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

First topic message reminder :

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.

Well, slavery is still terrible -- I understand if they were taking down the statue because it was a symbol of slavery.

But then, as others have said, if we tear down everything related to slavery, we're going to have wrecking crews working round the clock.

Better to address what's going on in the here and now.

I'm well aware of that...


And I am against all slavery... regardless of the skin colour of either the slave master or the slave... And think it is about slavery, not racism...


While some seem to think that it must be about racism if the slave master and slave are of different skin colour/ethnicity... But only if the slave master is white and it was specifically about the relatively small amount of slavery happening around 300 years ago by a relatively small number of white Europeans... While completely ignoring the overwhelming vast majority of history of slavery of every other race creed religion has imposed over all other various race creeds and religions of people going back thousands of years... And which many of non white UK/USA races creeds and religions are still imposing on to so many other non white UK/USA people around the world even still to this day!!!

Maddog wrote:

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.  

Right. Pretty sure even Lincoln did not believe in full equality for black people, and Washington owned slaves - perhaps the idiots will hire a tank for Mount Rushmore

And there's a giant statue of Genghis Khan in Mongolia. Surely honouring history's most prolific murderer and rapist warrants a declaration of war

JulesV wrote:

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.

Yeah I remember the Rhodes statue controversy a few years ago. Pretty sure I voiced my opposition on that here too.

And in my post my aim was to point out that his attitude to slavery was monstrous, which it was, but also that he was otherwise no monster at all. So we agree there. I'm confident in saying he would likely have been a fairly nice guy for his time.

Brutus wrote: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

Should we tear down statues of all supporters or participants of slavery - like Horatio Nelson and Francis Drake?

If not, why not?

Slavery has always been a complicated topic. There have been slave owners who run the gambit from helping their slaves to those who think that they're entitled to own, say, black people, because they feel superior to all black people, and everything in between.

It's all about what kind of symbol in the public mind these historical figures become, in my opinion.

Lincoln is seen as "The Great Emancipator" even though he clearly stated he'd prefer to preserve slavery if it preserved the union (of states). His Republican Party of the time dealt with and thought of slavery not as a human rights violation, but as an economic problem -- something that pulled wages downward.

There are very few clear-cut cases when it comes to this topic. The Confederate Flag was explicitly created as a symbol of white supremacy, making it a symbol clearly intended to be racist. But people's legacies are messier.

Or, in one fucking nutshell!

eddie wrote:Or, in one fucking nutshell!

Greened you for that.

Why is that such a hard thing for so many people to understand?

My guess would be crowd-following/tribalism. You tend to call it labelling, which is the same thing -- people being afraid to stand on their own and express an opinion that might not be popular with their friends.

Yes, it’s also called “I have to appear like I’m being fair whilst being unfair to others because one side is black and I’m scared to speak against them for fear of looking a bit racist (God forbid!) so I will only have one big, huge opinion...forsaking all my other thoughts”

eddie wrote:Yes, it’s also called “I have to appear like I’m being fair whilst being unfair to others because one side is black and I’m scared to speak against them for fear of looking a bit racist (God forbid!) so I will only have one big, huge opinion...forsaking all my other thoughts”

I think you're right. But I have nothing but ridicule for anyone who's afraid to condemn the actions of a person because of that person's race.

No race is better, or worse, than any other. So to, say, put some people on a pedestal only because of their race is as racist as to say that everyone of their color is a piece of shit.

In an equal society, people are dealt with according to their actions, not their skin color.

So a white murderer and a black murderer are punished the same as one another, and on the basis of being a murderer, not on the basis of being white or black.

Yes, it’s bullshit. We can support something like police brutality (and the fact that very often in America, black people are treated like shit by some police) without supporting looting and violence.
George Floyd’s brother himself, does NOT support the riots. This is not the way.
Staging a sit-in, singing songs, all colours together, outside the police station, would’ve been so much more emotive and chilling.
This is a topic that should be addressed and not ignored! But let’s find a new way to address it.
I stand by the movement entirely, but not the way it’s being addressed.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Or, in one fucking nutshell!

Greened you for that.

Why is that such a hard thing for so many people to understand?

My guess would be crowd-following/tribalism. You tend to call it labelling, which is the same thing -- people being afraid to stand on their own and express an opinion that might not be popular with their friends.

It's mob mentality and it's happening here right now. Businesses are being shook down to support BLM and make a statement saying as much. If you don't, you get blasted on Facebook and Yelp, and a team of protesters will show up. No comment won't cut it.

It's almost like Passover. Better have the right mark on your front door or you will be getting visitors.

I'm in that middle bit with you too Eddie...


The problem is that too many people are only in the top left subset... encouraging and engaging in violent rioting and looting... And writing 'acab' everywhere they go...

eddie wrote:Or, in one fucking nutshell!

