Statues and our tolerance of history
Discussion
cherryowen said:
But now, more than ever, that statue needs to remain as a reminder that if we don't learn from previous mistakes.......................
So if you're determined that the statue must remain in its place as a warning from history, you'd support either changing the inscription (which, as far as I know, currently simply says 'CLIVE') or the erection of a plaque or board which provides a fair summary of Clive's life and deeds - from his undoubted military success in the securing of India for British interests and his ability to make himself and his employers immensely rich, to his and the EIC's part in the lootings and famines in India? Jazzy Jag said:
Maybe it was built by slaves?
Neither the pyramids or Stonehenge were built by slaves - the current evidence is that both were effectively public works schemes. The pyramids were built by Egyptian citizen farmers during the part of the year when they couldn't farm due to the Nile floods. In return for getting grain from the central supply and a stipend from the pharaoh, they had to do a certain amount of work on the pyramids and other monuments as well as stuff like flood defences. The pyramids were the site of the world's first recorded strike action, when construction workers refused to work until the stipend was increased. Even if they were built by slaves, they're not a celebration of slavery and don't represent an attempt to erase history. So there is no reason to demolish them on anti-slavery grounds. The same goes for the Stonehenge, Coliseum, the Bristol Exchange or any other functional, historic and non-iconographic building built or funded by slave labour. It's amazing that that needs to be said.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Tuesday 9th June 23:30
2xChevrons said:
Then we need to at least have a discussion about what the statues represent and how best to inform and educate people about how the times and values they depict are not neccessarily the ones we subscribe to now. Which may mean relocating them to a more appropriate place.
Yes, relocating seems to be the best option rather than tearing down by angry mob. Pop it in a museum somewhere and display with more context. Preserves the history, but doesn’t celebrate the person.They need to get on top of this before the self appointed decide what’s worthy or not. And they need to actually take it seriously instead of dithering for years like Bristol council.
Memento Park in Budapest is an open air park, where all the statues of previous ruling dictators have been moved - mementopark.hu.
A quote by the architect on the project: "This park is about dictatorship. And at the same time, because it can be talked about, described, built, this park is about democracy. After all, only democracy is able to give the opportunity to let us think freely about dictatorship."
A quote by the architect on the project: "This park is about dictatorship. And at the same time, because it can be talked about, described, built, this park is about democracy. After all, only democracy is able to give the opportunity to let us think freely about dictatorship."
gregs656 said:
It is striking that on the threads about the protests and murders of black people there is a string of comments about how black people shouldn’t remind white people of the history of slavery, and on this one a celebration of that history is now a monument worth preserving.
Was the statue a celebration of his involvement in the slave trade, or of his later found philanthropy?Europa1 said:
gregs656 said:
It is striking that on the threads about the protests and murders of black people there is a string of comments about how black people shouldn’t remind white people of the history of slavery, and on this one a celebration of that history is now a monument worth preserving.
Was the statue a celebration of his involvement in the slave trade, or of his later found philanthropy?
mx5nut said:
Europa1 said:
gregs656 said:
It is striking that on the threads about the protests and murders of black people there is a string of comments about how black people shouldn’t remind white people of the history of slavery, and on this one a celebration of that history is now a monument worth preserving.
Was the statue a celebration of his involvement in the slave trade, or of his later found philanthropy?Why not answer the question? I genuinely don't know why the statue was erected, but I know Bristol has a complex relationship with the slave trade, and I don't think simply removing statues because they offend the modern sensibilities of some is the way to go.
Europa1 said:
Ah, whataboutism at its best. The Nazis burned a few books and destroyed a few statues to satisfy their preferred view of history - where do you draw the line?
Why not answer the question? I genuinely don't know why the statue was erected, but I know Bristol has a complex relationship with the slave trade, and I don't think simply removing statues because they offend the modern sensibilities of some is the way to go.
The statue was erected ostensibly to commemorate Colston's philanthropy. The inscription made no mention of the fact that his wealth that permitted this philanthropy came mainly from slave trading and trade in goods produced by slave labour. Also omitted was that his philanthropy was only available to those who met his strict moral, religious and political views. Why not answer the question? I genuinely don't know why the statue was erected, but I know Bristol has a complex relationship with the slave trade, and I don't think simply removing statues because they offend the modern sensibilities of some is the way to go.
