This was all such a load of silly buggers. They probably should have been found guilty because they were clearly guilty, but I understand how it's easier to just clear the table and move on. And really, who gives a shit. It's an old statue - nobody cares. Far more interesting things to worry about.
Bristol slaver statue | Protestors found not guilty of criminal damage
- Thread starter jojojo
- Start date
If they are to be kept as discussion points put them in a museum, keeping them out is effectively celebrating them for being terrible human beings.
@NotThatSoph (messed up the quote sorry) Moving it where though and why? Surely the perfect place is one which is evoking the most thoughts and attention? A statue of a prominent patron of Bristol seems to me at least, to be most at home on the streets of Bristol? And you're right, it's not about who they depict, but the stories they tell. A statue of Colston tells a story, certainly one I wouldn't have known without it. One of the Africa company, the trade in humans, and of duality of men. Is this not a story worth hearing/telling/learning? My collection mostly spends time in museums for this reason, different elements tell various stories. Are there some utter jackasses depicted and celebrated? Absolutely! But that doesn't mean I'm celebrating them or that the stories of today are doing so. I have a smallish collection of anti-semitic medals/tokens from 17th-19th century Germany, but don't touch Nazi era stuff for this reason.
You might be right about the hip hop. It's not like I get out much these days. Too old(ish?)
I still remember epics like this though as a teen No phones, no screens, no violence, just pure fun. (And lots of weed)
You might be right about the hip hop. It's not like I get out much these days. Too old(ish?)
I still remember epics like this though as a teen No phones, no screens, no violence, just pure fun. (And lots of weed)I tend to agree about moving the statue Vs a plaque, I think it's a good point. But if you're not going to put up a plaque then I think the only other option is to move the statue. It should be not be left somewhere where it clearly offends many people without any context being applied to it.@NotThatSoph (messed up the quote sorry) Moving it where though and why? Surely the perfect place is one which is evoking the most thoughts and attention? A statue of a prominent patron of Bristol seems to me at least, to be most at home on the streets of Bristol? And you're right, it's not about who they depict, but the stories they tell. A statue of Colston tells a story, certainly one I wouldn't have known without it. One of the Africa company, the trade in humans, and of duality of men. Is this not a story worth hearing/telling/learning? My collection mostly spends time in museums for this reason, different elements tell various stories. Are there some utter jackasses depicted and celebrated? Absolutely! But that doesn't mean I'm celebrating them or that the stories of today are doing so. I have a smallish collection of anti-semitic medals/tokens from 17th-19th century Germany, but don't touch Nazi era stuff for this reason.
You might be right about the hip hop. It's not like I get out much these days. Too old(ish?)
It seems the end result in this case has actually worked out fairly satisfactorily for everyone involved, except perhaps the council and dipshit prosecutors / home secretary.
Yea, mostly agree. Though perhaps have less sympathy for the mob than you do. (Not sure how I'd feel about a bunch of white privileged vandals firebombing Auschwitz either. Wouldn't celebrate it for sure)
I feel like Auschwitz has a plaque. Quite a lot of plaques in fact given it's a museum. And has never been firebombed as far as I know.
But if it was, would there be a chance of a jury finding it’s presence so offensive that they would be acquitted in a criminal trial?
In Sweden, some climate activists are encouraging sabotage and destruction of things that are harmful for the environment. At which point do we draw the line for what you can and can’t do if the motivation is morally correct? Can you bomb a coal-fired power station and get off without punishment because it’s the morally right thing to do?
Well when those things happen we'll ask a jury shall we? But to answer your first question, no I think there is not a chance in this universe or any other that somebody would be acquitted for firebombing Auschwitz FFS.
There's irony in the fact that a lot of the people who say we need to keep these statues to raise awareness of the past only learned about Edward Colston and his past because his statue was torn down. Turns out that's more effective than a plaque.
No it’s a difficult one for sure.
And vice versa in fairness. Lot of people in Bristol wouldn't have known he was a slaver I expect, but they might have noticed the statue and assumed he did a lot of good (which he did, but not only good unfortunately).
It does, but has heavy symbolism for both the far right and anti racism activists as well as historians. It's an extreme example, though you can see why some would want to see it burned to the ground.
