Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Yellow_Fern

da_miser wrote: »

Whats a sports wear clothing brand got to do with it?

Columbia, the country is named after Christopher Columbus, one of the people whose statues are being torn down. Columbia sportswear is named after the Columbia River which is also named after Columbus so I guess that has to be renamed too.

FrancieBrady

da_miser wrote: »

Keep them as a constant reminder to what will happen if we let evil grow.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
If we dont know of the evil men, how will we know it is happening in front of us and make moves to stop it?

So 'good men and women' should keep offensive statues and stop other good men and women from doing something about them?
Sounds like something has triumphed there alright.

da_miser

How long before Charles Martel becomes "problematic" for defeating the Muslim invasion of Christian Europe?

da_miser

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Columbia, the country is named after Christopher Columbus, one of the people whose statues are being torn down. Columbia sportswear is named after the Columbia River which is also named after Columbus so I guess that has to be renamed too.

Columbia is not now, nor never been a country.
Columbia make out door clothing.

mick087

Your average joe soap is coming out to protect a statue NOW.
I can see this BAME causing there own destruction, an excellent idea, cause destroyed.

And still we have no idea of those who pulled down the Colston statue are.
Who was they? Why they do it? Who they accountable to?

Yellow_Fern

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So 'good men and women' should keep offensive statues and stop other good men and women from doing something about them?
Sounds like something has triumphed there alright.

Just keep in mind that Edward Colston was involved in the slave trade in 1680s. Although slavery is an evil that is unusually evil, 1680 really is a very long time ago.

tobefrank321

Laughable to see the US Democrats calling for name changes of US bases. Their 19th century political forebears supported both slavery and white supremacy.

Eg

Realizing that the old issues were holding it back, the Democrats tried a "New Departure" that downplayed the War and stressed such issues as corruption and white supremacy, the latter of which it wholeheartedly supported.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Democratic_Party

FrancieBrady

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Just keep in mind that Edward Colston was involved in the slave trade in 1680s. Although slavery is an evil that is unusually evil, 1680 really is a very long time ago.

An event in 1690 still has a very profound impact in this country. Why would the passing of time have anything to do with it
The celebratory act of erecting a statue to this man is a lot more recent though.

ancapailldorcha

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Just keep in mind that Edward Colston was involved in the slave trade in 1680s. Although slavery is an evil that is unusually evil, 1680 really is a very long time ago.

So it should just be forgotten about? I thought it was the progressives who are allegedly trying to erase history.

Tony EH

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

this is the reason i dont know where i stand on this debate, and am struggling to define it for myself.

what if i was to say to you, lets put a hitler statue up in berlin. would you support that? or, if you want; if there was a statue of Hitler still standing, would you support that being taken down?

i'm not having a dig here, i'm just trying to figure out my own stance, which i'm confused about

Put it up now? Of course not. Also, I'm struggling to think if there were any erected during his tenure. There were a lot of busts made of his head. But, off hand, I cannot think of any full form statues. I'm not too sure that the nazis were all that fond of sticking up statues of themselves, to be honest. Certainly not in the way that numerous statues of Stalin were erected. They were enamoured with propaganda images like Arno Breker's works though. But there weren't of a kind that were particularly recognisable as "nazi", as it were.

But there are numerous hangovers from the nazi period. The RLM building still survives, for instance, and I wouldn't be in favour of tearing that down.

But, yeh, I'm not pretending that there's any easy answers to the question I've been asking for the last few pages. But there doesn't seem to be many that want to tackle it.

Hitler statues, if one still existed, I couldn't see myself objecting to heartily to the removal of...even if, as a person who's interested in the period, I would find fascinating to see. But, there are reminders of Hitler and the nazis practically every day. So, it's not exactly a period that will be subject to selective erasure in people's minds.

I'd be willing to wager, however, that there are a substantial amount of Britons who haven't the first clue about their country's involvement in slavery.

