BLM remove and "drown" statue of racist slave trader in Bristol.

Justified or not?

https://mol.im/a/8396511

Apparently the council were already consider it removing it for it's  racist undertones.

My opinion is the Council should have pre-empted this and declared they were going to remove on a certain day.
Job done, everyone satisfied.

yep, always makes me chuckle when things like this happen...lets erase history and then we can put in place a false narrative......dont the cretins realise they are erasing and denying their own history?

I wonder if they know that there were blacks in America who were slave owners of other blacks...?

Victorismyhero wrote:yep, always makes me chuckle when things like this happen...lets erase history and then we can put in place a false narrative......dont the cretins realise they are erasing and denying their own history?

Maybe they will want to start book burning next...!?

wouldnt surprise me

Tommy Monk wrote:I wonder if they know that there were blacks in America who were slave owners of other blacks...?

Does that make you happy? Or is it just whataboutism?

Idiots.
Trying to erase a countries history cant change the past.
Works of art, literature, anything that pertained to a different time in history.....if it doesn't fit in with modern times should they all be destroyed then?

Syl wrote:Idiots.
Trying to erase a countries history cant change the past.
Works of art, literature, anything that pertained to a different time in history.....if it doesn't fit in with modern times should they all be destroyed then?

But, having a statute of Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, was kinda like erecting a statue of Hitler in Sloan Square. So, I can see how a stature of a slaver could be offensive. It's one thing to have a history, and it's another thing to applaud it.

Ripping down statues etc and trying to erase history or alter it sounds very Nazi, not to mention Isis centric. The history is there we have to live with it and understand it to ensure we try not to repeat the wrongs of the past. Dublin was founded by the Vikings and was the biggest slave trading market of its time - should we demolish the city?

Syl wrote:Idiots.
Trying to erase a countries history cant change the past.
Works of art, literature, anything that pertained to a different time in history.....if it doesn't fit in with modern times should they all be destroyed then?

When that huge statue of Saddam Hussein was hauled down, it was a big moment in history. Did you shout "idiots" ?
No of course not. The whole world rejoiced because he was an evil ogre.

It's not a question of "changing history". The local people simply did not want to have a statue of that character in their faces 24/7.

You mention "works of art". Well, Sadam's statue was a huge exquisite expensive work of art. Did that mean it had to stay up, regardless???

Vintage wrote:Ripping down statues etc and trying to erase history or alter it sounds very Nazi, not to mention Isis centric. The history is there we have to live with it and understand it to ensure we try not to repeat the wrongs of the past. Dublin was founded by the Vikings and was the biggest slave trading market of its time - should we demolish the city?

So the purpose of the statues is "to ensure we try not to repeat wrongs"??   
In that case let's have a statue of a slave in chains, instead. That would do the job just as well.


Did you know that many of those slaves broke free and committed suicide by jumping into the sea, to bring a swift end to the abject horror of their transatlantic journeys crammed like sardines in the dark for weeks on end?


Everyone of them would have committed suicide given half a chance. That is why they were kept in chains.
A dead slave lying at the bottom of the sea ain't gonna bring in any income.

Brutus wrote:Justified or not?

https://mol.im/a/8396511

Apparently the council were already consider it removing it for it's  racist undertones.

My opinion is the Council should have pre-empted this and declared they were going to remove on a certain day.
Job done, everyone satisfied.

Good thread.
Anyone who is upset about a statue being taken down can apply to have it installed in their back garden instead.
That way, local people who hate the sight of it don't have to look at it anymore and the statue lovers get to see it everyday in their own back yard.

Win/win!!


The beauty of it all is that it's the local people trying to bring about change.
This has become FAR bigger than BLM, in fact 90% of the people in protests now, are always ordinary white people, thousands of them - folks with good hearts and good consciences.

If the people of the city want the statue gone that's fair enough, I don't live there but I agree its not the kind of person you want to honour, although once again its all about context and the times. The statue was erected because of the money he left for good causes in the city, although it was ill gotten gains. This though was mob rule, where does it end who decides if something is offensive, people were shocked and saddened when the Bamiyan statues and other artifacts were destroyed by Isis because they found them offensive.
All slavery is bad there has been plenty of it around not just slavery from Africa to the West Indies, slaves from Africa have been going to the middle east for centuries and while a far shorter journey I doubt it was by luxury dhow, practically all peoples have enslaved and been enslaved at some point in history, and its still going on in many different forms.