As with any statue, there was a broader motive behind it. It was funded by a small group of Bristol businessmen and society leaders who wanted to promote Colston as a model citizen that ticked all their own boxes - rich, merchant, Anglican, politically conservative, morally strict and civically minded. The initial attempt to fund the statue by public subscription dismally failed because most people in Bristol didn't care about him or his legacy.
mx5nut said:
Europa1 said:
gregs656 said:
It is striking that on the threads about the protests and murders of black people there is a string of comments about how black people shouldn’t remind white people of the history of slavery, and on this one a celebration of that history is now a monument worth preserving.
Was the statue a celebration of his involvement in the slave trade, or of his later found philanthropy?Don’t weaken the argument, the argument is that we now consider those actions unacceptable and we don’t need a reminder that these people were once applauded for their actions.
2xChevrons said:
Europa1 said:
Ah, whataboutism at its best. The Nazis burned a few books and destroyed a few statues to satisfy their preferred view of history - where do you draw the line?
Why not answer the question? I genuinely don't know why the statue was erected, but I know Bristol has a complex relationship with the slave trade, and I don't think simply removing statues because they offend the modern sensibilities of some is the way to go.
The statue was erected ostensibly to commemorate Colston's philanthropy. The inscription made no mention of the fact that his wealth that permitted this philanthropy came mainly from slave trading and trade in goods produced by slave labour. Also omitted was that his philanthropy was only available to those who met his strict moral, religious and political views. Why not answer the question? I genuinely don't know why the statue was erected, but I know Bristol has a complex relationship with the slave trade, and I don't think simply removing statues because they offend the modern sensibilities of some is the way to go.
As with any statue, there was a broader motive behind it. It was funded by a small group of Bristol businessmen and society leaders who wanted to promote Colston as a model citizen that ticked all their own boxes - rich, merchant, Anglican, politically conservative, morally strict and civically minded. The initial attempt to fund the statue by public subscription dismally failed because most people in Bristol didn't care about him or his legacy.
2xChevrons said:
The statue was erected ostensibly to commemorate Colston's philanthropy. The inscription made no mention of the fact that his wealth that permitted this philanthropy came mainly from slave trading and trade in goods produced by slave labour. Also omitted was that his philanthropy was only available to those who met his strict moral, religious and political views.
As with any statue, there was a broader motive behind it. It was funded by a small group of Bristol businessmen and society leaders who wanted to promote Colston as a model citizen that ticked all their own boxes - rich, merchant, Anglican, politically conservative, morally strict and civically minded. The initial attempt to fund the statue by public subscription dismally failed because most people in Bristol didn't care about him or his legacy.
I bet a lot benefitted from his schools and hospitals though. Will they be shutdown for moral cleansing ? Somehow I doubt it As with any statue, there was a broader motive behind it. It was funded by a small group of Bristol businessmen and society leaders who wanted to promote Colston as a model citizen that ticked all their own boxes - rich, merchant, Anglican, politically conservative, morally strict and civically minded. The initial attempt to fund the statue by public subscription dismally failed because most people in Bristol didn't care about him or his legacy.
Wills2 said:
You wait until they learn most of the stately homes were built with slave money like Harewood house near Leeds as an example.
Harewood, and those like it, raise an interesting point in all of this, where is the unacceptable vs acceptable historic racism line going to be drawn? They acknowledge that Harewood exists due to actions now deemed abhorrent yet they continue to profit greatly as a result of it, is that OK?
https://harewood.org/about/harewood-stands-in-soli...
Edited by thetapeworm on Wednesday 10th June 07:32
oddball1313 said:
No it’s not - removing statues, changing the names of streets and buildings, deleting names from the history books as some form of making a wrong a right achieves nothing.
Germany has removed it's Swastikas and Nazi monuments. But it has preserved its concentration camps and kept an unrepaired wall of Russian graffiti and bulletholes as a reminder of it's crimes.It achieves the goal of acknowledging a period of national shame and maintaining it for future generations to ensure that post-Nazi values endure.