But, if we are to be ok with the toppling of a statue of Edward Colston, why aren't people worked up about statues to Charles II, or James II who ran Britain's slave trade and still stands proud (as a Roman Emperor of all things) in the middle of Trafalgar Square?

y0ssar1an22

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The reason people would object to erecting a statue of Hitler is that there is a very real group of people who idolise his evil, and because he represents our society's bench mark of what evil is, so your motives would be suspect. People who celebrate Columbus day are not rejoicing that millions died from smallpox. They see him as a human with strengths and weaknesses who changed world history. While Hitler statues might become skinhead shrines, Colston statues are historical oddities. So it is not fair to use the example of Hitler because no real life example is similar.

i get all that, and agree with you i think.

the problem is, how do you decide what stays/goes; and more importantly, how do you define that?

can you put forward a rationale argument that prevents Hitler statues, but allows for others?

i cant.

Yellow_Fern

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So it should just be forgotten about? I thought it was the progressives who are allegedly trying to erase history.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

An event in 1690 still has a very profound impact in this country. Why would the passing of time have anything to do with it
The celebratory act of erecting a statue to this man is a lot more recent though.

There is a reason we make jokes about the Vikings, and not the KKK.

y0ssar1an22

Tony EH wrote: »

Put it up now? Of course not. Also, I'm struggling to think if there were any erected during his tenure. There were a lot of busts made of his head. But, off hand, I cannot think of any full form statues. I'm not too sure that the nazis were all that fond of sticking up statues of themselves, to be honest. Certainly not in the way that numerous statues of Stalin were erected. They were enamoured with propaganda images like Arno Breker's works though. But there weren't of a kind that were particularly recognisable as "nazi", as it were.

But there are numerous hangovers from the nazi period. The RLM building still survives, for instance, and I wouldn't be in favour of tearing that down.

But, yeh, I'm not pretending that there's any easy answers to the question I've been asking for the last few pages. But there doesn't seem to be many that want to tackle it.

Hitler statues, if one still existed, I couldn't see myself objecting to heartily to the removal of...even if, as a person who's interested in the period, I would find fascinating to see. But, there are reminders of Hitler and the nazis practically every day. So, it's not exactly a period that will be subject to selective erasure in people's minds.

I'd be willing to wager, however, that there are a substantial amount of Britons who haven't the first clue about their country's involvement in slavery.

But, if we are to be ok with the toppling of a statue of Edward Colston, why aren't people worked up about statues to Charles II, or James II who ran Britain's slave trade and still stands proud (as a Roman Emperor of all things) in the middle of Trafalgar Square?

i think i'm coming from this from the far side. if you're against colston's statue being taken down, why are you against a Hitler statue been erected (or pro getting it taken down)?

1800_Ladladlad

img

This shows how outrageous they have gotten. This lad was BLM before it was even a thing ffs

Source

Yellow_Fern

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i get all that, and agree with you i think.

the problem is, how do you decide what stays/goes; and more importantly, how do you define that?

can you put forward a rationale argument that prevents Hitler statues, but allows for others?

i cant.

Here are three. i) there many many people whose parents and grandparents are ashes in Poland because of Hitler ie. the wounds are still fresh, ii) a Hitler statue could become a shrine to people who might commit violence against jews and iii) there is a difference between a erecting a statue and toppling one down. I would never vote to erect a statue to Colston, but I suspect the effort spent picking your nose would be more useful than the effect toppling one down. If statues should come down, it must be through democratic means with the local corporation, not street thugs who will probably kill themselves.

c.p.w.g.w

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Hitler.

People bring up Nazi Germany...

So lets have a look at the following

Hugo Boss - Manufactured SS uniforms(No Protests)

Space Travel , Satellites & Rockets - Wernher von Braun was a memeber of the Nazi Party and was protected and recruited by the USA after WWII and subsequently worked for NASA. Without Von Braun maybe the modern day technology may look very different(No Protests)

Adolf Dassler - Founder of Addidas and who was a member of the Nazi Party(No Protests)

Adolf Busemann - Very important in Aerospace Engineering also a Nazi...Without him spacetrael could be very different, and air travel too, as he developed Sweep Wing Tech

So we need to forgot all the good they did, and only focus on the wrong things...Being a member of the Nazi may not have been a choice it may have been a matter of life & death...1930's/40's were a very different time and we need to look at these men in that light...But that is common sense...