Here's one for you: How do you deal with mobs who deface or destroy statues of Locke? (The philosopher) or Tromp? (The Admiral) And does it matter who they are? (descendents of tyranny or privileged whites with no relations)
That's not irony. Most of us aren't from Bristol, have never been to Bristol, and would never have had the exposure to it. Same for many things in life.
Of course it's irony. People who learned about Colston through his statue being torn down are complaining that statues being torn down will stop them learning about people like Colston.
The reality is that far from "erasing history", these protesters' actions prompted far more intense and relevant discussion & awareness of Colston's history than erecting a plaque ever would. To the point where (as you highlighted) people who would never have been exposed to this story otherwise are now not only aware of it but actively debating it. If the importance of discussing history is paramount then these protesters should be praised for doing such an admirable job of increasing interest in Colston's past.
Last edited:
I'm a history graduate, so value it too, but I don't think we need statues celebrating businessmen who profited off slavery, like Colston. He's just a cnut that got rich of others' misery and wanted to be venerated for his later civic spending.
That's very different to removing statues of what I'd argue are genuine historic figures, the obvious example being say Churchill.
They're moving it to a museum, so the question of where is a museum. As for why, presumably because they want to keep it.@NotThatSoph (messed up the quote sorry) Moving it where though and why? Surely the perfect place is one which is evoking the most thoughts and attention? A statue of a prominent patron of Bristol seems to me at least, to be most at home on the streets of Bristol? And you're right, it's not about who they depict, but the stories they tell. A statue of Colston tells a story, certainly one I wouldn't have known without it. One of the Africa company, the trade in humans, and of duality of men. Is this not a story worth hearing/telling/learning? My collection mostly spends time in museums for this reason, different elements tell various stories. Are there some utter jackasses depicted and celebrated? Absolutely! But that doesn't mean I'm celebrating them or that the stories of today are doing so. I have a smallish collection of anti-semitic medals/tokens from 17th-19th century Germany, but don't touch Nazi era stuff for this reason.
You might be right about the hip hop. It's not like I get out much these days. Too old(ish?)
The defense of the statue that keeps popping up is that slavery was far from the most important thing about the man. That he was a successful merchant and a philantropist, and was important for Bristol for these reasons. His involvement in the slave trade is excused as a historic artefact. This is the exact opposite of what you want to achieve by having statues of slavers in the city centre. They don't want thoughts and discussions about slavery and the Royal African Company. That's not what he's about, that's judging someone by today's morals (which is a very annoying saying, being involved in the slave trade is worse than being pro slavery generally or just apathetic to it, and plenty of people managed to be against slavery as well. Even going further back, Aristotle was way more misogynistic that Plato, his teacher, and more racist than Socrates, so of course we can judge him on that). That's snowflake business. If the statue is invoking those thoughts and discussions it's wholly incidental and not intended, and it's provoked by the very snowflakes who tore it down. Without people tearing it down you wouldn't have learned anything from the statue. We had a local issue over here, someone wanted to remove a thing (not a statue) dedicated to some guy who was pretty damn racist. They didn't remove it, but put up a plaque. No one reads the plaque, and no one has talked about it since. Having it there is better than not having it there, I guess, and having the thing there is fine as well, but it's not generating thoughts or discussions. I'm not saying that we should remove or move every statue of shit people from the past, but I'm extremely skeptical of them being thought promoting in any substantial way.
As for the concert, pretty sure you can find similar atmospheres today. Not Nas quality, maybe, because only Nas is Nas. If you put Kendrick Lamar in a small, packed venue like that it'd be pretty crazy as well with the right audience. I've been to some absolutely bonkers concerts even by local groups who to be honest are a bit shit. Some violence shouldn't be underrated either, within limits.
By the way, if you tag someone in an edit they don't get the notification. It's a bit annoying, but it's a tech limitation.