The statue should have been put in Bristol museum years ago.
It's one thing to recognise your history warts and all, which is where museums come into their own. They don't glorify bad events or people. And it is a fine museum, which would benefit from such an addition.
Unlike a statue in a prominent position in the town which is designed to show off how great the person was.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Idiots.
Trying to erase a countries history cant change the past.
Works of art, literature, anything that pertained to a different time in history.....if it doesn't fit in with modern times should they all be destroyed then?

But, having a statute of Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, was kinda like erecting a statue of Hitler in Sloan Square.  So, I can see how a stature of a slaver could be offensive.  It's one thing to have a history, and it's another thing to applaud it.

I agree. The statue would have been best placed in a museum, detailing the history of it, the good Colston did for the city of Bristol, and how he funded it....through slave trading.
In the 16th century slave trading was legitimate business, and he was a well respected businessman. That was then, this is now, so obviously I agree that his legacy should not be applauded today.

The council have to take some responsibility for leaving it up, they should have taken it down decades ago.

JulesV wrote:

Syl wrote:Idiots.
Trying to erase a countries history cant change the past.
Works of art, literature, anything that pertained to a different time in history.....if it doesn't fit in with modern times should they all be destroyed then?

When that huge statue of Saddam Hussein was hauled down, it was a big moment in history. Did you shout "idiots" ?
No of course not. The whole world rejoiced because he was an evil ogre.

It's not a question of "changing history". The local people simply did not want to have a statue of that character in their faces 24/7.

You mention "works of art". Well, Sadam's statue was a huge exquisite expensive work of art. Did that mean it had to stay up, regardless???

We are not discussing a modern despot like Hussein, we are talking about a man who lived 400 years ago and greatly helped the citizens of Bristol back then, he didn't murder them.

Yes idiots....vandals usually are. They went on to daub Churchills statue yesterday, what next? If they rampage through the cities art galleries and museums destroying every work of art painted or sculpted centuries ago which doesn't fit in with todays way of thinking would that be OK in your book too?

Shades of ISIS !

Syl wrote: We are not discussing a modern despot like Hussein, we are talking about a man who lived 400 years ago and greatly helped the citizens  of Bristol back then,

he didn't murder them.

The slave owner was part of a desperately evil trade which did involve beatings and murder if the slave did not comply -or God forbid - if he ran away. Evil is evil whether blatant from a modern despot, ….. or sanitised evil from a slave driver from 400yrs ago.

Syl wrote:
They went on to daub Churchills statue yesterday,  what next?  

This thread deals specifically with statues of slave owners and this has been a hot topic for years, both here and all over the USA. Thousands of signatures had already been collected from locals to remove this statue and the council was about to make a move.

If you were referring to defacement of Churchill's statue - which is not what Brutus was applauding - you should have said so. That is a separate thing and of course it is wrong and unfortunately it sometimes happens in other protests, not just this one.

Syl wrote:
If they rampage through the cities art galleries and museums destroying every work of art painted or sculpted centuries ago which doesn't fit in with todays way of thinking would that be OK in your book too?

No it would not be OK to vandalise anything in a museum. All museum contents are scared and untouchable. In fact museums are the very place for statues like this. There's a lot of controversial stuff and Victorian era porn safely tucked away in museums, rather than being displayed in the faces of pedestrians in the middle of the town square.

Vintage wrote:If the people of the city want the statue gone that's fair enough, I don't live there but I agree its not the kind of person you want to honour, although once again its all about context and the times. The statue was erected because of the money he left for good causes in the city, although it was ill gotten gains. This though was mob rule, where does it end who decides if something is offensive, people were shocked and saddened when the Bamiyan statues and other artifacts were destroyed by Isis because they found them offensive.
All slavery is bad there has been plenty of it around not just slavery from Africa to the West Indies, slaves from Africa have been going to the middle east for centuries and while a far shorter journey I doubt it was by luxury dhow, practically all peoples have enslaved and been enslaved at some point in history, and its still going on in many different forms.

People often praise the ''generosity'' of these slave owners towards the local community.

