Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

El_Duderino 09

markodaly wrote: »

The difference is, you approve of one mob rule and disagree with another.
Bascily your core beliefs are transient and movable, to the point you dont really have them. It is now clear.



I see you didnt answer my question.

Do you also think it was 'great' that mob rule vandalised a statue of Gandhi?

Yes, the peaceful protest yesterday was great and had an excellent result.

If you're willing to pretend you don't know the difference between a peaceful protest and violent vigilante mobs to beat and hang people they thought might be criminal, then you're committing an act of intellectual self-harm.

I don't know much about gandhi beyond the headlines about his work in the liberation of India. Whether I agree with vandalisng the statue would depend on why it was done amongst other factors.

I'm interested to know more about Gandhi now. And I've got just the place to find out about him. https://overcast.fm/+MMQ-d_JLw

Lefty Bicek

robinph wrote: »

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?

If I see a statue of Cromwell or Rhodes, I don't think 'they were great guys'.

Even if the people who put up the statue thought they were.

I know better.

I have a mind of my own, and I can use it to reflect on those things if they're brought to mind by a statue. Or whatever.

What I am not, is an idiot vandal.

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

Never knew the Gandhi fella made his money on slavery.

Tell that to the BLM protesters that vandalised his statue.

suicide_circus

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/16/karl-marxs-london-memorial-vandalised-for-second-time

Ok, lets imagine this wasnt Karl Marx's actual grave but just a statue on a public street - would this be morally acceptable? If not, why not?

suicide_circus

markodaly wrote: »

Tell that to the BLM protesters that vandalised his statue.

he was a rampant racist in fairness

El_Duderino 09

fly_agaric wrote: »

On this one as I pointed out there is a fairly big movement in the muslim world which has that as a core position (the pre muslim history needs to be erased incl. roman ruins). It is not a majority position, but it had enough weight of money & people & guns behind it to briefly establish a new state in the ME a few years ago.

Well, I don't offer any support to ISIS. But if they decide to get rid of the roman history in their own country that would be something I have absolutely no influence over. I wouldn't support it right now but I don't know their reasoning. I'd be very surprised if the roman empire has any influence on the modern ME.

markodaly

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes, the peaceful protest yesterday was great and had an excellent result.

Well, at least we know now, you are also an authoritarian. It will be interesting to see you in other topics debating the righteousness of some cause when I will bring up your pleasure for mob rule and violence.

Whether I agree with vandalisng the statue would depend on why it was done amongst other factors.

Maybe the people who did it were just an unruly mob who didnt really need to have a PhD on the history of India to decide if they were going to deface or vandalise that statue or not?

But, sure mob rule, is great, is it not? Until of course the mob turns.

suicide_circus

do people who support this kind of mob action feel they still have the ability to seek the protection of the rule of law in the future? is there not some inherent hypocrisy there?

El_Duderino 09

markodaly wrote: »

Well, at least we know now, you are also an authoritarian. It will be interesting to see you in other topics debating the righteousness of some cause when I will bring up your pleasure for mob rule and violence.

Lol. You keep inserting things I didn't say. I didn't say I support violence (in both this thread and thst other thread you selectively quoted) I oppose violence.

Protests, like the wonderful peaceful protest in Bristol yesterday, can have great results. The result of yesterday's peaceful protest was great.

Not sure how many times I need to write that I support peaceful protest and probably don't support violence, but I'm willing to stick with it until you get it.

FVP3

Truthvader wrote: »

March tonight!

Time to destroy the Clifton Suspension Bridge.

Brunel employed over 1000 Engineers assistants and labourers on his so called "great bridge"

How many wimmin???

None. That's how many. The dirty sexist bastard.

Well I'm outraged. Join me tonight and bring tools and weapons lets rid the world of this monument to sexism forever etc etc

Tune in tomorrow for next weeks "Burn the SS Great Britain" street protest

That's pretty weak.

Fun fact about the SS great britain. I was on it. it fairly small.