A lot of the non scene currently being pedelled is being done in a similar manner to the Nazi's...well the Nazi predecessors more like

y0ssar1an22

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Here are three. i) there many many people whose parents and grandparents are ashes in Poland because of Hitler ie. the wounds are still fresh, ii) a Hitler statue could become a shrine to people who might commit violence against jews and iii) there is a difference between a erecting a statue and toppling one down. I would never vote to erect a statue to Colston, but I suspect the effort spent picking your nose would be more useful than the effect toppling one down. If statues should come down, it must be through democratic means with the local corporation, not street thugs who will probably kill themselves.

i'm looking for a definition, which i cannot do. if legislation were to passed how would it be worded? its nearly impossible.

1. the wounds are still fresh:
how far back does that go?

2. could become a shrine to people who might commit violence against jews.
it could. as could anything else could become a shine.

- off that, what is a shrine, and how many people are required?

3. there is a difference between a erecting a statue and toppling one down:
there is. thats why i also gave you the hypothetical; if there was a statue of hitler already in existence you would support that being removed.


If statues should come down, it must be through democratic means with the local corporation, not street thugs who will probably kill themselves:

i agree 100% there, but the problem remains. make a criteria for the removal of statue A, that doesn't apply to statue B. its nearly impossible.

Tony EH

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i think i'm coming from this from the far side. if you're against colston's statue being taken down, why are you against a Hitler statue been erected (or pro getting it taken down)?

Well, erecting a statue now to someone like Adolf Hitler, isn't the same thing as tearing down a statue of someone like Edward Colston, which has stood since the last century. Plus, we need to keep a perspective here. Edward Colston was no Adolf Hitler. He was a man that was involved in a trade that we find abhorrent today, but which wasn't considered so in the 17th Century.

He isn't remotely of the same calibre of nasty as Adolf, who's actions abhorred the people of his time, as well as us nowadays.

Colston's mercantile, on the other hand, was encouraged not only by his country's rulers, but by all the courts of Europe too.

On tearing down a statue of Hitler, if one existed, that's difficult for me to answer as part of me would say leave it up to serve as a reminder to what he did. But part of me would also be fine with bringing it down so it couldn't become a shrine for idiots. Plus, as I've already said, there's no shortage of reminders about Hitler and the nazis going.

But the point is this, there are many, many, monuments to people around the world who have dark sides to their past. I keep mentioning George Washington, who is revered in America and yet he was a man who actually OWNED slaves, right up until his death and by some accounts wasn't all that kind to his "property" either. Why aren't they being torn down?

Not that I would agree with them being torn down of course.

Junkyard Tom

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Hugo Boss (No Protests)[/COLOR]

Wernher von Braun
Adolf Dassler - Founder of Addidas and who was a member of the Nazi Party(No Protests)

Adolf Busemann -

IBM and Ford too but what's your point exactly? There are no statues that venerate these people.

Von Braun should have been at least jailed for a long time.

y0ssar1an22

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, erecting a statue now to someone like Adolf Hitler, isn't the same thing as tearing down a statue of someone like Edward Colston, which has stood since the last century. Plus, we need to keep a perspective here. Edward Colston was no Adolf Hitler. He was a man that was involved in a trade that we find abhorrent today, but which wasn't considered so in the 17th Century.

He isn't remotely of the same calibre of nasty as Adolf, who's actions abhorred the people of his time, as well as us nowadays.

Colston's mercantile, on the other hand, was encouraged not only by his country's rulers, but by all the courts of Europe too.

On tearing down a statue of Hitler, if one existed, that's difficult for me to answer as part of me would say leave it up to serve as a reminder to what he did. But part of me would also be fine with bringing it down so it couldn't become a shrine for idiots. Plus, as I've already said, there's no shortage of reminders about Hitler and the nazis going.

