Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

is_that_so

Tony EH wrote: »

You mean the person who was responsible for the massacre of every man, woman and child in Camulodunum?

https://www.bestofbristol.co/19-famous-people-from-bristol/

or Hannah More? She ticks a lot of boxes!
https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/tyntesfield/features/who-was-hannah-more

Skylinehead

biko wrote: »

Please refrain from problematic words like these.

Are you a mod here or something? Stop.

Tokyo

biko wrote: »

Please refrain from problematic words like these.

Mod: Quit it.

Christy42

Donald Trump wrote: »

Point is that you can tear down his statue and remove his name from buildings if you want. And then in 10 years his name will be equal to other families whose names we are not aware of today- whitewashed from history and forgotten about. They'll still have their money.


At least your man Colston apparently shared his wealth around the town. So he deserved some credit for that. The business was probably a legitimate business at the time. It isn't a million years ago when the British had companies set up to exploit and control the Indian sub-continent. Maybe if enough people make a song and dance about your man Colston, then nobody will ask questions about those other things
I am sure plenty of people involved in the trade from that time gave nothing to nobody. We only know Colston's name now because he did. The town shouldn't be allowed to whitewash where they go those nice buildings either!

Does it matter about his name? That isn't whitewashing. I don't need to know the name of every slave trader. I don't need to know the name of every nazi whether or not they have to charity. I need to know that these things happened.

His name is irrelevant. There are many people in history whose names I don't know. I don't see why I should know the name of every slave trader. It will be recorded in the Bristol museum.

Ah yes. They are using Colston to distract from other things that no one was talking about in the first place.

The statue was whitewashing his history though.

Christy42

Donald Trump wrote: »

Do you not think that there is a chance that there could have been another black female from the history of that town who might have achieved something more impressive than this one did in posing for a photo?


I assume there have to be many many examples.. If someone thinks that there won't be any then maybe they need to examine that bias themselves!



It would surely enrage those millions of racists even more if you put up a statue of a black woman who maybe became a doctor and started a hospital or one who invented something and used her wealth to help build a school or something. If they think black people are inferior, then you'll surely enrage them off more by highlighting a black person who objectively achieved more than they have!

Why not both? Campaign to have statues put up of them as well. Or are you more interested in giving out about this one than getting a statue representing great black women? We can have more than one statue. This one, due to the location should be relevant to the slaves or the protests against the Colston statue. However I am sure there is plenty of room for other statues around the world. If you need a signature for a petition I will absolutely look at the person in question.

Slightly relevant. I highly recommend the movie Hidden Figures. As someone who has been interested in NASA and maths for a while I was surprised I hadn't heard of any black women being involved in the space race before though maybe that was a weakness of my own previous research.

Hector Savage

Hope it gets torn down and f*cked into the sea, of course if that happened it would be a hate crime and "racism" ...

Donald Trump

Strazdas wrote: »

The statue is not of that woman per se. It's meant to represent "a BLM protester" of no particular name. It's actually more of an art installation than a statue.

Yes it is of her. The creator clearly says it is of her and it was done when photos of her circulated on social media.


Perhaps that is the new standard for getting a statue - fleeting 5 minutes of fame for getting a certain number of "likes" for a post. The role models of today are not sportspeople or freedom fighters or humanitarians - they are those who get their boobs out on Love Island or got the most likes on instagram.



We can put up a statue of your one this week and sure then replace it with a statue of whoever gets the most likes for their selfie in the next cause célèbre in a week or two
.

OMM 0000

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

:-)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/15/edward-colston-statue-replaced-by-sculpture-of-black-lives-matter-protester

Narcissism is the ugliest flaw.

Replacing statues with statues of themselves... Jesus Christ.

OMM 0000

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Narcissism is the ugliest flaw.

Or is racism?

OMM 0000

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Or is racism?

Narcissism is far more dangerous.

Do you know any narcissists? They all leave a trail of destruction behind them.

Whereas racists, who are rare, tend to limit their hatred to saying stupid ****. Very rarely does racism lead to violence. As you can see in the US, racism is so rare they have to make up a lot of the attacks.

But if we're saying which one is the uglier flaw, I guess racism is worse as narcissism is a personality disorder.

nullzero

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

LOL. The people of Bristol had been asking for the statue to be taken down for decades. In the end all they got was an amendment to the blurb on the state which was so sanitised that the mayor vetoed it and asked them to redraft it. Direct action got the statue taken down and councils reacted by "listening" to their constituents and choosing to take down dozens more statues across the country.

I find it funny that you're now interested in asking the people of Bristol what they want.

As this statue shows, significant history is being written right now. At least consider being on the right side of it.

Do you not see the hypocrisy of what you're saying?

You want popular opinion to be respected on the one hand and disregarded on the other.

Spout hyperbole about being on the right side of history all you want, it doesn't paper over the immense level of stupidity your post presents as some sort of self evident truth.