Simple and true.

Same as the Edward Colsten statue.
I  dont agree it should be erected in the city square, I dont support the vandalism of it, and I do understand why slave trading was legitimate business then and abhorrent now.

Not everything is black and white.

And this shit needs to stop, too!

It does. You don't punish white English shop owners for the actions of a white American cop, ffs.

eddie wrote:And this shit needs to stop, too!

oh good...the shops i use will be a bit less crowded, in the current circumstances a win win

Seems like some black people are waging a war on white people now.
Odd that the event that highlighted racism and discrimination is encouraging it now.

Here's an article in my local newspaper...




Bexley Police have said they are aware of rumours of possible 'riots' in Bexleyheath today, assuring that police are ready to respond.

Posts shared on social media have suggested that some residents are preparing to meet up and use the recent Black Lives Matter rallies as cover to "rob up stores."

Responding to the rumours, Bexley Met Police Service have said they are aware of posts on social media regarding potential disorder this afternoon in Bexleyheath.

"There is a proportionate policing plan in place with officers able to respond to any spontaneous disorder if required."

One particular post has been shared widely, calling for people to attend riots at 4pm today.

The post states that "feds can't touch you if there's bare man."


https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18503774.police-aware-potential-bexleyheath-riots-later-today/?ref=ar

Those lovely lovely black people ..

Tommy Monk wrote:

I'm in that middle bit with you too Eddie...


The problem is that too many people are only in the top left subset... encouraging and engaging in violent rioting and looting... And writing 'acab' everywhere they go...

Just thought I'd explain what 'acab' means, for anyone who doesn't already know...


'acab' = all coppers are bastards


And it's one of the things these protesters are spray painting around on walls/buildings/statues etc, wherever they go...

Tommy Monk wrote:


Those lovely lovely black people ..

They're not all lovely, they're not all scum, and there were no riots, were there?

Also...they should remove ALL funding from university arts courses......

More lovely lovely black people...


Watch the video on this link...


https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1271024699561185282?s=20

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CMw0sC7VF6c


Lovely lovely black people...

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Greened you for that.

Why is that such a hard thing for so many people to understand?

My guess would be crowd-following/tribalism. You tend to call it labelling, which is the same thing -- people being afraid to stand on their own and express an opinion that might not be popular with their friends.

It's mob mentality and it's happening here right now. Businesses are being shook down to support BLM and make a statement saying as much. If you don't, you get blasted on Facebook and Yelp, and a team of protesters will show up. No comment won't cut it.

Businesses "shook down", or businesses "shake" money out of consumer pockets, by pretending to be on the trendy side of things? It's a free market, buyers don't don't (directly) tell 'em what to say...Papa John's pizza is owned by RW activists, and nobody stops them.

Tommy Monk wrote:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CMw0sC7VF6c

Lovely lovely black people...

So funny...look at the white guy showing up with a lethal weapon. Nowadays, the whites show up with their cop goons to do the damage for them.

In America BLM might have a point....

In the UK this is nothing but a toxic mixture of virtue signalling and momentum.

Victorismyhero wrote:In America BLM might have a point....

In the UK this is nothing but a toxic mixture of virtue signalling and momentum.

Green from me.

And also, I’d like to add, most protesters are peaceful and want no trouble, but the out of work teens that are bored....well, they have taken this opportunity to give themselves a little added extra high.

Syl wrote:Seems like some black people are waging a war on white people now.
Odd that the event that highlighted racism and discrimination is encouraging it now.

Yep. Funny that.

Victorismyhero wrote:In America BLM might have a point....

In the UK this is nothing but a toxic mixture of virtue signalling and momentum.

I was saying just the other day, as an American in the UK, I can't believe that anybody over here really cares that much about George Floyd's death that they'd pull the kind of shit they're pulling in London.

They're literally protesting the wrong government FFS.

eddie wrote:And this shit needs to stop, too!

He should not have said that. But he's just one person - I'm sure he does not speak for everyone. And he was blatantly playing to the gallery.
Far right groups are whipping this up and they have set up bots to spam message boards , newspapers and social media with fake messages supposed to be from LW groups. It's impostors and impersonators trying to fuel hate, eddie.

Syl wrote:

JulesV wrote:

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.

That comment really caught my eye. When I said 'most people' I meant 'the majority of people'. Which is a harmless term.

I think we sometimes like to think we are not like other people/most people, we're a cut above the rest,  but my wise old nan used to say  "we are all just passing thru". We are all insignificant specks of dust in the cosmos, No one will remember any of us in 50 years' time.

If you don't have the patience to listen to an alternative viewpoint you will wake up one day and find there are very few liberal people left to reply to your new threads apart from diehards like Brutus and Quill.

