Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Tony EH

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?

Well, let me put it to you like this. Colston was a man of his time, doing something that other wealthy men of his time did and that was not only sanctioned by the law of his land and throughout Europe, but also encouraged as a worthwhile enterprise.

Hitler simply did not and throughout his tenure, broke the laws of his own land and others. Not to mention the fact the he was instrumental in unleashing the most devastating war the world has ever seen.

Of course, to our 21st Century sensibilities, Colston's interest in the business of selling people into bondage is, quite rightly abhorrent. But he doesn't even come remotely close to a figure like Adolf Hitler, who's nefarious activities grossly outweigh the beneficial ones he engaged in.

But, as I said, if someone wanted to leave a statue of Hitler standing in Germany as a reminder of what he'd done, I'd be ok with that. As I would be ok if they wanted to tear it down.

I suppose it comes down to balance in the end. Why are some statues worthy of tearing down and some aren't when both figures have engaged in the dodgy activities (as seen through modern eyes) of their time.

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

as i've said, i think i agree with you.

I think the majority of posters are in a broad agreement. The problem, as I see it, is in the question that I've been asking, is where does one stop. And we can couple that with, in the end, who benefits from hiding away statues of people who may have an unacceptable activity tucked away in their past.

One thing I did find funny though, as an aside, is that in one of the pics of the Colston statue "removal" there is a guy standing on it in a brand new pair of Nike runners, no doubt manufactured in some sweatshop in a country he couldn't finger on the map.

joe40

mick087 wrote: »

Yes i seen that it was alful so sad his poor family.
These things need to be done properly with the support of the community by elected officials. This will also stop any backlash or accidents.

Absolutely it is a tragedy. It is really scummy behavior that some people here are gloating and joking about this death. I can fully get objection to removing statues if that's how you feel but joking about a death is reprehensible.

Disgusting behavior from people claiming to be on the side of law and order.

Just to be clear I'm not talking about objection to removing statues of criticism of the way it was removed.

robinph

Sheep_shear wrote: »

Meh. The police have outlined this week they don't care about vandalism of statues, so fine.

If people didn't want that statue damaged, then it should have been boarded up like they're doing in London.

Not really a lot the police could do about this one. Some racist with a bottle of bleach turns up in the middle of the night to vandalise it. All statues are liable to be vandalised in some way like that at some point, and the only time this could happen to this statue, in the location it is, is in the middle of the night during lockdown.

Don't think this statue was controversial in anyway and wasn't offensive to anyone other than a racist with a bottle of bleach. Surprised that they even knew the statue was there though.

LuasSimon

Is there a protest to pull down the Molly Malone statue off grafton street this saturday ??
She said one time she only liked Irish men ??...thats good enough reason to get her statue pulled down in Modern Ireland ...lets start gathering the mob!!

joe40

LuasSimon wrote: »

Is there a protest to pull down the Molly Malone statue off grafton street this saturday ??
She said one time she only liked Irish men ??...thats good enough reason to get her statue pulled down in Modern Ireland ...lets start gathering the mob!!

No let's stop all this "what next" nonsense. Inventing stuff to get outraged about...

Sheep_shear

Not really a lot the police could do about this one.

As said, meh. You give the public licence to do what they see fit with unprotected/unboarded-up statues and memorials, don't be surprised if some you like come under attack.

I see the mob have moved on from wanting to tear down a statue of the British PM who oversaw the abolishment of slavery in the British Empire. So there's at least some brains, somewhere in the movement. Maybe they'll realise how damaging a lot of the extreme action is doing to their cause?

LuasSimon

Who is driving all this pulling down statues mob rule in Ireland ??...Sinn Fein , People before Profit & Statues???......

mick087

joe40 wrote: »

Absolutely it is a tragedy. It is really scummy behavior that some people here are gloating and joking about this death. I can fully get objection to removing statues if that's how you feel but joking about a death is reprehensible.

Disgusting behavior from people claiming to be on the side of law and order.

Just to be clear I'm not talking about objection to removing statues of criticism of the way it was removed.

Yes your clear and i agree, i have no objection to any statue being removed. but must be done with community and elected support.