But the point is this, there are many, many, monuments to people around the world who have dark sides to their past. I keep mentioning George Washington, who is revered in America and yet he was a man who actually OWNED slaves, right up until his death and by some accounts wasn't all that kind to his "property" either. Why aren't they being torn down?

Not that I would agree with them being torn down of course.

He isn't remotely of the same calibre of nasty as Adolf, who's actions abhorred the people of his time, as well as us nowadays:
can you put forward an argument that allows for the one but prevents the other?

as i've said, i think i agree with you. consider it a thought experiment:

hitler statues can be removed, but Colston ones cant. you will reach a point when those 2 POV's directly contradict each other. thats why i'm struggling with this debate.

c.p.w.g.w

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

IBM and Ford too but what's your point exactly? There are no statues that venerate these people.

Von Braun should have been at least jailed for a long time.

The point is...

There are plenty people in History who have done terrible things/been associated with terrible things but aren't addressed because if we did the ability to fly and use smart phones would likely be greatly diminished...

The current wave is fairly selective to appease certain people...

If the Statue of Sean Russell is removed in Dublin...Leo should be taken out and shot against a wall

c.p.w.g.w

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

He isn't remotely of the same calibre of nasty as Adolf, who's actions abhorred the people of his time, as well as us nowadays:
can you put forward an argument that allows for the one but prevents the other?

as i've said, i think i agree with you. consider it a thought experiment:

hitler statues can be removed, but Colston ones cant. you will reach a point when those 2 POV's directly contradict each other. thats why i'm struggling with this debate.

Hitler was breaking the laws at the time...Colston was not that is the difference

Kermit.de.frog

Just seen some vids on Twitter from the UK of black people being attacked by white mobs in the last couple of days.

I hope the likes of the Guardian and other media understand that if you take this race baiting too far it's going to cause trouble.

They should be trying to calm things instead of egging it on.

Yellow_Fern

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, erecting a statue now to someone like Adolf Hitler, isn't the same thing as tearing down a statue of someone like Edward Colston, which has stood since the last century. Plus, we need to keep a perspective here. Edward Colston was no Adolf Hitler. He was a man that was involved in a trade that we find abhorrent today, but which wasn't considered so in the 17th Century.

He isn't remotely of the same calibre of nasty as Adolf, who's actions abhorred the people of his time, as well as us nowadays.

Colston's mercantile, on the other hand, was encouraged not only by his country's rulers, but by all the courts of Europe too.

On tearing down a statue of Hitler, if one existed, that's difficult for me to answer as part of me would say leave it up to serve as a reminder to what he did. But part of me would also be fine with bringing it down so it couldn't become a shrine for idiots. Plus, as I've already said, there's no shortage of reminders about Hitler and the nazis going.

But the point is this, there are many, many, monuments to people around the world who have dark sides to their past. I keep mentioning George Washington, who is revered in America and yet he was a man who actually OWNED slaves, right up until his death and by some accounts wasn't all that kind to his "property" either. Why aren't they being torn down?

Not that I would agree with them being torn down of course.

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i'm looking for a definition, which i cannot do. if legislation were to passed how would it be worded? its nearly impossible.

1. the wounds are still fresh:
how far back does that go?

2. could become a shrine to people who might commit violence against jews.
it could. as could anything else could become a shine.

- off that, what is a shrine, and how many people are required?

3. there is a difference between a erecting a statue and toppling one down:
there is. thats why i also gave you the hypothetical; if there was a statue of hitler already in existence you would support that being removed.


If statues should come down, it must be through democratic means with the local corporation, not street thugs who will probably kill themselves:

i agree 100% there, but the problem remains. make a criteria for the removal of statue A, that doesn't apply to statue B. its nearly impossible.

Under non circumstances should lawmakers should not be making laws about what kind of statues can be made. Anyway such guidelines would be:

1. Must be in living memory of a lost person.
2. No. Colston isn't a shrine. It would have to be a shrine to groups with who commit terrorism.
3. Statues are erected by local authorities. Up to them to decide if who to erect a statue too.