Eric Cartman

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Narcissism is the ugliest flaw.

Replacing statues with statues of themselves... Jesus Christ.

Its like watching Stalin all over again. Deranged levels of narcissism.

robinph

Donald Trump wrote: »

How many of Colson's business acquaintances or competitors can you name? I assume he did not have a monopoly on the trade during his time.

You assume incorrectly then.

Originally known as the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa, by its charter issued in 1660 it was granted a monopoly over English trade along the west coast of Africa, with the principal objective being the search for gold. In 1663 a new charter was obtained which also mentioned the trade in slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_African_Company#Slave_(Human)_trade

Donald Trump

robinph wrote: »

You assume incorrectly then.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_African_Company#Slave_(Human)_trade

Not really. It was not solely his company. He was a shareholder for a time. Even when he owned his share, he was not the largest shareholder.





Also, from your very own link you should have been able to read that

In 1689, the Company acknowledged that it had lost its monopoly with the end of royal power in the Glorious Revolution, and it ceased issuing letters of marque

Mr Colston died in 1721. That would be about 32 years after it was opened up to everyone else.


Your same link gives a list of notable investors. Here is is for you for convenience

Charles II of England
Sir Edmund Andros
Sir John Banks
Benjamin Bathurst, Deputy Governor of the Leeward Islands
Henry Bennet, 1st Earl of Arlington
Lord Buckingham
Sir Josiah Child
Sir Robert Clayton
Sir George Carteret
Sir Peter Colleton
Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury
Earl of Craven
Lawrence Du Puy
Sir Samuel Dashwood
Ferdinand Gorges
Francis, Lord Hawley
Sir Jeffrey Jeffreys, Commander of affairs of Leeward Isles in England 1690–c.1696, Assistant to the Royal African Company 1684–6, 1692–8
John Locke
Sir John Moore
Samuel Pepys
James Phipps of Cape Coast Castle
Thomas Povey
Sir William Prichard
Sir Gabriel Roberts
Prince Rupert
Tobias Rustat
George Villiers
Matthew Wren

So no. He did not have a monopoly during his time. Those were some of his business acquaintances.

Donald Trump

Christy42 wrote: »

Does it matter about his name? That isn't whitewashing. I don't need to know the name of every slave trader. I don't need to know the name of every nazi whether or not they have to charity. I need to know that these things happened.

His name is irrelevant. There are many people in history whose names I don't know. I don't see why I should know the name of every slave trader. It will be recorded in the Bristol museum.

Well not really. From a purely financial perspective, the slave trade was, like any other, a trade where investors stumped up capital in order to get a return. It is likely that many "famous" people of that era were similarly invested in it. The people who would have had money to invest would have been the already powerful and wealthy, and probably overlaps to a great extent with the people of that era who have statues!


The difference between them and this fella is just that you've become aware of this fella through recent activities in tearing down his statue. If it is important to tear down his statue, it must also be equally as important to tear down those other statues, regardless of what else they contributed during their lifetime.


If you even see the wikipedia link that was given above, investors in the Royal Africa Company included John Locke and Samuel Pepys. I am sure there are plenty of statues of those two about!


So if you don't know who they are, you can't pull down their statues. That is why it is important to know.

Christy42

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well not really. From a purely financial perspective, the slave trade was, like any other, a trade where investors stumped up capital in order to get a return. It is likely that many "famous" people of that era were similarly invested in it. The people who would have had money to invest would have been the already powerful and wealthy, and probably overlaps to a great extent with the people of that era who have statues!


The difference between them and this fella is just that you've become aware of this fella through recent activities in tearing down his statue. If it is important to tear down his statue, it must also be equally as important to tear down those other statues, regardless of what else they contributed during their lifetime.


If you even see the wikipedia link that was given above, investors in the Royal Africa Company included John Locke and Samuel Pepys. I am sure there are plenty of statues of those two about!


So if you don't know who they are, you can't pull down their statues. That is why it is important to know.

Fair point on needing to know whose statues you are tearing down. I'll leave it up to the locals to decide what statues they want! Though I feel like they should attempt dialogue with the council first (as was the case in Bristol).

I am not going around hunting every statue to do with the slave trade. Neither am I particularly opposed to locals deciding they don't want to honour slave traders anymore though.

Maybe you could put some work I to highlighting others involved in the slave trade. I have praised the protestors for doing so with Colston. I would certainly share the praise if you did similar with others.

robinph

Donald Trump wrote: »

Not really. It was not solely his company. He was a shareholder for a time. Even when he owned his share, he was not the largest shareholder.

And Bill Gates technically never had a monopoly on the operating systems used by home computers and was only a shareholder in the company, but nobody would try to claim that Microsoft was just a minor player or that Windows was a niche product that he had nothing to do with.

