UKC

For myself, the Duke of Sutherland who stands above Golspie on the NE coast and is visible for miles to the North and South. 

Responsible for some of the worst clearances in Scottish history his continued presence is an insult to the memory of the poor Highlanders he exploited.

I'd rather not pull any statue down. From Bhuddas at Bamyan to Rhodes at Oriel and Colston in Bristol I'd prefer to use education to show how things were, where we have come to, and how far we have yet to go. Erasing a relic from times past obfuscates part of our collective story, and though we can cherry pick which bits of the story we like, the story is still there.

Which is why nobody remembers Hitler. Oh wait. 

So don't destroy them - remove them and place them in museums. The collective story can be better told there than on the streets and in the squares of this country. 

I know what you are saying but it is so hideous and its erection seems so Trumpian and lacking in any self-awareness that it feels to me almost a warning, and memorial to the highlanders rather than the Duke.

I don't think there will be one of Johnson appearing any time soon will there? Otherwise I'd be happy to tip that into the Thames, preferably with him attached. 

Horatio Nelson, just to hear the crash. 

Aren’t more people likely to walk past these offensive statues and possibly read an information plaque than they are to visit a museum?

That's an easy and weak argument Hitler is one of the most famous people in the world and his evil was universally taught and understood. 

Many of our young people have never heard of some of these people the statues provide a talking point for education. 

I'm not actually sure where I stand on these statues, but I am sure where I stand on your argument.

Ozymandias....

All the ones of Antony Gormley dotted about Newcastle as “art”?

Well that's the point entirely. Universally taught, without the need for statues. As are many other historical figures.

Which further supports my point. How many had heard of Colston prior to yesterday? I hadn't. Education is better than statues. 

I'm not sure where I stand on them either. I just struggle to buy the "education" argument. There's a rather famous statue of Nelson, but I learnt about his exploits in school, not through visits to Trafalgar Square. 

That also suggests pulling them down has no effect either because they are just wallpaper that no one notices!

Don't really know where I stand on this.  Practically no leader is unblemished, and most are quite unpleasant in various ways.  Also what is "good" changes over time.   We could easily end up with no statues, which I think would be a pity as they capture influential people and moments in time if done well.

Exactly. A statue in a museum is educating people and preserving history, a statue town center is celebrating that history and individual. There are plenty of things in history which should be taught but not celebrated. 

No disputing this at all, and an interesting way to think about it.

 Agreed here - I struggle to fall on either side of the fence here - in short they don't really bother me in any way at all. 

Most of the time statues mean very little to me past the aesthetics, I generally have little idea of who that person was and have little interest either. However this one is so dominating of the land and the people that live below it I feel emotional every time I see it. 

This is exactly what I think, no one is pretending that everyone in history is a good bloke but to try to erase them for history is the wrong route, we should teach todays children lessons using these people as how not to do it!!

Yes and they’d learn that Colston was “one of the most virtuous and wise sons of their city”
 

Statues aren’t erected for history, they are erected for hagiography. 

Which ones would those be then?

Putting a vandalised, damaged statue in a museum Surrounded by placards is a far better end, with a far better story and lesson, than leaving it up riling almost every single person who walks past it every day, domineering the centre of our great city. 
 

Officials wouldn’t remove it and they wouldn’t Change the plaque purely because the right / Local / proud Bristol vocal minority simply had a louder and more threatening voice. 
 

Im glad it’s down and I do hope the climbers who did so don’t use those ropes again. 

And if people want to maintain a memorial to the Highlanders, we have places like Glenfinnan for that (with a visitor centre that explains it). Not normally one for statues and things, I do feel emotional when I see that place.

Folk like the Duke of Sutherland deserve only to be discussed in literature, not memorialized on the hill above the places they screwed.

Nelson! Have you no respect for John Noakes

No offense to you or Stuart, but that is a lovely example of your white privilege.  

There are black people in Bristol who have had to walk past that statue every day on the way to work.  It isn't wallpaper to them, it's a daily reminder that their ancestors suffered and that they are somehow 2nd class citizens.  

Polite requests and petitions to remove the statue to a museum have been ignored, a campaign to put up an explanation of the history was watered down by various white societies.  Even having a black mayor hasn't changed the situation.  

Maybe it’s just the one - on the wall by some stairs down to the metro in the street.  Laying horizontally supported on one arm.

Sorry but that is offensive, or at least irritating.  I was quite clearly saying that *if* statues aren't educational because they aren't noticed, then removing them will similarly have no effect.    Clearly if they *are* noticed, there will be an effect. I also wasn't saying I don't notice them - in fact I hinted that I did in the next sentence.  That is nothing to do with any "privilege" I might or might not have.

Man with Potential Selves? It's by Sean Henry...

And Ed Drummond (RIP)

Although that reminds me of the correct answer to this question. Couple at Newbiggin-by-the-Sea. Trite, shit, ugly, lumpen cack.

edit: though I suppose that's sculpture rather than a statue per se. It should still be destroyed with extreme prejudice.

Shows how much I care for pretentious street art.  Happy for that to go too...

lots of statues that are distasteful now were quite legit in their day, to ensure our children don’t repeat past wrongs they must be taught about them.

I also fully agree with the rope advice or at least add it to the rope log. 

Would love to see a statue of Brown and Whillans (in their happier times). And no tame statue at that.

Why not pull them down, store them in some dank museum warehouse somewhere just in case they're needed for some historical exhibition or other and place a plaque where the old statue stood reading: "Here stood the statue of the Duke of Wotsit, erected in 18?? to commemorate whatever, removed 2020 to reflect his disgrace for his role in the slave trade / clearances / rape of Africa / insert crime here."

That way, the statue is gone, the honourable (if any) is remembered, the dishonorable is highlighted and no history is lost. And no offended demographic is forced to look upon his likeness in its place of dominance for all time.

Statues are erected to glorify people. The people should be able to choose what to glorify and people change. Culture changes. Ideas and ideals change.

All I am saying is that to some they are wallpaper and to others they are upsetting.  If I misread your post I'm sorry.  

The answer to the statue issue is in the part of your post ‘ the people should be allowed to choose’.

Not some mob.

Someone suggested to me earlier that a transparent box be erected around the statue in situ in the dock so that over time it can be seen sinking slowly in the sediment like the bodies of the ~19,000 people who died on his company's slave ships.

I quite like the idea of recontextualising the statue where it lies or in its original place, seems like an interesting opportunity for a local artist.

A cultural exchange with Athens could be arranged, perhaps? There's pre-prepared space for statues there

There's been a consensus in Bristol for some time that at the very least the plaque at the foot of the statue should be updated. The reason it hasn't been done yet is because of arguments over the wording. Had the plaque been updated there may have been less of a case for it being taken down by public protest. As it happens the issue festered away until such a point that public feeling about it boiled over and direct action was taken.

There's more information here: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/second-colston-statue-plaqu...

I think they should pull the Colston statue out of the dock and then put in a museum in the context of successful protests and changes in societies views.  The video of it being thrown over the railings is a much better story for the museum display. 

I agree. Museums are all very well etc. but are often effective at hiding stuff. Where better to bury a statue than it an institution full of them and other exhibits? 

The statue and surrounding could be reconfigured to teach an important lesson. Statues do not have to be in honour. 

I've always found the following to be touching whenever I see them

https://www.visitdublin.com/see-do/details/famine-memorial

The Duke of Sutherland needs to go, hopefully soon. Field Marshall Frederick Roberts in Kelvingrove Park and Dundas in St Andrews Square? And if I lived  in England I'd be voting for Thatcher in Westminster and Churchill....for his war crimes in India, Ireland and Kenya.....along with his virulent racism.

More constructively, who would you erect statues to? How about John MacLean in Glasgow, John Paul Jones in Kirkudbright and back to Sutherland......a Scottish national monument to commemorate the victims and the impact of the clearances.

Maybe. But there’s no context then. And how often do people read the inscription on a Victorian statue anyway?

It wouldn't be a bad thing to have a gradual rolling update of statues and street names, losing a few old 'disreputable' ones every year or so and replacing them with people more in keeping with modern values.  We don't need to live in a museum,  statues and street names could be an example for children and motivate hope and progress.

If we cleared out some of the English monarchs, generals, slave owners, land owners etc we would be able to honour people like Bruce, Wallace, Burns, Hume, Adam Smith, Kelvin, Watt and Logie-Baird instead

It's hypocritical to attack slavers because rightly or wrongly everybody living in Britain has benefited in some way from the massive wealth they helped create. It's especially true if you happen to live in almost any west-facing port town. This country and its European neighbours were built on the wealth from slavery and the colonies; you can't escape it. Britain only finished paying reparations to slave owners in 2015  so whay not go on the Government website and check if your family has benefited? You might get a surprise as involvement in slavery was very widespread in a smaller population.