All the money he was so wonderfully ''generous'' with, wasn't HIS money to give away, it came directly off FREE slave labour. Quite literally dirty blood money.

Slaves were personal property and their status was not human, they were beasts of burden same as horses, donkeys and ox, never earned a penny for a lifetime of work.

Exactly what I said I think.
As for museums and art galleries, its already been done as Nicko mentioned by Isis for one most recently. I doubt there are many people who wouldn't agree that the money was ill gotten or that the statue should go, its the manner of it as I said previously who is going to decide what is and what isn't acceptable to keep or destroy, after all it depends on peoples  current ideas and understanding and cultural progress. If its to be decided by vandals and carried out by them we haven't really made much progress have we?
Yes slaves were seen as disposable property, they always have been by the Romans, the Vikings, the Arabs, the Maya, the Aztecs, well you get the picture by just about everyone really.

An interesting message to all taxpayers:


After slavery was abolished these slave owners were EACH paid the equivalent of millions of £'s in compensation by the govt, for loss of income. And this time the money came from ordinary taxpayers of course!!!  

Those bills landed tax payers with centuries of debt as there were a LOT of slave owners to compensate.

Guys, you have spent centuries paying the ancient bill for compensating these people who lost their slaves.

When will you get that money back, people??? You are so innocent!

JulesV wrote:

Syl wrote: We are not discussing a modern despot like Hussein, we are talking about a man who lived 400 years ago and greatly helped the citizens  of Bristol back then,

he didn't murder them.

The slave owner was part of a desperately evil trade which did involve beatings and murder if the slave did not comply -or God forbid - if he ran away. Evil is evil whether blatant from a modern despot, ….. or sanitised evil from a slave driver from 400yrs ago.

Syl wrote:
They went on to daub Churchills statue yesterday,  what next?  

This thread deals specifically with statues of slave owners and this has been a hot topic for years, both here and all over the USA. Thousands of signatures had already been collected from locals to remove this statue and the council was about to make a move.

If you were referring to defacement of Churchill's statue - which is not what Brutus was applauding - you should have said so. That is a separate thing and of course it is wrong and unfortunately it sometimes happens in other protests, not just this one.

Syl wrote:
If they rampage through the cities art galleries and museums destroying every work of art painted or sculpted centuries ago which doesn't fit in with todays way of thinking would that be OK in your book too?

No it would not be OK to vandalise anything in a museum. All museum contents are scared and untouchable. In fact museums are the very place for statues like this. There's a lot of controversial stuff and Victorian era porn safely tucked away in museums, rather than being displayed in the faces of pedestrians in the middle of the town square.

Thanks for the lesson in slave trading Jules, though I read up on this man and his legacy yesterday so I don't need it.
You brought up the destruction of Hussein's statue...I was responding to that and pointing out the difference.

Don't tell me how to reply, I brought up Churchills statue because it was also defaced yesterday....probably by the same yobs who vandalised the other statue.

"All museum contents are sacred and untouchable"...  Tell that to an out of control mob next time they see something that doesn't suit todays climate.


The Bristol police force have been criticised for not interfering when Colsten's statue was torn down and dumped in the harbour. I think on this occasion they were right. The statue was a bone of contention and the council should have removed it ...probably never have erected it in the first place.
It is however part of the history of the city. Hopefully they can restore it to it's former glory and put it somewhere less controversial.

Yes, that was bad, the slaves should have had the compensation as far as I would say, but times were different but thankfully changing.
I did watch a programme of a celebrity tracing his/her African ancestry in the West Indies, who ever it was had European ancestry as well, as do most people in the region, it was good to see that the first slaves freed in their family went on to prosperity and became plantation owners themselves despite never having compensation, they made it despite the odds and were a well known and respected family.

I'd say not one of the "white protesters "present at these things is actually interested in the slightest in "the cause"....what they ARE interested in is virtue sigmalling "look at me aint I just soooo god cos i went on a BLM riot despite the risk to myself (and fuck everyone else) from covid.

should have marksmen out, armed with paintball that stains with a permanent uv dye.....any that fall ill(or who's familiy fall ill) from covid should be denied treatment...on the basis that health cover in the uk IS in fact insurance ...only you are insured by the state.. If you deliberately set fire to your car would your insurance pay ???? So why should you be entitled to medical cover for something that you negligently even deliberately infested yourself with?

