Forum menu
Will this ever happen?
The Justice in Policing Act...
We can only hope...
Slam dunk, somafunk.
Congratulating 'ourselves' for abolishing slavery is meaningless when it was still legal to own a slave until 1835. But thats the narrative we're fed. You would think that a government bail out of slave owners that took 180 years to pay off would feature slightly more prominently in our history and education. The debt incurred to fight WW2 was paid off in a third of the time.
I most definitely am not wagging my finger.
I’d just like to see them aim their anger better than at ancient statues.
Not just their viewpoint, the viewpoint of a great many people in Bristol, which you might realise if you were actually paying attention! 11,000 people signed a petition calling for its removal, I’ll bet you that if you did a poll in the city about that statute the majority of people would be quite happy about its removal. It should have been taken down and put into a museum in Bristol along with other exhibits about slavery and Bristol’s long associations with it. Bristol isn’t the only city in the U.K. with connections with slavery, and there needs to be a wider discussion about Britain’s involvement with the trade, but that discussion should also explore the part that African and Arab people had in the trade as well, happily taking money in return for their own people. It’s also often forgotten that some of those same slave traders from North Africa were taking white people from the south of England and Ireland and selling them into slavery – there’s a degree of guilt on both sides, but the obscene amount of money made by white traders, and the celebration of those people has to be addressed, but not swept away; those who choose to ignore the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them, and Bristol has a large Black population who really do need to be listened to and their concerns acted upon now.
So its ok to break the law if 11,000 people out of a city population of 690,000 that less than 2% of the cities population. Not even a significant minority. If we can all break the law if less than 2% of the city agrees then we wont have many laws left. What makes this small minority think it has the right to tell the other 98% what its can and cant have. I dont care who the statue is. Its not important. Its the principle of a tiny minority vandalizing and destroying public property because they have decided to take offence at it
“ I dont care who the statue is”
You should, you really should care and understand the implications of it
So its ok to break the law if 11,000 people out of a city population of 690,000 that less than 2% of the cities population. Not even a significant minority. If we can all break the law if less than 2% of the city agrees then we wont have many laws left. What makes this small minority think it has the right to tell the other 98% what its can and cant have. I dont care who the statue is. Its not important. Its the principle of a tiny minority vandalizing and destroying public property because they have decided to take offence at it
Yeah, I get where you are coming from. It's disappointing that only 2% of the population could be arsed enough to sign a petition asking for it to be removed and, ideally, these things would be done by consensus. However, if something is so abhorrent and insulting to a even a small number of the population, does it really deserve to remain?
Colston Tower is a 70s tower-block. No history there, so change the name.
The Merchant Venturers will never allow it. They are the same people who have obstructed the Colston statue debate for 30 years. They also have fingers in may pies in the city and do not appear to be a current force for democratic good. More here
https://twitter.com/mat8iou/status/1269896135113674753?s=21
What makes this small minority think it has the right to tell the other 98% what its can and cant have.
I agree: it's outrageous that a small group of powerful white men told us we must have a statue of a mass murderer.
However, if something is so abhorrent and insulting to a even a small number of the population, does it really deserve to remain?
Would you still be saying that if that small number of people were all members of the EDL or ISIS. No I doubt it (or at least i hope not).
chrismac,
If you feel that strongly about it feel free to go and put it back up yourself. I'm sure you can round up a posse of like minded law abiding citizens to help you.
Fill your boots as they say, (though you might find a pair of waders more usefull.)
But seriously, perhaps they can make an annual event of dredging Eddie up from the depths and re erecting him briefly, only to topple him again and send him on his journey down the hill before the ritual submersion into the dock. More fun than chucking a cheese down a hill, (another West Country tradition.)
On a lighter note, how do all you 'white statues matter' crowd feel about the Confederate flag / memorials?
What makes this small minority think it has the right to tell the other 98% what its can and cant have. I dont care who the statue is. Its not important. Its the principle of a tiny minority vandalizing and destroying public property because they have decided to take offence at it
surely everyone takes offence at slavery?
thats what the government would call 'common sense'
surely everyone takes offence at slavery?
Yes, but some people save their most extreme disgust to more recent slavery - say in 19th century USA or ISIS in more recent years. Many of us don't smash up statues of Aristotle or Investors in the Royal African Company in the 17th century. (Who, interestingly, were often the most enlightened liberals of their age. There's at least one statue of Samuel Pepys in London. There's a Statue of Charles II, not far from my front door. There's statues of John Locke all over the place (quite rightly).
Edward Calston lived in an age where he could easily have been on a jury that found a Witch guilty in what would have been regarded as a fair trial. Harsh to judge him by the standards of the modern world or even by the standards of the world 200 years after he was born when Slavery was abolished in Britain.