Bannasidhe

suicide_circus wrote: »

do people who support this kind of mob action feel they still have the ability to seek the protection of the rule of law in the future? is there not some inherent hypocrisy there?

Do you feel women should actually vote when they only got the vote due to mob action?

Since apparently all protests are mob actions and we should shun them utterly surely women should say no, voting isn't for me because violent female mobs chained themselves to things and flung themselves under the king's horse at Epsom startling the poor thing.

As for Irish independence... there was a lot of armed mob action involved in that so hoist the Union Jack.

Do you not think there is an inherent hypocrisy in climbing on a moral high horse condemning mobs/protests while still benefiting from past ones?

suicide_circus

you think pulling down a little known statue is the equivalent of the suffragette movement or the fight for irish independence? come off it. all mob action is inherently good? how about my question about the karl marx statue being vandalised?

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

you think pulling down a little known statue is the equivalent of the suffragette movement or the fight for irish independence? come off it. all mob action is inherently good? how about my question about the karl marx statue being vandalised?

I would say pulling down the statue has more historical significance than the actual statue.

suicide_circus

Deleted User wrote: »

I would say pulling down the statue has more historical significance than the actual statue.

do you think it'll be remembered in 300 years?

Yellow_Fern

FVP3 wrote: »

That's pretty weak.

Fun fact about the SS great britain. I was on it. it fairly small.

You have to look at these protests case by case. The Colston one is one of the less mad examples. Burning the Union Jack was an extremely stupid example. There are some remarkably batty examples of official statue removals like the 2018 example in New York's Central Park of J. Marion Sims “father of gynaecology,”. He pioneered a life-transforming surgery on several black women i the 1840s, who were slaves. Protestors claimed that the women were slaves and there is no evidence of consent and that he is thought not to use anaesthesia and could not give consent. Still, there is no reason to assume the surgery was forced and we know it transformed these women's' lives for the better and millions of others since then but somehow he is a bad guy now?

robinph

suicide_circus wrote: »

do you think it'll be remembered in 300 years?

Depends what happens next, but there will still be plenty of mentions of Colston on historical maps of Bristol that even if his statue is no longer in a museum someone would easily get curious as to who and what he was and why half of Bristol was named after him until the first half of the 21st century and what happened that suddenly all the street names changed.

Bannasidhe

suicide_circus wrote: »

you think pulling down a little known statue is the equivalent of the suffragette movement or the fight for irish independence? come off it. all mob action is inherently good? how about my question about the karl marx statue being vandalised?

I think the pulling down on a statute of a slave trader was one action as part of a wider protest about how black people are treated in the UK, and Emily Wilding Davison trying to distract the king's horse at Epsom was to gain attention to the cause of women'r suffrage. Both condemned by those who do not agree/understand the bigger picture. They are manifestations of the same frustration with the authorities.
To the people having tea in the Shelbourne the armed mob in Stephen's Green deserved whatever treatment the authorities handed out to them. Yet here we are, in the Irish republic.

The only reference I can find to Marx is his tomb in Highgate being vandalised for the second time last Nov - what wider protest movement was that part of exactly? If it was a random act of 'protest' (albeit factually incorrect as all Marx did was write a treatise on politics and economics - I can't remember him advocating genocide anywhere) by whomever in the middle of the night then I fail to see the connection between that and open acts carried out in broad daylight with a great many witnesses.

suicide_circus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think the pulling down on a statute of a slave trader was one action as part of a wider protest about how black people are treated in the UK, and Emily Wilding Davison trying to distract the king's horse at Epsom was to gain attention to the cause of women'r suffrage. Both condemned by those who do not agree/understand the bigger picture. They are manifestations of the same frustration with the authorities.
To the people having tea in the Shelbourne the armed mob in Stephen's Green deserved whatever treatment the authorities handed out to them. Yet here we are, in the Irish republic.