Perhaps unfashionable statues to slavers ought to be re-erected in a slavery museum similar to the very good one in Liverpool, a sort of statue park not too different to the Momento Park outside Budapest where all the old Soviet stuff ended up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_Park

English eh? So you would keep Henry Dundas.

Mmm. Not sure on Churchill , I reckon you might hit a a very thick brick wall on that one. 
 

Politics when mixed with statues is a very touchy subject. 
 

as regards Colston who apparently set up Bristol uni, what are people going to do about that connection?

History without context is  edited / censored History. A bit like the Chinese govt censoring Tianemen Square. And Colston is part of Bristols history. Better to put a statue next to it thinking about the slave trade and the way society has changed. It gives it context and shows that time’s have moved on. Gets people to think  .
 

Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Lincoln

To say its hypocritical then to attack slavers is ludicrous. There is no logical foundation to your statement. 

I might erect more statues as counterpoints to the ones of slave traders and what have you, have one of the fellow who managed to get black bus drivers allowed in Bristol standing next door to Colston, with information on 'the arc of history' which links them, it'd inform people about some of Bristol's history and the importance of individual action too.

Interesting point about Bristol University. Glasgow University announced last year that it was creating a reparations fund in an attempt to recognise and "compensate" in some form for the legacies and benefits it had received in the distant past from the proceeds of slavery and the related trades.

Not at all. The virtue-signallers who are jumping on the bandwagon as a means of demonstrating their impeccable PC credentials need to examine their past and their family's past carefully. They grew up in a secure wealthy country and benefited from free education and healthcare in institutions that were founded off the back of colonial trade and slavery wealth. If they had ever actually travelled to Africa and seen the misery of the average African life they might appreciate how lucky they are to have been born a British subject.

House!

I wrote 'English monarchs' i.e. all the George streets, Queen Elizabeth hospitals etc.

I quite like the idea of having an open-air Museum of C*nts where the statues of particularly nasty people could be moved.  Maybe they could rent paintball guns.

I think your idea of putting one statue next to another would be better than just tearing one down.

People could compare one person’s contribution to society to the other’s and decide for themselves who deserves to be honoured in the present time.

Knowing more about the past is always a good thing.

Instead of pulling it down, how about a  big neon sign with an arrow pointing at the statue, saying "wanker!"? 

I'd pull down the statue to Downfall - an infamous convict, from what I can gather judging by the number of threads that appear on these forums, each winter, asking whether he's in the nick - on Kinder Scout. 

I don't recall too many people being that arsed about it tbh.

The great hope would be that education would see an end or at least a serious reduction in racism but so far that seems to be having only a slight effect.

I'm making plans for Alex Ferguson already... 

Young children seem to manage okay - in not being racist, taking action towards integration in a school setting could be a plan, before people learn to be.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/100-hu...

I thought this was a good way to link the statue with contemporary issues.

The problem is that most people's version of history is incorrect and tailored to meet their own agendas. 

Racial prejudice is definitely learnt and racism is a learnt behaviour which is why the influence of the home is so important.

As most, if not all, people involved in education will tell you it’s very difficult to influence a child’s thinking or actions without the support of the parents, guardians, carers, etc.

Well I am happy it's gone, and as an Irish person who grew up in Ireland I don't feel too tainted by the slave trade. But i believe even if you benefited indirectly from such stuff in the past it does not invalidate any criticism you may have of what went on.

“It’s hypocritical to attack slavers...” etc

It’s definitely not. Notwithstanding the pretty weak argument that we’re somehow hypocrites through some complicity in slavers’ deeds that we’ve inherited nearly 200 years and ~ten generations later through financial gain that “everybody” (unlikely) has benefited from. Notwithstanding all that, there are thousands of other possible histories that haven’t played out wherein one way or another we might have been better off financially, socially, or in any number of ways than we are given the way our history did play out.
I suppose you could also make the argument that given that we might have been better off still had we carried slavery on into the late 19th century, but I think that just further illustrates the meaningless of your argument. 

It’s been done

Possibly not but I was expressing a personal opinion.

Interestingly I used to "occasionally" represent tenant farmers on the Dunrobin Estate against a particularly nasty factor who tried to emulate the late Duke.

Another interesting and completely off topic fact is that Golspie is the first town you HAVE to drive through if you start out from London on your way to Thurso.

Brilliant post. This country wouldn’t be where it is today without slavery. We have all benefited. Not saying it was good. But the fact is we have. Better to accept that rather deny. It is undeniable. 
Slavery has been a part of every empire down the years. Roman, Greek, Ottamon, Egyptian. Shall we pull every statue or building linked to slavery in the world down. Start with the Colosseum and Pyramids shall we? 
Many European people have also been used as slaves in their 1000’s down the years. It was called the Barbary slave trade. Where is the outcry against the countries who profited from the Barbary?

 

'as an Irish person who grew up in Ireland I don't feel too tainted by the slave trade. '

Just as a matter of record, Bristol was a slave trade port as least as far back as the 10th C , and was trading slaves with ... Dublin. So don't get too hoity toity.

I believe the Royal Navy expressed Britains dissatisfaction with the barbary slave trade and probably destroyed a few statues whilst doing so.

Remind me of the origins of your patron saint again

We'll all be down the pub to watch England play in Qatar in 2022 though, won't we.

It would be nice if people put as much effort into stopping real life slavery as it was happening as they did into pulling down a statue of someone who profited from slavery 400 years ago (I'm not saying the statue shouldn't be at the bottom of the floating harbour- it absolutely should also). 

Possibly. But again, there are many famous Buildings and statues around the world which have been built using slaves. Millions dying in the process. European, African, Arabs, South American, North American etc etc. Shall all these buildings and statues be torn down?

Burns? he was about to head off to Jamaica to work in the slave trade system before he struck lucky with his poems!

Since we don't all live in the same ways around the world, perhaps it doesn't matter if some statues here are, even if those buildings and statues aren't?

Why? Why should some come down and not others. They are all a sign of a countries slavery past. Some still provide profit to this very day. Colloseum being an obvious one. As it is still actually providing a profit from slavery as people pay to see it, any movement against slavery would surely make this a prime target for destruction. It is a giant big reminder of slavery. No different to any statue here.

I expect some of the deeds of Wallace and Bruce would be regarded as war crimes now.

Well known anti-Semite and the author of the deadliest ideology in history Karl Marx, racist Mahatma Gandhi, friend of terrorists Nelson Mandela ?

I'd certainly add a plaque to any which explain fully their negative legacy.

According to Wikipedia the Bristol Mayor personally vetoed the suggested alternative plaque. Assuming this is true then surely HE should bear a portion of the animosity himself.

What about the SCOTTISH Opium traders ??

I had a word with mine and he says he'd prefer to keep a low profile.

Better hurry up with renaming all those Glasgow streets first...

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scotlands-murky-shameful-s...

Oh, and I guess it's not the time to be bringing up Hume's racism either...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3654076?seq=1

The 'English' was only supposed to apply to the monarchs.   I blame the English language for that ambiguity.

While we are changing Glasgow street names we could also change Edmiston Drive to Nynina Road.

I don't agree - or at least, I think that's an idea we should try to get away from. Better to think of a statue in a town centre as reminding us of somebody who played a  significant role in the story of that town and was considered worth remembering at the time. We should think about what they did and what their commemoration tells us about society at that time, for good or bad. More interpretive material by the statues, in their original urban context, would be better IMHO than consigning selected problematic ones to unvisited museums where we don't have to think about them.

Like it or not, Coulson played a significant role in Bristol's history and the Atlantic Slave Trade is a significant and notable part of Britain's history (albeit for the very worst reasons). I'd rather have seen a memorial to the people ripped from their lives in Africa and transported for British profit placed facing the Coulson statue, in Bristol, with a small interpretive display explaining both. Maybe that would encourage passers by to visit the museums and read the books on the subject to find out more. 

If we remove the statues of all the 'bad' people then we leave a whitewashed history that pretends our past only contained nice people doing positive, progressive things. Better to see the whole story and make it easier for casual passers by to understand it.

The final point is that societal norms on acceptability move on all the time. If we judge all historical figures by today's standards few will pass and, in ten or twenty years' time when those standards have moved on again, some more will fail to make the cut until none is left.