No life is worth that of a statue.

completedit

One good thing about bringing down statues is that it actually encourages historical debate. People get new perspectives and new ways at looking at the world and the people who helped shape it.
I don't actually believe statues do a good job at remembering history. I'm not the most visual though so a random statue of some geezer will not tend to grab my attention.

The problem is like Nigel Farage said, once you start digging you never know where you will end up. That interview on GMB was interesting because the historian they had on was adamant that the statue be taken down and that it wasn'[t a case of mob rule. However, Farage posed her the question about Cromwell and his role in Ireland and she backtracked saying 'we need a real debate about our statues'

I do think though, given we know history isn't black and white, that some historical figures should be only viewed through their achievements for their particular country.

Tony EH

VonLuck wrote: »

Wasn't the whole point to show that the Major was a bit of an oddball and out of touch with reality? It wasn't promoting racism in the slightest.

Can TV no longer portray people behaving in a less than perfect manner?

I presume that the episode of 'Fawlty Towers' in question contains the "wogs and ****" remark by the "Major" character. The joke being on him, because it outs his racism and is not a remark that is to be taken as an agreeable statement in any shape or form.

The problem here is merely the fact that the words "wog" and "nigger" are used. The context of the joke, a joke on old white men BTW, doesn't matter to some people. It's enough, in itself, to send some over the edge.

The difficulty here for broadcasters is in what to do. They don't want a partition of their viewing audience being upset (and thus influencing future viewing figures).

Personally, I think the joke should stand as it exposed the Major's casual racism that underlay even benign figures, like the doddery old gent. It was funny, but still cutting.

yourdeadwright

So when are the Pyramids been taking down , weren't the built by slaves ?

Tony EH

joe40 wrote: »

So what generation cancelled "life of Brian" and "meaning of life"
Comedy will still exist.
I can manage without Jim Davidson or Benny Hill but In fairness Fawlty towers was a classic.
Basil as the pompous English man was actually the butt of the jokes.
I can't imagine it disappearimg

Self appointed moral guardians are not a modern phenomenon. I'm old enough to remember the moral panic over video nasties in the 80's, when the self righteous believed that they were in a position to tell their underlings what is was that they could watch in their own home.

The situation isn't much that different today.

There will always be these waggy finger types who'll seek the high ground as a quick way to moral superiority over others. It's the same cheap journey as it has always been.

LuasSimon

Be afraid to say anything soon......if anyone says nice day out there or how are you?....you just say no comment

shaveAbullock

Tony EH wrote: »

I presume that the episode of 'Fawlty Towers' in question contains the "wogs and ****" remark by the "Major" character. The joke being on him, because it outs his racism and is not a remark that is to be taken as an agreeable statement in any shape or form.

The problem here is merely the fact that the words "wog" and "nigger" are used. The context of the joke, a joke on old white men BTW, doesn't matter to some people. It's enough, in itself, to send some over the edge.

That was the impression I always got of the major, a senile old man stuck in Britain's colonial past.
The episode is still on Netflix with this scene intact

John Clease is not at all happy with the decision from the BBC

https://www.smh.com.au/culture/tv-and-radio/john-cleese-slams-uktv-decision-to-remove-fawlty-towers-episode-as-stupid-20200612-p5523w.html

Sir Isaac Newton had shares in the South Sea Company, which indulged in many different types of trading, and some of it, disgracefully, was slavery,” Cleese said. “So are we going to get rid of Newton’s optics on the grounds that it’s not really sound any more because he held shares in a company that dealt in slaves?

SafeSurfer

A lot of discussion about statues being moved in the US and UK. Nothing compared to our own moving statues of the 1980s.

Christy42

Danzy wrote: »

These activists largely aren't working class, corporate environments are their natural home.

You are trying very hard to paint an enemy here.

Get a picture and I will listen. Most of the protestors are not in the BBC offices. Most of them have no connection to the BBC offices and their only way of getting Fawlty Towers taken down would be a public campaign. This didn't happen.

I somehow doubt the BBC bigwigs were out taking down statues. You are trying to force the facts to fit your point.

Bannasidhe

Seems Dublin benefitted from the 'generosity' of those who made a lot of money from human misery and the proceeds thereof - including tax revenue.

The entrance to Trinity College Dublin through the College Green front gate is one of Dublin’s best-known images. Few know it was built with money in the early 17th century from tobacco duty, a slave crop.