We have monuments to the Abolitionists, which are a source of pride. But we barely have so much as a caveat on the monuments our nation built to actual slave traders.
The statue of Colston wasn't built as a warning to future generations, it was a memorial to his life and philanthropy by admirers.
See also Leopold II in Belgium. A total monster to rival the worst of rulers, yet his statues beautify him long after a great forgetting of his crimes.
Now I don't think Colston should be melted down and forgotten. But he belongs in a museum, Ideally in Bristol where his life can be contextualised. Ironically the man himself wanted just a simple burial from what I've read.
Edited by glazbagun on Wednesday 10th June 00:18
Smokehead said:
jimothyc said:
Sidiq Khan in his infinite wisdom has decided to remove another.
https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/127040971...
The start of a very slippery slope.https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/127040971...
As someone on BBC London news said on Tuesday night, “The Colosseum in Rome had slaves fighting lions, should we pull down the Colosseum?”
Smollet said:
I bet a lot benefitted from his schools and hospitals though. Will they be shutdown for moral cleansing ? Somehow I doubt it
I'd say that the moral cleansing comes from now using his name and (the results of) his legacy to give high quality education and care to people in Bristol without having to adhere to his s
tty regressive opinions. As does using those schools to tell the kids of today the truth about Colston, the slave trade and their city's role in and heritage of it. If having his name still attached to the institutions is inappropriate they can be renamed while continuing their good work.
Frank7 said:
I hope that if anyone has friends or relations in Black Boy Lane, London N15, they wrote their friends addresses in pencil in the address book, and have an eraser to hand.
As someone on BBC London news said on Tuesday night, “The Colosseum in Rome had slaves fighting lions, should we pull down the Colosseum?”
Black Boy Lane (like Black Boy Hill in Bristol) has nothing to do with slavery or African people, despite persistent local legends to the contrary. They, and a number of pubs around the country (in fact the roads usually take their name from the pub) are named after Charles II, who was nicknamed 'The Black Boy', especially as a euphemism during the Commonwealth. As someone on BBC London news said on Tuesday night, “The Colosseum in Rome had slaves fighting lions, should we pull down the Colosseum?”
I've already said why I think the Coliseum is irrelevant to this issue - it's not inherently celebrating the bad things that went on in it, and those are properly included in information and education about it. It's not mostly known as 'a big gathering place for wealthy and philanthropic Roman citizens and politicians' while 'so they could watch blood sports' is left off the record.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Wednesday 10th June 00:15
mx5nut said:
Jimmy Saville raised a few quid for charity. Would you like a statue of him in your town? Just as a celebration of the charity stuff, you understand.
The BBC knew what he was up to yet we still have to give them money under threat and no-one has pulled down their st? In fact, where was the mob outrage over that entire scandal?This is all very selective and I bet the majority of black people in this country couldn’t give a f
k about Colstons statue. It wouldn’t surprise me if they found BLM to be an utter embarrassment.Anyone get the feeling that this more about disrupting the Brexit process? Where were these protest groups before the Referendum? Antifa, BLM and XR etc. Notice how after the referendum we had masses of “peaceful” protests by the People’s Vote et al and then Boris won the 2019 GE. Do we really believe that opposition to Brexit just walked away? Or has it now stepped up a gear and become violent protests but specifically aimed at destabilising the govt. via the activation of what the KGB called “the useful idiots”. I wonder if we would find the same names in organisations like the People’s Vote and BLM?
The chap who died in the US was merely a spark but note how the lockdown protests appeared to be kicking off before this particular spark from the US...which has been a lot bigger, a much better spark. More division, the better.
As for the US, I firmly believe it’s all about destabilising Trump and stopping another Trump win. Covid was the spark but the poor black guy who died has more or less become BLM’s Horst Wessel and they’re milking it for as much as they can get, a damned disgrace.
In both cases, the Pro EU and Pro Clinton media in the US and UK are lapping all of this up and to the point they’re more or less condoning violence, looting and lawlessness. How odd?
If you think this is all about black lives and/or slavery then you’re seriously deluded. Most people couldn’t give a f
k about what happened last week let alone 300 - 400 years ago. No, this is about something else: the destabilisation of two democratically elected governments.You should be worried.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff