Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Christy42

SeanW wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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 %@&#?

The Bible has a price list for slaves. Not sure why you think judeo Christian is a step up on anyone else. We have had the laundries here which was slavery by another name. As you say Christians are not the only ones but are not exempt. Humans have indeed been garbage to each other the world over. Islam also contains the same creation story btw, should they not be included if that is what is important? The people fighting to keep slavery in the US were also religious.

I am really not sure how destroying the statue of a slave trader gets them closer to saying the US is solely founded on the slave trade. It definitely seems counter productive for them.

CrankyHaus

Scoundrel wrote: »

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

Hi Yoda, nice to see you join the conversation.

SeanW

I have no doubt that the Bible has some nasty stuff in there, and likely also many contradictions given the manner in which it was put together. But AFAIK the idea that we all share a common humanity has a strong basis in Abrahamic thought.

As to the statue, there may be good reasons to remove it, but concerns about erasing history should not be dismissed lightly. Because there definitely is a movement to do that, as things like the 1619 Project show.

SeanW

SeanW wrote: »

I have no doubt that the Bible has some nasty stuff in there, and likely also many contradictions given the manner in which it was put together. But AFAIK the idea that we all share a common humanity has a strong basis in Abrahamic thought.

As to the statue, there may be good reasons to remove it, but concerns about erasing history should not be dismissed lightly. Because there definitely is a movement to do that, as things like the 1619 Project show.

The statue came long after him. It misrepresents his history, they're free to throw it in a museum with an accurate description of him.

ancapailldorcha

SeanW wrote: »

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 modern right are just Nazi's who want to exterminate non-white people. I could go and find some cherrypicked tweets to back that up as that seems to be all that's needed to justify such absurd mass generalisations.

thecretinhop

the typical African was ‘only one degree removed from the animal’?

Who sat dat!!? as joe duffy sayz.
his statue must come down!

nigeldaniel

One point of note that might be useful is, some folks need no excuse for wanton acts of violence. In this case and similar ones I suspect some people just jump on a bandwagon in order to smash the place up and create havoc. They care not an iota for the original protest.

Junkyard Tom

SeanW wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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 %@&#?

I'd say most of that has been inspired by the incoherent ramblings of Ben Shapiro.

CrankyHaus

nigeldaniel wrote: »

One point of note that might be useful is, some folks need no excuse for wanton acts of violence. In this case and similar ones I suspect some people just jump on a bandwagon in order to smash the place up and create havoc. They care not an iota for the original protest.

Some?


Loads, we saw that here with the Love Ulster protest.

Nermal

A writer of vile racist and anti-semitic plays.

Get to Leicester Square now and cancel him!

boardise

markodaly wrote: »

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!

My mob : Fighting for a (noble) cause of which I happen to approve.

Your mob : An unprincipled rabble threatening the foundations of society

nullzero

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The modern right are just Nazi's who want to exterminate non-white people. I could go and find some cherrypicked tweets to back that up as that seems to be all that's needed to justify such absurd mass generalisations.

The only truth in the modern world is that everybody thinks that anyone who disagrees with them is either an idiot or so immoral they deserve to anything negative that could possibly happen to them.

People have become so closed off to alternate thought processes that they can't see anything from a different perspective. This is particularly true online. We've taken some major leaps forward technologically but psychologically we've regressed alarmingly. This is true across the spectrum of opinions, political or otherwise.

robinph

Nermal wrote: »

A writer of vile racist and anti-semitic plays.

Get to Leicester Square now and cancel him!

Of you go then.

How does that change anything about the people of Bristol not wanting the central statue on their main street to be celebrating their most virtuous son, the slave trader?

The only other things on that street is a cenotaph and a statue of Neptune. Nothing has been forgotten about how Bristol was funded, nothing has been forgotten about Colston, more people outside of Bristol now know about him (the people of Bristol already knew, and even if they didn't know exactly what he did his name is far more prominent around the city than Brunel so those people have learnt something new this week), nothing else was damaged in the statues removal (except for one paving slab where he landed).

CrankyHaus

nullzero wrote: »

The only truth in the modern world is that everybody thinks that anyone who disagrees with them is either an idiot or so immoral they deserve to anything negative that could possibly happen to them.

