Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

is_that_so

thequarefellow wrote: »

So isn't now the optimum time to consider our involvement in modern day slavery? When there is a worldwide movement to address slavery in the past?

Is this "our" a guilt by association tack? That tens to look very stupid very quickly.

titan18

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Who is “they”?

Protesters in Virginia I guess - linkage https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/05/31/protesters_burn_virginia_museum_of_history_and_culture_confederate_monuments.html

Not saying everyone who's for the removal of statues thinks like that, but some do and removal of statues will just see it as a win and permission to do the same for museums.

fin12

If the government decide to remove some statutes, do they have to make the time and date public as I would like to go protest when they are trying to do it especially if they are going to try to remove republican ones.

This is a genuine question, can the government just pull down a statue without the public having a say?

is_that_so

Came across this link which considers a US V Germany historical contrast.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/20/why-there-are-no-nazi-statues-in-germany-215510

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

I would have no problem with Confederate statues been taken down. Those Men fought to keep slavery they should absolutely be remembered and not forgotten. They should not be glorified.

Too simplistic. Most confederate troops came from the poor and didn't have slaves themselves. They were fighting for their homeland rather than slavery. Nationalism was very strong in the south. The rich/wealthy were fighting for slavery, because they were the ones who profited from it. Most poor confederates would have been fine with abolishing slavery as it would have increased the jobs available to them...

And while, I agree that they shouldn't be glorified, they should be remembered.

The really insidious thing about slavery at that time was they were largely Christian sometimes devout and believed in that all men were created equal. (Bill of rights I think someone might correct me there)

Therefore the only way to justify slavery was because black people were less than human. Having slaves was like having livestock.

Depends on the slave-owner. Many "masters" treated their slaves as well as any of their hired staff (which can be seen by the loyalty that many slaves showed, even refusing being freed). Once more, it's about simplistic thinking. There were Black owners of slaves in the South. Do you think those black "masters" thought their fellow black people to be subhuman? No. It was economics and culture.

Which is why it's important to encourage realistic thinking about history and remembering what actually happened. The US glorified the civil war in many respects, and lied about what really happened. By all sides involved. But now, the removal of the statues and the revisionism about the history, is simply introducing a different set of lies/misinformation.

Fuascailteoir

Sheep_shear wrote: »

I saw there's been defacements of monuments in Galway yesterday, then reading this - https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/council-asked-to-take-down-statue-of-ira-chief-over-links-to-nazis-39277402.html

Who else is on the chopping block in Ireland? Outside of a confederate plaque, I'm actually not aware of anything too dodgy around

There is a statue of prince Philip in the grounds of lenister house. Fusiliers arch would be another one. Is a monument or something to general Phil Sheridan at his place of birth outside Virginia in cavan.

joe40

thequarefellow wrote: »

So isn't now the optimum time to consider our involvement in modern day slavery? When there is a worldwide movement to address slavery in the past?

The particular brand of slavery African slavery to America is directly linked to the racism problems in America. It was this slavery that brought them to America where the mindset was that they were sub human much like livestock.

I'm not saying that mindset exists today but in the eyes of the protestors it still fuels the racism that they feel.

The slavery hasn't been randomly selected from all the slavery that exists in the past or the present.

I have no problem with people objecting to current protests but accusations of hypocrisy to diminish the protest is simply wrong.

Christy42

thequarefellow wrote: »

So isn't now the optimum time to consider our involvement in slavery in the present? When there is a worldwide movement to address slavery in the past? The two are inextricably linked. I fail to see how it is a ridiculous distraction.

It is the perfect time if the only reason it is being mentioned isn't to distract from the point being made.

I will however support your campaign. I do believe that those workers deserve fair wages. I believe many in the protests will as well.

markodaly

robinph wrote: »

Nope, say that you'll be looking into the issues around the statues, street names and the names of the military bases rather than screaming like a baby and pretending there is no problem. Saying that the names of Confederate generals, who lost in a war against the US are American heroes who deserve to have modern military bases named after them because Maga is not the way to calm down tensions.

Excellent. We can, therefore, get rid of all the old IRA memorials seeing as most of them fought on the Anti-Treaty side of the Civil war and lost.

Cathal Brugha barracks will have to be renamed ASAP!

You don't stop an angry mob by making them angrier. That just makes the mob bigger and angrier.

What a remarkable statement to make with a straight face.

