Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I think it's important to note that the problem wasn't with the statue in and of itself, but with its location and the lack of action from the appropriate channels. Often people are told to seek change via the 'appropriate channels' exactly because they can be frustrated there.

Yeah it's a big conspiracy against minorities.

Or maybe City councils feel the money it would take to move a statue may be put to better use elsewhere.

Junkyard Tom

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

So if you don't get what you want...just commit crime to get your way

Yes, sometimes. Now go familiarise with the 'Appeal to Law' logical fallacy and the concept of civil disobedience.

Junkyard Tom

nullzero wrote: »

Yeah it's a big conspiracy against minorities.

Or maybe City councils feel the money it would take to move a statue may be put to better use elsewhere.

Stop crying about it, it's only a statue of a person who profited from the kidnapping, torture, rape, and murder, of an awful lot of people.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Stop crying about it, it's only a statue of a person who profited from the kidnapping, torture, rape, and murder, of an awful lot of people.

Crying about it?

I've stated previously that I felt the statue should have been removed properly. My problem is Mob rule, all I've done is rationalise why the city council didn't remove it, while there was some pressure to remove it there wasn't sufficient pressure to force their hand so they spent their money elsewhere.

But by all means get all uppity about it and fail to understand the context I've tried to bring to the conversation. Just rely on blind prejudice and to hell with facts.

Junkyard Tom

nullzero wrote: »

My problem is Mob rule

Mob rule had the statue erected in its place. Popular protest had it removed.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Mob rule had the statue erected in its place. Popular protest had it removed.

Mob rule had the statue erected?

Give me a break.

completedit

Rather than try to undo the past, why not make the future better?

Junkyard Tom

nullzero wrote: »

Mob rule had the statue erected?

Give me a break.

Was the statue subject to approval by a body representative of the people of Bristol? No it wasn't because they didn't even have universal suffrage back then.

Even if they did have universal suffrage in 1895 the world changes and stuff that was considered normal, back in the day, like owning and raping slaves, is now something that would get you a long term in prison.

So I say put it to the Bristolian public now where and how Colston should be remembered. Would you agree with that?

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Was the statue subject to approval by a body representative of the people of Bristol? No it wasn't because they didn't even have universal suffrage back then.

Even if they did have universal suffrage in 1895 the world changes and stuff that was considered normal, back in the day, like owning and raping slaves, is now something that would get you a long term in prison.

So I say put it to the Bristolian public now where and how Colston should be remembered. Would you agree with that?

Monuments tend to be erected to this day without the say so of the electorate.
I don't remember being asked to vote of the construction of the spire in O'Connell Street.
How exactly do you perceive the machinations of the world around you?

This statue was erected at a time when morality (which is constantly evolving) was different to what it is today, at a time when the British Empire was still very strong, and as we know in this country, the British are loath to see themselves and particularly those who are part of the upper classes as in anyway fallible.

It's never wise to discount the lessons of history, nor to allow baying mobs to do as they please.

Junkyard Tom

nullzero wrote: »

Monuments tend to be erected to this day without the say so of the electorate.

Not if they're controversial I'd say and certainly not in town centres on public streets

I don't remember being asked to vote of the construction of the spire in O'Connell Street.

It was public knowledge at the time, would have been subject to planning permission, and if you would have had an objection you would have been heard.

markodaly

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I oppose violence.

You oppose violence sometimes, you agree with it sometimes. That is the core belief we have from you at the moment.

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.

Protests that descend into violence where people attack other humans (the police) and damage public property is not a peaceful protest.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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?

That is a good point and a warning against mob rule or their actions, if anything.

The murder of Lyra McKee is a continuation of violence from people who still think they can rightly take up arms and fight for Irelands Freedom, in 2019 and they will get their moral authority to do some from the men and memory of 1916.

Indeed this is where we got 30 years of mayhem and bloodshed from the Provos when they murdered and killed all around them. 'But the men of 1916....' or something.

