Bristol slaver statue | Protestors found not guilty of criminal damage

[moses]

The Churchill one always bemused me, the guy had a pivotal role in ensuring Britain and Europe don't fall to either Germany or communism and I can't stress enough, 2 of the most oppressive regimes with extreme ideologies who literally slaughtered millions and millions and routinely engaged in eugenics and genocide.

I really find it disturbing that no matter how racist he was in his notes by todays standards or how he served the imperial needs of his country is genuinely under the threat being censured from public life and depicted as this evil being , the man who helped to defeat the nazi's for God's sake.

Something similar is happening in America with abe Lincoln as well and while thankfully nowhere near as bad im regularly hearing from some of my more lefty friends that Lincoln is also undeserving of the honors bestowed upon him and we should reconsider his position in the national psyche, which i find baffling and a bit scary.

A nation who won't come to terms with its past has no future.

If we're going to be coming to terms with the past, I think you'll find Churchill and Stalin were on the same side in defeating the Nazis and arguably the heavier work was done by the Soviets.

I think statues can't come close to conveying the complexities of these people. Although I wouldn't mind a statue of the two of them with "WTF lads?!" Under it.

The capacity for cruelty that statesmen showed was bewildering. Thankfully they marked and end to that old school expansionist imperialism on both sides and the FDR led post war climate was all more human. For a while.

 

[Red the Bear]

I don't recall. What did he do? He was a member and attendee at the International Commune and us reds kinda hated the Nazis.

My memory is a bit muddy but I think I read that he organized strikes in America Sabotaging the allied effort against imperial Germany . Obviously nothing too bad as they weren't nazi's at that point and Germany did cozy up to communists sending Lenin so imperial Russia to destabilize them with great success. So I guess he was just looking after the interests of his own people.

Edit : I skimmed the internet a bit and yeah he did do that. there is also allegations of espionage leveld at him which I can't confirm the veracity of , but credit to him he seems to have broken contact with the german after a while seemingly after he refused constant German pleas to resort to violence.

 

[moses]

My memory is a bit muddy but I think I read that he organized strikes in America Sabotaging the allied effort against imperial Germany . Obviously nothing too bad as they weren't nazi's at that point and Germany did cozy up to communists sending Lenin so imperial Russia to destabilize them with great success. So I guess he was just looking after the interests of his own people.

Oh WW1, yeah totally. For us it wasn't a difficult choice between the Imperial Germans or the British Empire who had her boot at our throat for centuries. I have no issue there. We even had a slogan "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity" , catchy eh!

The real shocker is the sympathy sections of our government had for Hitler in WW2. We had a book of condolences FFS. Utterly shameful.

 

[moses]

Edit : I skimmed the internet a bit and yeah he did do that. there is also allegations of espionage leveld at him which I can't confirm the veracity of , but credit to him he seems to have broken contact with the german after a while seemingly after he refused constant German pleas to resort to violence.

Yeah. Ah imperial capitalist Britain was killing us, that was the immediate enemy. We owned no land, had no government, and no access to the means of production or capital to buy in. We were backs to the wall.


Edit - In case anyone thinks from this thread I'm a mad paddy patriot, I'm not, I'm not a nationalist at all. I'm really happy with the fact my two favourite Irish historical figures, Larkin and Connolly, were both born in Britain to working class families. And in the context of the thread if anything morally dubious was to come out , I'd have no objections to their statues being removed or put somewhere where context could be provided. Flags and statues can all be removed imo.

 

[Red the Bear]

If we're going to be coming to terms with the past, I think you'll find Churchill and Stalin were on the same side in defeating the Nazis and arguably the heavier work was done by the Soviets.

I think statues can't come close to conveying the complexities of these people. Although I wouldn't mind a statue of the two of them with "WTF lads?!" Under it.

The capacity for cruelty that statesmen showed was bewildering. Thankfully they marked and end to that old school expansionist imperialism on both sides and the FDR led post war climate was all more human. For a while.

Yeah the human sacrifice suffered by the combatants is simply put , incomprehensible to our modern perception, millions and millions of young man losing their lives and damage that they had to endure , soviet union almost lost an entire generation that were born in the early 1920s

Overall I do appreciate those man and what they did Although I don't agree with some of the cultural shifts that were the result of the post war prosperity and neither many of their policies or beliefs its undeniable that the world we live in today as a result of actions that man such as fdr , Stalin, Churchill and Eisenhower is a much better place .