JohnnyFlash

Fuascailteoir wrote: »

There is a statue of prince Philip in the grounds of lenister house. Fusiliers arch would be another one. Is a monument or something to general Phil Sheridan at his place of birth outside Virginia in cavan.

There’s the Henry Ford statue in Cork. That will have to go.

thequarefellow

joe40 wrote: »

The particular brand of slavery African slavery to America is directly linked to the racism problems in America. It was this slavery that brought them to America where the mindset was that they were sub human much like livestock.

I'm not saying that mindset exists today but in the eyes of the protestors it still fuels the racism that they feel.

The slavery hasn't been randomly selected from all the slavery that exists in the past or the present.

I have no problem with people objecting to current protests but accusations of hypocrisy to diminish the protest is simply wrong.

I have absolutely no objection to current protests and if my post read as though I was accusing anyone of hypocrisy I apologise. I am merely hoping that the wave of current protest will transition to the issue of modern day slavery.

CrankyHaus

fin12 wrote: »

If the government decide to remove some statutes, do they have to make the time and date public as I would like to go protest when they are trying to do it especially if they are going to try to remove republican ones.

This is a genuine question, can the government just pull down a statue without the public having a say?

Fairview Park is a DCC park so I expect the matter lies with the Council and the Councillors. No idea if they'd go for it but SF only have 8 seats of 63.




Of course if you protest beforehand you can influence that decision making process.

is_that_so

Fuascailteoir wrote: »

There is a statue of prince Philip in the grounds of lenister house. Fusiliers arch would be another one. Is a monument or something to general Phil Sheridan at his place of birth outside Virginia in cavan.

It's the cart before the horse here, action before any useful discussion. The Bristol event will encourage some to randomly target monuments with plenty of outrage but not a shred of thought.

joe40

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Too simplistic. Most confederate troops came from the poor and didn't have slaves themselves. They were fighting for their homeland rather than slavery. Nationalism was very strong in the south. The rich/wealthy were fighting for slavery, because they were the ones who profited from it. Most poor confederates would have been fine with abolishing slavery as it would have increased the jobs available to them...

And while, I agree that they shouldn't be glorified, they should be remembered.



Depends on the slave-owner. Many "masters" treated their slaves as well as any of their hired staff (which can be seen by the loyalty that many slaves showed, even refusing being freed). Once more, it's about simplistic thinking. There were Black owners of slaves in the South. Do you think those black "masters" thought their fellow black people to be subhuman? No. It was economics and culture.

Which is why it's important to encourage realistic thinking about history and remembering what actually happened. The US glorified the civil war in many respects, and lied about what really happened. By all sides involved. But now, the removal of the statues and the revisionism about the history, is simply introducing a different set of lies/misinformation.

Many farmers treat their cattle really well. The benevolent slave owner is ridiculous. Maybe not all slave owners were evil, but the system of slavery was definitely evil.

The loyalty of slaves the "gone with the wind" trope was purely because the alternative for a decent life was impossible. Some were slaves from birth it is all they knew.

As justifications go that is very weak.

Bannasidhe

While people are getting worked up defending why we need to protect the statues of slave traders etc etc because 'history', and all that happened in the past anyway but whatabout modern slavery and bad things now, in Australia a mining company has been given permission to blow up 40 - 86 significant Aboriginal sites. Not statues made afterward - actual archaeological sites.

That is quite literally history being erased.

In documents seen by Guardian Australia, a BHP archaeological survey identified rock shelters that were occupied between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago and noted that evidence in the broader area showed “occupation of the surrounding landscape has been ongoing for approximately 40,000 years”.

BHP’s report in September 2019 identified 22 sites of artefacts scatters, culturally modified trees, rock shelters with painted rock art, stone arrangements, and 40 “built structures … believed to be potential archaeological sites”.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/11/bhp-to-destroy-at-least-40-aboriginal-sites-up-to-15000-years-old-to-expand-pilbara-mine#_=_

JohnnyFlash

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

There’s the Henry Ford statue in Cork. That will have to go.

Also every Christian/religious statue in Ireland, since someone might be offended by them. After all, they represent the organisation that molested people.