The only reference I can find to Marx is his tomb in Highgate being vandalised for the second time last Nov - what wider protest movement was that part of exactly? If it was a random act of 'protest' (albeit factually incorrect as all Marx did was write a treatise on politics and economics - I can't remember him advocating genocide anywhere) by whomever in the middle of the night then I fail to see the connection between that and open acts carried out in broad daylight with a great many witnesses.

Youre quite determined to befoul the memory of the Irish patriots and suffragettes i see, fair enough.

They were living under oppression and extreme duress.

People living in the UK today are living in one of the most free, tolerant, affluent, diverse and open societies to have ever existed.

Trying to draw equivalency is frankly beneath you.

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

You have to look at these protests case by case. The Colston one is one of the less mad examples. Burning the Union Jack was an extremely stupid example. There are some remarkably batty examples of official statue removals like the 2018 example in New York's Central Park of J. Marion Sims “father of gynaecology,”. He pioneered a life-transforming surgery on several black women i the 1840s, who were slaves. Protestors claimed that the women were slaves and there is no evidence of consent and that he is thought not to use anaesthesia and could not give consent. Still, there is no reason to assume the surgery was forced and we know it transformed these women's' lives for the better and millions of others since then but somehow he is a bad guy now?

Would you listen to yourself?

Black women in the 1840s had no rights. They could not 'give consent' as they were not considered fully human. Do you not understand that? Legally they were unable to give consent so why would he even bother asking?
He experimented on them.
Without even basic anesthetic - how do we know? Anesthetic were rare and not very effective.
He used these women as guinea pigs.
Yet here you are - justifying why there should be a statue to him.

Bannasidhe

suicide_circus wrote: »

Youre quite determined to befoul the memory of the Irish patriots and suffragettes i see, fair enough.

They were living under oppression and extreme duress.

People living in the UK today are living in one of the most free, tolerant, affluent, diverse and open societies to have ever existed.

Trying to draw equivalency is frankly beneath you.

Righty.
That's where you are coming from.
High horse central and ignore the historical facts that the suffragettes and Irish revolutionaries were imprisoned, forced fed, and in some cases executed because it doesn't suit your narrative. And the Anti-Mob crowd loved it.

I'm sure the families of Darren Cumberbatch, Sean Rigg, Kingsley Burrell are delighted to be living in the most free, tolerant, affluent, diverse and open societies to have ever existed. Although many would dispute just how 'tolerant' the UK actually is...

And let us ignore that such tolerance as exists is due to a lot of people protesting over many hundreds of years as that doesn't fit your narrative either.

Yellow_Fern

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Would you listen to yourself?

Black women in the 1840s had no rights. They could not 'give consent' as they were not considered fully human. Do you not understand that? Legally they were unable to give consent so why would he even bother asking?
He experimented on them.
Without even basic anesthetic - how do we know? Anesthetic were rare and not very effective.
He used these women as guinea pigs.
Yet here you are - justifying why there should be a statue to him.

Wrong again. What you say only applied to black women under slavery. Many weren't. Anyway, there is no debate that enslaved women had very little agency under the law and the quality of their lives depended on the goodwill of their owners. No one is saying that was ok, but you cant just assume that they didn't volunteer. It is highly possible that they happily volunteered as many sick people do for experimental procedures. Expecting a formalised written consent is beyond absurd in the 1840s. Some slave owners were smart enough to know that treating people kindly is normally rewarded. I am 100% in favour of a statue, unless of course there is documentary evidence to show they were forced.

Cupatae

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What's historic about this? It's a monument to a slave trader. You'd think it was the original Magna Carta the way the usual suspects are going on here.

When Colin Kaepernick took the knee, there were plenty of people wailing here like the snowflakes they claim to detest. If the council did start proceedings to take the statue down, there'd be the usual nonsense here.

What about the ghandi and Churchill ones , what's the excuse there

ancapailldorcha

Cupatae wrote: »

What about the ghandi and Churchill ones , what's the excuse there

Why are you asking me? I was not there.