When I spot something interesting (like a statue) I tend to google it. It's a starting point, no matter the intentions of the artist. Ditto if you have a medal of Stalin or Hitler. You don't look at it and say 'oh look, what a wonderful guy' - you learn more about them, and the thing it celebrates. They aren't telling the story for you, simply providing a bookmark. And I daresay that those who make a statue know that. (See Genghis Khan, 2008) - You make an interesting point in whether such monuments provoke thought from a substantial number of people though. I don't know any studies of it, and am too lazy to research it currently. And sure I'd have learned something, had I the reason to visit Bristol and occasion to be in the area. As would people like me in 20 30 50 years.
ps. I'm quite scared of violence because 'm pretty sure it'd end up with my dog being put down! I'll bow to your superior knowledge there
Where do you stand on monuments to somebody like Locke? (Philosopher and also a board member of the African company. Same era as Colston, same crimes, genuine historical figure)
I can see complete loons wanting to firebomb Auschwitz and I can see them likely failing but getting convicted either way.
Look nobody is disagreeing there needs to be nuance in cases like this. If Locke was a slaver and many people of many different ethnicities had asked the local council/ university or whatever to put a plaque on a statue of him for 13 years and they had been repeatedly ignored / refused then I'd expect the same outcome though. I don't see the point in going through the detail of imaginary cases though.
I find it rather odd that those who are against statues coming down tend to ignore what the idea of a statue represents; namely, a celebration of that individual's achievements in life. In the modern era, and likely before then, they are commissioned by governments (local, state or federal) to acknowledge someone's greatness.
edit: joining the history graduate party. We should form a club.
Last edited:
I'm a history graduate too. And I think history comes from a broader understanding than a statue can give. I did a module translating the plinths of Augustan statues to back up ancient texts' historical accuracy, but after that period statues mostly reflect the unequal power dynamic in society eg more men than women.
I think Churchill is a prime candidate for statues to be removed. He openly and in-text despised people with “slit eyes and pig tails.” Asians were “the beastliest people in the world next to the Germans" and on Africans, he “did not really think that black people were as capable or as efficient as white people.” And challenged on the subjugation throughout the empire asked "why be apologetic about Anglo-Saxon superiority?" His attitude to the Irish independence movement was no less awful but cloaked perhaps because of our skin colour. Plenty of "others' misery" in there.
The only statues in Dublin of historical figures I like at all are Larkin and Connolly and if they were racists or rapists or the like, then take them down.
edit - the idiot I am forgot the main point, it being that businessmen and the politicians were not a million miles apart in class, social circles, and actions when it came to the empire and slavery. It was a symbiosis.
Last edited:
What's the difference between acceptable and historically acceptable?
What's the value of rape and murder as a discussion point? What's to be discussed?
Those sort of clubs are almost as much fun as you'd imagine. feck all.
Pretty much any king in Britain's history has been happy to spill blood and/or enslave people and/or have them hanged for treason. Go back as far as you want and you will find many far, far worse than Colston.
William I who turned the north into a wasteland having engineered a famine? Edward II who conquered Wales and used castles to control the natives? Bad King John? Richard the Lionheart? Richard ii who put down the peasants' revolt? Henry II? Edward III? Henry VIII? Oliver Cromwell? Where exactly do you stop, and what do you want to achieve by getting rid of their statues? Do you bring down churches, castles, and palaces they built? Is that productive? What is it you want to achieve?
Ultimately, we can't divorce ourselves from our history or seek to extricate ourselves from it by removing and mothballing historic monuments.
Best thing I can think of is to leave them exactly where they are and encourage people to read about them; but stowing them away or leaving them at the hands of vandals seems to say more about our own problems than being a comment on history.
I agree with the confiscation of the Nazi monuments and Saville statues because they were notorious in their own time and were found guilty by laws contemporary with them. No-one really knows much about Colston, other than he was deeply involved in state-sanctioned slavery long before it was outlawed.
William I who turned the north into a wasteland having engineered a famine? Edward II who conquered Wales and used castles to control the natives? Bad King John? Richard the Lionheart? Richard ii who put down the peasants' revolt? Henry II? Edward III? Henry VIII? Oliver Cromwell? Where exactly do you stop, and what do you want to achieve by getting rid of their statues? Do you bring down churches, castles, and palaces they built? Is that productive? What is it you want to achieve?
