Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Options
1…6791112…99

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    Strazdas
    Registered Users Posts: 18,870 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So... let me get this straight. If something represents slavery, oppression, etc, the it should be torn down?

    Wouldn't that include every symbol of the British Empire, including it's palaces? Or the White House as it probably represents oppression/persecution to many Middle Eastern Muslims? I'm wondering where is the line to be drawn. Statues? Buildings?

    What about war memorials? Should they be torn up, and destroyed because of what it might represent to either anti-war groups or the victims of that particular war that's being remembered? Like Vietnam memorials in the US...

    I'm genuinely trying to understand the logic here. Is it just about statues, and if so, why? And if not, then where is the line drawn (and who gets to decide that)?

    Who gets to decide it is not appropriate? This works both ways.....why should the English far right and the right wing press in the UK get to decide how their past is remembered or commemorated.


  • Options
    #243
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,369 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Ah now.

    You haven't looked into your own opinion enough to tell me where your defined line is?

    It's not a tough question. Should a crowd of people be able to destroy property that isn't theirs because they don't like it?

    If yes, why? And should anyone be able to do it and what defines reasonable cause?

    If no, how can you support this?

    What makes you think I should have a defined line? Reality isn't black and white. It's really unlikely that there is a defined line.


  • Options
    #244
    Clarence Boddiker
    Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Clarence Boddiker


    Strazdas wrote: »
    Who gets to decide it is not appropriate? This works both ways.....why should the English far right and the right wing press in the UK get to decide how their past is remembered or commemorated.

    Ordinary people are far right now?


  • Options
    #245
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    So... let me get this straight. If something represents slavery, oppression, etc, the it should be torn down?

    Wouldn't that include every symbol of the British Empire, including it's palaces? Or the White House as it probably represents oppression/persecution to many Middle Eastern Muslims? I'm wondering where is the line to be drawn. Statues? Buildings?

    What about war memorials? Should they be torn up, and destroyed because of what it might represent to either anti-war groups or the victims of that particular war that's being remembered? Like Vietnam memorials in the US...

    I'm genuinely trying to understand the logic here. Is it just about statues, and if so, why? And if not, then where is the line drawn (and who gets to decide that)?

    Can you not see the difference between a statue glorifying someone, and a building that happened to be used for bad purposes at some point.

    Does Bristol now have to retrieve the statue from the harbour and redirect the river Avon back to its old route through the city centre, fill in the current path and destroy the entire city because slaves were traded through there?


  • Options
    #246
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    robinph wrote: »
    Think the population of Bristol can claim ownership of the statue that was erected by the population of Bristol.

    Would have been better if certain elements of the council and city powers had paid a bit more attention previously to the populations view, but they have been told for long enough and just decided to ignore it.

    It's was a statue, not a building or anyone's private property.

    The population of Bristol didn't. A mob did.

    It was a statue. The people who destroyed it did not have permission. They were not speaking for the population. They were speaking as part of a like-minded mob.

    That's a dangerous ideal to have. If a group big enough want to do something, just ****ing do it without going through proper channels?

    I've asked someone else this.. where does your line end? Would you be as accepting if it was a mosque or a church? Or the religious statues outside those places?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    Strazdas
    Registered Users Posts: 18,870 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Clarence Boddiker wrote: »
    Ordinary people are far right now?

    UK is a very right wing country in 2020. They've just elected a government with an 80 seat majority which closely resembles the Brexit Party and their media landscape is totally dominated by the right wing press (80% of newspaper sales).


  • Options
    #248
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    robinph wrote: »
    Can you not see the difference between a statue glorifying someone, and a building that happened to be used for bad purposes at some point.

    Bad purposes? Did I post any examples of buildings or places used for bad purposes? Nope. I spoke about what they represent.

    I used the word "represents" because that's what previous posters used... not a physical difference.

    But lets' talk about differences then. I had a look at the statue, and what it was put up for. There was no reference to his slave trade anywhere on or near the statue. The statue and plaque made reference to his helping of the poor and donations to the community.

    How about matching like with like?

    Can I tell the difference between a statue glorifying someone, and a building glorifying a symbol such as an empire. Their actions, or what it represents... though.. that's something else isn't it? But can I tell the difference? Sure, I can.

    That's why I wouldn't be calling for historical monuments to be taken down.
    Does Bristol now have to retrieve the statue from the harbour and redirect the river Avon back to its old route through the city centre, fill in the current path and destroy the entire city because slaves were traded through there?

    No idea. You tell me. I did pose a question with my post... you seem to have missed that little point....