Cupatae

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why are you asking me? I was not there.

Well you offered up an excuse for the slave trader one, i assumed you d mount a defense of those being defaced aswell but fair enough

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Wrong again. What you say only applied to black women under slavery. Many weren't. Anyway, there is no debate that enslaved women had very little agency under the law and the quality of their lives depended on the goodwill of their owners. No one is saying that was ok, but you cant just assume that they didn't volunteer. It is highly possible that they happily volunteered as many sick people do for experimental procedures. Expecting a formalised written consent is beyond absurd in the 1840s. Some slave owners were smart enough to know that treating people kindly is normally rewarded. I am 100% in favour of a statue, unless of course there is documentary evidence to show they were forced.

Some people can justify anything.

You will twist and spin and tell yourself that black women in the 1840s in the US were happy to have experiments carried out on them without proper anesthetic and then tell us how slaves were happy.

Your posts are some piece of work.

cj maxx

I've no problems with tearing down a statue of a slave trader .
The council or whoever should have done that years ago

suicide_circus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Righty.
That's where you are coming from.
High horse central and ignore the historical facts that the suffragettes and Irish revolutionaries were imprisoned, forced fed, and in some cases executed because it doesn't suit your narrative. And the Anti-Mob crowd loved it.

I'm sure the families of Darren Cumberbatch, Sean Rigg, Kingsley Burrell are delighted to be living in the most free, tolerant, affluent, diverse and open societies to have ever existed. Although many would dispute just how 'tolerant' the UK actually is...

And let us ignore that such tolerance as exists is due to a lot of people protesting over many hundreds of years as that doesn't fit your narrative either.

Firstly, people on their own sanctimonious high horses should not cast the first stone. Secondly, well done, you've scoured the internet to find names to fit your frankly bizarre narrative that modern Britain is some kind of racist hellhole, a premise so demonstrably ludicrous that i dont know where to start. Although perhaps, as a staunch Labour Party supporter, you've swallowed the notion that the Brexit vote is the only proof needed of Britain's irredeemable iniquity. Incidentally, Bristol has had a Labour mayor for the past 3 or 4 years and yet the offending statue remained.

El_Duderino 09

robinph wrote: »

Depends what happens next, but there will still be plenty of mentions of Colston on historical maps of Bristol that even if his statue is no longer in a museum someone would easily get curious as to who and what he was and why half of Bristol was named after him until the first half of the 21st century and what happened that suddenly all the street names changed.

I think the Floyd/BLM movements of 2020 will be remembered by the same kind of people who care about history today.

But ultimately you're right. It depends on how big the Floyd/BLM movement gets and how much of a cultural turning point it becomes. The Colston statue might not be remembered but it is a part of the story of the movement.

Yellow_Fern

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Some people can justify anything.

You will twist and spin and tell yourself that black women in the 1840s in the US were happy to have experiments carried out on them without proper anesthetic and then tell us how slaves were happy.

Your posts are some piece of work.

You are literally inventing stuff. I said it possible that such women volunteered (people have volunteered for far less) and slave owners were capable of kindness. People are not black and white. Those who show the greatest evil can also show kindness. Hitler was known to show kind streaks to secretaries and his dog. I can't believe I have to say this.

In my opinion, there never was a more kind, noble, candid, Christian man than William Ford. The influences and associations that had always surrounded him, blinded him to the inherent wrong at the bottom of the system of Slavery.

Solomon Northup describing William Ford the charactor depicted by Benedict Cumberbatch in 12 Years a slave in memoir by the same name.

robinph

None of the locals commenting on the Bristol Council Facebook page seem particularly upset about the statue coming down and pretty much universal support for their collecting the placards for then sticking in the museum when the get round to fishing it out of the harbour.

The only anti comments are on the post from the mayor, but that's down to him not being from their preferred political party.

The locals are happy to see the back of the statue and don't have much of an issue with how it came about.