Across the road the magnificent facade of what was once the Irish parliament, now a Bank of Ireland branch, was built with money from sugar duty, another crop raised by slaves in the British-owned West Indies. One of the founding subscribers to the present-day Bank of Ireland in 1782 was David La Touche. The La Touches were a Huguenot family who came to Ireland after fleeing religious persecution in their native France.

They made a fortune in Dublin in the 17th century in cloth manufacturing and later in banking. David La Touche was the first to develop the St Stephen’s Green/Aungier Street area.

The family developed Marlay Park in south Dublin, founded Greystones and built Harristown Demesne in Co Kildare, which went on the market for €25 million four years ago.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/links-to-slave-trade-evident-across-ireland-1.4276650?mode=amp

No doubt there will be those who will be quick to point out the La Touche family were not 'Irish' - perhaps not, but they lived here and were powerful (not British/aristocratic) and influential.

They helped shape Dublin's urban landscape.

Others (or perhaps the same) will go to the 'suppose you want to pull down the buildings now don't you!', they may even use the term 'snowflakes' yet no one has suggested the buildings be pulled down.

What is being said - especially by historians and we have seen how very important history has suddenly become - is acknowledge the actual history.

Recognise that Ireland, like other countries, benefitted in the modern period from slavery.

If people, apparently, find statues/plaques etc educational then surely one in Dublin stating the fact that these buildings were funded by the proceeds of the triangular slave trade would be a good thing.

Calhoun

Suppose we could burn it all down or should have burned it down after we got the English out.

After all we were young free, single and had lots of money.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/council-asked-to-take-down-statue-of-ira-chief-over-links-to-nazis-39277402.html

In local news this one is going to be great to watch.

Danzy

Calhoun wrote: »

Suppose we could burn it all down or should have burned it down after we got the English out.

After all we were young free, single and had lots of money.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/council-asked-to-take-down-statue-of-ira-chief-over-links-to-nazis-39277402.html

In local news this one is going to be great to watch.

A decade ago some anarchists took his head, the IRA in Dublin informed them their daddy's friends wouldn't be able to protect them, if it wasn't returned.

It was returned immediately.

Calhoun

Danzy wrote: »

A decade ago some anarchists took his head, the IRA in Dublin informed them their daddy's friends wouldn't be able to protect them, if it wasn't returned.

It was returned immediately.

What I find funny is FG a party with actual form, with Nazi ideology are using it as a political stunt. Also as the article said a FG council liking a picture this week of a blue shirt doing a Nazi salute does them no favors.

Mary Lou has already defended it but it's one of those things about means justifying the end was he right to go to Germany to ask for help ECT.

completedit

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seems Dublin benefitted from the 'generosity' of those who made a lot of money from human misery and the proceeds thereof - including tax revenue.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/links-to-slave-trade-evident-across-ireland-1.4276650?mode=amp

No doubt there will be those who will be quick to point out the La Touche family were not 'Irish' - perhaps not, but they lived here and were powerful (not British/aristocratic) and influential.

They helped shape Dublin's urban landscape.

Others (or perhaps the same) will go to the 'suppose you want to pull down the buildings now don't you!', they may even use the term 'snowflakes' yet no one has suggested the buildings be pulled down.

What is being said - especially by historians and we have seen how very important history has suddenly become - is acknowledge the actual history.

Recognise that Ireland, like other countries, benefitted in the modern period from slavery.

If people, apparently, find statues/plaques etc educational then surely one in Dublin stating the fact that these buildings were funded by the proceeds of the triangular slave trade would be a good thing.

you don't get to be racist and irish :rolleyes: sure aren't we the blacks of europe har har

mick087

Danzy wrote: »

A real tragedy, etc, pity he didn't think about his family before rampaging with a mob.

We all do stupid things when we are young. This should of been stopped by the police. That poor mans family must be in great pain and upset at the moment.

They watched what was done in Bristol and went about it in Vagina in a very dangerous and stupid way. No they should not of been doing i know but the the law shoiuld of stopped this. No human life is worth that of a statue.

titan18

jmayo wrote: »

Ehh the mass slaughter of Jews, communists, intellectuals, etc really began in summer 1941 with Operation Barbarosa.
Yes the Wannsee Conference in Berlin in January 1942 laid the plans for the mass murder in the death camps, but they were slaughtering in the forests long before then.