  • Options
    #249
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    [Deleted User] wrote: »

    I've asked someone else this.. where does your line end? Would you be as accepting if it was a mosque or a church? Or the religious statues outside those places?

    Couldn't care less what statues a religion decides to put up on their property and pray to. But when that religion falls out of fashion their buildings and contents should be protected as the historic record.

    If the city decided to put up a statue to a specific deity in the centre then I'd have a problem with it. Or if they wanted to stick up a statue of any other actual real person then they would need to be able to explain the reason why that person was justified having a statue to honour them put up.

    There is no reason for the city to be honouring Colston with a statue anymore. I can assure you that his name is not going anywhere from the landscape of Bristol for a very long time though. His name is everywhere.

    There is way more mentions of Colston around Bristol than the other local guy who people might have actually heard of outside of the city and who actually did useful things like building bridges, boats, trains, tunnels or whatever he dreamed up that day. That beint Brunel.


  • Options
    #250
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    Deleted User wrote: »
    But lets' talk about differences then. I had a look at the statue, and what it was put up for. There was no reference to his slave trade anywhere on or near the statue. The statue and plaque made reference to his helping of the poor and donations to the community.

    Yes

    its almost as if before we got here that is all that was asked.

    https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/row-breaks-out-merchant-venturer-1925896

    2 years ago all that was asked was that the plaque got updated to be more accurate on the fact that he was a slave trader and that his much vaulted philanthropy was actually limited in specific areas.


  • Options
    #251
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    robinph wrote: »
    Couldn't care less what statues a religion decides to put up on their property and pray to. But when that religion falls out of fashion their buildings and contents should be protected as the historic record.

    If the city decided to put up a statue to a specific deity in the centre then I'd have a problem with it. Or if they wanted to stick up a statue of any other actual real person then they would need to be able to explain the reason why that person was justified having a statue to honour them put up.

    There is no reason for the city to be honouring Colston with a statue anymore. I can assure you that his name is not going anywhere from the landscape of Bristol for a very long time though. His name is everywhere.

    There is way more mentions of Colston around Bristol than the other local guy who people might have actually heard of outside of the city and who actually did useful things like building bridges, boats, trains, tunnels or whatever he dreamed up that day. That beint Brunel.

    Ok. So do you think it's appropriate that people can just form a mob and forcibly remove statues they don't want from public places? How many people need to be present to make it valid? What reasons do they need to give?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Clarence Boddiker
    Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Clarence Boddiker


    Strazdas wrote: »
    UK is a very right wing country in 2020. They've just elected a government with an 80 seat majority which closely resembles the Brexit Party and their media landscape is totally dominated by the right wing press (80% of newspaper sales).

    Does wanting to leave the EU make you far right?


  • Options
    #253
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    Yes

    its almost as if before we got here that is all that was asked.

    https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/row-breaks-out-merchant-venturer-1925896

    2 years ago all that was asked was that the plaque got updated to be more accurate on the fact that he was a slave trader and that his much vaulted philanthropy was actually limited in specific areas.

    And? I went through the site. The revisions seemed appropriate. So they didn't agree on the wording (version 1-3), and nothing was changed?

    So, it was better that a mob took the decision out of their hands? Am I understanding this right?


  • Options
    #254
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    But lets' talk about differences then. I had a look at the statue, and what it was put up for. There was no reference to his slave trade anywhere on or near the statue. The statue and plaque made reference to his helping of the poor and donations to the community.
    Hardly surprising that they didn't write "slave trader" on their newly commissioned statue though is it? That really doesn't tell us anything.

    I'm not sure that his "charitable" credentials are all that great either. Been seeing mentions about there being some fairly strict religious requirements set on exactly who was allowed to benefit from his charity donations. Sure, he spent loads of money on Bristol, which he'd earned from kidnapping people from Africa, but that money was then apparently only spent on the right kind of needy people back in Bristol.

    That kind of thing should be taught in the museums, not celebrated by a statue in the city centre. The population is allowed to change their minds about who they want to recognise as the great and the good from their city.


  • Options
    #255
    Thinkingaboutit
    Registered Users Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭Thinkingaboutit


    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.

    He did oversee a fearsome counterinsurgency, mainly against Kurds in the newly formed (by and for Britain as it made a useful air stop and while having no real common history, its resources would be a good earner), which pioneered dropping poison gas. However, for that's negative about Churchill, his efforts meant another, better known use of poison gas, ceased. WW2 strained the British Empire beyond breaking. A calculating Britain PM might have made a deal with Nazi German. A hale and hearty Nazi Empire lasting longer than it did, cannot be contemplated.