I think people don't realize how huge the change of norms , morals and what is acceptable and what isn't has been during the past 100 years , these were the man who shaped the world that we live in today and while not necessarily celebratory I do absolutely think they deserve statues to remind the others of their importance in history , removing them because they said mean things with regards to our current sensibilities seems wrong.

 

[nimic]

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.

Since you brought up Stalin, do you think the citizens of the former Eastern Bloc countries were wrong to tear down their statues of Stalin and Lenin? And since you brought up Hitler, do you think this* sort of thing was wrong, and that we should today all be able to walk through German cities looking at all the Swastikas and other Nazi symbolism? What about all the street names (and literal street signs to accompany them). It's all part of history, after all, and it might make people google it.

The same goes for that famous Saddam Hussein statue** that was pulled down and demolished. Should that have been left up, in the service of the future? Or what about all those symbols of colonialism in former colonies? Should the Congolese not have renamed Leopoldville Kinshasa? That might not be exactly the same thing, since it's not a physical object, but it's still a piece of history.

*

**

I studied history, so naturally I'm in favour of anything that makes people remember it, but I also tend to think people shouldn't be forever bound by the choices made by those who came before them. To quote a great man filthy colonialist: this belongs in a museum. And if there are so many Lenin statues that you can't put all of them in a museum, then go ahead and dispose of some of them. We do the same for books, after all.

Some things can't be put in a museum, like that Saddam statue, but I'd argue the memory of the demolishing of the Saddam statue, and the pictures of it, have now become an equally valid piece of history.

 

[Red the Bear]

Oh WW1, yeah totally. For us it wasn't a difficult choice between the Imperial Germans or the British Empire who had her boot at our throat for centuries. I have no issue there. We even had a slogan "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity" , catchy eh!

The real shocker is the sympathy sections of our government had for Hitler in WW2. We had a book of condolences FFS. Utterly shameful.

Yeah. Ah imperial capitalist Britain was killing us, that was the immediate enemy. We owned no land, had no government, and no access to the means of production or capital to buy in. We were backs to the wall.


Edit - In case anyone thinks from this thread I'm a mad paddy patriot, I'm not, I'm not a nationalist at all. I'm really happy with the fact my two favourite Irish historical figures, Larkin and Connolly, were both born in Britain to working class families. And in the context of the thread if anything morally dubious was to come out , I'd have no objections to their statues being removed or put somewhere where context could be provided. Flags and statues can all be removed imo.

Ahh I'm getting the impression that you irish absolutely despised the British which is fair enough they can be annoying.

Edit : this is derailing the tread a bit but I found it funny , apparently larkin organized a protest against Chinese immigration with the attendees wearing pig tails and applying yellow make up to simulate a caricature of the China man.

 

[11101]

So the Attorney General is getting involved and considering whether to refer this to the Court of Appeal for a senior judgement, which pretty much says the jury did the wrong thing here.

 

[moses]

Ahh I'm getting the impression that you irish absolutely despised the British which is fair enough they can be annoying.

Edit : this is derailing the tread a bit but I found it funny , apparently larkin organized a protest against Chinese immigration with the attendees wearing pig tails and applying yellow make up to simulate a caricature of the China man.

Ah, with regard to England it was just the power dynamic of coloniser and colonised, which played out throughout history.

The western racism towards the Chinese and Asians in general was utterly atrocious. I watched or read something recently that went into detail, which I can't recall.

Oliver Stone deals with it in his own particular way in one of his episodes of A History of The US.

 

[DJ Jeff]

I don't get the concerns about precedent setting. You will be jailed for throwing the Mandela statue on parliament square into the river. you will not if you take down Churchill. that's pretty much how it'll work in practice with any modern jury

 

[sullydnl]

So not agreeing or disagreeing but just to play devils advocate. Being so liberal in your interpretation of history , rapidly pulls you into a rabbit hole. For example confederacy , what were the facts? They chose to secede over "slavery" not state rights nor Northern aggression or any other excuse they might come up with , yet its this very re contextualising during the following years by the southern democrats and former confederates has entangled confederate reverence to such a degree that its almost inseparable from southern identity (I've even seen blacks carrying the flag) , so doesn't this constant revision to fit in with the current sentiment do more harm than good? As the constant reevaluation may very well cause us to stray further and further from the truth(if there is any)?