Fann Linn

Plus half of a statue to William of Orange in Boyle. Plus King House next door to it.
We're gonna run out of Semtex soon enough with all of these changes.

lawrencesummers

titan18 wrote: »

Protesters in Virginia I guess - linkage https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/05/31/protesters_burn_virginia_museum_of_history_and_culture_confederate_monuments.html

Not saying everyone who's for the removal of statues thinks like that, but some do and removal of statues will just see it as a win and permission to do the same for museums.

Let’s just be clear about a few things.
Attacking museums is dumb, it doesn’t happen here and hasn’t happened in the UK AFAIK. It’s not the dumbest thing that has happened in the US.

The statue in Bristol shouldn’t have gone up in the first place, and should have come down a lot sooner because of the weight of public opinion and peaceful campaigning against it, but the powers that be in the UK have never respected or listened to the views of the common people.

How the UK and US conduct their business is different to us here. The most recent public naming of something was a bridge in Cork that was done pretty democratically, and there are very few if any statues or monuments in Ireland subject to the same level of public disgust.

joe40

thequarefellow wrote: »

I have absolutely no objection to current protests and if my post read as though I was accusing anyone of hypocrisy I apologise. I am merely hoping that the wave of current protest will transition to the issue of modern day slavery.

Absolutely, I fully agree with that. Apologies if I misrepresented you, didn't mean to do that.

Nermal

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Good stuff...it is now an important historical artefact as it will become the symbol of the start point of Britain's confrontation with the reality of it's empire. An 'enlightenment' so to speak.

It's not the start point, it's the culmination.

The 'reality' of the British empire has been part of the curriculum for decades, and the focus of research for longer still.

British children are taught that their ancestors did things that are shameful, a lesson reinforced at university.

It's a natural next step to assume that the sins of yesterday must be extirpated today.

No-one instinctively approaches history disinterestedly. We take sides, make value judgements, create narratives.

If one is not actively taught that no-one living today can sit in judgement on someone who died three centuries ago, this mass psychosis is what results.

is_that_so

Bannasidhe wrote: »

While people are getting worked up defending why we need to protect the statues of slave traders etc etc because 'history', and all that happened in the past anyway.

Some of the issues around this are very vocal groups determining what stays and what goes. It's a conversation not a demolition first.

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

Many farmers treat their cattle really well. The benevolent slave owner is ridiculous. Maybe not all slave owners were evil, but the system of slavery was definitely evil.

The system is evil now. Previously it was an accepted part of their culture. In any case, there are many examples of landowners who treated their slaves well... you might feel it's about cattle, but you don't know. You just prefer to pick the more negative reasoning.

The loyalty of slaves the "gone with the wind" trope was purely because the alternative for a decent life was impossible. Some were slaves from birth it is all they knew.

Purely what? Conditioning only goes so far. Many slaves did fight to defend their masters against Union troops, and objected to treatment their masters received when the war ended.

As justifications go that is very weak.

What justification? You think I'm justifying slavery? That's the problem with your stance. Any objection means the direct opposite of your own. It doesn't. I'm talking about being unemotionally neutral about history. Deal with the facts and not push an agenda to tug on the heartstrings.

robinph

Now the guy most renowned world wide for being able to speak in conciliatory language to people from all side of an argument in clear words that nobody could ever misunderstand, is about to restart their political campaigning at a significant date and location regarding slavery:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53004628

No doubt the audience will be from a wide and representative spectrum of the American population. Only good things will come from this surely. :eek:

titan18

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Let’s just be clear about a few things.
Attacking museums is dumb, it doesn’t happen here and hasn’t happened in the UK AFAIK. It’s not the dumbest thing that has happened in the US.

The statue in Bristol shouldn’t have gone up in the first place, and should have come down a lot sooner because of the weight of public opinion and peaceful campaigning against it, but the powers that be in the UK have never respected or listened to the views of the common people.

How the UK and US conduct their business is different to us here. The most recent public naming of something was a bridge in Cork that was done pretty democratically, and there are very few if any statues or monuments in Ireland subject to the same level of public disgust.

Well, yes, but aren't we discussing removal of statues everywhere, not just in Ireland. That and our crowd of protesters are taking the ideas from the US protesters. Tbh, I see removal of statues for something that people disagree due to modern sensibilities to be one step on the slope of removing stuff out of museums. I can't see it stopping at statues

Nermal

Nermal wrote: »

It's not the start point, it's the culmination.

The 'reality' of the British empire has been part of the curriculum for decades, and the focus of research for longer still.

British children are taught that their ancestors did things that are shameful, a lesson reinforced at university.