To be honest, I would have thought we learned the lessons of history here but alas, human nature just loves mob rule, until of course, that mob turns on them.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Not if they're controversial I'd say and certainly not in town centres on public streets



It was public knowledge at the time, would have been subject to planning permission, and if you would have had an objection you would have been heard.

There is a marked difference between lodging an objection to planning permission and a popular vote. I already stated that the controversial nature of this statue is something that is symptomatic of more enlightened times. When the statue was erected it wasn't controversial.

markodaly

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Kristallnacht had already happened.
Concentration camps had been in existence for years.
Franco had crushed the Republic with the assistance of Nazi Germany.
Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway and France had been invaded.
I don't know if the last part of your post is supposed to be a reference to me.
FWIW I agree about simplistic narratives, but if a precedent of mobs toppling statues is set then Seanie's will be among the first to go. Good luck trying to oppose it without being tarred as a Nazi.

This.

If a slave trader and Gandhi is fair game for the mob, then the statue of Sean 'Nazi' Russell will be first to go in Ireland.

Personally, I don't care, but it's interesting that some people get awful defensive of some Nazi statue and would like to protect them, and with others, hand them over to the mob. It is of course hypocritical in the extreme.

Who else can we look at?

Well, Padraig Pearse was a well-known pedophile. His name has to be wiped out of history in this new age of cleansing old bad deads out of memory.

Christy42

markodaly wrote: »

This.

If a slave trader and Gandhi is fair game for the mob, then the statue of Sean 'Nazi' Russell will be first to go in Ireland.

Personally, I don't care, but it's interesting that some people get awful defensive of some Nazi statue and would like to protect them, and with others, hand them over to the mob. It is of course hypocritical in the extreme.

Who else can we look at?

Well, Padraig Pearse was a well-known pedophile. His name has to be wiped out of history in this new age of cleansing old bad deads out of memory.

Why would we wipe anyone's name from history? We teach it warts and all. In Bristol they should still teach about Colston. They don't need a statue for that.

At a certain point it is frustrating to keep seeing people talk of wiping stuff from history. This is not what happened nor what will happen. It is in the protestors interest to remember the slave trade ffs. Makes it way easier to argue about racism.

markodaly

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well the common understanding that he's a great guy who liberated India through passive resistance and Hinduism, is unnuanced. I would prefer to know the full they th that he was a racist and a lot of other things, both good and bad - because he's a real person. I'd prefer to know the truth rather than the unnuanced whitewash which we usually have.

I don't control what other people learn about him or what impact thank knowledge has on them or their voting preference.

Breaking news. History is more nuanced than, one guy 100% good or the other guy 100% bad. Who knew?? Amazing discovery!

This is, of course, true for any historical figure anywhere at any time.
Edward Colston was a slave trader, well must be 100% bad then, as that is essentially what we are now being told.

Mob rule when it suits sometimes, nuance when it suits sometimes, law and order when it suits sometimes, no nuance allowed when it suits sometimes.
My oh my!

markodaly

Christy42 wrote: »

Why would we wipe anyone's name from history? We teach it warts and all. In Bristol they should still teach about Colston. They don't need a statue for that.

At a certain point it is frustrating to keep seeing people talk of wiping stuff from history. This is not what happened nor what will happen. It is in the protestors interest to remember the slave trade ffs. Makes it way easier to argue about racism.

Oh, I agree. I don't really agree with the sentiment that we tear down statues, rename buildings, change placenames because the morality of the day deems it appropriate. There is strong smell of authoritarianism from it. The people who advocate it do so out of a sense of revenge and authoritarianism.

Is it a coincidence that regimes, like Maos' China, or Hitlers' Germany engaged in this, or lately we have the example of ISIS and the Taliban?

Even less so, I don't agree with an unelected mob, making decisions for the rest of us. A mob is a mob at the end of the day.

However, it is very interesting that some posters who would be quite progressive in their views have no issues with mob rule, and this authoritarian action. Perhaps they are not as progressive as one thinks.

Christy42

markodaly wrote: »

Oh, I agree. I don't really agree with the sentiment that we tear down statues, rename buildings, change placenames because the morality of the day deems it appropriate. There is strong smell of authoritarianism from it. The people who advocate it do so out of a sense of revenge and authoritarianism.