People with a different opinion might be reluctant to contribute to threads. Rather than put up with the hassle of being shouted down by those receptive to only a right wing conservative opinion.

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?

Nazi?  Isis?  It doesn't compute.  I think you're just casting about aspersions.

It's one thing to laud positive history, it's another thing to laud bad history.  We had this problem with South Carolina, which flew the neo-slavery flag for many decades.  They finally changed it.

Your man Edward Colston was/is representative of a bad time in your history.  Leave him behind, or be reminded your history includes slavery...and you still own it.  

I'm just trying to help y'all out here. You'd be better off forgetting the guy, and leaving his statue in the harbour.

Original Quill wrote:

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?

Nazi?  Isis?  It doesn't compute.  I think you're just casting about aspersions.

It's one thing to laud positive history, it's another thing to laud bad history.  We had this problem with South Carolina, which flew the neo-slavery flag for many decades.  They finally changed it.

Your man Edward Colston was/is representative of a bad time in your history.  Leave him behind, or be reminded your history includes slavery...and you still own it.  

I'm just trying to help y'all out here.  You'd be better off forgetting the guy, and leaving his statue in the harbour.

Should Washington be carved out of Mount Rushmore too? He had slaves, so why not?

What a patronizing prick.

And I don't mean Eilzel.

Victorismyhero wrote:In America BLM might have a point....

In the UK this is nothing but a toxic mixture of virtue signalling and momentum.

Black people were over 3 times as likely to be arrested as White people – there were 35 arrests for every 1,000 Black people, and 10 arrests for every 1,000 White people
overall, men were 6 times as likely to be arrested as women – there were 22 arrests for every 1,000 men, and 4 arrests for every 1,000 women
Black women were more than twice as likely to be arrested as White women – there were 7 arrests for every 1,000 Black women, and 3 arrests for every 1,000 White women

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/number-of-arrests/latest

Black men are responsible for a huge disproportionate level of crime... So of course will be more likely to be stopped by police...


And black women too are disproportionately responsible for higher levels of crime than white women... So again, that is why more likely to be stopped by police...



The police are responders to crime... looking for the reported perpetrators of crime...



If black people are committing huge disproportionate levels of crime... then police will of course be focusing the same sort of level of attention on investigating those who match the description...

+1

JulesV wrote:

Syl wrote:
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.

That comment really caught my eye. When I said 'most people' I meant 'the majority of people'. Which is a harmless term.

I think we sometimes like to think we are not like other people/most people, we're a cut above the rest,  but my wise old nan used to say  "we are all just passing thru". We are all insignificant specks of dust in the cosmos, No one will remember any of us in 50 years' time.

Odd that you think that comment would imply one thinks they are 'a cut above the rest'. To me it simply implies they are an individual.
On forums that would suggest they have their own opinions without thrusting them down other peoples throats, they don't 'play to the crowd, and if they do disagree or don't understand another persons comments, they don't barge in to correct them …..they actually read them properly in the first place.

Tommy Monk wrote:


Black men are responsible for a huge disproportionate level of crime... So of course will be more likely to be stopped by police...


And black women too are disproportionately responsible for higher levels of crime than white women... So again, that is why more likely to be stopped by police...



The police are responders to crime... looking for the reported perpetrators of crime...



If black people are committing huge disproportionate levels of crime... then police will of course be focusing the same sort of level of attention on investigating those who match the description...

That's the ugly nugget of truth that makes people uncomfortable. Blacks are also disproportionately victims of crime. They disproportionately call the police.

The big question is why. In my country, and probably yours, I believe my signature answers the question.

Eilzel wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nazi?  Isis?  It doesn't compute.  I think you're just casting about aspersions.

It's one thing to laud positive history, it's another thing to laud bad history.  We had this problem with South Carolina, which flew the neo-slavery flag for many decades.  They finally changed it.

Your man Edward Colston was/is representative of a bad time in your history.  Leave him behind, or be reminded your history includes slavery...and you still own it.  

I'm just trying to help y'all out here.  You'd be better off forgetting the guy, and leaving his statue in the harbour.

Should Washington be carved out of Mount Rushmore too? He had slaves, so why not?

Colston was among those who initiated the business of slavery, and had to consciously deliberate over the values of  committing human lives to permanent bondage.  True, today we are sickened by the southern zeitgeist of racism, but there are even worst times in our (Anglo-American) history.  Edward Colston owns that part.

However, this is not to excuse men like Washington and Jefferson, and Les, if you feel removing them from Mt. Rushmore is the proper retribution, by all means, I wouldn't stand in the way.  They do owe a debt for subscribing to slavery.

What you are doing is judging the founders by today's standards, and lord knows I do the same for past and present southerners.  There's never a bad time to do the right thing.

Original Quill wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Should Washington be carved out of Mount Rushmore too? He had slaves, so why not?

