Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And some of those who criticised 'the mob' and decried the pulling down of a statue (which has since been retrieved from the water) are of the opinion that what is happening in WA is okay because money.
Ironically, money was also the reason slavery was okay at the time.

And some of them (myself included) wouldn't agree with what's happening in WA.. for any reason. Historical sites and artifacts should be protected.

As for slavery, I've never said that slavery was okay. It's not okay. It is/was a terrible act to force on someone. However, it doesn't change the fact that it was allowed/tolerated/encouraged throughout large periods of history.

THE_SHEEP

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In 1985 the Turkish authorities named the site of the landings at Gallipoli 'Anzac Cove' in memory of the Australian and New Zealand troops. In response the Australian govt erected a memorial to Ataturk with a garden that commemorates both sides directly opposite the Australian War Memorial on Anzac Parade in Canberra.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk_Memorial,_Canberra


And didn't the Irish govt include the names of all who died in the War of Independence on a memorial wall...
https://www.thejournal.ie/1916-wall-aberration-2692975-Apr2016/

There is a memorial in Santander in Spain to both sides in the Civil War.

Memorial Day in the US is dedicated to the fallen of both sides in their Civil War.


So it's happened.

Minority groups with agendas .

Peaceful rallies being infected with angry mobs with agendas .

Angry mobs being stirred up by groups / individuals with agendas .

Extremists on both sides / woke brigades / Twitter mouthpieces etc etc .

And finally , people on social media attempting to defend all of the above , by blaming history and everyone else .

This is what has happened .

Cupatae

https://www.facebook.com/newsbusters/videos/292609615461210/

This vid pretty much dispels the illusion of the overblown opinion that modern black people are severely crippled by racism, its balanced and realistic, no screaming no chanting just facts..

But its clear to see these days that people love to protest love to keep this stuff going and some people want to be seen as modern day Martin luther king's.

Cal4567

Of course if the Bristol police had just done their job on Sunday and prevented a rampaging mob running amock, we'd have had none of this over last few days.

The way the media are reporting it, you would think there is mass support to remove these statues although when you leave the social media bubble and speak to real people, it is quite clear that the majority are appalled but with the rioters, not the statues.

If you leave it to the politicians, then Labour and Lib Dem run councils will be locking away their statues, once they have risen from bending the knee, while Tory led local authorities will opt for allowing the public to decide knowing damn well that the vast majority of the population will support their retention. The politicos can't be seen to be making such decisions themselves. They will do almost anything not to be seen as 'racist'.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Cherry picking there mark.

Not at all, in fact it is you who is cherry-picking like a master baker.

You argued previously that nothing is set in stone, now some sites, in the middle of the Australian outback become the next Machu Picchu according to you.

So, somethings should never be touched now?

I honestly can't keep up with the amount of flipping and flopping, like a circus seal.

Oh and for the record, I too would be against what BHP is doing, but you see I am consistent in that approach.

walshb

One man (more than any other) is probably indirectly responsible for all the aggro and combativeness in the world recently....

Who is he?

fin12

CrankyHaus wrote: »

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.

Thanks, just saw this article. Thankfully there are still people like Sean Whelan in this Country.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/fine-gael-should-examine-its-own-past-taoiseach-criticised-after-comments-on-statue-1004608.html

He’s a nasty piece of work that Varadkar.

JL555

walshb wrote: »

One man (more than any other) is probably indirectly responsible for all the aggro and combativeness in the world recently....

Who is he?

Worzel Gummidge?

lawrencesummers

Cal4567 wrote: »

Of course if the Bristol police had just done their job on Sunday and prevented a rampaging mob running amock, we'd have had none of this over last few days.

The way the media are reporting it, you would think there is mass support to remove these statues although when you leave the social media bubble and speak to real people, it is quite clear that the majority are appalled but with the rioters, not the statues.

If you leave it to the politicians, then Labour and Lib Dem run councils will be locking away their statues, once they have risen from bending the knee, while Tory led local authorities will opt for allowing the public to decide knowing damn well that the vast majority of the population will support their retention. The politicos can't be seen to be making such decisions themselves. They will do almost anything not to be seen as 'racist'.

Of course if the public representatives had done their job a few years ago and not allowed a statue in the first place that had no public support we’d have had none of this over the last few days.