Pyramids in Egypt and Central America, monuments to slave labour, power, death and human sacrifice. Pull 'em down I say! Doesn't matter if others want them to remain in place and consider them wonders of the world, I find them offensive and distasteful in the modern age.

Or is it just statues we can do this to now?

And the White House in Washington. Jefferson the slave owner lived there. IT'S GOT TO GO. Knock it down NOW!!

The Royal Navy had a fairly good go at that. Perhaps they would have done a better job if it was called Jefferson house.

I am somewhat bemused though by the comparison of buildings, serving other purposes, being compared to statues built purely to glorify one person.

William Wilberforce. He fought to end slavery but was opposed to workers rights in the UK, which given the working conditions of the time wasn’t a lot different to slavery.

That stupid bloody mermaid at Cumbernauld. 

That's right. Danish mermaids. Insist on it.

Exactly how it should be done. You should not try and erase/modify History. It is all around us. Every time I walk down Peter Street In Machester you can think of Peerloo Massacre  or the infamours gig at the lesser Free Trade hall or Rolls/ Royce meeting at the Midland Hotel. etc.Hide it and people forget the bad stuff.

Slavery is going on right under the noses of the statue-destroyers. In big cities thousands of children are doing unpaid work locked inside the houses of rich folk from Asia or Africa; travel to any African city and scratch beneath the surface of society and you will begin to realise the depth of the slave culture. For example Britain has strong cultural links with Nigeria; most wealthy Nigerians have property and families in the UK and it's completely normal to ship chidren out to the UK to do unpaid domestic work (or worse) in the London home. I am haunted by an experience I had once at Lagos airport; I sat down on a bench to fill in my immigration form and found myself next to a tiny skinny waif of a boy aged about seven, wearing a home-made suit far too big for him. He looked terrified so I smiled and asked kindly if he was going to London. Sitting the other side of him was a big, smug, complacent-looking man, brown-skinned and similar to Desmond Tutu in appearance and completely at odds with the look of the boy. The boy stared up at me and didn't reply but the man piped up with something like "Oh yes he's going to stay with his auntie..." or something similar.  I have thought about it a lot since then and reckon the child was being exported, as are so many others, to work as an unpaid slave or worse in London. I think of the case of Adam, the unidentified West African boy whose torso was found in the Thames, thought to have been killed in a juju ritual. There's a big hidden crime going on out there and the authorities are powerless to do anything about it.

As I've said, tear down unfashionable statues, demonstrate your PC credentials if that makes you feel virtuous but first, look closer to home and try to protect those who can't protect themselves.

Two things on this.

1) Consider the thoughts of the black person walking past a statue of such a person as Colston. How does that make them feel?

2) There has been debates for a number of years regarding an additional plaque, outlining his actions as a slave trader.

I think they should pull it out of the dock and place it in a museam as it is, still covered in graffiti and with parts broken off. These marks are now a part of the history of that statue.

How do you know the people involved aren't doing this already? Your prejudices are showing...

The problem is that 'History' is not some objectively existing body of truth, it's constantly being reinterpreted and remade. In this case, the Colston statue was not erected at the time he lived or just after - it was put up by the late Victorians as part of their construction of British imperial history. What the people pulling down the statue have done is added another layer to that history.

This is a good piece on how the statue came about:

https://theconversation.com/edward-colston-statue-toppled-how-bristol-came-...

I looked up the history of the additional plaque, and in true British style it had a contentious history in its own right. Nobody could agree on the wording. 

https://www.brh.org.uk/site/articles/the-edward-colston-corrective-plaque/

It does seem, mostly, that the special interest group who originally had the statue put up undermined any attempts to come up with a proper corrective plaque.

I assume the historical officer who first suggested it is shrugging now and saying "i told you so".

The black boy's head has been removed in Ashbourne.  It is said to have been above the road for 350 years and celebrates the first black person to visit, a small boy, who was very popular and loved  Ashbourne.  The head had 2 faces. Smiling entering the town, sad leaving, because he didn't want to go.

Interesting( no different some would say with statutes celebrating Confederates in USA, but that is more raw)). I suspect the local Bristol instituitions acknowledge his philanthropy.But what then do you do about all the stuff around Bristol which is named after him( especially when its on private land)? You just cannnot bury or hide this stuff, no matter how shameful.

Its like Munich/Hitler, locals want to bury it, everybody else goes on sightseeing tours.

Complicated.I can easily see why the local council could never agree what to do with it.

It’s a fascinating background story. Tells you a lot about how historical truth is so easily manipulated and how conflicted we are towards our past.

Fascinating. Shows how difficult these things are.

That even today some people get upset and bicker about embarrassing historical facts that happened 200 years ago suggests some kind of insecurity in our national identity.

Instead of being seen as a badge of shame it should be seen as an important and valuable lesson of history. Until we grow up on that front we’ll keep being stuck in those culture wars.

Removing this monument was wrong, not only because it was criminal to do so, but because in the end, it’s just another act acknowledging that we are still not comfortable with facing our historical past as it truly is.

But I doubt Ireland is still benefiting from c10th century and earlier slave trade, any benefits to the local Irish Catholic population probably disappeared over the next 1000 years.

Also was the Atlantic slave trade on a scale much larger than previous trade? Excluding slavery as a result of defeat in war? (Where defeated countries have their people enslaved by the victors)

I've wondered about this for decades, it wasn't even particularly nuanced. I've been on the fringes of the (now largely resolved) Morris dancing black face debate, and had seen this mentioned. This one was pretty blatant in its caricature 

None of them. Destruction is a negative reaction. And where do we stop. The Pyramids were likely built with slaves. The sewer system we all benefit from is a direct result of wealth developed during our period of colonial empire. 
trying to judge the past imo by today’s standards is fraught with irresolvable issues.

making a better future through education dialogue and understanding would be my constructive suggestion.

Er..  If you have a problem with specifically English monarchs, you know you're going back over 400 years right?  The most recent 'English monarch' you can complain about was Elizabeth I.

England and Scotland were separate countries in 1603, when they ceased to have separate monarchs.  And that at that time it was the reigning King of Scotland (who had been so for 36 years at that point) who took the throne of England as well.

Good grief, I know nothing about history (I looked up the dates on Wikipedia), but even I know that when Elizabeth I failed to produce an heir it was the son of Mary Queen of Scots who assumed the English throne.  There's a bit of a clue for you in her name, don't you think?

Sometimes you are just a parody of yourself.

Did they ever get round to putting a statue of Thatcher up?

........................

If the caricature aspects are not negative (dress, decoration, flat nose, black colour).   Why would anyone have a problem ?

Remind us, what happened to Mary Queen of Scots

As someone who was brought up in Cumbernauld I think it would be a great idea to pull the whole town down and throw it in the sea. 

Agree.

Rather than pull down statues of people with objectionable pasts, or have them put in museums where only a few would see them, I think the obnoxious parts of the person's history should be displayed with the statue so anyone passing by is made aware.

Slavery is loathsome and no even halfway reasonable person would support it. It is unfortunately part of our past and that of many other nations, but in that past it was not objectionable and erasing it from public view sounds a bit like 1984. 

I realise it would be odd to have a statues of people with revolting pasts but perhaps we need it to illustrate that very few allegedly noteworthy persons are all good and therefore very few, if any, are deserving of a statue in the future.

Dave

Paddington. 

No reason. 

First paragraph of my post:
"The most recent 'English monarch' you can complain about was Elizabeth I."

All the subsequent monarchs of Scotland and England have been her descendants.

I doubt there will be one of Trump made any time soon either.... there’s just not enough brass

Yes, you might be right. But if it happens, I vote for this guy to do the job:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43598431

"It's going to be a great statue, a beautiful statue... And Mexico's going to pay for it."

There will still be a Presidentail library though...........

I wouldn't pull them down but surround them with a proportionate amount of statues for all the people that were abused to put them there, looking straight at them, in their chains or whatever form of abuse was perpetrated.

Reminds me of the Queen Victoria statue in Sydney, Australia. - placed there as a positive thing. -. But it was originally in Dublin - but the citizens there decided it was a negative thing and no longer wanted it adorning their city.

That would just make that railway station even more unbearable.

In Hungary they collected all the massive soviet statues and put them in a park outside Budapest.

200? - Colston died 300 years ago!  70 years later the government transported people to Australia using slaving contractors, the same shackles and in similar squalid conditions. 

I see Sadiq Khan wants remove statues and rename streets with a slaving connection, presumably including Charles II, Samuel Pepys, John Locke and Joseph Banks, all fellow shareholders in the Royal African Company.  