I'm all for moving this stature to a museum, but the personal dislike of Edward Calston is insane - he was a liberal enlightened philanthropist. One of the good guys by the standards of the time.
Rather than squabbling over individual statues one by one what we need is a consistent national policy on criteria for statue moving. I see no benefit in going back before written word which I guess means, in the UK, we can only start at the Roman invasion. I'm pretty sure every monarch down to at least James II had some kind of monopoly on UK slave trading. I'm not sure when Slavery stopped being a thing within the UK, that might have been 1830ish as well just like the rest of the empire. I'd reckon at least down to James II people including the monarch owned slaves doing work in the Uk. So some statues will be easier to identify and move than others. 'Organized' slavery started when mankind started farming (in the Neolithic) so I guess we'll need to move Stonehenge into a nearby museum. We need a consistent national policy on which statues have to move.
Outofbreath,
....and breathe.....
Outofbreath, ….and breathe…..
STW at it's best though. If you'd asked me at tea time I'd have thought you could sum the Enlightenment up in a few words - all of them positive. Then an STW squabble prompts me to a bit of googling (Enlightenment+Slavery) and I find people like Voltaire... Plus a chilling idea of racial hierarchy straight out of Nazi Germany. The definition of Liberal has certainly shifted a bit over the last 3 and a bit centuries! 🙂
Philadelphia thugs close ranks over beating ,But watch the assault here first.
If you don’t want to watch the above then I’ll parse it for you below....
“We demand the right to beat the shit out of anyone without threat of prosecution”
Outofbreath,
Just because Edward Colston is sleeping with the fishes doesn't mean there's going to be an audit of every statue, monument and artefact in the country, (although I'd be clinging on tight to the masonry if I were Cecil Rhodes.) A few other statues that have been gathering pigeon poo for a century, who nobody really cares or knows about will go the same way.
Statues are symbolic and so is their removal. They don't represent history they represent and reflect the values of contemporary society. In terms of bang for your buck, the symbolism of what happened in Bristol is huge.
The false icon of all false icons for Britons is Winston Churchill. He has been venerated to a degree to which no objective criticism is conscionable. The defacing of his statue got a front page on the Mail online yesterday. No surprise there, though the headline was the words of the tagger responsible, explaining how Churchill had fought the Nazi's to protect colonialism, not people of colour. How else are you going to get that narrativee on to the front page of the Daily Mail?
Churchill embodied the dark heart of those enlightenment values you mention and as you point out, the word liberal has been interpreted differently and variously over time, mirrored not least in the fact that Churchill was a member of the liberal party for a considerable period.
I pissed on the grave of Cecil Rhodes (Worlds View, Malindidzimu hill) when staying at Big Cave Camp in the Matobos National park back in 1994, the grave was a relatively short walk from my hill lodge, come to think of it I’ve also pissed on the monument to the Duke of Sutherland up top of Golspie......I can see a pattern appearing. Got cool pictures of both areas in stunning sunshine (the scenery, not the pissing as that’d just be weird)
The statues were considered important symbols, that why they were put there. The vast majority of pre-WW2 statues celebrate self-sacrifice, warfare, Great Men, doing your duty. They are about obedience to hierarchy and authority, that's why they are sacrosanct if you are keen to preserve the status quo. Every night on HP I hear all these attempts to de-legitimise the protests: vandalism, attacking the police and statues and horses, disease spreading (and this is coming from a 'liberal').
Henry Moore after WW2 created monuments that celebrated humanity, parenthood etc and gave a different feel to public spaces and attitudes towards others. Spaces, structures and resources all reflect the distribution of wealth and power in a society and it's no surprise therefore that there are challenges, debates and sometimes practical action. It's taking back control.
There’s at least one statue of Samuel Pepys in London.
...As many as that..? as the joke goes. If you're gong to cite examples of statues to "prominent enlightenment" figures, then allow me to respond...Pepys was by any measure an odious, creepy, servile, self serving ****, who whipped and beat his serving boys, "took advantage" (ie raped) the female servants of his household (to such an extent with one that Pepys wife had to go on a sex strike until he stopped) The "coded" diary is in fact just shorthand, and was initially resisted for publication, as lots of it is just him recounting visits to prostitutes, and then sniffing his fingers all the way home. The diaries that are published are heavily edited highlights, the bits that actually reveal him for what he is, curiously never seem to get into publication...
Pepys is interesting in that he was indiscreet enough to leave a diary. End
Edit: On reflection, the other interesting thing about Pepys is that it allows a window into a world where outwardly men act in an educated and "enlightened" way, but in fact reveal themselves to absolutely understand the privileged position they're in. Pepys often recounts the activities of other London socialites, noting their beatings stealing, and violent ways (often to women and servants, who couldn't respond in kind). These were men who knew that they couldn't be touched by the law, acted above it almost relentlessly and cried and stamped their little feet when they couldn't get their way. Judge them by their own standards, they knew full well they were getting away with murder (as often that's precisely what they did)
The false icon of all false icons for Britons is Winston Churchill.