    Smashing statues, pulling them down, is caveman stuff.


  • Options
    #256
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Yeah of course tha same old posters look for any old reason to not see the good in what happened today.

    I think lots of councils will become more serious about listening to the people and changing who the venerate in statues and namesakes. That's great and I don't see it as much of a slippery slope to worry about.

    Exactly its like a merry-go round and you see it on lots of threads. Its not just these instances that we should look to for wider change but even in ourselves, if we can stop the BS fighting and open our minds things would move in the right direction.

    I think this is a pretty big win that councils will start listening, in some cases not all. I still don't think they are ready for the conversation around Churchill, so how to bring that conversation up is going to be the question.


  • Options
    #257
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ok. So do you think it's appropriate that people can just form a mob and forcibly remove statues they don't want from public places? How many people need to be present to make it valid? What reasons do they need to give?


    statues are defaced, damaged or vandalised all the time, sometimes with a point to be made and sometimes just out of sheer stupidity. The size of the mob is pretty irrelevant,

    The important action is what happens next, not so much the act itself. How people feel about both the statue itself and the circumstances of the action.

    As has been highlighted here this action has drawn attention to Colston and Bristol's history to those primarily outside of Bristol, in Bristol this has been a long running controvert. Not some back murmer in the local pub, it's openly stated as something Bristol is coming to terms with on many other public landmarks and museums, so yes local people felt the Colston statue was out of touch not addressing these concerns and what the Bristol local council does next will be the actual important thing and a substantial number of people including local mps will oppose it being restored.

    Despite talk of slippery slope, statues and war memorials are already vandalised and broken on a fairly regular basis, the difference is when it is from a group that is lacking local support what usually comes of it is a news story of vandalism and a local effort to repair the damage and move on.

    I think even during these protests already another statue was broken during a protest in the USA but the circumstances were less focused so it got a mere mention in a wider article and efforts to repair the damage.


    If you want to talk about controversial statues that have been put back together despite being destroyed multiple times we could talk about the Sean Russell statue in Dublin

    https://www.thejournal.ie/sean-russell-statue-3549072-Aug2017/


  • Options
    #258
    Strazdas
    Registered Users Posts: 18,870 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Clarence Boddiker wrote: »
    Does wanting to leave the EU make you far right?

    Not in itself but they seem to be mostly on board with the entire right wing populism thing, not just the stance on Europe,

    Piers Morgan says the people who attacked him over Cummings, over his criticism of Donald Trump and who are now condemning the BLM movement are all the exact same people.....he even recognises many of the Twitter handles (they're all Brexiteers as well).


  • Options
    #259
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Strazdas wrote: »
    Not in itself but they seem to be mostly on board with the entire right wing populism thing, not just the stance on Europe,

    Piers Morgan says the people who attacked him over Cummings, over his criticism of Donald Trump and who are now condemning the BLM movement are all the exact same people.....he even recognises many of the Twitter handles (they're all Brexiteers as well).

    ****... Piers Morgan said it? I'm convinced


  • Options
    #260
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Strazdas wrote: »
    Not in itself but they seem to be mostly on board with the entire right wing populism thing, not just the stance on Europe,

    Exactly allot of xenophobic rhetoric used by those who supported Brexit. Which is ironic considering that the UK was a colonial power and allot of the foreign population followed them home, some were even invited to prop up the NHS.


  • Options
    #261
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,369 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Calhoun wrote: »
    Exactly its like a merry-go round and you see it on lots of threads. Its not just these instances that we should look to for wider change but even in ourselves, if we can stop the BS fighting and open our minds things would move in the right direction.

    I think this is a pretty big win that councils will start listening, in some cases not all. I still don't think they are ready for the conversation around Churchill, so how to bring that conversation up is going to be the question.

    I'd agree with most of that but why is the conversation about Churchill the big question?

    We don't have to have every single conversation around every single historical figure in relation to slavery or whatever other issue.

    It's a means to an end. If race was no longer an issue then the protests wouldn't have happened and the statue wouldn't be a big issue


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    robinph wrote: »
    Hardly surprising that they didn't write "slave trader" on their newly commissioned statue though is it? That really doesn't tell us anything.

    I'm not sure that his "charitable" credentials are all that great either. Been seeing mentions about there being some fairly strict religious requirements set on exactly who was allowed to benefit from his charity donations. Sure, he spent loads of money on Bristol, which he'd earned from kidnapping people from Africa, but that money was then apparently only spent on the right kind of needy people back in Bristol.