Presumably Isaac Newton as a shareholder in the South Sea Company?

All those Roman and Greek statues as slavery was customary then

In fact perhaps ban statues altogether and abolish history

<If we cleared out some of the English monarchs, generals, slave owners, land owners etc we would be able to honour people like Bruce, Wallace, Burns, Hume, Adam Smith, Kelvin, Watt and Logie-Baird instead>

And what about Archie Gemmill?

I suspect more has been learned about the real Colston by more people in the 48hrs since his statue was pulled down than in the 125 years it stood. Bristol's lack of a slavery museum is glaring and has been for some time. Bar a few displays in the M-Shed, that Bristol's historic beauty and wealth was built off the backs of slaves is only taken in by osmosis rather than by any real effort to highlight it. The slave trade should be compulsory part of the national curriculum to boot.

There were plenty of British people that objected to slavery in the 18th century, who knew it to be wrong. I'm also pretty sure the slaves themselves found it pretty objectionable and wouldn't have easily given the impression that they were into the idea.

Colston wasn't complicated. He was a bad human being. Philanthropy paid for in blood and misery isn't any kind of philanthropy at all.

Nelson Mandela - Convicted Terrorist

Or are we only looking for white people statues. Granted some of them were nasty peeps

The Bristol mayor quite rightly vetoed a version of the alternative plaque that had most of the unpleasant history removed.  

He vetoed another whitewashing.  

I've linked elsewhere to the information on this.  

He reads?!?

Surely a rolling program of renewal which is in reality what we have and have always had when the long view is taken. I doubt the statues standing, those commissioned to replace them and the public's mores have ever been perfectly in harmony but perhaps we're approaching one of the moments where that tension peaks and is released. Perhaps not.

jk

Right then. Anyone for starting a petition to reinstate Jummy Saville's statue or protest the fact it was taken down?

That small black boy was someone's slave and the way it was made was awful and a complete caricature of the way black people look. 

Put it in a museum.  

He did a lot for charity. A great philanthropist.

3 dislikes, but no rebuttals.

Anyone?

Right? Just put a plaque on it pointing out he also did some bad things and that should keep everyone happy.

Come now, that would be Jesus Christ. There's no comparison.

jcm

Nice!

Can you point to a reference where he says that he wants to remove such statues? The statements I've read are rather more measured, suggesting a commission to establish "a proper process for the removal of any statues that do not reflect London’s values."

There is a great statute to his mate, Engels, in Manchester.

Well it could have alot of flat screen tv's on show.

Of course... a library composed entirely of archived Fox News news tickers playing for ever.

Mohammed the prophet? He's got to be up there.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52977088

"Statues and street names in London with links to slavery "should be taken down", the city's mayor has said."

Bristol was the second most important trading port in the UK for centuries before the transatlantic slave trade came into being. In fact Bristol has a 900 year history as a major centre of commerce, its involvement in slavery lasted a little over a century. Of course a lot of despicable people made a load of money in the slave trade but even at its height in the mid 18th century slavery generated only 40% of the cash coming into Bristol. To say that "Bristol's historic beauty and wealth was built off the backs of slaves" hugely overstates the case. I'm all for fully confronting the terrible things our forebearers did, but I'm not for warping that history, especially when that misrepresentation exacerbates highly emotive issues and informs current social unrest.

I totally agree, but it should be taught accurately and it should be taught as the terrible stain on world history it actually was, not as I was taught in the 80s as a hideous aberration inflicted on Africans by the British. It wasn't until decades later that I learnt that Portugal and Spain started the Transatlantic slave trade, that Portugal sold far more slaves for a far longer time period than Britain, that most African slaves were sold to Europeans by fellow Africans and that the Arab trade in Sub-Saharan Africans lasted from 900AD until 1920 and in numbers totally dwarfed European efforts.

Britain has a truly horrible record with slavery, a record that still causes considerable hurt to many BAME Britons, but without proper context we can't properly assess and come to terms with the crimes of the past.

Will have shelf after shelf of copies of ‘The Art of the Deal’, and a copy of the bible (still in its cellophane wrapper)

I can’t work out if you are joking or serious.  

Nor was slavery always whites capturing blacks.  The Barbary Pirates routinely raided for European slaves, which may have added up to hundreds of thousands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

E.g.: "Such raids in the Mediterranean were so frequent and devastating that the coastline between Venice and Malaga suffered widespread depopulation, and settlement there was discouraged. In fact, it was said that "there was no one left to capture any longer.""

No one has mentioned Rhodes yet.  

Any statues glorifying the white slave trade you’d like to pull down?  

And the House of Tudor were Welsh. 

And a bit French.

What does it matter? Religion and its associated ideologies has killed far more people throughout history than the occasional pandemic. My response was to JCM who stated Jesus was the author of the deadliest ideology in history which in itself was a riposte to the claim that Karl Marx had written the deadliest ideology in history.  

So nearly half its wealth came from slavery at one point. 40% of turnover would make a pretty big difference to the grandure of any town, would it not? And I'd say the mid-18th century would be the sweetspot for a building boom of grand buildings. I stand by my statement.

Looking around and how the reverence of imperial times and nostalgic "Rule Brittania" mindset, if not of empire itself, has reared its ugly head in much of the populace of late, it's clear we don't teach our historical successes in the context of other countries doing much better than us, so I'm not sure why we would need to be the kid pointing and making a big deal of saying "But he was worse, Miss" if we want to understand ourselves as a nation through our own history. 

More the subject than the author, surely? 

(and possibly the same for Mohammed, though I must admit I don't know if he actually contributed to the writing of the Quran)

Get rid of that shite rusty sword next to Llyn Padarn to make space for it I reckon

Pyramids? Built by slaves to glorify their dead Egyptian faroh kings etc... after that we'll smash up anything Greek, then Roman... The Mongolian empire wasn't entirely civilised either.

I don't know if he contributed or not either. Probably written by the equivalent of the Gospels rather than Mohammed himself.

40% of it's income in a single decade of a settlement who's existence stretches back to the neolithic period and which has a thousand year history as one of the most important commercial centres in the UK? 

Lets remind ourselves of that statement: "Bristol's historic beauty and wealth was built off the backs of slaves". I'm utterly unsurprised that you stand by that statement, doesn't mean it stands close examination though. The Trans-Atlantic slave trade involved Bristol between 1698-1807 and according to the Bristol Post, only one of the city's 13 finest buildings was constructed during that period. I didn't look further than that, perhaps you can Google up an alternate list to prove me wrong. I doubt you will though because your prime interest isn't historical fact, it's socio-political posturing.

Firstly, I don't know where you're looking around and finding all this reverence and nostalgia for the days of Empire, Perhaps you could link a couple of examples? Otherwise I'll just put it down to yet more hyperbole and exaggeration. Secondly, you utterly miss my point; I'm not calling for finger pointing, I'm not saying "But he was worse, Miss", I'm saying that the slave trade was a horrible stain on human history in general, a stain that vanishingly few countries or races are untainted by and that this is the context missing from much of the current debate.

I always wonder how the slave trade plays today in the countries on the African west coast. Do the locals remember bitterly which tribe enslaved their fellow tribesmen and sold them overseas, or has the dust more or less settled, I wonder.

jcm

Also a slave owner who slept with female slaves.  However, no statues of him.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml#h3

A short article describing one countries struggle with its past.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/an-african-country-reckons-with...

I think its an opportunity to rebalance the street names in Glasgow and Edinburgh.  A lot of them were put in at a time after the Jacobite Rebellions and designed to promote unionism and lock in the English victory.  It was suppression of Scottish culture and history. Many of the names in the New Town which aren't slave owning aristocrats are Hanovarian royals.

The first step is obvious.  The greatest King of Scotland is Robert the Bruce who sent the English homewards at Bannockburn.  The SNP council in Einburgh has a chance to give him the prominence he deserves with a street name and statue.  Take the statue of the unionist, Tory, slave-trading, aristocrat c*nt Dundas off the huge column in St Andrew Square and replace it with a statue of Robert Bruce.  That's the right guy to have in St Andrew Square in the centre of our capital city.  Then rename Dundas Street to Bruce Street.

You may remember we had a couple of Jacobite 'rebellions'.  Not actually rebellions since the Stuarts were the true kings and the Hanoverian installed in England were usurpers.

Many of the street names in Edinburgh's New Town were chosen to show loyalty to the Hanoverians at a time not long after the Jacobites were crushed and murdered at Culloden and there was a proscription against Highland dress and Scottish culture.     It was part of a policy of suppression and colonisation.  