About 15 years ago Waterford city moved a statue of Luke Wadding and replaced it with a statue of Thomas Francis Meagher, the first governor of Montana. He was popular for his influence in the origin of the Irish tricolour. There a media push to erect the statue in the local media but they made no mention of his role in founding the Montana Territory Volunteer Militia to punish the local Blackfoot Indians. I have always been a passionate advocate for indigenous people, and I felt this side of him wasn't being discussed. However the statue has long settled into the local landscape and it doesn't upset anyone. Blackfoot Indians are not seeing it everyday getting offended. His dubious role in the Indian wars doesn't cause offence to anyone really and it is not a shrine to anyone bar the odd peaceful Irish Republican. So I wouldn't campaign for it to be removed. I was against the erection of the statue but I would obstruct any attempt at its removal today.

Junkyard Tom

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

There are plenty people in History who have done terrible things/been associated with terrible things but aren't addressed because if we did the ability to fly and use smart phones would likely be greatly diminished...

All those things have been covered numerous times. Nobody tries to present these people/situations as examples of great virtue - statues tend to do that.

If the Statue of Sean Russell is removed in Dublin...Leo should be taken out and shot against a wall

I don't think anyone should be shot over a statue but I agree that those calling Sean Russell a traitor or collaborator have pretty dumb anglocentric views as we weren't at war with Germany and had been at war with Britain less than 20 years previously.

fly_agaric

Something occurred to me...and googled + found Genghis Khan does indeed have statues commemorating him in Mongolia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrian_statue_of_Genghis_Khan

All the arguments about hypothetical statues of Hitler in pride of place in Berlin, was Churchill or the fellow in Bristol enough of a bástard that he should not have a statue in the public square in the UK are worthless.

The whole "thing" (removing statues, or the recent bleed over into companies deciding old tv/films with racial stereotypes or blackface could get their viewers angry/upset) is about culture + culture clashes in the UK + US, changes in public opinion etc. It is basically pure emotion + trying to logic your way through it is pointless. edit: People "feel how they feel" about such things and will find arguments to justify it either way when motivated enough.

c.p.w.g.w

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

All those things have been covered numerous times. Nobody tries to present these people/situations as examples of great virtue - statues tend to do that.



I don't think anyone should be shot over a statue but I agree that those calling Sean Russell a traitor or collaborator have pretty dumb anglocentric views as we weren't at war with Germany and had been at war with Britain less than 20 years previously.

If the statue is removed because Sean is seen as a "Nazi" his legacy is tainted by a member of the original fascist party of Ireland...That should really be seen as act of war on our History as a country

Junkyard Tom

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

If the statue is removed because Sean is seen as a "Nazi" his legacy is tainted by a member of the original fascist party of Ireland...That should really be seen as act of war on our History as a country

It's only a statue. if Leo and the RIC commemorators' club have it removed then let them feel it at the ballot box.

y0ssar1an22

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Hitler was breaking the laws at the time...Colston was not that is the difference

someone correct me here, but were hitlers actions at the time illegal? the Geneva conventions weren't signed until after WW2.

Yellow_Fern

fly_agaric wrote: »

Something occurred to me...and googled + found Genghis Khan does indeed have statues commemorating him in Mongolia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrian_statue_of_Genghis_Khan

All the arguments about hypothetical statues of Hitler in pride of place in Berlin, was Churchill or the fellow in Bristol enough of a bástard that he should not have a statue in the public square in the UK are worthless.

The whole "thing" (removing statues, or the recent bleed over into companies deciding old tv/films with racial stereotypes or blackface could get their viewers angry/upset) is about culture + culture clashes in the UK + US, changes in public opinion etc. It is basically pure emotion + trying to logic your way through it is pointless. edit: People "feel how they feel" about such things and will find arguments to justify it either way when motivated enough.

It is total emotional bull. Genghis Khan is a hero in Mongolia. Some sources he killed 2 civilians million in the siege of Baghdad alone. Mongolia is not Mars. We have a Mongolian Consulate in Dublin. I know Mongolians living in Ireland. It is easy to protest.