People have become so closed off to alternate thought processes that they can't see anything from a different perspective. This is particularly true online. We've taken some major leaps forward technologically but psychologically we've regressed alarmingly. This is true across the spectrum of opinions, political or otherwise.

Is it true across the entire spectrum of opinions though?
Because so far as I can see such intolerance was always a position restricted to both extremes, left and right.
As the cultural left (but certainly not the economic left) has been mainstreamed with broad backing from corporations, academia and the state this intolerance has entered the mainstream with it.
For instance when I was a child the phrase "I don't agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it" was common enough, nowadays you either never hear it or only hear it when it is being dismissed.
I regularly find tolerance of opposing views on many spaces online; but never in the "woke" mainstream.

nullzero

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Is it true across the entire spectrum of opinions though?
Because so far as I can see it was always a position of both extremes, left and right.
As the cultural left (but certainly not the economic left) has been mainstreamed with broad backing from corporations, academia and the state this intolerance has entered the mainstream with it.
I regularly find tolerance of opposing views on many spaces online; but never in the "woke" mainstream.

I think it exists everywhere, but to varying degrees.
I would agree with your assessment that it is more prevalent in some places more than others however.
It is perhaps the most worrying trend in modern human discourse because it leads to so many negative outcomes. Empathy is a crucial facet of the human condition, fine tuning it to only work in relation to people who agree with you is essentially what kept humans killing each other all through our history, we should have moved beyond this, instead we have regressed in recent history.

Nermal

"In The Adventure of the Three Gables Holmes meets a man called Steve Dixie, a former slave:

“The door had flown open and a huge negro had burst into the room. He would have been a comic figure if he had not been terrific[…]

“I won’t ask you to sit down, for I don’t like the smell of you, but aren’t you Steve Dixie, the bruiser?”

“That’s my name, Masser Holmes, and you’ll get put through it for sure if you give me any lip.”

“It is certainly the last thing you need,” said Holmes, staring at our visitor’s hideous mouth.”"

https://africasacountry.com/2014/03/whitehistorymonth-sherlock-holmes-a-racist

Go on, you pathetic vandals. Continue your cultural great leap forward on Baker Street.

Hector Savage

Paddygreen wrote: »

Those with businesses are usually white privileged. Fair game.

This is the nonsense you're dealing with here

ancapailldorcha

Nermal wrote: »

Go on, you pathetic vandals. Continue your cultural great leap forward on Baker Street.

You might disagree with these people but at least they've the courage to get off their backsides and actually try to make what they think is a positive change instead of lazily posting drivel like this on a message board.

Nermal, you seem to keep posting things of historical significance. A hundred year old statue of a man who was long dead at that stage that omits his history is much stranger.

Also pretty sure that neither the fictional character of Holmes or Shakespeare were not responsible for tens of thousands of slaves dying and trading in 80 thousand of them. Nobody has any problem with throwing it in a museum with a true description of the individual.

thecretinhop

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/south-africa-farm-attacks-brutal-crimes-landowners-face/news-story/dfaabafca743056b6d6656ea1fff49eb

cause there white its not racist hmm is that how it works?

nullzero

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You might disagree with these people but at least they've the courage to get off their backsides and actually try to make what they think is a positive change instead of lazily posting drivel like this on a message board.

This type of argument is the laziest one can make.

"Well at least the Nazis got off their backsides and actually tried to exterminate the Jews, I don't see you doing anything like that you lazy swine".

That type of "well these people are doing something whilst you are doing nothing" argument is pathetic and can be used to excuse anything.

All our opinions here could be perceived as drivel by somebody, let's just close the whole site down.

completedit

Literally the stupidest argument ever.

Honestly, there is no solution to this. I say we just try to live best as we can from today and stop trying to cause conflict based off the past. They always say knowing history prevents you from repeating mistakes of the past but by a similar token, using it to drive discourse and personal and cultural narratives, leads us down some slippery slopes. I see it like a pendulum, soon enough another side will feel victimised and pushed to the margins and history goes on its never-ending loop. Collective ideology gives our life meaning but can be dangerous.