The actual true king of Scotland is a descendant of Bonny Prince Charlie who lives in Germany.

Not that I would argue for any kind of monarchy.  It is 2020 and we should be well past kings, queens and nobles.  But as long as we have statues and street names we need to rebalance away from the unionist narrative towards something appropriate for an independent country.

Ah, Ok.  I totally agree that religion in general is a massive problem.  I wouldn’t pick one over another.  

However the reason I thought you were joking is that Muslims generally don’t have any sort of picture, statue or imagery of any kind of any of their prophets.  There are no statues.  

Eh? Hang on... I thought the last King of Scotland was Idi Amin?

Edinburgh is of course part of Northumberland.

As a side note much of Glasgow, the merchant city area etc owes much of it's wealth and infra structure to the slave trade. 

HaHa, You are funny. The Bruce was born 150 years after his Norman ancestors came over from France and took their Scottish lands at the point of a sword, but he's Scotland's greatest King! and yet you're still moaning about about an act of union that was done and dusted three centuries ago and the current ruling foreign dynasty stretching back for four centuries.

Milligan has gone.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52977088

Maybe no statues but plenty of worship.

No more so than the actual true King of England is an Australian called Simon.  Who should or shouldn't have succeeded to the throne is moot, the fact of the matter is the English Monarch and the Scottish monarch are one and the same person and have been for centuries.

Nor I.

Interestingly enough, the townsfolk who have hidden the head in Ashbourne claim “it isn’t racist, he is Turkish”.   Someone else told me it was a Moroccan trader.  Seems unlikely to be Turkish or the pub would have been the Turks Head.  Who knows.  

How can you understand your country if you don't know the history of other countries?

Give it a year and Scotland will be gone.  No more UK.  Next year's Holyrood election will decide it.  If the SNP get in with a large majority things will move fast.

I almost said something along the same lines but I had a bit of a read about it and actually that isn't entirely the case, as far as images anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad

That Wikipedia page mentions one in the Supreme Court in the USA, and also that there used to be an 8-foot tall free-standing statue of him on the roof of a court building in New York which was removed in 1955 at the request of the ambassadors of Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia. 

One of a number of statues on the theme of 'lawmakers' that had been up there for half a century, they only found out about it as money was being raised to save and refurbish the statues rather than remove them all.  (They were becoming dangerous apparently.)  While the work was being done they quietly took him down, spirited him away to a warehouse in New Jersey somewhere and shuffled the others around a bit to disguise the gap where there was one missing.

Sing along! 

The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round,  round and round. 

The wheels on the bus go round and round. All day long!!

Can't be arsed reading the whole thread. So apologies if I'm repeating.

Govt policy should be to leave all the statues up and build some more, Trump and Boris ones particularly.  They'll provide a target and handy relief valve for future protesters.

Learning about British history doesn't mean not learning about other countries' history and I didn't mean to give that impression.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-47068091

There are usually no plaques on them, so how does that work.

I rest my case.

Why can't you still do that and have the statue in a museum?

Would you be happy loosing 40% of your income? Or put it another way earn what you're earning now, then add another 40% on top of that, how much "beauty and wealth" would you be able to afford then?

So even though it's "Only" 40%, that probably made a massive difference, many businesses thrive only making 7% profits, so 40% not insubstantial, as you appear to be trying to make out.

Admittedly I've not been into town for a few weeks now, but from memory there's not much architecture from 1000 years ago in the centre and even less from the neolithic period. There's an absolute shit-ton from the early/mid-1700s to late Victorian.

A city's beauty isn't defined by just a handful of grand buildings. Bristol grew massively between the beginning and middle of the 18th century off the wealth brought by the slave trade and plantations. It was Britain's second city after London. Queens Square was built surrounded by the grand townhouses of the mercantile class. Blaise Castle was built by Thomas Farr who was heavily invested in the slave trade. Merchant's Hall (obvs) was built for the Society of Merchant Venturers (who still have power in the city today and helped cause Colston's impromptu scuba lesson). Bristol Museum and Art Gallery, and the Wills Memorial Building were gifted to Bristol by the Wills family who became rich through slave-produced tobacco. The Royal Fort was built by Thomas Tyndall one of a family of slaving agents. Arno's Court and The Black Castle folly (now a shit pub) were built for William Reeve, a Quaker, yet also a slave merchant. He also produced copper and brass, which were sold on the Guinea Coast for slaves (many Bristol producers of glass, copper and brass made their money producing these for sale for slaves directly or indirectly). Ashton Court goes back to medieval times but underwent a huge renovation in the mid-18th C. when its owner John Hugh-Smyth married into the Woolnough family who owned Spring Plantation in Jamaica. 

These are the direct connections with slave ships or plantations, but of course there's the people producing the glass, copper and brass for sale on the Guineau Coast, there's the ship builders building the slave ships, and a myriad of other jobs serving those directly linked with the trade.

Also, the suggestion that once slavery ended, wealth arising from slaves ceased to exist is a bit silly, yes? As above the Society of Merchant Venturers still hold influence even today, essentially owning Clifton Downs and huge amounts of property across the city. Inheritances get inherited and buildings get built. The city is shot through with slave money.

There's more, much more, but I'm bored of typing now.

Is it just me whose morals and motives you like to attack, or do you do that for everyone?

Our dear Prime Minister himself said of African colonies that the problem isn't that we were once in charge but that we no longer are. We, today, are still beneficiaries of the wealth described above and so it bears investigating in terms of our own country. Of course it should be learned that other countries have carried out this practice throughout time, but in terms of the reckoning that people are trying to have with how this history still affects modern Britain, we should be big enough to look ourselves in the mirror.

For the majority of people, museums are places where you go when you can't think of anything better to do on a Sunday afternoon. Try going to one during the week! They are places of forgotten things.

I first heard of Colston a few years ago due to some hooha about his statue at the time, and the related Bristol slave trade. People are aware of the history because of its presence.

A few years time, it'll be all be forgotten.  Along with the street names.

I'd pull down the statues of characters from Alice in Wonderland in Warrington town centre, to represent how far down the rabbit hole we've gone. 

How does that work?

The Northumberland thing.

The idea was to leave the statue in place and stick a big f*ck off plaque on it where people could read about the person.

They could then become informed about the person, their actions and the reason for the statue’s erection.

Bristol was a major commercial hub for a 1000 years so an extra 40% over the ten year time span mentioned would convert to an extra 40% on my wage over 1% of my working life (six months if my working life stretches to 50 years). After tax that'd come to about £4,500 worth of "beauty and wealth". So I suppose I could afford breast reduction surgery?

https://www.beautyinprague.com/prices-cosmetic-surgery-uk/

...or a ten year old Golf with 85,000 on the clock?

https://www.motors.co.uk/car-56779385/?i=5&m=sp

To be honest, neither proposition has me drooling at the thought, though the tit job might be worth a punt?

I'm not trying to make out Bristol's slave profits were insubstantial. You've gone to the trouble of quoting me in your post, perhaps you could take things a step further and actually read what you've quoted:

"Of course a lot of despicable people made a load of money in the slave trade": saying that a lot of people made a load of money doesn't sound like I'm making out that the sums were insubstantial does it? And the actual crux of my point was this bit: "To say that "Bristol's historic beauty and wealth was built off the backs of slaves" hugely overstates the case." Hopefully we've put that to bed for you now.

Seems to be subscriber-only?

jcm

Sorry, it works for me.

I think you get to read three articles for free before having to subscribe.

I’ll see if I can find another link.

Try this one - 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/an-afric...

Uhmm, tricky one-https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/14/racist-gandhi-statue-remo...

And this is the attitude to other countries which has made England hated throughout the world.   

Just recently you mean?  Our last few years have been pretty shameful, but it takes time to create an impression "throughout the world", so I presume you're thinking of the many misdeeds of the British Empire.  There was never an English one.

I'm old enough to remember people complaining, with some justification, that the Scots weren't given enough credit for their contributions to the glory of the British Empire.  The Welsh too.  Curious how many of the same individuals now seem absolutely convinced that the English did it all completely on their own.

It isn't just Liverpool and Bristol, Glasgow was built on slavery too.
https://www.facebook.com/BBCScotland/videos/514455532785635/  (no login required)

Not really true, its only a short period in Glasgow's more than 800 year history.