Donald Trump

robinph wrote: »

And Bill Gates technically never had a monopoly on the operating systems used by home computers and was only a shareholder in the company, but nobody would try to claim that Microsoft was just a minor player or that Windows was a niche product that he had nothing to do with.

That's correct. But nobody was trying to claim that or anything like it. If you want to go down that kind of route, I could say that nobody would claim that I personally had a monopoly on the global market for operating systems if I buy one share of MSFT tomorrow. Those kind of extreme "analogies" get nobody anywhere.




Mr. Colston did have business acquaintances and competitors in his time - which was the simple point that I made.

Tired Gardener

https://www.thejournal.ie/black-lives-matter-protester-statue-5151610-Jul2020/

Seems the authorities have taken the statue down now. I take it it was more a temporary art piece that was designed to keep people talking. Which it has done, so it is a success.

Now, I think the authorities should just leave the plinth empty, or remove the whole thing and put some public toilets or a nice flower bed there.

El_Duderino 09

Donald Trump wrote: »

I don't know. I am sure that there are plenty of people who are embarrassed that the statue is there as a reminder of the origin of some of their wealth and who would be happy to try to hide it so that people can pretend that their relative prosperity was not built on the backs of others.






Sure take down his statue, remove his name from all the buildings. Then in 20 years, there will be no tourists asking awkward questions about who your man was or what he did. It can be forgotten about and swept under the carpet.

That would be an interesting point IF there was any political will to include the good AND BAD history. But, as we both now know, the political will was to only venerate the good and completely ignore the bad - and ignore calls to include the bad on the blurb.

If the history (good and bad) is recorded in the museum along with the statue, it will be doing the job you want it to do. It doesn't need to stand in the town to tell people about the history (good history only).

Museums are a traditional place to tell complicated history. Statues are to venerate. We both know this.

El_Duderino 09

suicide_circus wrote: »

shameful? lol, get over yourself a muinteoir, go wag your finger at some inanimate street furniture.

Comparing BLM to Jedward was a bit shameful. That's clear to anyone. You made a mistake because of your desire to minimize the significance of the BLM movement.

It was a low move and I would have thought you'd have the decency to admit it.

4068ac1elhodqr

Bristol's latest was last seen being carted off in a hired skip:


Image:PA

El_Duderino 09

Tony EH wrote: »

No. They are a reminder of history.

Good and bad.

This statue wasn't a reminder of the good and bad as the blurb only venerated him and told the good history. The council resisted all efforts to include any bad on the blurb. You know that (we all know about it now). So why pretend the statue was a reminder of the "good and bad"?

The museum will tell the full story so If you're concerned about the full history being told, the museum will almost certainly do a better job. So you should be happy it's going to the museum to have the history explained fully, right?

El_Duderino 09

Tony EH wrote: »

No it isn't. Nobody was walking by Colston's statue thinking "There's that cool slave trader fella. What a guy".

They resisted all attempts to mention the slavery on his statue so I doubt many random passers-by, who rely on the statue blurb to learn about him, would even know about the slavery side. The statue and the blurb were only there to venerate the guy. There was no intention to give a good and bad history of the guy. Attempts to give a good and bad history were thwarted at every turn.

Please, can we stop pretending that the statue was there to tell the good and bad? Anyone who is concerned with telling the good and bad should be happy it's going to a museum where they will tell the good and bad history.

El_Duderino 09

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its like watching Stalin all over again. Deranged levels of narcissism.

That's a good one. Now I've seen the statue of Reid being compared to both Jedward and Stalin in the space of a few pages. It must be tough to find reasons to oppose the whole thing.

markodaly

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They resisted all attempts to mention the slavery on his statue

This is actually not true, I think you know that, but carry on.

Danzy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Comparing BLM to Jedward was a bit shameful. That's clear to anyone. You made a mistake because of your desire to minimize the significance of the BLM movement.

It was a low move and I would have thought you'd have the decency to admit it.

It's quite apt, 2 young rich kids who nobody has an idea what they are on about and are very noisy.

Jedward seem like nice people though.

mick087

Gets more and more more absurd, all the money wasted on this and it could of been spent on the homeless of Bristol.

robinph

mick087 wrote: »

Gets more and more more absurd, all the money wasted on this and it could of been spent on the homeless of Bristol.

How much has been wasted exactly?

A crane to fish a statue out of the harbour, and another one to remove a temporary statue from a plinth. Grand total of about 10 minutes work.

The restoration/ maintaining of the statue they fished out of the harbour is being done by the museum and whilst their staff will be getting paid, they are a charity and it is their mission to record the history of Bristol. The statue getting dunked in the harbour is now part of the history of Bristol and recording that is what they exist for. So whatever costs are incured there are not wasted, that is the museums whole reason for existing.

Junkyard Tom

mick087 wrote: »

all the money wasted on this and it could of been spent on the homeless of Bristol.

Could be worse, they could be paying reparations for the working the life-blood out of generations of people. They're getting off light.