Oh I'm not saying there are no issues with the constant re-assesment and re-interpretation of the past, especially when certain interpretations are put forward by parties by with something to gain. Just that it is fundamentally how studying, learning and teaching about history works, for good or ill. So much so that, as you just highlighted, looking at how different eras and people framed past events can often offer a lot of insight into those times. Similarly looking at how different eras in 20th century Russia framed their past is part of studying 20th century Russian history. The past doesn't change but the history presented in each time period does, constantly.

You certainly have to be wary of re-evaluations that stray from concrete, verifiable facts and that can be difficult. But there is equal danger in accepting any narrative of the past you've been presented with as a definitive one that deserves some sort of protection from current interpretations and revisions. Especially when it comes to something like the British Empire where there has (in the past at least) been a tendency within the UK to frame that history in way we would perhaps now view as being rather skewed. But you'll no doubt find similar protected narratives in all countries.

 

[owlo]

Since you brought up Stalin, do you think the citizens of the former Eastern Bloc countries were wrong to tear down their statues of Stalin and Lenin? And since you brought up Hitler, do you think this* sort of thing was wrong, and that we should today all be able to walk through German cities looking at all the Swastikas and other Nazi symbolism? What about all the street names (and literal street signs to accompany them). It's all part of history, after all, and it might make people google it.

The same goes for that famous Saddam Hussein statue** that was pulled down and demolished. Should that have been left up, in the service of the future? Or what about all those symbols of colonialism in former colonies? Should the Congolese not have renamed Leopoldville Kinshasa? That might not be exactly the same thing, since it's not a physical object, but it's still a piece of history.

*

**

I studied history, so naturally I'm in favour of anything that makes people remember it, but I also tend to think people shouldn't be forever bound by the choices made by those who came before them. To quote a great man filthy colonialist: this belongs in a museum. And if there are so many Lenin statues that you can't put all of them in a museum, then go ahead and dispose of some of them. We do the same for books, after all.

Some things can't be put in a museum, like that Saddam statue, but I'd argue the memory of the demolishing of the Saddam statue, and the pictures of it, have now become an equally valid piece of history.

You're conflating historical statues and ones of current figures. There's obviously a world of difference between oppressed people tearing down remnants of the old regime who trampled on them, and 4 white dudes tearing down a 150 year old statue of an 18th century dude who made money from the Africa company.

 

[nimic]

You're conflating historical statues and ones of current figures. There's obviously a world of difference between oppressed people tearing down remnants of the old regime who trampled on them, and 4 white dudes tearing down a 150 year old statue of an 18th century dude who made money from the Africa company.

It's a meaningless distinction to me. The mere fact of time passing doesn't make it right or not right.

 

[2cents]

I wonder would any Dubs in here prefer to have the Pillar back on O’Connell St now instead of our lovely spire?

 

[Sweet Square]

I wonder would any Dubs in here prefer to have the Pillar back on O’Connell St now instead of our lovely spire?

They should of kept it like this

Would have been far more interesting than the pointless spire.

 

[2cents]

They should of kept it like this

Would have been far more interesting than the pointless spire.

That would be great.

 

[Red the Bear]

I wonder would any Dubs in here prefer to have the Pillar back on O’Connell St now instead of our lovely spire?

Jeez why did they remove it ? The new spire is so soulless.

 

[moses]

Jeez why did they remove it ? The new spire is so soulless.

Lord Nelson was atop it.

Yeah the spire is awful. But still not as bad as Nelson.

 

[Red the Bear]

Lord Nelson was atop it.

Yeah the spire is awful. But still not as bad as Nelson.

Just searched it up , still they could have replaced it with something more appropriate.

 

[moses]

It's a meaningless distinction to me. The mere fact of time passing doesn't make it right or not right.

I agree.

 

[moses]

Just searched it up , still they could have replaced it with something more appropriate.

Ah this is Ireland, we rarely do what's right on any administrative level. There was nothing there for about 30 years and nobody cared. Some people like the spire. People eh!

In a similar vein, we did a lot of getting rid of the empire during the war of Independence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Irish_country_houses_(1919–1923)

Personally, the Wellington Monument in Phoenix Park annoys me, I suppose it would be gone if it was his likeness and not just an obelisk.

 

[Red the Bear]

Ah this is Ireland, we rarely do what's right on any administrative level. There was nothing there for about 30 years and nobody cared. Some people like the spire. People eh!

So you irish are not that different from the rest of the world in regards to terrible administration.