What is true is that great wealth in the hands of a small number of people quite often gets spent on fancy buildings and fancy buildings tend to last longer than most other structures.  So when you look at historical buildings those are the ones which are still there.  People who accumulate the kind of wealth necessary to build large and ostentatious buildings are usually doing something fairly evil to get it.

Many many years ago Northumberland was vast and Edinburgh was part of it. Glasgow and the South West was part of a different tribe. The area referred to Scotland was mainly the highlands. Although some coastal areas were Viking held from time to time.  

Tom in Edinburgh is very keen to wind the historical clock back to a specific point in time. I've chosen a different time. 

The influence was vast. https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/history/glasgow-history-slavery-street-n...

Claiming it for the English eh? These colonialist ideas seem to go back a long way. Isn't that part of how we ended up in this mess in the first place?( Out of passing interest I think Edinburgh might have been Welsh before it was Northumbrian)

Actually, I want to bring the clock forward to the present day and then start looking towards the future.

I want to be in a modern country, which takes its own decisions rather than being continually overruled by the population of a larger neighbour, with a modern parliament elected by some form of PR, no lords or aristocracy, no monarchy, with a written constitution, an enthusiastic member of the EU and UN, more even distribution of wealth and a focus on science and technology rather than banking and landowning.

As I said I was being very selective of the time. 

in large part by Scots against other Scots -

"In London they may not give a damn about folks up here. In Edinburgh they've always hated us"

(from the introduction to 'last of the free' James Hunter).

Anyway, history is inevitably messy, we should not obliterate the past or past monuments but we can change them - Colston should either go to a museum now, or be incorported in a new work - I like Banksy's suggestion.

https://www.artsy.net/news/artsy-editorial-banksy-shared-proposal-replace-e...

(perhaps with a shaft of light comiung up from the plinth?)

If we rename a street or change a statue we should leave some record - perhaps if Tom changes his street name from "murderingenglishbastard way" to "murderingscottishbastard way" then there should be a small plaque explaining the rationale for the change underneath - that helps inform future generations.

in large part by Scots against other Scots -

"In London they may not give a damn about folks up here. In Edinburgh they've always hated us"

(from the introduction to 'last of the free' James Hunter).

Anyway, history is inevitably messy, we should not obliterate the past or past monuments but we can change them - Colston should either go to a museum now, or be incorported in a new work - I like Banksy's suggestion.

https://www.artsy.net/news/artsy-editorial-banksy-shared-proposal-replace-e...

(perhaps with a shaft of light coming up from the plinth?)

If we rename a street or change a statue we should leave some record - perhaps if Tom changes his street name from "murderingenglishbastard way" to "murderingscottishbastard way" then there should be a small plaque explaining the rationale for the change underneath - that helps inform future generations.

I apologise for going back to the original post, but to me every time I pass the Duke of Sutherland the arrogance and hubris of his monument are the perfect reminder to spend some time thinking about the people whose home this area was. Especially when heading up Glen Calvie. There is, in my mind, no better way to celebrate what an absolute b**tard he was: to remove the monument would give him undeserved respite from the public gaze.

That's an interesting read, one I'd not seen before, thanks Bob.

They don't have to worry about a secondary plaque any longer... good luck to them with the museum exhibit notification!

I think Tom you should start a campaign to ban the use Of English as a language as it is the greatest sign of imperialism. You need to switch to Gaelic from now on. No self respecting Nationalist should be communicating in English.

About time the rest of the world stopped using it as well, probably our greatest ever export and a true symbol of our historic global dominance.

They tried that but the society of merchant adventurers tame historian managed to make the second plaque almost as much of an arselicking exercise as the first.

We all know the latter doesnt exist. They are just englishbastards in cunning disguise or possibly a brave Scottish hero misled by the evil englishbastards.

It is all fascinating stuff yours and Stichtplates stuff on Bristol.

We could spend all our education years on History and barely touch the surface.There is so much of it.

We have a great big statute of Cromwell on Warrington.  Maybe it is why the Irish bombed Warrington in the early 90's and the local Irish community opposed the installation of the staute 100 years ago.There is local gossip that the Queen never drives past it when in Town ( not very often).

Then, like I said in previous posts, the mayor should have used his executive powers to remove the statue. If that’s what the majority of the residents wanted.

But having a statue of someone, with a plaque telling you how good they were and what a wonderful philanthropist, doesn't help anyone find out the true history. So you then end up having to have something quite large to explain everything outside, which will then need to be maintained.

If it's just a bloke on a plinth, how is that any better than a display with explanation in a museum?

Can you imagine what the frothing lunatics would have said? Perhaps he still wanted to try to get a sensible compromise as opposed to simply removing it/bowing down to the whitewashers.

Now though everyones hands has been forced.

Maybe in time the statue would have been removed in a legal way. Which is the way it should have been done if that’s what the majority of people wanted.

At least the incident has opened up a debate that wasn’t really being had before.

You seem very determined to try and prove 40% is nothing, very strange.

Let's try this, you've got a mortgage and for the first 10 years, you get a bonus of 40% on top of you wages, you decide to pay this extra off your mortgage, so by the end of that 10 year period you only own a quarter of the original mortgage. You then pay your mortgage off 15 years early, so the money you would have paid overall is much less, as you've saved a load of interest payments, you also have more money to spend on other things which aren't your mortgage!

Nothing has changed the 40% still represents only 1% of your working life, but you're much better off.

Does the mayor have these powers?

You seem very determined to prove English comprehension isn't your strong point. Also very strange.

We had a brief debate about this on another thread.

According to the council website he does although some posters argued that he doesn’t.

When asked by the BBC why he’d allowed the statue to remain he gave a couple of excuses none of which was that he didn’t have the power.

Not quite sure who these frothing lunatics are, but the likely response to legal removal would have been basically nothing.  See the massive reaction to Colston Hall announcing the name change.

No one’s hands were forced here, people chose to go out aiming to commit a crime and the police chose to allow it.

Which thread was this? I know i asked the question, but i cant even find the relevant thread now! Do mayors have exec powers in the uk? I still think not (googled it again), and even so, i cant imagine it going down too well if a mayor just went around taking things down / putting them up without some kind of consensus...........

As I and others have mentioned elsewhere on a number of occasions the mayor cannot do as he pleases.  

Grade 2 listing made it subject to planning permission.

The SMV wouldn't allow it.  The SMV are rich and powerful.  

Well we have the tory councillor who seemed in favour of direct action although admittedly that was with regards to a second plaque being added.

Thats not the context of my statement.

shhh dont mention the undemocratic SMV.

30 years people have tried to do things the right way.

Now it's done. 

Ah yes, the golly man.  He's a characature come to life.  

Excuses or reasons?

Thirty years of inaction on a statue glorifying a slave trader in a modern city who has double the national average black population and whose reputation in large part trades off the back of black culture is getting into forcing people's hands territory. That's why it's not there anymore. They had a long time to do something but I guess they never considered that what happened on Sunday would ever happen. A miscalculation.

Cause they have no legal power and conspiracy theories are dumb, or some other reason?

Amazing how many experts on Bristol have popped up in the last few days.

and yet their historian was allowed to rewrite the second plaque to the extent it was almost completely neutered. Odd for a group with no power eh?

Are you sure they went out with this in mind, or did it just happen on the spur of the moment?

As others have pointed out - Washington still seems to be all over the place in the states. Etc, etc, etc.

Its not there anymore because, as said, criminals chose to remove it and police chose to allow them to.  It wasn’t an inevitable result, and no one was forced into anything.

The council and mayor (those with legal power) chose to let them.  The people of Bristol (those with moral power) didn’t support removal, so the council were looking for a compromise.

Yeah, Washington did the whole founding a country and being president thing whereas Colston just got incredibly incredibly rich from trafficking humans he didn't think were worth anything and then gave a tiny fraction back to humans in his home town that he did.

Yeah, just black Bristolians forced to live and work in the shadow of an unrepentant slaver who may well have enslaved their ancestors and even tipped some of their ancestors' children or other relatives into the sea. Shame about the inanimate object though.

I live in Bristol and may I venture that you're just making shit up.

I saw slaves in Mauretania some five years ago. It's not quite history there...

Care to support that at all?  If not I’ll venture that you’re the one making shit up.

Your other post displays total ignorance of Colston’s history so that seems pretty likely.

The wording was agreed between the mayor and councillors and sent to SMVs for sending to be cast. The SMVs changed the wording from that agreed by the council and so an impasse was reached. No second plaque added.

The Mayor blocked putting it up, for what he thought were good reasons.  What’s your point?

A bit like Cecil Rhodes then? (Although Rhodes, unlike Washington, didn't own slaves).

