Felling of British slave trader statue heats up simmering debate

[NanLaew]

11 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Connection is a wide ranging term and I’ll keep to it.
 

However let me add anyone who benefited due to their direct involvement in the slave trade, through trading, buying, selling, transporting or any other form of involvement should not be celebrated. 

 

And by trying to identify anyone with "direct involvement" by the rather nebulous criteria of "any other form of involvement", the high horse from which you pontificate is thusly nobbled.

 

Focus... focus....

[NanLaew]

53 minutes ago, polpott said:

Read and comprehend what is being said .

 

Did the local traders have statues erected in their honour?

 

Probably not. Does that mean they get a free pass on their heinous acts just because they didn't subscribe to the western notion of fawning adulation? I mean, if he or she has a statue, they must have something to hide? This falls neatly into @Bluespunk's rather imperceptive notion that "any other form of involvement", no?

[Morch]

10 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Different historians may come to different conclusions based on identical data?
 

Don’t think that will be the case when identifying  who was involved in the slave trade. If there is evidence they were involved in the slave trade in the historical record then they were involved.
 

Motivations or the extent of involvement or how much they profited or how they truly felt about trading in human misery may be open to interpretation but if factual evidence they were involved in this most vile trade is revealed, then I fail to see how 10 different historians or researchers  into the historical record would disagree whether they were involved or not. 
 

For one thing either they were involved or they weren’t, and I fail to see how their can be 10 different views on that...

 

 

 

 

Historians disagreeing about facts, let alone their interpretation is pretty much routine.

[polpott]

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

 

Probably not. Does that mean they get a free pass on their heinous acts just because they didn't subscribe to the western notion of fawning adulation? I mean, if he or she has a statue, they must have something to hide? This falls neatly into @Bluespunk's rather imperceptive notion that "any other form of involvement", no? A possible solution.

The point is that people who have statues erected in their honour but have been involved in the slave trade are a constant reminder to black people who are descended from slaves that they have been treated as inferior beings in the past and erecting a statue to their original owner says that its OK. In Bristol in particular there are many black people who are descended from Bristolians who came to the city as slaves or ex slaves. How does a black parent in Bristol explain why that person is venerated to their children? It just feeds the racist principle that its ok to see black people as "inferior".

 

Another poster suggested that a plaque should be placed on the statue fully explaining that persons role in the slave trade.   A possible solution but for me it should be dumped back in the Severn where it belongs.

 

I would go further in Bristol. Colston has streets and buildings named after him. They should all be changed. Do you see streets in Berlin named "Hitler Strasse" or Hitler statues? Same difference.

Edited February 27, 2021 by polpott

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

 

And by trying to identify anyone with "direct involvement" by the rather nebulous criteria of "any other form of involvement", the high horse from which you pontificate is thusly nobbled.

 

Focus... focus....

Nonsense. 

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

 

Probably not. Does that mean they get a free pass on their heinous acts just because they didn't subscribe to the western notion of fawning adulation? I mean, if he or she has a statue, they must have something to hide? This falls neatly into @Bluespunk's rather imperceptive notion that "any other form of involvement", no?

No it doesn’t and nonsense. 

[Bluespunk]

49 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Historians disagreeing about facts, let alone their interpretation is pretty much routine.

Yes, but not to the extent the poster claims and as I said, if there is evidence in the historical record they were involved, then they were involved. 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Yes, but not to the extent the poster claims and as I said, if there is evidence in the historical record they were involved, then they were involved. 

 

Not so. There are often disagreements about facts, sources, and interpretations which go to any sort of depth and length. Maybe applies less to more prominent figures, but guess the issue is more to do with people who were partially or marginally 'involved'. 

[polpott]

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Not so. There are often disagreements about facts, sources, and interpretations which go to any sort of depth and length. Maybe applies less to more prominent figures, but guess the issue is more to do with people who were partially or marginally 'involved'. 

Culston was fully involved. He made his fortune directly on the backs of his slaves and he built the city of Bristol with that fortune. An inarguable fact that nobody disagrees with.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2021 by polpott

[Bluespunk]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Not so. There are often disagreements about facts, sources, and interpretations which go to any sort of depth and length. Maybe applies less to more prominent figures, but guess the issue is more to do with people who were partially or marginally 'involved'. 

I have already said that interpretations on the extent of involvement may cause disagreement in the post you quoted earlier.

 

However whether they were involved or not can be deduced from the historical record. Historians may well disagree upon some points but if the preponderance of evidence points to being involved then that should be the end of it. 

 

How many ''marginal'' players in the trade have statues erected to them?

Edited February 27, 2021 by Bluespunk

[Morch]

4 hours ago, polpott said:

Culston was fully involved. He made his fortune directly on the backs of his slaves and he built the city of Bristol with that fortune. An inarguable fact that nobody disagrees with.

 

 

 

I wasn't addressing a specific case, but a general proposition.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I have already said that interpretations on the extent of involvement may cause disagreement in the post you quoted earlier.

 

However whether they were involved or not can be deduced from the historical record. Historians may well disagree upon some points but if the preponderance of evidence points to being involved then that should be the end of it. 

 

How many ''marginal'' players in the trade have statues erected to them?

 

We'll have to disagree on our take of historical research and practice. This, by the way, without even beginning to venture into the tricky issue of agenda and politics effecting such research.