Anyway some of the statues discussed here tend to contribute little to public aesthetic, yet this one seemed to be quite nice, shame they didn't replace it with something of similar quality. (Or they just could of pulled down the Nelson statue on top and replace it with an Irish figure )

 

[Red the Bear]

Ah this is Ireland, we rarely do what's right on any administrative level. There was nothing there for about 30 years and nobody cared. Some people like the spire. People eh!

In a similar vein, we did a lot of getting rid of the empire during the war of Independence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Irish_country_houses_(1919–1923)

Personally, the Wellington Monument in Phoenix Park annoys me, I suppose it would be gone if it was his likeness and not just an obelisk.

Unwise descion perhaps? I imagine those country houses would have provided some neat source of income from tourism and such.

Also is this hatred of wellington and Nelson on a personal level or because they represented British imperialism?

 

[moses]

Unwise descion perhaps? I imagine those country houses would have provided some neat source of income from tourism and such.

Perhaps, but the mythology of our rebellious past also feeds into the tourism trade. Who knows. As a socialist I have no problems with those monuments to empire and absentee landlords demoslished.

Also is this hatred of wellington and Nelson on a personal level or because they represented British imperialism?

Yes, I personally despise imperialism.

Symbols of British occupation here are understandably visceral as well as ideological?

 

[moses]

So you irish are not that different from the rest of the world in regards to terrible administration.

Anyway some of the statues discussed here tend to contribute little to public aesthetic, yet this one seemed to be quite nice, shame they didn't replace it with something of similar quality. (Or they just could of pulled down the Nelson statue on top and replace it with an Irish figure )

Ideally yes. Sometimes the symbolism of the oppressor needs to be removed regardless of the aesthetic. Often this destruction is a necessary catharsis. Frantz Fanon pondered if the acts of violence during a revolution helped heal the scars of colonialism moreso than a peaceful transition.

 

[owlo]

It's a meaningless distinction to me. The mere fact of time passing doesn't make it right or not right.

I agree.

The distinction between being directly impacted by a tyrant and reading about a tyrant from eons past is meaningless? I'm astounded.

As an example: You can understand the destruction of any symbolism of French monarchy during the revolution, but that history is now mostly lost. If some anti royalist were to samsh them up now, it'd be hugely different. Would random mobs smashing up Charles I statues now be the same thing as if they'd have done it at the time of his execution?

 

[moses]

The distinction between being directly impacted by a tyrant and reading about a tyrant from eons past is meaningless? I'm astounded.

As an example: You can understand the destruction of any symbolism of French monarchy during the revolution, but that history is now mostly lost. If some anti royalist were to samsh them up now, it'd be hugely different. Would random mobs smashing up Charles I statues now be the same thing as if they'd have done it at the time of his execution?

No, what I meant was whether the very present material effect of the statue had it roots 10 months or 100 years ago is irrelevant. If it causes offence, then it causes offence.

Historical atrocities can have powerful present day legacies.

 

[owlo]

No, what I meant was whether the very present material effect of the statue had it roots 10 months or 100 years ago is irrelevant. If it causes offence, then it causes offence.

That's suggesting that causing offence is a binary. I'd strongly dispute that, and suggest that the amount of offence it causes is directly relevant. A statue of Edward Colston does not cause the same offence to white Bristolians as a statue of Hitler in 1945, or even statues of conquistadors in the Americas now.

The distinction is important, to me at least. Else a Maarten Tromp statue in the Netherlands is the same as a Hitler statue outside Yad Vashem.

 

[Drainy]

The more I think about this the more satisfied I am by the outcome and signs of health of our democracy regardless of the government's crying.

There was a democratic discussion of removing the statue, that was unsuccessful, people used their free speech to protest and that included destruction of property.

They were then charged with the crime they committed and a jury of their peers heard the evidence of why it was done and exercised their discretion as jurors and cleared them presumably based on merit rather than lack of proof it was them etc.

 

[Berbasbullet]

Government shouldn’t be getting involved with decisions in the courts like this anyway. Powers are separated for a reason. Not cool.

 

[moses]

That's suggesting that causing offence is a binary. I'd strongly dispute that, and suggest that the amount of offence it causes is directly relevant. A statue of Edward Colston does not cause the same offence to white Bristolians as a statue of Hitler in 1945, or even statues of conquistadors in the Americas now.