No, the SMV who are the last step before sending it to be cast, removed the numbers of slaves trafficked and dead, changed "trafficked" to "transported" and removed reference that Colston was the Tory MP for Bristol. The society slave trader Colston founded effectively vetoed the exact wording hammered out with great difficulty between the elected Mayor and elected council to give appropriate context to the SMV's preferred continuing uncritical hero worship of the man.

One bastard at a time please.

When you own the country bothering with formal slaves becomes optional I think.

F*ck me Colston’s a god, he managed to set up a group before he was born!

The Council chose to do what they did, no shadowy organisation made them do it that’s just a conspiracy theory.

My mistake, he was a founder of the Royal Africa Company, but a prominent member of the MVS.

The timeline I've described is well-documented. Apart from just accept the re-writing by the MVS, what could the council and mayor have done exactly?

Why would you think it is a conspiracy theory?  

Not ask for their view in the first place, or ignore them.  If you’re saying that they have some actual power here please provide evidence for that.

It’s unsubstantiated opinion, common to conspiracy theory types in this city.  I’ve had mates banging on about them (without any evidence) since I was a kid.

The project was commenced by the council as a process involving Cotham Gardens School (a Merchant Venturers school, formerly named "Colston") in an educational/research capacity whereby the pupils through research of Colston's history could help make proposals for inclusion on the second plaque, so SMV were involved from the start. I think it right that the council tried to make it collaborative and build a consensus, but once that had failed, they couldn't really go, "Nice project work, but what the wording will be is this".

I'm sure if it came round to it again, they would probably keep SMV out of it as much as possible, but it's a shame they're so intent on whitewashing their most famous member.

That’s a no then.

Im quite sure that they would say they’re not whitewashing, they’re telling the whole story.

You said above he became rich through slavery - no, he was born rich became richer through trading and, when already rich, got into slaving as part of that as many did at the time.  You said he left some small sums to charity - no, he left the lot (probably cause he had no kids!).  You want to focus on one period of his life and say that is him, and just like for Washington, etc, that’s simplistic in the extreme.

They have influence. You're the one who posited the 'power' question.

By removing references to number of slaves trafficked and dead, the number of children (in this case meaning "under 10") that were trafficked, softening the language, removing any reference to Colston being a member of their society, him being a Tory MP, or him using that position to argue in parliament for slavers' rights and then repeating the same fluff about charitable works that's already on the first plaque and removing any references to the strict religious (CofE only, no Catholics, no Jews) and political (conservative only, no progressives) conditions he put on his charity.

He was only an enthusiastic slaver for his entire career, bar 8 years with the Company of Mercers, right up to his retirement. He was then Tory MP for Bristol, being an enthusiastic advocate for slavery in parliament. Philanthropy paid for by slavery doesn't really win me over if I'm honest.

Given that you’re demonstrated you’re quite ignorant of his history, and I’m no expert, I can’t be bothered to discuss detail.  The point is “slaver” doesn’t describe him, anymore than that label describes Washington or Lincoln.  It’s simplistic dross.

I asked for evidence they have power cause I’ve had muppets telling me they run the city for years, commonly shared with belief in aliens/9-11 being a false flag/Kennedy crap.  It’s bloody weird seeing this nonsense go nationwide.

Which particular points of his history I've described show my ignorance? How else will I learn?

Fine, but I haven't. Do they have undue influence? They're certainly significant stakeholders in the city, between property ownership, custodians of Colston's reputation and network of schools. Bristol certainly isn't unique in having quite influential and very opaque guilds as part of the local landscape. They only just had their first black member, coincidentally.

I’m not a historian, I just got taught about Colston, and the slave trade, in school.  Wiki contains everything I corrected you on and more, if you’re really interested I’m sure there’s more info elsewhere online too.

As for the Merchant Venturers, I’ll believe they have real power when I see it evidenced.  If I were you I’d do the same.  Until then I’ll keep assuming that the Council’s decisions are their own.

You added context that he was born rich, but not disputed slavery made him much more so. I'm struggling to see what else you've "corrected" me on.

"Exceedingly rich local organisation wields influence" isn't exactly Watergate-level stuff is it?

Edit: Did you go to a Colston school?

Him founding the merchant venturers.  Evidently you’ve read some stuff by someone who doesn’t like him, or them, and taken it as gospel.

If you scroll up you’ll see what I replied to initially - that they wouldn’t allow it, as if it’s their choice.  Which is conspiracy theory bollocks.

No, I didn’t go to a Colston school.

There are statues all over the place and people walk past them without noticing. They don't know anything about them and they don't care about them. The last thing they would ever do is a read a plaque. They only get interested when someone says "Hey! That guy is responsible for the kidnapping, raping and murdering of thousands of people. The sight of his statue every day upsets and offends me especially as my great great  grandparents were slaves such as the people he bought and sold. That statue should be removed." 

Then they notice the statue and say "That's my history. You're trying to erase my past." Answer: If you want that past you better own it.

How do you know we're not doing that? Like many people with complicated antecedents there are things in my family's past I choose not to research too closely. Out of fear and psychological self-preservation. History, real History, is complicated and bloody. It rarely flatters us. People who go on about preserving "their History" are more interested in preserving their delusions of being on the right side of it. Few of us would be able to stand in the scorching glare of Truth and still maintain a sense of being exceptional.

No, I simply got mixed up between the two big organisations in his life: the Merchant Venturers and the Royal Africa Company. I can see how someone wouldn't like him. Slave traders, slavery advocates and religious bigots aren't big turn-ons for me.

Well, in terms of this most recent process, they rewrote all that had been researched by their school's pupils and agreed with the council, so the project died on its arse as a result. I imagine they regret that.

Interesting.  I want to know what my ancestors did.  

i find it fascinating that the real height of the British Empire was for the most part after the U.K. banned trading in slaves. 
 

maybe we had learnt something. 

Old example of this..

Muhammad (the prophet and founder of Islam) was mentioned above as a slave owner, but one without any statues.  (Also here: https://www.jesusandmo.net/comic/slave/ )

Actually there was a large statue of him standing on the roof of the Appellate Court in New York from 1902-1955, along with various other figures on the theme of 'lawmakers'. 

Nobody really noticed it was him, until the statues had eroded to the point that they were becoming dangerous and there was an effort to raise money to have them refurbished in 1953.  He was removed at the request of the ambassadors to the USA of Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia, and they shuffled the other statues around to cover up the gap where he had been.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/nyregion/a-statue-of-muhammad-on-a-new-y...

You also said that he became rich through slavery, and gave bits of his money to the poor, which are both wrong.  Forgive me if I don't try to judge the rest when I'm not an expert.  You have to look at anyone in history by the standards of their time.  At the time slavery was common throughout the world (and not a black/white issue, that's blinkered thinking). He didn't argue for banning slavery, no.  But then neither did most other people, it took over a hundred years after his death for just the British to ban it, let alone the rest of the world.  He did give a lot to the poor, and that was unusual.  On the other hand he had no heirs and wanted a legacy, so perhaps it was just purely selfish.  But then that's not the issue, the question wasn't whether we should put up a statue to him and praise him. 

Every historical figure if looked at by our standards will be bad.  That's not a good reason to take them down.  And that's what the Colston statue is, a statue of a historical figure that can give us some insight into how the past was - rich people bought and traded slaves, and that was normal, even lauded at the time.  Look what a strange place the past was.  I don't feel the slightest bit guilty for it - it has nothing whatsoever to do with me, it's history.  Even if it was my ancestors (I can't imagine it is, them being from the NE or outside the UK) I wouldn't.  I don't think that keeping history around means I'm praising it, it just is what it is.

The idea that his placement there is attacking black people now is just daft.  The people complaining are almost certainly not the descendants of the slaves, or their relatives, they just have a similar skin colour.  Even if they were it was 400 years ago!  Of all the many, many groups that took white slaves (not British, just white), do you find statues or relics of their rulers offensive because you're white?  Wouldn't that be just weird?

I don't imagine a plaque would have changed anything.

There's a lot in that.  I'm not actually sure offhand who's on the statue of the horse in Queen's Square, but I don't want anyone to take it down, I like it.

No one is pretending that Colston didn't do slavery, no one in Bristol is pretending it's not part of the city's history.  We're owning it.  I'm certainly not going to be ashamed of it though.

What about if it were Jimmy Saville standing up there? Would you be cool with that? Al Fayyad bought Fulham FC and installed a statue of Michael Jackson, another lover of children, so that the fans had to walk past it on entering the ground. They hated it. As soon as Fayyad moved on the statue came down. Michael Jackson will always be part of the club's history but the fans don't get their noses rubbed in it at every home match.