    Ahh well, if we're really looking to be educated, we'd be searching for real facts on the situation. Like your reference of kidnapping people from Africa, when African tribes had been selling other Africans to all comers for centuries.. and being selective as to where his charitable donations were directed towards, is hardly unique considering the time he lived in. But then, we're not really considering the time he lived in, but rather dealing with his actions, out of time.
    That kind of thing should be taught in the museums, not celebrated by a statue in the city centre. The population is allowed to change their minds about who they want to recognise as the great and the good from their city.

    And I agree with you about the population (I don't agree about the restriction on museums for teaching history). The population is allowed... which is why it had been debated for so long without any definite agreement being reached.

    Basically, those who objected to the statue being changed or removed, don't have the same rights as those who did the removing. okay. Message received.


  • Options
    #263
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    Deleted User wrote: »
    And? I went through the site. The revisions seemed appropriate. So they didn't agree on the wording (version 1-3), and nothing was changed?

    So, it was better that a mob took the decision out of their hands? Am I understanding this right?


    Not so much better but understandable why it was a target. as I mention in another post, statues and monuments are defaced, vandalised and outright broken all the time, but whats important is how the local community feels about that statue and what it stood for because that affects what happens next more then anything.


  • Options
    #264
    JL555
    Registered Users Posts: 288 ✭✭JL555


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    Thankfully as well. Lots of us around now because of that decision to stay neutral.

    And thankfully some of those Irish around at the time with a bit sense went anyway and fought the fascists and the nazis. Pity though, fascism is still real, just changed its clothes.


  • Options
    #265
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    [Deleted User] wrote: »

    Basically, those who objected to the statue being changed or removed, don't have the same rights as those who did the removing. okay. Message received.

    Basically, those who wanted the statue removed don't have the same rights as those in the council who didn't. The message wasn't received, but I think it is now.


  • Options
    #266
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    Not so much better but understandable why it was a target. as I mention in another post, statues and monuments are defaced, vandalised and outright broken all the time, but whats important is how the local community feels about that statue and what it stood for because that affects what happens next more then anything.

    Well... from what I've seen online is that the local community was split on the topic, and the mob removed the choice from the community as a whole. That doesn't seem to me to be positive progress...

    If there had been a majority support within the community to remove the statue, then the statue would have been modified, or moved elsewhere to somewhere less visible. That it was still being debated, suggests to me that there wasn't majority support..


  • Options
    #267
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    robinph wrote: »
    Basically, those who wanted the statue removed don't have the same rights as those in the council who didn't. The message wasn't received, but I think it is now.

    Ahh yes. The message that if protocols and rules don't get you what you want, form a mob, and just do it. Yup. Makes sense. That kind of logic definitely won't come back to haunt people on other issues... :rolleyes:

    I'll leave it at that. Little point discussing it further.


  • Options
    #268
    c.p.w.g.w
    Registered Users Posts: 4,994 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    Will these same folks be looking to get Malcolm X statue removed in New York, and renaming his park...That's a man who had some very questionable views on white folks...but that kinda racism is ok...and it's certainly more recent than the actions of Colston which were legal in his day


  • Options
    #269
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    I'd agree with most of that but why is the conversation about Churchill the big question?

    We don't have to have every single conversation around every single historical figure in relation to slavery or whatever other issue.

    It's a means to an end. If race was no longer an issue then the protests wouldn't have happened and the statue wouldn't be a big issue

    The Churchill question has arisen from his statue being targeted yesterday. So the two of them got merged together, Churchills past in India is being brought up which is very interesting history.


  • Options
    #270
    c.p.w.g.w
    Registered Users Posts: 4,994 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    Calhoun wrote: »
    The Churchill question has arisen from his statue being targeted yesterday. So the two of them got merged together, Churchills past in India is being brought up which is very interesting history.

    If his statue was in Calcutta or New Delhi maybe i"'d understand...but it's in London


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    If you get what happened, why did you waste time pretending that it eraced slavery from history?

    Symbols are important. The idea that it's not OK to venerate people who were actively involved in the slave trade, is fine by me. The symbolism (tokenism as you call it) is important.

    I think it's interesting that it's completely predictable which posters will look for any reason to see avoid seeing the obvious good thing that happened today.

    The presence of the statue in 2020 is not indicative of any veneration of the individual or his deeds hundreds of years later.

    Seriously, how many people who pass that statue every day think 'slavery was good, wish we had that back' ?

    Nobody does.

    There's no obvious good about it. It was a moronic thing to do. Braindead vandalism.


Advertisement