I would say he's overdue a reckoning. But, and it's an important but...From May 1940 to about mid '43, he was pretty much indispensable. There wasn't anyone in that cabinet who could've done what he did. not Halifax, not Bevin, or Wood, all those prominent politicians couldn't (and wouldn't) have done what Churchill could. If nothing else he deserves a statue for that. IMO
One of the good guys by the standards of the time.
How many people do you have to enslave and murder before you stop being a good guy?
Churchill embodied the dark heart of those enlightenment values you mention
So racist and black of heart, edited highlights are down this thread. In the early 40's he did a cracking job but we mustn't forget that he was not a paragon and his early public life & service is frankly revolting.
https://twitter.com/iraqisecurity/status/1269758212913483776?s=21
That twitter thread Sandwich....It's why we need to be more nuanced when we discuss these figures.
"Churchill engineered the Burma famine of '44"
No he didn't. There's plenty of evidence about why he certainly didn't engineer it, and whats steps were taken to try to mitigate it.
The Merchant Venturers will never allow it. They are the same people who have obstructed the Colston statue debate for 30 years. They also have fingers in may pies in the city and do not appear to be a current force for democratic good. More here
Interesting. As I said, we had student demos against Colston back in the late 80s. Baffled me why the council ignored it, wouldn't even change the plaque.
Just looked at their website, bit like the livery companies in London.
If we are judging all monuments by the bad they have done in the past then there won’t be a single church, mosque, synagogue left in the country. We better get rid of the Tower of London whilst we are at it and every stately home needs turning into rubble starting with Windsor castle.
If we are judging all monuments by the bad they have done in the past then there won’t be a single church, mosque, synagogue left in the country
Sounds awesome, when do we start?
There 's certainly no statue of Mayhew in London who worked himself to death recording the lives of costermongers and the poor. Churchill didn't do too well at Sydney Street and he came out in support of Mussolini. Look at his foul-mouthed lumpen offspring in parliament and how many times has the nation had to buy his memoirs? It ain't all glory. And yet when I was a kid, if you did so much as a throw a snowball at him on Woodford Green cars would screech to a halt (good sport!).
How many people do you have to enslave and murder before you stop being a good guy?
Indeed, we need to know. That's exactly what the people who pulled down the statue should tell us, IMHO. Plus how far back in history and how far within the standards of the time the enslaving and murdering needs to be before you start being a good guy again. Or at least good enough that your statue doesn't need to be moved. So I agree, they need to say.
Sounds awesome, when do we start?
What's stopping you up to now? Could it be that you think destroying stuff you find offensive isn't a good idea?
My view on statues is always going to be Who put it up, and why? At the very least, the Colston episode in Bristol will hopefully open up a discussion about who are these Men (and it's nearly always white middle aged men) standing on plinths often in prominent positions in our communities? and often celebrating lives that were under the surface veneer not really worth commemorating.
They are just statues after all, they don't change history by not being there, and TBH most folk have a shaky grasp of even recent history at best, so anything pre-19th century is probs. due for a reckoning. They were put there by people with often scant regards to the folk who had to then live with them, It's no great harm to have a revisit.
Plus, some of them are just terrible bits of "art" anyway.
@nickc I didn't read all the way through the thread and missed the Burma tweet. There was a better thread yesterday that didn't include Burma but I was unable to locate it this morning. I suppose that Bengal wasn't considered bad enough and another famine was thrown in to over-egg the pudding.
How many people do you have to enslave and murder before you stop being a good guy?
It's a low bar of one, but you knew this.
Caught up with David Olusoga's series last night, worth a watch as that's about Bristol at the same time. 1830s reform riots interesting too, with many civic buildings attacked and looted. Then they sent the Dragoon Guards in.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/he-slave-trader-murderer-david-4202819
I didn’t read all the way through the thread and missed the Burma tweet.
Yeah, not having a pop at you, but it's often worth noting that both the divisive and factional Indian politics and the Japanese Army's occupation of Burma in '43 is often handily ignored when laying the blame of Bengal famine at Churchill's feet. His views on Indian self determination is well known, and the man clearly was racist, but I don't think for a second that the deaths of all those poor folk is his fault
often celebrating lives that were under the surface veneer not really worth commemorating.
Colston was a leading light of liberalism at at the beginning of the Enlightenment (Pre-dating it slightly). So much so they built a statue to him.
If you'd lived in Bristol at the time when schools for poor kids were founded and you were asked to put a coin in a collection for a statue to the guy who funded it would you not have enthusiastically chipped in?
His views on Indian self determination is well known, and the man clearly was racist, but I don’t think for a second that the deaths of all those poor folk is his fault
This.