Ultimately, we can't divorce ourselves from our history or seek to extricate ourselves from it by removing and mothballing historic monuments.
Best thing I can think of is to leave them exactly where they are and encourage people to read about them; but stowing them away or leaving them at the hands of vandals seems to say more about our own problems than being a comment on history.
I agree with the confiscation of the Nazi monuments and Saville statues because they were notorious in their own time and were found guilty by laws contemporary with them. No-one really knows much about Colston, other than he was deeply involved in state-sanctioned slavery long before it was outlawed.
Last edited:
No we can't deny our history, but we can celebrate the good instead?
Do you really think keeping statutes of openly racist statesmen and profiteers in the hope that people will read up on them is a quicker path to engaging with our history than redressing the gender and power balance of the statues that history has given us? I think if you want to generate interest then ripping them all down and starting regional polls as to who to reinstate or replace them with would generate far more discussion if the discussion is really the goal? As has been said above it's the protests that have prompted the discussion.
That‘s a fair comment.
You rightly point out that slave trade in England was a state initiative through the Royal African Company. One question I don’t know the answer to is whether there was much opposition to slavery in Colston’s lifetime (bearing in mind that he died in 1720, long before the time of Wilberforce). In other words, was he a product of very different times or was he even then regarded as being involved in a very disreputable business?
I think that's all a bit blurry, the "product of very different times" always causes me issues. We need to advance, rather than mitigate I think. What was moral and legal don't always interface well when profit is in the balance. The Transatlantic slave trade was abolished in 1807 and I think in the 11th century in England. It's all a bit torture being illegal in the US, but not in x y and z location. So there are unclear motives and machinations there. Slavery and racism are not the same but are hugely interwoven.
Last edited:
This is a great book on the European attitude to genocide, slavery and empire.
https://thenewpress.com/books/exterminate-all-brutes
Wasnt aware of the HBO thing it mentions, but I'll check it out.
https://thenewpress.com/books/exterminate-all-brutes
Wasnt aware of the HBO thing it mentions, but I'll check it out.
People had been asking the council to remove the statue for years before it was torn down. Colston has long been a controversial figure in the city, with a number of buildings and streets named after him. Thankfully ever since the statue was toppled a lot of them, such as the Colston Hall, Colston Tower, and the Colston Arms pub have all been renamed. The sad irony is that one of the four people that were on trial lives on Colston Street.
Vast. For example it's no longer common military doctrine to rape and murder villagers to draw troops from a different theatre. It's no longer acceptable in most places to simply build on your land, or emigrate to a country of your choice.
You can certainly discuss somebody like Tromp without the point being 'rape and murder.' As you can discuss Locke without the point being 'slaver.' It's possible for a good man to do bad things.
I did a module on political philosophy and another on the later Stuart era thinking, but it was over 20 years ago now, so my memory of Locke's contributions are next to zero sadly.
I've no idea where you draw the line with this really, but you can still teach the history of a period without having great statues of people looming down on you. You can stick them in a museum
If Locke gets a pass (and maybe a plaque) for his advances in philosophy, clearly others will find that unsatisfactory.
As an aside, my wife and I went to Westminster Abbey in September and she hated it. It's rammed full of statues of East India Company bigwigs, which she found distasteful in the extreme, particularly given her ancestry.
Yeah, so we can ok putting it up because it was historically acceptable. But leaving it up despite the actions being currently acceptable I find illogical.
Yes you can but from a statue can discuss and read about historical figures in context, but how does a statue play any part in this? I've read Locke and never seen a statue of him. How many philosophical journies do these statues start in your opinion?
edit - basically I can't see the material effect of these controversial statutes being the stimulus for discussion that is claimed in their defence.
Fair point on the businessmen, with many companies like the East India Company so intrinsically linked to government.
Was Churchill considered a massive racist or old-fashioned at the time? He always seemed way more jarringly racist than others of his era. Or maybe it's just more of his speeches and thoughts have been recorded.
I'm sure the way Churchill has been taught at schools and unis must've evolved and will continue to. Maybe you need to get another generation or two removed from him before the country is ready to even begin discussing removing his statue though.