JulesV wrote:

Syl wrote:Idiots.
Trying to erase a countries history cant change the past.
Works of art, literature, anything that pertained to a different time in history.....if it doesn't fit in with modern times should they all be destroyed then?

When that huge statue of Saddam Hussein was hauled down, it was a big moment in history. Did you shout "idiots" ?
No of course not. The whole world rejoiced because he was an evil ogre.

It's not a question of "changing history". The local people simply did not want to have a statue of that character in their faces 24/7.

You mention "works of art". Well, Sadam's statue was a huge exquisite expensive work of art. Did that mean it had to stay up, regardless???

Saddam Hussein was still alive, as were the people he tortured. Of course the people he killed, not so much.

Syl wrote:
Thanks for the lesson in slave trading Jules, though I read up on this man and his legacy yesterday so I don't need it.
You brought up the destruction of Hussein's statue...I was responding to that and pointing out the difference.

Don't tell me how to reply, I brought up Churchills statue because it was also defaced yesterday....probably by the same yobs who vandalised the other statue.
"All museum contents are sacred and untouchable"...  Tell that to an out of control mob next time they see something that doesn't suit todays climate.
The Bristol police force have been criticised for not interfering when Colsten's statue was torn down and dumped in the harbour. I think on this occasion they were right. The statue was a bone of contention and the council should have removed it ...probably never have erected it in the first place.
It is however part of the history of the city. Hopefully they can restore it to it's former glory and put it somewhere less controversial.

Most people are happy to oblige, when asked for clarification, they don't usually interpret it as ''being told how to reply''.  

If someone is a bit confused, they naturally request clarification and it's a perfectly reasonable request.

The specific issue of removal of certain statues has already been rumbling for a few years. Remember Charlottesville?

The OP asked for an opinion on this specific issue but you brought in a different thing (defacement of Churchill's monument, which is a crime).

ie You were giving an opinion on a different thing to what he was asking.

Hence I was confused.

Brutus wrote:The statue should have been put in Bristol museum years ago.
It's one thing to recognise your history warts and all, which is where museums come into their own. They don't glorify bad events or people. And it is a fine museum, which would benefit from such an addition.
Unlike a statue in a prominent position in the town which is designed to show off how great the person was.

Apparently the plaque on the statue described Colston as some sort of fantastic hero.      No, he was a dealer in a trade of utmost barbarity and depravity. Slave trafficking = as evil as drugs trafficking

And when the slave trade was rightfully abolished, slave owners like him insisted on compensation from the taxpayers to enable them to carry on living in the lap of luxury. The working class people were suddenly lumbered with a huge debt and their descendants have been paying it off, ever since.

JulesV wrote:

Syl wrote:
Thanks for the lesson in slave trading Jules, though I read up on this man and his legacy yesterday so I don't need it.
You brought up the destruction of Hussein's statue...I was responding to that and pointing out the difference.

Don't tell me how to reply, I brought up Churchills statue because it was also defaced yesterday....probably by the same yobs who vandalised the other statue.
"All museum contents are sacred and untouchable"...  Tell that to an out of control mob next time they see something that doesn't suit todays climate.
The Bristol police force have been criticised for not interfering when Colsten's statue was torn down and dumped in the harbour. I think on this occasion they were right. The statue was a bone of contention and the council should have removed it ...probably never have erected it in the first place.
It is however part of the history of the city. Hopefully they can restore it to it's former glory and put it somewhere less controversial.

Most people are happy to oblige, when asked for clarification, they don't usually interpret it as ''being told how to reply''.  

If someone is a bit confused, they naturally request clarification and it's a perfectly reasonable request.

The specific issue of removal of certain statues has already been rumbling for a few years. Remember Charlottesville?

The OP asked for an opinion on this specific issue but you brought in a different thing (defacement of Churchill's monument, which is a crime).

ie You were giving an opinion on a different thing to what he was asking.

Hence I was confused.

I'm happy not be classed as 'most people'

If you were confused perhaps you didn't read my posts carefully enough. I did answer the OP, then like all interesting threads other points are thrown into the equation.

What about the Pygmies...!!!???


Still slaves of the black African Congo slave masters!!!


But black lives matter only want to try to blame today's white people for shit that none of us had anything to do with from centuries ago... And that today's black people aren't in any way the victims of any of it...


While they completely ignore the real actual slavery that is going on today in almost every other black and brown skinned population country in the world !!!


Black and brown skinned slaves owned by black and brown skinned slave masters!!!


Why aren't they complaining about black and brown slavery by black and brown slave owners that is still happening right now...!!!???


They obviously don't really care about slavery or about black/brown lives... They are just anti white racists!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:


What about the Pygmies...!!!???


Still slaves of the black African Congo slave masters!!!


But black lives matter only want to try to blame today's white people for shit that none of us had anything to do with from centuries ago... And that today's black people aren't in any way the victims of any of it...


While they completely ignore the real actual slavery that is going on today in almost every other black and brown skinned population country in the world !!!


Black and brown skinned slaves owned by black and brown skinned slave masters!!!


Why aren't they complaining about black and brown slavery by black and brown slave owners that is still happening right now...!!!???


They obviously don't really care about slavery or about black/brown lives... They are just anti white racists!!!

I think there is some truth in what you say Tommy. Riots and demo's always attract 'rent a mob' who will hitch themselves on any bandwagon to cause more trouble and stir up hatred, racial or otherwise.

But to concentrate on the statue of the slave trader that had pride of place in a Bristol town square.

Do you not think people today should have the right to object that a man who made his money from slavery was still in this modern age placed as a figure to be admired?
The plaque under his statue read...“Erected by citizens of Bristol as a memorial of one of the most virtuous and wise sons of their city”.

The council were wrong to leave it there, they didn't act when it was obvious having it there was insulting.
It should, as has been said, been put in a museum where the history of the man and the times he lived in could be put into perspective.

I'm really, really opposed to senseless acts like this.

Yes, slavery was bad. Horrendous. One of the worst crimes against humanity in history (it was in Rome, it was in the age of Empire, and it is in the areas it still exists today). No questions in that regard.

BUT!

Colston existed in a VERY different time. You'd be hard pressed to find many rich and prominent people in the 1500-late 1700s who didn't either support, passively accept or even take part in the trade. It was a part of that 'world' that existed. And no amount of brainless demonstrations will change that.

Colston was, in the sense of his part in slavery, a monster. But so were most people at that time. He seems to have been a very decent man in every other way, and a great Bristolian.

Does that mean I'm justifying what he did? No, obviously not. Does that mean I'd justify modern racists with a 'well sure he's racist, but aside from that he's all right.' - no, it does not. People nowadays have NO excuse, we are well beyond the point where that was accepted. It is deplorable.

But Colston was a man of his time, judge him within it. Will you rip down every statue of Nelson (he opposed abolition)? Will you object to statues of Francis Drake (he took part in it)? Should we tear down statues of every monarch that upheld, promoted, supported it or whatever else?

No. Obviously not.

This is beyond stupid. We are close to declaring everyone who lived prior to a certain point in time as monsters because we idiotically judge them by the standards of today. The pillocks who tore this down haven't got a clue. Someone who knew more than them whispered in their ear about this man's pasts and they got on their braindead high horses.

I support BLM. I oppose racism. But fuck these morons.

As Meg Ryan famously shouted...Yes...Yes....Yes.../\

I agree with Eilzel, well put. The statue should have been moved if people were objecting to it.
The population of Bristol is over 686,000, a petition gathered 11,000 signatures to have it removed, not exactly a democratic win.
There is call to remove the statue of Rhodes in Oxford, if it is removed shouldn't the Rhodes scholarship go with it?

Eilzel wrote:I'm really, really opposed to senseless acts like this.

Yes, slavery was bad. Horrendous. One of the worst crimes against humanity in history (it was in Rome, it was in the age of Empire, and it is in the areas it still exists today). No questions in that regard.

BUT!

Colston existed in a VERY different time. You'd be hard pressed to find many rich and prominent people in the 1500-late 1700s who didn't either support, passively accept or even take part in the trade. It was a part of that 'world' that existed. And no amount of brainless demonstrations will change that.

Colston was, in the sense of his part in slavery, a monster. But so were most people at that time. He seems to have been a very decent man in every other way, and a great Bristolian.

Does that mean I'm justifying what he did? No, obviously not. Does that mean I'd justify modern racists with a 'well sure he's racist, but aside from that he's all right.' - no, it does not. People nowadays have NO excuse, we are well beyond the point where that was accepted. It is deplorable.

But Colston was a man of his time, judge him within it. Will you rip down every statue of Nelson (he opposed abolition)? Will you object to statues of Francis Drake (he took part in it)? Should we tear down statues of every monarch that upheld, promoted, supported it or whatever else?

No. Obviously not.

This is beyond stupid. We are close to declaring everyone who lived prior to a certain point in time as monsters because we idiotically judge them by the standards of today. The pillocks who tore this down haven't got a clue. Someone who knew more than them whispered in their ear about this man's pasts and they got on their braindead high horses.

I support BLM. I oppose racism. But fuck these morons.

Exactly, how many men of his era believed in letting women vote?

The greatest people of bygone eras often had what we would consider backwards beliefs. Its unfair to judge historical figures with contemporary morals.

Spot on Les, they are now shouting for the Statue of Cecil Rhodes to be removed, It will be Churchills next !

remove the lot, destroy all history and lets do a year zero forget the lessons of the past, forget the warnings from history, forget all progress and go back to might makes right and lobbing rocks at those you dont like...(should make this latest lot happy and should also please the greens and that dreadful greta thunderbum or whatever)

Sly, Victor, Vintage, nicko amd gelico defending British slave traders and bastard colonialist mercenaries...

What a surprise..

Not.

Victorismyhero wrote:remove the lot, destroy all history and lets do a year zero forget the lessons of the past, forget the warnings from history, forget all progress and go back to might makes right and lobbing rocks at those you dont like...(should make this latest lot happy and should also please the greens and that dreadful greta thunderbum or whatever)

Alternatively place all  statues and writings of powerful white supremists of the past in the appropriate place, which imo should be in the  history museums.
A countries history should never be destroyed, it's often a good reminder of how not to act in the future.

wolfie, you don't know what your talking about, Piss off !

nicko wrote:wolfie, you don't know what your talking about, Piss off !

Seconded.
It would be enlightening if he could find one post where I have defended the slave traders, but he wont, this will be another of his hit, crap himself, and run off posts he is well known for.

agreed ....wolfie go suck yer toes ya big pussy

Colson was a horrid guy, made his money from the death, suffering and abject deprivation of the slaves he used as cattle.
That era was an in glorious part of our history, and he should never have been celebrated as a heroic icoc, with a bronze statue, but should have been remembers, and have his in glorious history recorded in Bristol museum

How do you know he was a horrid guy? For a man of his time he may well have been a god fearing, generous man carrying out an enterprise that was entirely legal, the poor souls that he traded in were just that trade goods - at that time, hard to understand I know for someone of this day and age, although some people still are just that saleable goods, ask the women transported across the world as sex slaves, ask the African and Indian women brought to various countries by African and Indian families who are worked to the bone and physically and sexually molested by those 'employers'.

Eilzel wrote:I'm really, really opposed to senseless acts like this.

Yes, slavery was bad. Horrendous. One of the worst crimes against humanity in history (it was in Rome, it was in the age of Empire, and it is in the areas it still exists today). No questions in that regard.

BUT!

Colston existed in a VERY different time. You'd be hard pressed to find many rich and prominent people in the 1500-late 1700s who didn't either support, passively accept or even take part in the trade. It was a part of that 'world' that existed. And no amount of brainless demonstrations will change that.

Colston was, in the sense of his part in slavery, a monster. But so were most people at that time. He seems to have been a very decent man in every other way, and a great Bristolian.

Does that mean I'm justifying what he did? No, obviously not. Does that mean I'd justify modern racists with a 'well sure he's racist, but aside from that he's all right.' - no, it does not. People nowadays have NO excuse, we are well beyond the point where that was accepted. It is deplorable.

But Colston was a man of his time, judge him within it. Will you rip down every statue of Nelson (he opposed abolition)? Will you object to statues of Francis Drake (he took part in it)? Should we tear down statues of every monarch that upheld, promoted, supported it or whatever else?

No. Obviously not.

This is beyond stupid. We are close to declaring everyone who lived prior to a certain point in time as monsters because we idiotically judge them by the standards of today. The pillocks who tore this down haven't got a clue. Someone who knew more than them whispered in their ear about this man's pasts and they got on their braindead high horses.