Colston was among those who initiated the business of slavery, and had to consciously deliberate over the values of  committing human lives to permanent bondage.  True, today we are sickened by the southern zeitgeist of racism, but there are even worst times in our (Anglo-American) history.  Edward Colston owns that part.

However, this is not to excuse men like Washington and Jefferson, and Les, if you feel removing them from Mt. Rushmore is the proper retribution, by all means, I wouldn't stand in the way.  They do owe a debt for subscribing to slavery.

What you are doing is judging the founders by today's standards, and lord knows I do the same for past and present southerners.  There's never a bad time to do the right thing.

No... Slavery had been going on for thousands of years before he was even born!



And still goes on today in black and brown skinnednations, by black and brown skinned people on black and brown skinned people...!

Who built the pyramids?

The Free Masons?

Maddog wrote:Who built the pyramids?  

The Free Masons?

And the White House, those pesky Free Masons got everywhere.

I wonder how people who are 8-16 generations away from now will look back on us, how do you think we will judged, probably very wanting in the majorities attitude to other species and the planet as a whole. That's assuming that there will be people left who will be in a pleasant enough position to judge our actions.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Colston was among those who initiated the business of slavery, and had to consciously deliberate over the values of  committing human lives to permanent bondage.  True, today we are sickened by the southern zeitgeist of racism, but there are even worst times in our (Anglo-American) history.  Edward Colston owns that part.

However, this is not to excuse men like Washington and Jefferson, and Les, if you feel removing them from Mt. Rushmore is the proper retribution, by all means, I wouldn't stand in the way.  They do owe a debt for subscribing to slavery.

What you are doing is judging the founders by today's standards, and lord knows I do the same for past and present southerners.  There's never a bad time to do the right thing.

No... Slavery had been going on for thousands of years before he was even born!

And still goes on today in black and brown skinnednations, by black and brown skinned people on black and brown skinned people...!

It was a different kind of slavery, tommy.  Did you not read the Boorstin books I listed for you.

As Portugal (and others) began to expand out from Europe, they ran into many different kinds of beasts.  In this context, they really didn't distinguish the African man from other beasts of burden.  Contrast this with Greek and Roman slavery, where the slaves were recognized as wholly human, but had forfeited their right to freedom by way of battle or other lawful arrangement.

The African was not recognized as human, hence started the modern form of racism, to wit: he is a different animal, perhaps similar, but lower in intelligence and self-awareness than us.  We had to, and are still overcoming this element of racism.  

But imagine how African slavery would have developed.  Eurasians had already domesticated the horse, oxen and other beasts of burden.  It naturally flowed that Europeans would envision the African as a beast of burden.  This is the conceptualization that someone like Edward Colston would have reached.

It was the Spanish in the late 1400's that began to recognize that Africans were human, and not yet another beast of burden.  However, by then men of Colston’s ilk were already run amuck and New World slavery was in full swing.  But you see how the thinking of the day led to modern day racism of the kind we experience in the American south.

Africans were originally theorized to be beasts; whence, they became (allegedly) sub-standard humans; whence, they became free, but still dominated through various stages of: peonage, Jim Crow systems, separate-but-equal, outcasts, segregation and finally modern-day discrimination.  To the modern American southerner, they never have gotten rid of the (white) stigma of being beasts.

In many ways, the story of Africans is much more insidious.  But you see that slavery took many different paths, according to many different conceptions.

Original Quill wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nazi?  Isis?  It doesn't compute.  I think you're just casting about aspersions.

It's one thing to laud positive history, it's another thing to laud bad history.  We had this problem with South Carolina, which flew the neo-slavery flag for many decades.  They finally changed it.

Your man Edward Colston was/is representative of a bad time in your history.  Leave him behind, or be reminded your history includes slavery...and you still own it.  

I'm just trying to help y'all out here.  You'd be better off forgetting the guy, and leaving his statue in the harbour.

Should Washington be carved out of Mount Rushmore too? He had slaves, so why not?

Colston was among those who initiated the business of slavery, and had to consciously deliberate over the values of  committing human lives to permanent bondage.  True, today we are sickened by the southern zeitgeist of racism, but there are even worst times in our (Anglo-American) history.  Edward Colston owns that part.

However, this is not to excuse men like Washington and Jefferson, and Les, if you feel removing them from Mt. Rushmore is the proper retribution, by all means, I wouldn't stand in the way.  They do owe a debt for subscribing to slavery.

What you are doing is judging the founders by today's standards, and lord knows I do the same for past and present southerners.  There's never a bad time to do the right thing.

Sorry Quill, but the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade was not initiated by Colston, or even England. Portugal began things in the 1500s. England quickly joined and became the biggest abuser, but that was 300 years before Colston. He was, as said, a product of his time.