It's an interesting one on whether world leaders get a pass- seems to be only the victorious ones, with the losers getting toppled, reflecting how history has long been written.
Yea I guess you could simply ask "What's the value of statues in any case?" really. It's something I have no clue on the answer of. I imagine if we were to erect a statue of SAF, people could well tear it down in a few hundred years for whatever reason. I think this is for @moses also. Do we need statues at all? What are their value, if any, or are they simply divisive.
I suspect my point of view comes from collecting coins/medals, as I said to somebody else. They start a story, and I feel a statue can in the same way. Not tell a story so much, but start one. From the simple 1723 shilling I use for board game coin tosses, to the gold threepence made by a Jew in the ZAR (Independent South Africa after the Boer war), to the medal of Ivan the Terrible, to Tromp, and I could go on and on and on. The item is a gateway into a world long ago, and I feel that's kind of magical. To *me* a statue can provide the same starting point. And most of the subjects in them are 'good' though flawed men/women. Today they'd be viewed as criminals though.
They can certainly be interesting, eg the Napoleon one at the Duke of Wellington's old house and his death mask and other memorabilia.
Similar in ways to coins and medals, I found political propaganda in art interesting, eg the Davids of Napoleon etc...you could argue they're in a similar vein to statues, aggrandising tyrants and reprobates, but they're aesthetically beautiful and like you say tell a story.
The book above is especially relevant to the Churchill era. It points to contemporary writers' and journalists' correspondence both private and published discussing the pan European morality of empire, slavery and genocide, but profit dictated policy. And yes, I do think even Churchill's peers balked, FDR found him quite difficult by many accounts.
We have the same nonsense here in Ireland. Most of the statues of 'patriots' around villages here killed British soldiers. At the time they were arguably more right than acceptable considering the oppression, but out of full context, as focal points for our communities now and as for the quality of the discussion they generate, they should all be put in the sea.
Yeah, get rid of them all, and let's argue about the shit art they replace them with. !
Now there's an interesting one! The symbolism of royal power and the French Revolution. The destruction of such symbolism and attitudes to it now. The rise of Napoleon. Now Louis XV was a humungous prick in many ways, but I think I'd rather see a statue of him now than not. It would be cool.
it will definitely need many years before we are ready to assess Churchill more objectively. He is an incredibly complex figure - progressive politician in the pre-WWI Liberal Government, hero of WWII and then, on the other hand, the famines in India, the failure to recognise end of empire, the slaughter of Gallipoli, the support for Edward VIII….Whatever you think of him, I think he deserves better than being the go to “icon” for the likes of George W Bush and knuckle-headed Brexiteers.
Twofold. They serve a purpose at the time of commission. A show of respect / honour to figures of importance and relevance to that time and area, people who probably contributed hugely to the area in some way. Then, further down the line as bookmarks in history and historic art. Statues of even the most heinous figures have a beauty to them and should be respected as artefacts IMO. They are important.
Obviously iconic figures like Nelson and Churchill maybe deserve a bit more respect in their locales simply because of the size of their footnotes in history, while low level figures whose achievements have largely been forgotten, who gained from slavery really have no argument to remain in public spaces.
But to me, that doesn’t mean their statues hold no value. My concern is that these works end up being wrecked and totally erased from history which I think is wrong. There’s lesson / story in each statue. I agree with what you say about not sanitising everything but the aim is to really try and build an equal and inclusive society. Certain figures, especially ones associated with slavery, openly celebrated in public spaces are always going to be a barrier to that. Hence I believe they should be moved safely and in one piece and displayed with the history behind them. That way people can view them and reflect on what they’re looking at.
I obviously don't think that
But it still backs up the idea that these characters, (no less than the statues here in Ireland) are frequently co-opted by all sorts to push varied agendas. These characters are so complex that a statue or the conversation it may begin can't be in context. With certain characters, especially of the scale and complexity of Churchill, you have to read a few sources to get anything approaching a full picture. The source material's patron, the era it was written, the fluctuating legality and morality, all variables. If a statue starts a discussion, it's a long shot that it's going to be of any value.Yes to this if everyone is definitely against scrapping them and giving the money to the homeless.