Of course if the public representatives had listened to the people who peacefully protested these statues over the last few years we’d have had none of this over the last few days.

Tony EH

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's this culture war BS that's been imported from America. The people wailing about it probably didn't know it was even there to begin with.

Half the people there looking that this statue getting pulled down probably couldn't even name who it was.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Christy42 wrote: »

Did they break in and delete them? I mean I am at a loss here. Would you like direct control of what the BBC does and doesn't remove?

Surely this decision was made by the higher ups in BBC and due to a protest? They may have done so in reaction but that seems to be their right.

Well if you're happy about that you can also wave goodbye to Fr. Ted, Fawlty Towers or anything that offended anybody ever. It's not about one statue it's about EVERYTHING.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

And some of them (myself included) wouldn't agree with what's happening in WA.. for any reason. Historical sites and artifacts should be protected.

As for slavery, I've never said that slavery was okay. It's not okay. It is/was a terrible act to force on someone. However, it doesn't change the fact that it was allowed/tolerated/encouraged throughout large periods of history.

Which, to be fair, is why I said some not all.

And I do understand why for some (:P) people their concern is people taking things into their own hands and how that smacks of mob rule but I also understand why sometimes people take things into their own hands when they feel the authorities are ignoring them - as was the case in Bristol. Calls Colston's statue for to be moved have been going on for decades.

It's a sad fact that sometimes people have to literally fight city hall to be heard, even when what they want is perfectly reasonable.

As for slavery - granted it was tolerated when Colston lived (but not universally in the UK where chattel slavery had been declared incompatible with Common Law) etc.
But the statue wasn't erected when slavery was tolerated. It was erected when it was very much not tolerated yet Colston's statue made no mention of it, the mayor made a casual reference to his business in the West Indies.

A statue to a slave trader that praised him but neglected to mention he was a slave trader was erected over 60 years after owning slaves had been outlawed in the British Empire and 98 years after trading in slaves had been banned.

Tony EH

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Who's history is being denied or having their understanding of their history obliterated?

British history.

A statue of some like Colston, or Cromwell, or Churchill serves as a reminder of a not so glorious past because of the nefarious activities of the people they represent. Statues are memorials and are not always just about the good stuff.

Tearing down selected statues and monuments just ends up with more people not knowing about their past and thinking that nothing bad ever happened in "their" country. A problem that plagues a lot of people as it is. Those same people are often the first in line to bleat negatively about other nations too.

Nothing good comes out of silly actions like this. It's a soft effort.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

British history.

A statue of some like Colston, or Cromwell, or Churchill serves as a reminder of a not so glorious past because of the nefarious activities of the people they represent. Statues are memorials and are not always just about the good stuff.

Tearing down selected statues and monuments just ends up with more people not knowing about their past and thinking that nothing bad ever happened in "their" country. A problem that plagues a lot of people as it is. Those same people are often the first in line to bleat negatively about other nations too.

Nothing good comes out of silly actions like this. It's a soft effort.

I would say most people knew very little about Colston until the statue was pulled down. The plaque doesn't even mention he was a slave trader.... As a result of this, discussions have been opened on numerous figures including discussing Churchill's role in the Bengal Famine. In addition, the statue is being moved to a museum where a proper summary of his history will be present.

Christy42

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Well if you're happy about that you can also wave goodbye to Fr. Ted, Fawlty Towers or anything that offended anybody ever. It's not about one statue it's about EVERYTHING.

Not sure what my happiness has to do with it. Quite frankly I don't give a f**** what is on the BBC player but I will let that company sort it out for themselves. Not sure sure the BBC gives a fiddlers about that, I don't even pay tax in the UK. Or channel 4 for father Ted.

You are going off on a mad hyperbole at this point. I am not going down that road. A boardroom decision was made. If you are unhappy maybe take it up with the BBC?

minggatu

robinph

Tony EH wrote: »

British history.

A statue of some like Colston, or Cromwell, or Churchill serves as a reminder of a not so glorious past because of the nefarious activities of the people they represent. Statues are memorials and are not always just about the good stuff.

Tearing down selected statues and monuments just ends up with more people not knowing about their past and thinking that nothing bad ever happened in "their" country. A problem that plagues a lot of people as it is. Those same people are often the first in line to bleat negatively about other nations too.

Nothing good comes out of silly actions like this. It's a soft effort.

So who knows less about Colston, Bristol and the slave trade this week than they did last week? Will the next generation learn more about those things from seeing a statue in a museum on their next school trip and being told about how it ended up there, or from a statue in the middle of the city saying that this is the cities most virtuous son?

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

I would say most people knew very little about Colston until the statue was pulled down. The plaque doesn't even mention he was a slave trader.... As a result of this, discussions have been opened on numerous figures including discussing Churchill's role in the Bengal Famine. In addition, the statue is being moved to a museum where a proper summary of his history will be present.

Most people probably didn't. But that doesn't mean that tearing down the statue served any purpose other than a bit of showy vandalism and a cheap attempt at activism.

But, where does one stop?

There are monuments in Rome dedicated to the extermination of whole peoples. But you won't see them pulled down any time soon.

Tearing down monuments is silly and I say that as someone who would be broadly in support of the protests over Floyd's murder. But ripping down a reminder of Britain's slavery past (which many Britons haven't the first clue about) won't do anything for the movement to better the lives of people living today.

Tony EH

robinph wrote: »

So who knows less about Colston, Bristol and the slave trade this week than they did last week? Will the next generation learn more about those things from seeing a statue in a museum on their next school trip and being told about how it ended up there, or from a statue in the middle of the city saying that this is the cities most virtuous son?

That's just this week.

Going forward, if we tear down all the monuments that remind us of some uncomfortable realities of our past, there may be a lot less understanding and knowledge about it.

This kind of thing is cheap and in the end it doesn't change anything substantial. It mainly just serves just to hide away things we don't want to be reminded of.

Edgware

jmayo wrote: »

WTF ?

Seriously are you a a kid or just a bit ...

Do you seriously expect a War Memorial in Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh city to commerate the French, US or South Vietnamese dead ?

Do you expect to find a war memorial in China to commerate the Japanese dead or even the Nationalist dead?

Would you expect a memorial in the Killing Fields to mention the Khmer Rouge guards that died?

Or is it only certain sides that need to continously apologise and remember the dead on the other side ?

Only in Ireland where we list British dead alongside Volunteer dead. The British and Unionists were very appreciative

hotmail.com

From an Irish point of view, surely the focus should be on the existing influence of the Catholic Church on children and health etc given what we know what the Church did here.

If we're going to discuss legacy.

joe40

Tony EH wrote: »

Most people probably didn't. But that doesn't mean that tearing down the statue served any purpose other than a bit of showy vandalism and a cheap attempt at activism.

But, where does one stop?

There are monuments in Rome dedicated to the extermination of whole peoples. But you won't see them pulled down any time soon.

Tearing down monuments is silly and I say that as someone who would be broadly in support of the protests over Floyd's murder. But ripping down a reminder of Britain's slavery past (which many Britons haven't the first clue about) won't do anything for the movement to better the lives of people living today.

The issue is that the statue wasn't a reminder of Britain's slavery past, it was simply a celebration of Colston.

There are other controversial statues/ monuments in the UK.

mick087

BoroMan32 wrote: »

These brainless morons have pulled down a statue this evening right on to the head of one of their own. Oh well.

https://twitter.com/TaraLaRosa/status/1270902880225169417

Oh my god that poor man.

I been googling to see if he ok but carnt find much at the moment.


His poor family must be going through hell.

Them middleclass idiots in Bristol have no idea there actions could have on other and the dangers.


Still we have no idea of who these people was in Bristol, Why dont they step forward and tell us who they are and why they did it.


That video of that poor man should not be shown without his family permission its dreadful.

Tony EH

joe40 wrote: »

The issue is that the statue wasn't a reminder of Britain's slavery past, it was simply a celebration of Colston.

Statues, or any other kind of memorials, aren't "celebrations" automatically. Nobody is putting up the bunting around it and telling people what a great man Eddy was.

joe40 wrote: »

There are other controversial statues/ monuments in the UK.

There are monuments to dodgy pasts in many countries. Where do we stop? How far back do you go?

Who gets to say which monuments to bad things can stay and which can go?

Nermal

BoroMan32 wrote: »

These brainless morons have pulled down a statue this evening right on to the head of one of their own. Oh well.

Would that the Roman people woke mob had but one neck head!

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which, to be fair, is why I said some not all.

Fair enough, although it was worth pointing it out.