Tbf, Russell went to Germany in May 1940, and was dead in August 1940.

There had been pogroms against Jewish, like Kristallnacht, but nothing to the scale of the holocaust when Russell went. I'm not a SF person at all but what the world thought of Germany in 1939 and 1940 vs what the world thought in
1945 was a lot different, and we cant judge someones actions in those earlier days with what we know now was the scale of Nazi hatred.

Danzy

titan18 wrote: »

Tbf, Russell went to Germany in May 1940, and was dead in August 1940.

There had been pogroms against Jewish, like Kristallnacht, but nothing to the scale of the holocaust when Russell went. I'm not a SF person at all but what the world thought of Germany in 1939 and 1940 vs what the world thought in
1945 was a lot different, and we cant judge someones actions in those earlier days with what we know now was the scale of Nazi hatred.

These protests have nothing to do with context, context is irrelevant.

There are sone already calling for Roger Casements monument to be torn down due to his time in Africa

Any excuse to burn it all to the ground and start their utopia, and when that doesn't happen they'll turn on the people, on each other, same story again.

joe40

Danzy wrote: »

These protests have nothing to do with context, context is irrelevant.

There are sone already calling for Roger Casements monument to be torn down due to his time in Africa

Any excuse to burn it all to the ground and start their utopia, and when that doesn't happen they'll turn on the people, on each other, same story again.

That won't happen. The Colston statue has been controversial for some time, as are the confederate statues which were often a blatant "fcuk you" to the black community.

Bannasidhe

completedit wrote: »

you don't get to be racist and irish :rolleyes: sure aren't we the blacks of europe har har

800 years of oppression rabble rabble rabble.

No - that oppression of other people had nothing to do with us the chains were just resting in our hands.

Bannasidhe

mick087 wrote: »

They watched what was done in Bristol and went about it in Vagina in a very dangerous and stupid way. No they should not of been doing i know but the the law shoiuld of stopped this. No human life is worth that of a statue.

:eek::eek::eek:

Danzy

Calhoun wrote: »

What I find funny is FG a party with actual form, with Nazi ideology are using it as a political stunt. Also as the article said a FG council liking a picture this week of a blue shirt doing a Nazi salute does them no favors.

Mary Lou has already defended it but it's one of those things about means justifying the end was he right to go to Germany to ask for help ECT.

It's gratuitous on FGs part, SF is now full of righteous middle class kids, so it was a way of turning it in them,. It's a trolling.

Same as a lot of politicians gave Labour stick over their anti semitism problems, same as the Catholic Church got so much stick over Bishop Casey, people like to watch those who are righteous and proclaim their holiness squirm a hit.

Danzy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

800 years of oppression rabble rabble rabble.

No - that oppression of other people had nothing to do with us the chains were just resting in our hands.

The national front tendency is rearing in you again.

nullzero

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seems Dublin benefitted from the 'generosity' of those who made a lot of money from human misery and the proceeds thereof - including tax revenue.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/links-to-slave-trade-evident-across-ireland-1.4276650?mode=amp

No doubt there will be those who will be quick to point out the La Touche family were not 'Irish' - perhaps not, but they lived here and were powerful (not British/aristocratic) and influential.

They helped shape Dublin's urban landscape.

Others (or perhaps the same) will go to the 'suppose you want to pull down the buildings now don't you!', they may even use the term 'snowflakes' yet no one has suggested the buildings be pulled down.

What is being said - especially by historians and we have seen how very important history has suddenly become - is acknowledge the actual history.

Recognise that Ireland, like other countries, benefitted in the modern period from slavery.

If people, apparently, find statues/plaques etc educational then surely one in Dublin stating the fact that these buildings were funded by the proceeds of the triangular slave trade would be a good thing.

Can we find a country that hasn't been in some way impacted by historical slave trading and or other immoral acts?

Human history is full of immorality, humans being absolute b@stards to each other.
I don't believe that people didn't realise this to be true until last weekend.

You invoke hyperbolic notions such as pulling buildings down and the use of terms like snowflake etc whilst you also claim to deal only in historical fact. Clearly you have an agenda that supports one ideal over another, and that's not a problem at all, at least just take ownership of it and stop pretending to be on the fence when everyone else can see you're not.