of the statue to the content of the plaque.

These malcontents will never be happy. Make no compromise with them.

Exactly. So the obvious solution is to remove the statue venerating him and just teach the guy's history.

And the great news is that both of those things have happened since yesterday Great, isn't it?

The malcontents will never be happy. I'm happy with the result. Are you happy? Who's the malcontent?

fly_agaric

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I love a good podcast or documentary about Rome. One major difference is that they tell the whole story. They don't say the Romans were lovely lads who were kind and generous and clever and never hurt a fly. That would be ridiculous.

The statue was not trying to tell a balanced story. It was veneration, not telling the history.

I doubt there can be any "balanced story" that everyone will accept when it comes to putting up or taking down (or toppling!) statues like many of those in the UK.

The former subject regions/components of the Roman empire are generally quite proud of that history now and spend a lot of time & money preserving what is left of it + show off the remaining monuments & buildings (& even statues, or replicas of them) to tourists. Not veneration perhaps, but there isn't confliction there I think.

You could make an exception for some iconoclasts like ISIS who view the remaining Roman heritage of the middle east as refuse of "unislamic" heathens and believe the rest of it should be destroyed or sold off but I don't believe that is a majority opinion.

There is division when it comes to things like this memorial to a slave trader, or to statues of Churchill and Cromwell in the UK because there is a competing vision about what these represent (monuments spitting on the historical wrongs done to "my sort of people" vs monuments venerating the "great leaders of the past of my sort of people").

Bannasidhe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Exactly. So the obvious solution is to remove the statue venerating him and just teach the guy's history.

And the great news is that both of those things have happened since yesterday Great, isn't it?

The malcontents will never be happy. I'm happy with the result. Are you happy? Who's the malcontent?

Now it's not just the people of Bristol and a few historians who know about him.
I call that job well done.

Living history.

suicide_circus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure but first at least let us know if you think you've come up with any good arguments.

It would add something to the veneer of "just playing devil's advocate" if you have actually come up with some good arguments as a result.

veneer? covering what?

Yellow_Fern

The Union Jack is a flag that doesnt mean anything me, it is but if I was Britsh/ English I'd say that the gurriers trying to burn it like this BLM degenerate on the Cenoph should be locked up

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Slavery was endemic in Europe.

Slavery was endemic in all parts of the world at one time or another.
Be is the Egyptians, the older Chinese civilisations, the Aztecs or Incas, the Arab world (argubaly the largest slavers in history), Africa and of course Europe.

Slavery has been with humans since the dawn of time in one form or another. I know some like to try and tell us that Europeans invented the notion, as it makes them feel good about humanity as a whole, but its simply not true.

ancapailldorcha

markodaly wrote: »

Slavery has been with humans since the dawn of time in one form or another. I know some like to try and tell us that Europeans invented the notion, as it makes them feel good about humanity as a whole, but its simply not true.

Who here has claimed that Europeans invented slavery?

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The Union Jack is a flag that doesnt mean anything me, it is but if I was Britsh/ English nevertheless the gurriers trying to burn it like this BLM degenerate on the Cenoph should be locked up

Perhaps they are patriotic Welsh people objecting to not being represented on their national fleg?

nullzero

robinph wrote: »

Don't know who they are or why their feelings have been hurt, but you seem to be on their wavelength so maybe you could ask them for us as to why they think the statue deserved its place in the centre of the city with a plaque ignoring his history and how he earned the money that he then spent on the city?

I'm on their wavelength?
I thought you didn't know who they were and that you were just assuming they were old rich white guys?

I've already stated that the statue should have been removed, albeit without Mob rule being the force behind it.

You are just making up nonsense based on your own prejudice.