There's no doubt that Churchill was prejudiced against Indians (although that doesn't define him) but he only had so much shipping tonnage. How many of us would have chosen different priorities?
Really bad look though. British people sitting in hotels eating bacon and eggs while local people starved to death.
So much so they built a statue to him.
in 1895...Long after his business in the slave trade was well understood. Look, even the Libertarians and enlightenment scholars well understood the dramatic difference between the lives they actually led, and the things they wrote about. Take Pepys again, and a bit of "Science.."
When he was appointed to the Navy board it was broke, so much so that they had to save a shit ton of cash. They did this in part by working out how little food you had to give a black man* before he became too weak to work. Then give him just enough over that to stop him from starving...that's the ration. Pepys was then celebrated for being a "Great Administrator and Reformer" because of this, to them this was good scientific management.
So when you talk about the Enlightenment, remember that sometimes it's treating humans as if they are chattel
* again it was just the black dudes, not the white sailors...just sayin...
It’s a low bar of one
Lots of statues to move, then. Shame 'cos I really like the one of Boudica by the HoC. 🙁
I seem to remember reading that Churchill shipped 40 tons of furniture, at a time of fiercely restricted shipping and rationing, to Canada in case he felt like legging it. Fighting them on the beaches.
in 1895…Long after his business in the slave trade was well understood.
Again, I didn't know that, and it's up to the protesters to point that out. If it's not reasonably contemporary to EC that makes a big difference - I'm not sure it's even worth putting a museum. I shouldn't have to research it, or hear about it on a Cycling forum they should be stating it clearly.
Look, even the Libertarians and enlightenment scholars well understood the dramatic difference between the lives they actually led, and the things they wrote about. Take Pepys again, and a bit of “Science..”
When he was appointed to the Navy board it was broke, so much so that they had to save a shit ton of cash. They did this in part by working out how little food you had to give a black man* before he became too weak to work. Then give him just enough over that to stop him from starving…that’s the ration. Pepys was then celebrated for being a “Great Administrator and Reformer” because of this, to them this was good scientific management.
Yup, it was a different world, unrecognizable to us.
So when you talk about the Enlightenment, remember that sometimes it’s treating humans as if they are chattel
Yup, with a chilling (to modern eyes) concept of race hierarchy. So the liberals of the time weren't liberal by current standards. Is that really a reason to move all their statues around? Or worse do we reverse liberalism because the early liberals weren't liberal enough for us?
Doctors 300 years ago were rubbish, do we refuse to acknowledge the leading doctors of the age because they were rubbish, even though they were part of the process that moved us towards modern medicine.
Again, I didn’t know that, and it’s up to the protesters to point that out.
I think that locally (and really that matter more I think) these issues were well understood, and part of the "problem"
Yup, it was a different world, unrecognizable to us.
Agreed, the 18th C is fascinating, in many ways it's the start of modernity, lots of things they worried about we'd recognise (women's rights, drinking culture, social media, getting fat, the latest trends, too much shopping etc etc) but in huge ways it wasn't anything like our world.
I seem to remember reading that Churchill shipped 40 tons of furniture, at a time of fiercely restricted shipping and rationing, to Canada in case he felt like legging it. Fighting them on the beaches.
I assume ships were going west across the Atlantic empty(ish) for the obvious reasons so no problem. If we accept the incorrect implication of what you're saying that 40 tons of useful space was wasted that could have easily gone to India, then you're effectively saying that you'd have still killed millions but about 20 people less than Churchill.
I'm sceptical of the story though. Google is silent and I can't imagine Churchill doing anything that signalled even one step backwards to the people around him. (Wasn't there a relative of Churchill who wanted to go to Canada and was told they couldn't for exactly that reason?) If things had turned out differently I am certain Churchill would have done a Hitler & stayed in the UK and topped himself when the Panzers were in sight. (I'm also certain he had a shrewd idea it wouldn't come to that in the short term.)
So the liberals of the time weren’t liberal by current standards. Is that really a reason to move all their statues around?
I don't think it's necessarily a problem to revisit who they are and what they did. It doesn't follow that you have to revisit the whole of history, antiquity or even prehistory (I'm willing to bet that Stone Henge wasn't erected by completely willing labour) but I don't think it's a bad thing to look at what is there and make a judgement. After all, that's exactly what the folk who put them up did, they judged these men by their own standards, so what's wrong with judging their worth (as statues) by our own standards. We're not slaves to our past.
Again, I didn’t know that, and it’s up to the protesters to point that out.
It's up to protesters to spoon feed you with information available via a 5 second google search? It's literally the first hit.
There was a plan to evacuate the UK parliament, the Royal family and the "Rump" govts of occupied Europe to Canada, should Op Sea-lion ever really start to happen. For obvious reasons (Op Sea-lion was never ever going to happen or succeed) it was never really taken overly seriously