The distinction is important, to me at least. Else a Maarten Tromp statue in the Netherlands is the same as a Hitler statue outside Yad Vashem.

It's very definitely not saying anything at all about the cause of the offence.

And I didn't imply all offence was equal, so your counterarguments are not arguing against anything I actually said.

I assumed the offence was real and said therefore the length of time to its root didn't matter.

I have very low tolerance for people putting words in my mouth and then arguing with them. It's quite pointless.

 

[owlo]

The more I think about this the more satisfied I am by the outcome and signs of health of our democracy regardless of the government's crying.

There was a democratic discussion of removing the statue, that was unsuccessful, people used their free speech to protest and that included destruction of property.

They were then charged with the crime they committed and a jury of their peers heard the evidence of why it was done and exercised their discretion as jurors and cleared them presumably based on merit rather than lack of proof it was them etc.

In the same way that a jury often found lynchers innocent. It was a terrible case to prosecute and a terrible result.

It's very definitely not saying anything at all about the cause of the offence.

You're saying the distinction is irrelevant, and that the fact 'offence is caused' is enough, no matter how old the statue is, or who/why they are offended by it. You're also saying the passage of time is meaningless. I may be misunderstanding you however.

 

[moses]

You're saying the distinction is irrelevant, and that the fact 'offence is caused' is enough, no matter how old the statue is, or who/why they are offended by it. You're also saying the passage of time is meaningless. I may be misunderstanding you however.

All I'm saying is that if a section of society is offended we don't get to decide if their feelings are legit because of some arbitrary time limit.

edit - you get to decide if you are offended, others decide for themselves. We either believe them or we don't.

 

[owlo]

All I'm saying is that if a section of society is offended we don't get to decide if their feelings are legit because of some arbitrary time limit.

Oh I see now. Makes sense. People get offended at all sorts of things though. We can accept their feelings are legit without destroying monuments. (I feel a little hypocritical here, as had it been descendants of slaves, or black people who're marginalised even in todays society that tore it down, I'd be more sympathetic, and their feelings would be 'more legit' to me I guess.)

 

[One Night Only]

I wonder would any Dubs in here prefer to have the Pillar back on O’Connell St now instead of our lovely spire?

Just looked this piece of shit up. 4million euros for that? Honestly, people should be more outraged at the prices the government's pay for absolute dogshit. Every government project costs 20x what it really should. Pissing money away. Looks shit too.

 

[moses]

Oh I see now. Makes sense. People get offended at all sorts of things though. We can accept their feelings are legit without destroying monuments. (I feel a little hypocritical here, as had it been descendants of slaves, or black people who're marginalised even in todays society that tore it down, I'd be more sympathetic, and their feelings would be 'more legit' to me I guess.)

That's a whole other discussion!

We can accept their feelings are legit without destroying monuments.

I think our citizens' well-being is much more important than the public display of monuments. So why ignore their legit feelings? What is the gain?



Personally, I despise many of the statues that adorn this continent. In the main they are male, often oppressors and killers of oppressors or those who profited from the deaths of European imperial and colonial wars.

Here in Ireland, many small towns have statues of patriots, monuments to the glory of violence. While violence can sometimes be justified. I despair at it being glorified.

All these many statues dwarf in number to their many victims. In my opinion, we need better monuments if we insist on having them. I love history, but statues give a misrepresentation and reinforce many of society's institutional oppressions.

 

[moses]

Just looked this piece of shit up. 4million euros for that? Honestly, people should be more outraged at the prices the government's pay for absolute dogshit. Every government project costs 20x what it really should. Pissing money away. Looks shit too.

We need to sticky a 'Shit things about Dublin' thread somewhere

 

[Red the Bear]

Just looked this piece of shit up. 4million euros for that? Honestly, people should be more outraged at the prices the government's pay for absolute dogshit. Every government project costs 20x what it really should. Pissing money away. Looks shit too.

We need to sticky a 'Shit things about Dublin' thread somewhere

It somehow had been even worse

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Livia_(monument)

 

[One Night Only]

It somehow had been even worse

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Livia_(monument)

That's a billion times better than that pin thing. I mean, there's actually something you can see may have took more than 12 seconds to design. It looks like something. Still won't have been worth whatever the hell they paid for it though.

 

[2cents]

It somehow had been even worse

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Livia_(monument)

Ah yeah, the Floozie in the Jacuzzi, she’s over near Heuston Station now, but I’d have her back in place of the Spire in a heartbeat.