I support BLM. I oppose racism. But fuck these morons.

So Eil, you call him a ''monster''. Actually that's far stronger than I put it.

Like I said the slaves were regarded as personal property and quite literally as beasts of burden, like horses etc, not at all human.  So with that mindset he wasn't illtreating anyone, just working his beasts of burden. So he would not have had any guilty conscience about it, and he wouldn't have been regarded as a monster by himself or by anyone else, just a nice reguar guy who liked to share his massive slavery-generated wealth.


Yes there are similar monuments in many cities in Britain - but Bristol's history is massively different. Bristol has an exceptionally strong link with slavery which other cities do NOT have.  And  Bristol city council members have been discussing this controversial statue for years.

The controversial Oxford university stature - I have seen it discussed many times in the news in past years, it's nothing 'new' at all.

Do I support achieving things by violent means? Nope! Never been in a protest/demo but I can understand how some protesters can get caught up in the adrenaline and get physical.

After posting in this thread I came across an interview given by the Lord Mayor of Bristol, a well spoken, moderate guy and felt rather pleased when I realised that what he said was pretty much what I  wrote on here.

Eilzel wrote:I'm really, really opposed to senseless acts like this.

Yes, slavery was bad. Horrendous. One of the worst crimes against humanity in history (it was in Rome, it was in the age of Empire, and it is in the areas it still exists today). No questions in that regard.

BUT!

Colston existed in a VERY different time. You'd be hard pressed to find many rich and prominent people in the 1500-late 1700s who didn't either support, passively accept or even take part in the trade. It was a part of that 'world' that existed. And no amount of brainless demonstrations will change that.

Colston was, in the sense of his part in slavery, a monster. But so were most people at that time. He seems to have been a very decent man in every other way, and a great Bristolian.

Does that mean I'm justifying what he did? No, obviously not. Does that mean I'd justify modern racists with a 'well sure he's racist, but aside from that he's all right.' - no, it does not. People nowadays have NO excuse, we are well beyond the point where that was accepted. It is deplorable.

But Colston was a man of his time, judge him within it. Will you rip down every statue of Nelson (he opposed abolition)? Will you object to statues of Francis Drake (he took part in it)? Should we tear down statues of every monarch that upheld, promoted, supported it or whatever else?

No. Obviously not.

This is beyond stupid. We are close to declaring everyone who lived prior to a certain point in time as monsters because we idiotically judge them by the standards of today. The pillocks who tore this down haven't got a clue. Someone who knew more than them whispered in their ear about this man's pasts and they got on their braindead high horses.

I support BLM. I oppose racism. But fuck these morons.

Well fucking said.

Anger knows no bounds. Perhaps once they’re tired of burning and stealing, they will come up with a better way to reach people.

There were blacks in America who were themselves owners of black slaves... Were they racist monsters too...!?

And plenty of black slaves themselves had Japanese women as sex slaves... Were they racist monsters too...!?

Blacks in the Congo, are today, still slave masters of Pygmy slaves... Maybe somebody should start a Twitter hashtag group that #pygmylivesmatter...???

Tommy Monk wrote:


There were blacks in America who were themselves owners of black slaves... Were they racist monsters too...!?

And plenty of black slaves themselves had Japanese women as sex slaves... Were they racist monsters too...!?

Blacks in the Congo, are today, still slave masters of Pygmy slaves... Maybe somebody should start a Twitter hashtag group that #pygmylivesmatter...???

Slavery and racism don't always go hand-in-hand. Before and through the rule of the Roman Empire, plenty of white people were enslaved by other white people in Europe.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


There were blacks in America who were themselves owners of black slaves... Were they racist monsters too...!?

And plenty of black slaves themselves had Japanese women as sex slaves... Were they racist monsters too...!?

Blacks in the Congo, are today, still slave masters of Pygmy slaves... Maybe somebody should start a Twitter hashtag group that #pygmylivesmatter...???

Slavery and racism don't always go hand-in-hand. Before and through the rule of the Roman Empire, plenty of white people were enslaved by other white people in Europe.

Exactly! So why destroy the statue! Like I said, when they’re tired of destroying and stealing I hope they find a better way to express themselves.

Destruction is no way to teach the world, and the children who are watching, to behave.