Nermal

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You might disagree with these people but at least they've the courage to get off their backsides and actually try to make what they think is a positive change instead of lazily posting drivel like this on a message board.

Good one! You saw the video I posted, didn't you? The police put up as much of a fight as Edward did.

ancapailldorcha

nullzero wrote: »

This type of argument is the laziest one can make.

I'd say that dumping images of historical sites and snidely wondering when they're next is lazier.

nullzero wrote: »

"Well at least the Nazis got off their backsides and actually tried to exterminate the Jews, I don't see you doing anything like that you lazy swine".

That type of "well these people are doing something whilst you are doing nothing" argument is pathetic and can be used to excuse anything.

All our opinions here could be perceived as drivel by somebody, let's just close the whole site down.

Invoking the Nazis in relation to people who took down a statue of a slaver. Classy.

Bannasidhe

When slavery was abolished in the British Empire slave owners were compensated for the loss of their 'property' under the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.
Historians are mapping where those who received compensation lived.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/maps/britain/#zoom=7&lng=-8.469285&lat=51.896225&lbs/person_id=17138


Among the 80 compensated slave owners so far discovered on the island of Ireland, and the 7 in Cork, was the Reverend Archibald Robert Hamilton (1778-1857), with an address on the South Terrace .
In 1835 he received £94 13s 1d for the 'loss' of 7 slaves in Kingston, Jamaica; and £5,253 10s 2d for 251 slaves in the parish of St Andrew, Jamaica.

That is eqv to £683,841 today working out as each human being he owned was worth an average £2,650 in today's money.

The freed slaves received exactly zero.

thecretinhop

ffs. 10 million years ago a vague relative was offended by a neighbour who killed a mammoth.
i feel his trauma, where do i apply for compensation.
(this is how fking ridiculous this guff is)

Yellow_Fern

Sand wrote: »

Regarding the surgery without anesthesia in the 1840s, wasn't this largely the norm? Medicinal anaesthetics were only invented in the mid-late 1840s to my knowledge. Before that patients were either incapacitated with alcohol, opium or a blow to the head. None of which were truly effective, and all were dangerous.

Verbal consent was also the norm. Id wager nearly all medical research until the 1980s or later even would fail this absurd bar of requiring written consent. The irony is many of these female discontents who campaigned to have his statue removed will happily use his gynaecological innovations.

Scoundrel wrote: »

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.

Please list these monuments that offend you.

nullzero wrote: »

Mob rule had the statue erected?

Give me a break.

Youd hope that is just a jab and not a sincere statement that he wrote.

Deleted User wrote: »

The women received surgical procedures for 4 years. One had surgery over 30 times. While you can certainly question Jenner's ethics. 4 years of using slaves as Guinea pigs for surgical procedures is horrifying..

Jenner injected a boy. Boys can't consent, just like saves.

Yellow_Fern

Bannasidhe wrote: »

When slavery was abolished in the British Empire slave owners were compensated for the loss of their 'property' under the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.
Historians are mapping where those who received compensation lived.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/maps/britain/#zoom=7&lng=-8.469285&lat=51.896225&lbs/person_id=17138


Among the 80 compensated slave owners so far discovered on the island of Ireland, and the 7 in Cork, was the Reverend Archibald Robert Hamilton (1778-1857), with an address on the South Terrace .
In 1835 he received £94 13s 1d for the 'loss' of 7 slaves in Kingston, Jamaica; and £5,253 10s 2d for 251 slaves in the parish of St Andrew, Jamaica.

That is eqv to £683,841 today working out as each human being he owned was worth an average £2,650 in today's money.

The freed slaves received exactly zero.

80 slave owners, so Ireland not quite an economy based on slavery then?

growleaves

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

80 slave owners, so Ireland not quite an economy based on slavery then?

I haven't been following this discussion but the legacy of Anglo-Irish slaveholders isn't our problem. We exited the British Empire 100 years ago.

Hamiltons are a prominent family in the British peerage, i.e. upper-class. Look at Burke's peerage.

tensimo

we dont have 'problematic' statuse here because they were all blown up already :pac: