Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

ohnonotgmail

Tony EH wrote: »

There would have been people who would see the statue and want to know more about the person. It could act a as a trigger of sort to research more.

I would have thought that obvious.

that is pretty tenuous. extremely so. on the other hand pulling down the statue has proved very educational. many many people now know who he is, many more than would ever have googled him after walking by.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

He funded a lot of schools and hospitals. Plus he was responsible for a lot of bedehouses, which were used to house the poor and destitute throughout Britain.

It's arguable that he did, in fact, do a lot of good.

And the rationale for doing that was buying one's way into heaven, slave traders turned to charity. How do you think he earned that money? 20 thousand slaves died under his watch. And he was responsible for trading 80k slaves.

This twitter thread gives a good background on the statue.

https://twitter.com/KateWilliamsme/status/1270717429820190728?s=19

Tony EH

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is pretty tenuous. extremely so. on the other hand pulling down the statue has proved very educational. many many people now know who he is, many more than would ever have googled him after walking by.

Why is it "tenuous"? It happens all the time. It won't happen to everyone, of course. But it does happen.

ohnonotgmail

Tony EH wrote: »

Why is it "tenuous"? It happens all the time. It won't happen to everyone, of course. But it does happen.

a very small minority. if the statue is to fill an educational remit then it is doing it very poorly. or rather it was. but it was erected to be educational. if it was they would have mentioned he made his money from the slave trade. it was erected a considerable time after his death to venerate a man who gave the crumbs from his table to the poor.

mick087

Mules wrote: »

Well seeing as Leo has announced that it's time to look at our statues, it's going to kick off here now too. I think this will distract from the original protest. In the UK the public/ media conversation is now about statues rather than racism in society. It's a shame because imo it will alienate many people who originally supported the protests.

Yes it will. You can bet the grass roots of this have been pushed out of the frame. Its why i keep saying who was these people that toppled the statue, stand up and be counted explain who you are why you done this who do you feel your accountable to.

Tony EH

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a very small minority.

You don't know this.

And again I'll ask, where do you stop?

ohnonotgmail

Tony EH wrote: »

You don't know this.

an educated guess.

joe40

paw patrol wrote: »

These fools (and some here) are just idiots , judging the past on the morals and standards of today. The first lesson I learned in history was not to judge.

why not ban Islam? your man owned slaves...traded in them too. why not burn a mosque down for the feel good factor?

Why do the blacks get off scot free? should african countries not pay reparation for selling slaves to the West? Never been to West Africa , do they have statues? Maybe the pyramids?
The saudis too only banned slavery in 1962 - maybe topple a few statues or mosques there....or demand the UK - EU - US cease trading with them? No?

it's only the white man's history needs examining, shaming and re-writing. odd that. That is where is stops (to answer another poster) at the end of the mobs internal self loathing.

It's odd too , that this mob are tackling historical stuff instead of the stuff happening now. Actual slavery in north africa...nah....

Each country can judge its own past, they do it all the time but each country can only do it for themselves.
Maybe in 100 years Saudi Arabia look back shamefully on their past, but only they can do that, we can't do it for them.

It's not about blame it's understanding your history.

Tony EH

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

an educated guess.

You STILL don't know though.

One thing is for sure, though, with it hidden away, there'll be less people investigating who Edward Colston was.

ohnonotgmail

Tony EH wrote: »

You STILL don't know though.

One thing is for sure, though, with it hidden away, there'll be less people investigating who Edward Colston was.

to be fair, neither do you hence an educated guess.

Tony EH

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

to be fair, neither do you hence an educated guess.

I'm not the one speaking in absolutes though, about "very small minorities" and whatnot.

The fact of the matter is, you haven't a clue how many people were prompted by that statue of Colston to go and check out more about him. But it's safe to say that it did happen.

It won't happen now.

Meanwhile people both in Bristol and across the UK and Ireland know that he was a slave trader now. Probably higher than the numbers that would have googled it. Plus the event has resulted in a discussion around how historical figures are viewed.

Plus the event has been pretty influential so it's likely to end up in history textbooks at some stage. You should be delighted Tony. Don't have to depend on random googling.

ohnonotgmail

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm not the one speaking in absolutes though, about "very small minorities" and whatnot.

The fact of the matter is, you haven't a clue how many people were prompted by that statue of Colston to go and check out more about him. But it's safe to say that it did happen.

It won't happen now.

you claiming some educational benefit because people might google his name after walking by. can you quantify that benefit?

ancapailldorcha

Tony EH wrote: »

A lot of people don't go to museums. Especially those in their own country.

And? The same people are going to see this statue and become experts?

Tony EH

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you claiming some educational benefit because people might google his name after walking by. can you quantify that benefit?

Well, think about it yourself.

You don't think that anyone walking by that monument, who wonder just who he was and then perhaps go online and check him out, then subsequently find out more about him, including his involvement in the international slave trade.

Perhaps that person never even knew that Britain was even involved in slavery.

That kind of stuff probably happens all the time. But as I said earlier, one would have to be disposed to wanting to find out such information. There are such inquisitive folk out there.

There's no way for me to quantify this, of course. But I am not the one trying to. I am just saying it's bound to happen.

robinph

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm not the one speaking in absolutes though, about "very small minorities" and whatnot.

The fact of the matter is, you haven't a clue how many people were prompted by that statue of Colston to go and check out more about him. But it's safe to say that it did happen.

It won't happen now.

Why won't it happen now?

Whatever gets stuck up there instead will almost certainly have a plaque beside it mentioning the previous resident of the plinth, and if the museum the other side of the harbour has any sense they will stick directions up to where you can see then see the statue covered in paint and learn more about the story of slave trading/ Bristol/ Colston. I anticipate something far more engaging being put up in its place and with far more explanation of why than the previous plaque which said "here's a lovely bloke".

Of course I don't belive that anyone who didn't already know about Colston would have walked past the statue and then gone a Googling on him because of it. That is the level of unbelievable as the Russian "tourists" going for a day trip to Salisbury Cathedral because it was apparently a world renowned tower.

ohnonotgmail

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, think about it yourself.

You don't think that anyone walking by that monument, who wonder just who he was and then perhaps go online and check him out, then subsequently find out more about him, including his involvement in the international slave trade.

Perhaps that person never even knew that Britain was even involved in slavery.

That kind of stuff probably happens all the time. But as I said earlier, one would have to be disposed to wanting to find out such information. There are such inquisitive folk out there.

There's no way for me to quantify this, of course. But I am not the one trying to. I am just saying it's bound to happen.

and i said that many people now know who this man was and, more importantly, what he did. myself included. i am not the only one to say that. and they didn't even have to make any effort bar reading the news. anyway, you are determined to defend the existence of this statue dedicated to a man who made his fortune from the misery of others so i'll leave it there.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

Why won't it happen now?

Whatever gets stuck up there instead will almost certainly have a plaque beside it mentioning the previous resident of the plinth, and if the museum the other side of the harbour has any sense they will stick directions up to where you can see then see the statue covered in paint and learn more about the story of slave trading/ Bristol/ Colston. I anticipate something far more engaging being put up in its place and with far more explanation of why than the previous plaque which said "here's a lovely bloke".

Of course I don't belive that anyone who didn't already know about Colston would have walked past the statue and then gone a Googling on him because of it. That is the level of unbelievable as the Russian "tourists" going for a day trip to Salisbury Cathedral because it was apparently a world renowned tower.

I will say one thing, those Russian hitman has resulted in me committing the height of the spire to memory. 123m!

Tony EH

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

And? The same people are going to see this statue and become experts?

You have to make a point of going to a museum.

A statue you can walk by and it can catch one's eye...and yes, can prompt people to investigate further. People wander by lots of things and they can often wonder why they're there and who put them there.

Seriously though, am I typing Swahili or something. Are people really not understanding the points being made here?

Tony EH

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and i said that many people now know who this man was and, more importantly, what he did. myself included. i am not the only one to say that. and they didn't even have to make any effort bar reading the news. anyway, you are determined to defend the existence of this statue dedicated to a man who made his fortune from the misery of others so i'll leave it there.

Don't try and put words in my mouth.

ancapailldorcha

Tony EH wrote: »

You have to make a point of going to a museum.

A statue you can walk by and it can catch one's eye...and yes, can prompt people to investigate further. People wander by lots of things and they can often wonder why they're there and who put them there.

Seriously though, am I typing Swahili or something. Are people really not understanding the points being made here?

So why not replace it with a monument to the people he enslaved then?

Tony EH

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So why not replace it with a monument to the people he enslaved then?

Perhaps.

Where do stop though?

Which statue, monument or building is next?

ancapailldorcha

Tony EH wrote: »

Perhaps.

Where do stop though?

Which statue, monument or building is next?

Why are you asking me? I'm not tearing down statues.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

You have to make a point of going to a museum.

A statue you can walk by and it can catch one's eye...and yes, can prompt people to investigate further. People wander by lots of things and they can often wonder why they're there and who put them there.

Seriously though, am I typing Swahili or something. Are people really not understanding the points being made here?

It's just a pretty silly point. Most statues, people walk by and tend to ignore unless they have a special interest. The description on the statue indicates it was a kind hearted philanthropist rather than a slave trader buying his way into heaven. The statue was created as a celebration of the man. A prominent position on a street etc indicates he's a figure of respect. Nothing about it gives a person a true image of the individual.

By the way, I know loads of people who go to local museums, myself included. It's not as unusual as you'd think.

Tony EH wrote: »

Don't try and put words in my mouth.

You did try to emphasise the good he did while ignoring the motivation.

Tony EH

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why are you asking me? I'm not tearing down statues.

You're making a case for it though. So where does one stop? Do we knock down the Pyramids, which were built on the backs of slaves?

Or are they ok?

Where's the line drawn?

Everyone wants to avoid that particular question.

joe40

Tony EH wrote: »

Perhaps.

Where do stop though?

Which statue, monument or building is next?

Take each one on its merits. It shouldn't be that difficult. Most statues of monuments are not in any way controversial.

Maybe a statue is just to a royal person so you could maybe argue the position is honoured/ remembered not just the individual.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

You did try to emphasise the good he did while ignoring the motivation.

I didn't "emphasise" it at all. I merely mentioned it, because in addition to his slave trading he was also involved in philanthropic efforts too. that doesn't mean those efforts supersede his darker work.

Don't try to put words in my mouth in an attempt to score some cheap points though.

ancapailldorcha

Tony EH wrote: »

You're making a case for it though. So where does one stop? Do we knock down the Pyramids, which were built on the backs of slaves?

Or are they ok?

Where's the line drawn?

Everyone wants to avoid that particular question.

Answer my question please before asking your own. Why not have monuments to the slaves instead of their exploiters?

shaveAbullock

Tony EH wrote: »

Do we knock down the Pyramids, which were built on the backs of slaves?

You might want to research that.

Tony EH

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Answer my question please before asking your own. Why not have monuments to the slaves instead of their exploiters?

I already did answer. I said perhaps.