Are you truly owning the Colston legacy? Whatever Saville and Jackson did, Colston facilitated on a vast industrial scale. The suffering is unimaginable. Which is probably why you can't imagine it. 

There is so much excitement about an old statue in Bristol, but very little interest about modern day slavery. Illegal migrants scattered through various UK industries, or beyond in Africa, the Indian caste system, or in China. Granted many of these are producing goods for us, very cheaply and our standard of living might drop if we considered the problem. Perhaps it's better we just stick to feeling good putting 200 year old statues in the water and pretend all is well. 

Interesting comment on the actions of those in the past and the taking down of statues.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-52999319

Dave

You're not really though are you?

If you were "owning" it you'd make sure there was no doubt about what this bloke did, 19,000 people died because of him, some were thrown overboard while still alive!

If you were  "owning" it this would have been displayed on his statue, not what a great philanthropist he was.

If you're not ashamed of it, then it speaks volumes, to be honest.

The points you make about knowing his history, can all be done in a museum, why are you so against this?

That's a terrible display of strawmannery/whataboutery.

Both of these guys committed their crimes when the crimes they were committing were absolutely defined as crimes and were very much against the view and law of the time with many victims still being very much alive.  And looking at them on their own merit and of their worthiness to be immortalised you have two ends of a scale in my view. 

Michael Jackson changed the face of music and music video.  He had a highly successful career in a group, duet, solo performer, had a talent still unequalled and his music is still played on national and local radio, and TV.  He was a troubled genius, you could argue, as much of his adult life and behaviour was perhaps influenced by his upbringing, the details of which is freely available to view via Google.  This is not to condone but perhaps but to explain.  The fact that he is still regularly played should indicate that this view is shared amongst media executives whereas Gary Glitter is no longer played, anywhere.  One was a talented genius with a troubled past and one was a sexual predator.  

Jimmy, on the other hand, was a nobody and should not be revered by anyone.  He had a little broadcasting talent, for sure, but apart from doing a bit of walking and having kiddies sit on his knee, he wont be remembered for anything other than one thing, for being a vile predatory sex offender who used his position to get to places where he could offend.  He might have raised a bit of money but for contrast, we should have Cpt. Tom immortalised by having a statue of him displayed instead of Jimmy as he raised far more, was a successful businessman and also a war hero/veteran.  The main difference is that Tom probably has such dignity that he would find this embarrassing whereas Jim would probably want one.

The historic statues and monuments depict individuals who were both righteous and lawful of their time.  Slavery was a permitted trade by which modern standards we would find abhorrent (but of course still exists in some way as stated above).  These men were not criminals, they were pillars of society.  Much reflection should be given to this now and we should sue this opportunity to learn and understand and show progression of change, not to destroy everything we disagree with.  How far do we go back, where do we stop?  Lets not forget that God/Jebus/Holy Goat condoned infanticide, war, genocide amongst other nasties, as did Mohammed and his warmongering and child abuse.   Shall we burn all religious pictures, and Bibles whilst we are at it - I acknowledge that these are works of fiction but that hasn't stopped people acting on these instructions in reality over the years, and still do in the name of Allah.

What about kings and queens who supported slavery and torture both here and abroad?  Many pictures and statues exist still.  What about ancient antiquities depicting Roman and Egyptian leaders who took underage (by our zeitgeist) partners and had slaves to build monuments such as the pyramids and The Sphinx.  Should we vandalise and tear these down too?

So, anyway, back on track.  Can I nominate this statue to be removed?  I can explain if anyone doesn't know her history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa_Monument#:~:text=The%20Mother%2....

I could -- if I were that way inclined -- get all offended by this rather prominent and majestic monument:

https://www.google.com/search?q=genghis+khan+statue

But I can't.   Indeed I'm just listening to the Mongolian Death Metal track by the Hu, called "The Great Chinggis Khaan"  -- awesome track!

youtube.com/watch?v=pD1gDSao1eA&

That they werent criminals is the problem really. I would reserve the term righteous for those who fought to change the law rather than those who profited from it. That something is lawful is a rather weak defence and one which didnt work to well in the Hindenburg trials.

As for destroy. In Colson's case there had been repeated attempts to put it into context with a secondary plaque which had been thwarted by special interest groups who wanted to skip over the minor details he was a slave trader and a religious bigot.

Either moving to a museum/somewhere less prominent and correctly contextualising their history seems preferable to either destroying or allowing a whitewashed version to be portrayed.

i thought you would be a major fan considering the damage he did to the various Islamic empires.

It is but it wasnt criminal at the time. I dont like that but I live in 2020.

Yes, I agree but they were radicals at the time.  The norm was that slavery was accepted and to change it took many, many years.

It isnt a weak defence, it was a fact at the time and over time the law changed as we became more enlightened.

Which I agree is wrong.  

What, move every statue which someone disagrees with to a museum?  We better build bigger museums. Better still, we could re-purpose all slavery financed buildings to become the new slavery museums - two birds one stone.

Churchill, Queen Victoria, Cromwell... 

We know, slavery, treating humans as property is disgusting.  Bristol was a major port that made money from it, we know.  No one pretends it didn’t happen.

There was a plan to put that on there, it would have happened.  The second plaque wording might not have been perfect but it certainly said he traded in slaves.

Why should I be ashamed of it.  Are you?

What I’m really against is criminals being allowed to destroy communal stuff, and I’m really pissed off that supposedly independent law enforcement allowed it.  I don’t think I’ll ever have any respect for A&S police again.

Followed by an essay challenging me to get excited about a whole lot of other people who were bad but whom I chose not to criticise because, presumably, that would compromise my thesis. 

We're on about statues here aren't we? There was a statue and an elaborate memorial to Saville. They were quickly torn down when we came to know the truth. That's pertinent. 

Colston's statue went up a long time after his death and a long time after slavery was abolished. Attitudes were different then. Times change. Put the great man in a museum with detailed information about how people didn't care about Africans and that's why they thought it appropriate to memorialise him. 

And please don't bring Capt Tom out to prove you're more patriotic than me. Let's agree that he's a fine old Yorkshire gentleman and not mention the other guy from Yorkshire in the same paragraph. 

Not bad!

Are you generally a fan of cultural relativism?  I hope you are consistent in this belief and dont apply it selectively.

It is. To invoke Godwin using this logic the nazis didnt do anything wrong. See a problem here?

ermm no. Try again.

Well Charles Darwin must be a contender 

Theres a big difference between having a problem with slavery now and having a problem with historical slavery.  You can’t change history.

That the Nazis did things illegal under even their own law, and that they were not following world norms, so it’s a dumb comparison?

No you are still making excuses though. Stating that its okay in that culture and not this one.  Go full hog and embrace your cultural relativism.

They also did several things legal under their law for which they were prosecuted so do you want to try again.

As for world norms. I think you are confusing western with world norms.

It is amazing how many people seem to have decided the hill to die on is for a slave trading religious bigot.

No, I’m not.  You’re being silly.  Slavery happened, as did many other things.  It’s just a fact, not something you can alter.

Try what?

Hardly.  Slavers bought slaves from established markets that were not in the western world.  You may need to have a look at some world history.

Colston's statue was put up in 1895, 174 years after his death, well after slavery was illegal and recognised as repulsive, by Victorians wanting to create a mythical founder figure of great virtue, with no reference to him being nuts deep in the slave trade. They didn't mention it because they knew it to be wrong, but wanted to whitewash the man as a "most virtuous son" of Bristol so they could invoke a deep connection with Bristol's past to reinforce their own moral authority. 

Conflating buildings, which can be renamed and are really useful for stuff, paid for in whole or by part with slave money and a statue purely designed to mythologise and celebrate a slaver doesn't really work, does it? 

How did you come to that conclusion?

Bulldozing history never got us very far.  Why not raze the Great Pyramid of Cheops to the ground or tip Cleoptra's needle into the Thames?  While you're about it, have a go at the Great Wall of China and the older parts of Rome, or are we happy to admire the output of slave labour? 

Uncomfortably, the White House was built by slaves too, which was something that was not lost on Michelle Obama.  The slave owners were paid for the work done by their slaves.

Can you name one person in this or other similar UKC threads who has decided that? Just one?

You mean aside from thomasadixon?

Although since you now apparently care about precision and what people actually said. Care to show where anyone has demanded that all statues that just one person disagree with should be moved to a museum. Just once?