Is it a coincidence that regimes, like Maos' China, or Hitlers' Germany engaged in this, or lately we have the example of ISIS and the Taliban?

Even less so, I don't agree with an unelected mob, making decisions for the rest of us. A mob is a mob at the end of the day.

However, it is very interesting that some posters who would be quite progressive in their views have no issues with mob rule, and this authoritarian action. Perhaps they are not as progressive as one thinks.

I would add every nation on earth has renamed buildings and moved statues (well there are probably some that haven't). Heck Hitler regime was even elected officials doing the removing. I believe the other two had points where they would get elected in their regions as well if they risked it. Democracy is no sure guarantee of remembering history. I doubt many supported those regimes specifically to pull down those statues and I doubt many supported those on the council because of their view on the statue. Democracy does not low for subtlety if those in power are intransigent.

Once the protests die down I am sure someone can run on a policy to put the statue back up with a quick cleaning. Without the worldwide protests there won't be the ability to form a mob for this and it will stay.

So why do I keep hearing the hyperbole that history is being erased? Why do I keep seeing the weakest argument here going forward first.

markodaly

Christy42 wrote: »

So why do I keep hearing the hyperbole that history is being erased? Why do I keep seeing the weakest argument here going forward first.

So where do we stop?

Do we tear down every statue of every British monarch in Ireland?
What about people like Pearse, a known pedophile? Should he get a pass?
Dev and Collins would be up cleansing I am sure.
We can dig up some dirt on James Larkin while we are at it.
How far back does one want to go?

It's not about the statue per say, it's just an indictment on our society trying to gain some utopian purity.

Paddygreen

Slim Charles wrote: »

So it's ok to do whatever you like, once you're offended. I'm offended by them tearing down statues and throwing them into rivers - is it ok if I ransack local businesses' now ?

Those with businesses are usually white privileged. Fair game.

Strazdas

markodaly wrote: »

So where do we stop?

Do we tear down every statue of every British monarch in Ireland?
What about people like Pearse, a known pedophile? Should he get a pass?
Dev and Collins would be up cleansing I am sure.
We can dig up some dirt on James Larkin while we are at it.
How far back does one want to go?

It's not about the statue per say, it's just an indictment on our society trying to gain some utopian purity.

The key difference is that racism and discrimination is a living and real thing in the lives of black people. It's not a historical event for them, it's a current event.

What white people in Ireland are suffering discrimination because of Pearse, Collins, Dev, Larkin etc?

markodaly

Strazdas wrote: »

The key difference is that racism and discrimination is a living and real thing in the lives of black people. It's not a historical event for them, it's a current event.

What white people in Ireland are suffering discrimination because of Pearse, Collins, Dev, Larkin etc?

In fairness, that is just a made up benchmark to justify topping some statues and not others.

The men you mentioned were part of a state that allowed wholesale sexual abuse on an industrial scale to go on. Many victims of this are still living today.

Racism exists in Ireland, those men held racist views, therefore they should be toppled. Agree?

dwayneshintzy

Would you prefer we still had Sackville Street, markodaly? Maybe you would of course, but I definitely would not.

markodaly

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

Would you prefer we still had Sackville Street, markodaly? Maybe you would of course, but I definitely would not.

We live in counties, marked and mapped by the British. Maybe we should get rid of all county boundaries as they are too much of a reminder of our colonial past.

Hangdogroad

listermint wrote: »

Statues are quite literally Idols.

That is their purpose, it's why people commission them of themselves.

What I find utterly hilarious is the veneration here of an individual that would have bought and sold any Irish person he could if it made him a pound.


Yes he belongs in the history books as an example. But he doesn't require idolisation in public spaces looking down over everyone. Stick him in the back of the slave traders museum in Liverpool. A big example of what an excuse my french see you next Tuesday..

I don't see anyone here venerating him.

Hangdogroad

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Was the statue subject to approval by a body representative of the people of Bristol? No it wasn't because they didn't even have universal suffrage back then.