And I do understand why for some (:P) people their concern is people taking things into their own hands and how that smacks of mob rule but I also understand why sometimes people take things into their own hands when they feel the authorities are ignoring them - as was the case in Bristol. Calls Colston's statue for to be moved have been going on for decades.

It's a sad fact that sometimes people have to literally fight city hall to be heard, even when what they want is perfectly reasonable.

Except that there was a sizable percentage of the city who didn't want the statue removed, hence why the statue wasn't removed. Oh, I've seen the remarks saying it was the rich white men that blocked the removal, and that's certainly true, in part, but it's also true that there were many normal people who opposed the removal.

Taking things into their own hands bypassed those peoples preferences. I can appreciate the frustration involved, but I also can appreciate that other people didn't want the changes to occur.

As for slavery - granted it was tolerated when Colston lived (but not universally in the UK where chattel slavery had been declared incompatible with Common Law) etc.
But the statue wasn't erected when slavery was tolerated. It was erected when it was very much not tolerated yet Colston's statue made no mention of it, the mayor made a casual reference to his business in the West Indies.

Ahh, I was really talking about US slavery in the last posts, which would have been different to the reception/attitude of slavery in the British Isles. Typically, the Empire didn't like bring foreign attitudes/behaviors back to their homeland. Which is why we never really saw masses of black slaves entering the Welsh coal mines. Different rules for different climates. Governors who ruled colonies with slaves, wouldn't have brought their slaves back to Britain on returning... it just wasn't done.

A statue to a slave trader that praised him but neglected to mention he was a slave trader was erected over 60 years after owning slaves had been outlawed in the British Empire and 98 years after trading in slaves had been banned.

Yes, I know, although it was his charitable work that the statue was raised for, not for his contributions to the company, or the slave trade. Back then, they didn't need to make such a distinction, because it wasn't terribly important to anyone concerned. Just another statue raised to commemorate a rich person.

The world changed after WW2, with the mass migrations of peoples, and the opening up of the world. Attitudes changed. Had such a statue been raised in the 60s/70s there would have needed to be some discussion about the purpose for raising of the statue. In the 40s there wouldn't have been such a need because slavery didn't affect many local people at the time of the raising.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

So who knows less about Colston, Bristol and the slave trade this week than they did last week? Will the next generation learn more about those things from seeing a statue in a museum on their next school trip and being told about how it ended up there, or from a statue in the middle of the city saying that this is the cities most virtuous son?

Or will they pass by the statue every day not knowing anything about it because it's just part of the accepted background?

There are statues/memorials in my hometown which I doubt I've ever stopped to examine. They've been there all my life, but they've never had any particular importance to me, and I've never had any reason to check them out.

Many posters here are exaggerating the importance/impact of such a statue in a city. How many of you actually pay attention to the statues, or historical signs scattered around you, while you're walking to work?

joe40

Tony EH wrote: »

Statues, or any other kind of memorials, aren't "celebrations" automatically. Nobody is putting up the bunting around it and telling people what a great man Eddy was.



There are monuments to dodgy pasts in many countries. Where do we stop? How far back do you go?

Who gets to say which monuments to bad things can stay and which can go?

I think they are, statues are put up to honour people.

I can't think of any examples of a statue for any other reason. If there is I'd be happy to find out.

Tony EH

JL555 wrote: »

He did, but he also lead the British in WW2, the only European nation left to do so at a time when Hitler had blitzed his way through the whole continent, while we hid in the shadows.

See, this is the huge problem with the selective memory that some people have.

Churchill = WWII, so all is grand. Forget all the bad stuff he said and did and what the man represented to a great many people.

Colston, in addition to making money on the British slave trade, was also a great supporter of charitable organisations in Britain. He gave a lot of money to schools and hospitals, for example.

But, forget that, cos slavery.

The fact of the matter is that Edward Colston was probably no better or worse than many people of his class in the 17th and 18th Centuries.

So where do you stop?

Fleetwoodmac

There is apparently considerable infighting in response to who had the "opportunity" to drown the statue in Bristol. A friend who has been a long standing activist for BAME rights in the UK has been relaying to me the discontent that it was several white men pictured rolling the statue and throwing it in the water. At a grassroots level, this symbolised a replication of very oppression BLM etc are advocating against. so yes, while the removal of the statue was lauded within the groups, the fact that black people weren't seen to do the very act has only intensified the anger.