It's a natural next step to assume that the sins of yesterday must be extirpated today.

No-one instinctively approaches history disinterestedly. We take sides, make value judgements, create narratives.

If I'm not actively taught that no-one living today can sit in judgement on someone who died three centuries ago, this mass psychosis is what results.

That's not exactly true, the UK very much so teaches a very pro British history in schools. It's an issue in every country in terms of how they teach history. But being the colonists, makes it a far bigger whitewash.

https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2018/may/26/secret-teacher-history-bias-school-fear-student-future

Nermal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

While people are getting worked up defending why we need to protect the statues of slave traders etc etc because 'history', and all that happened in the past anyway but whatabout modern slavery and bad things now, in Australia a mining company has been given permission to blow up 40 - 86 significant Aboriginal sites. Not statues made afterward - actual archaeological sites.

That is quite literally history being erased.

It is, but here we are at least asked to make a trade-off two goods. The value of mining useful materials, and the value of preserving history.

Part of what's so repulsive about the rabble at Bristol. Mining is driven by the impulse to create, to build, to make something. The urge that made humanity great.

What's behind toppling statues? The impulse to vandalise and destroy.

thequarefellow

osarusan wrote: »

A search through your posts for the words 'slavery' and 'exploitation' showed no results until this morning. Seeing as how I'd never accuse you of fabricating concern over an issue just to score internet points, it's great to see that the toppling of the statue has opened your eyes to the issues that exist in relation to the production of cheap clothes and coffee so on.

I am not claiming any moral high ground. I am guilty of having chosen the cheap option when shopping, ignoring what I have learned about what that, in many cases, means for the supplier/manufacturer down the line. But I have, over the last twenty years, since learning about these things, tried to make better choices. But the 'right' choice can be difficult to ascertain in many cases. It is, as others have said here, a very complex issue. But it is often complex because the supply lines to many businesses are shrouded in secrecy, corruption and cover up. But we can force change with our purchasing power and that is all I hope for. That the current wave of protest against slavery in the past might might transition to an equally powerful protest against slavery in the present. I have written to many companies, producers etc over the years to voice my protest. I usually avoid writing these letters of protest in the pages of fora because it comes across as preachy etc. so that is why you will not find any. I think, having read your response, that you would wish that I kept it that way.

joe40

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The system is evil now. Previously it was an accepted part of their culture. In any case, there are many examples of landowners who treated their slaves well... you might feel it's about cattle, but you don't know. You just prefer to pick the more negative reasoning.



Purely what? Conditioning only goes so far. Many slaves did fight to defend their masters against Union troops, and objected to treatment their masters received when the war ended.



What justification? You think I'm justifying slavery? That's the problem with your stance. Any objection means the direct opposite of your own. It doesn't. I'm talking about being unemotionally neutral about history. Deal with the facts and not push an agenda to tug on the heartstrings.

I don't know what you mean in the first paragraph. Slavery was evil and it was an accepted part of the culture. Those two statements are both true, they're not contradictory.

Some slaves supported their owners? I'm not doubting that but doesn't change anything about the inherent evil of slavery.

I am dealing with facts, slavery was evil. How is that tugging on heart strings it is a simple fact.

osarusan

Nermal wrote: »

It is, but here we are at least asked to make a trade-off two goods. The value of mining useful materials, and the value of preserving history.

Part of what's so repulsive about the rabble at Bristol. Mining is driven by the impulse to create, to build, to make something. The urge that made humanity great.

What's behind toppling statues? The impulse to vandalise and destroy.

Destroying 46,000 year old caves even while knowing their historical significance just to make a buck is an example of 'the urge that made humanity great'.

What a load of crap.

Nermal

Nermal wrote: »

It is, but here we are at least asked to make a trade-off two goods. The value of mining useful materials, and the value of preserving history.

Part of what's so repulsive about the rabble at Bristol. Mining is driven by the impulse to create, to build, to make something. The urge that made humanity great.

What's behind toppling statues? The impulse to vandalise and destroy.

Your credibility is gone out the window. You've just justified destroying genuinely significant parts of history. Cause mining outweighs it in your head. Most countries don't allow mining of historical sites btw. Go to Greece and archaeological sites can entirely block construction if they're found. Same applies even in the likes of China.

Meanwhile you seem incapable of understanding the motivation of toppling statues.