Even if they did have universal suffrage in 1895 the world changes and stuff that was considered normal, back in the day, like owning and raping slaves, is now something that would get you a long term in prison.

So I say put it to the Bristolian public now where and how Colston should be remembered. Would you agree with that?

Do you think the mob of (largely white) crusties who threw it into the harbour represent the Bristol public?

robinph

Hangdogroad wrote: »

Do you think the mob of (largely white) crusties who threw it into the harbour represent the Bristol public?

You've never been to Bristol have you?

robinph

As for if the statue had public support when it was put up in the first place...

It was proposed by James Arrowsmith, the president of the Anchor Society. Several appeals to the public and to Colston-related charitable bodies failed to raise the £1,000 needed for its casting and erection, and Arrowsmith ended up paying the shortfall himself.[5]

Scoundrel

Yamanoto wrote: »

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

It's nice to see that Brendan O Neill posts here idiocy of the highest order this is.

On the actual point great to see this statue go for a swim and there are plenty of hideous monuments to British imperialism in this country that could do with going for a swim and all.

SeanW

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

History is found in books and museums, not statues. Statues are for veneration.

alchemist33 wrote: »

The parallels with ISIS here are ridiculous. ISIS destroyed ancient monuments because they weren't Muslim. The protestors today tore down the statue because he made his money from trading slaves. Honestly, who wants to celebrate slave trading?

Both ISIS and the left of today want/wanted to erase history to replace it with their own narrative. In the United States, the Left wants nebulous "hate speech" laws, severe gun control, men to be convicted solely on the basis of accusations of certain improprieties, and in general to erase the concept of individual rights and replace them with "collective" rights.

The problem for them is that the United States Constitution, including its first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) was designed to protect people from precisely this sort of abuse. So in order to push their agenda, they need to erase and re-write history. One of the ways they're doing that, is by the New York Times promotion of the anti historical 1619 project, which seeks to convey the founding of the United States as solely based in white supremacy and slavery, devoid of any other reason or context.

Mao Zedong did the same thing in China, where the Communists during the "Cultural Revolution" destroyed everything they could of Chinese culture and history so that they could replace it with their own evil, totalitarian "culture." By contrast, Taiwan preserved as much of Chinese culture as they could, which is one of the reasons the Chinese Communist Party is so hell-bent on subjugating the Taiwanese people.

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

We've been educated to believe that slavery was wrong, so that's why we no longer think it's OK?

Correct. Our value system teaches us that holding other human beings in bondage is abhorrent. That's why Western culture and it's Judeo-Christian foundations must be preserved.

I'd argue that slavery is wrong because it's inherently horrific. I don't think there's anything "modern day" about the morality of slavery being wrong. Slavery is morally wrong, full stop.

You only think so because you were raised in a Judeo-Christian culture, which taught us that all human beings have inherent worth, being created in the image of a Creator. I am not a Christian myself but I can clearly understand the profound implications of such an idea. Historically, the more fervently one believed in Christianity, the less likely one was to accept the idea that one person could hold another in bondage. One of the most fervent abolitionists in the UK, William Wilberforce, became an avowed abolitionist after converting to Evangelical Christianity. Many of the Americans who sought to abolish slavery there, including very likely many Union soldiers, were also likely to have been avowed Christians. Until recently, the US was considered to be very religious.

By contrast, other value systems both modern and historical had no such issues with treating people better or worse on the basis of varying levels of absurdity. In Hindu culture for example, a person is better or worse (and treated accordingly) depending on their "caste." Likewise if you are a wealthy or middle class Arab somewhere like Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, you'd have no qualms about buying or selling Filipino housemaids, and treating them worse than livestock, because that is their culture. Some Native American tribes used to have ritual human sacrifices. Unfortunately humans are very good at finding reasons to abuse each other, which is why culture is so important.

suicide_circus wrote: »

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?

Why would anyone put up a statue to a mass-murderer? His deranged writings caused the deaths of 100 million people in the last century :eek: Not justifying the vandalism of the memorial, but what the absolute %@&#?