 

As per your loaded question, I obviously have no idea. For one thing, there's no clear criteria on what's 'marginal', and according to your paradigm, it's irrelevant anyway.

 

Does anyone who ever owned slaves qualify? Even if this was acceptable norm at the time, and slaves weren't treated horribly?

 

And, IMO, the statues thing is just the beginning. Once you run out of statues, but the suggested policy still in place, there will be calls to apply it to portrays, buildings named after people, scholarships and eventually, maybe even a purge of historical records, narratives and sources.

[Bluespunk]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

We'll have to disagree on our take of historical research and practice. This, by the way, without even beginning to venture into the tricky issue of agenda and politics effecting such research.

 

As per your loaded question, I obviously have no idea. For one thing, there's no clear criteria on what's 'marginal', and according to your paradigm, it's irrelevant anyway.

 

Does anyone who ever owned slaves qualify? Even if this was acceptable norm at the time, and slaves weren't treated horribly?

 

And, IMO, the statues thing is just the beginning. Once you run out of statues, but the suggested policy still in place, there will be calls to apply it to portrays, buildings named after people, scholarships and eventually, maybe even a purge of historical records, narratives and sources.

Owning slaves without a doubt counts. 

No one is suggesting purging historical records, a loaded, misleading and emotive claim about what is happening, statues are not historical records but rather a celebration of those involved. 
 

I am all for a true, open and honest discussion and examination of those involved in the slave trade. 
 

Statues do not do that. 

Edited February 27, 2021 by Bluespunk

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Owning slaves without a doubt counts. 

No one is suggesting purging historical records, a loaded, misleading and emotive claim about what is happening, statues are not historical records but rather a celebration of those involved. 
 

I am all for a true, open and honest discussion and examination of those involved in the slave trade. 
 

Statues do not do that. 

 

Guess if slave ownership, regardless of anything, is included, then the purge list will be longer.

 

As for 'no one is suggesting' - yes, not at present. But, IMO, these things have a certain dynamic to them. When the available objects would be gone, the policy will be expanded. Other public references other than statues were targeted by such efforts.

[Bluespunk]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Guess if slave ownership, regardless of anything, is included, then the purge list will be longer.

 

As for 'no one is suggesting' - yes, not at present. But, IMO, these things have a certain dynamic to them. When the available objects would be gone, the policy will be expanded. Other public references other than statues were targeted by such efforts.

I disagree with your view on what is happening and certainly do not share your view on where it will lead. 

Edited February 27, 2021 by Bluespunk
Typo

[Nout]

One debate is why the violent rioters have not been imprisoned.

[polpott]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I wasn't addressing a specific case, but a general proposition.

Check the thread title.

[GinBoy2]

This whole topic, and reading the comments remind me very much that the British are yet to fully understand their part in slavery.

 

In the US, and the New World in general, we live with it's legacy every day, be it police forces basically derived from slave catchers, to social inequality as a legacy from segregation.

 

Yet in Britain, you can sit back and talk about statues, yet a lot of your country was built on the fortunes made from the triangular slave trade, yet statues are what you focus on!

 

Slave ownership was so ingrained into your society, people that had never been to the Americas owned slaves and derived their income from slavery.

 

I'd prefer you focused on that miscarriage of justice from than a few stupid statues

 

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

[Chomper Higgot]

42 minutes ago, Nout said:

One debate is why the violent rioters have not been imprisoned.

‘Riot’ is a specific charge that comes after the reading of the ‘Riot Act’.

 

I witnessed it once in an otherwise sleepy English provincial town.

 

If the ‘Riot Act’ was not read then it’s unlikely that charges of riot would be brought.

 

That aside, tossing a statue into the ‘oggy’ is a rather strenuous physical act, but don’t think it meets the definition of criminal violence.

[polpott]

24 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

Yet in Britain, you can sit back and talk about statues, yet a lot of your country was built on the fortunes made from the triangular slave trade, yet statues are what you focus on!

Err excuse me, was there not a bit of a brew ha in the US recently over the taking down of Robert E Lee statues?

[KhaoYai]

28 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

Yet in Britain, you can sit back and talk about statues, yet a lot of your country was built on the fortunes made from the triangular slave trade, yet statues are what you focus on!

Coming from West Yorkshire in the UK, I'm very aware of how the texile Barons of the UK made their incredible wealth - it came from both the 'slave trade' as we traditionally know it but it also came from the backs of the thousands of British people 'employed' in the mills and factories.  Many of these British workers died early, disease and illness/injury were rife.

 

Much of the glorification of the 'slave traders' and mill owners was done by by their contemporaries.  They were seen as people who 'improved' the life of people, gave them jobs, built schools for their children etc. etc. The fact of the matter is that whether they were slave traders or mill owners, they amassed massive fortunes from the graft of others - others who in reality were paid just enough to survive whilst the owners lived a life of luxury and enjoyed good health in the clean air of their country house 20 miles away from the smokey chimneys.

 

Whether they were 'slave traders' or mill owners - neither justify glorification or praise.  They only had one thing in mind - how much can I make and how little will it cost me?  The health and lives of their workers was of little concern.

 

There were a few possible exceptions - Titus Salt for example but even then, he was no saint.

 

I'm happy to see their statues come down and the true history of the 'Industrial Revolution' be told but it should be done legally and with consent.

Edited February 27, 2021 by KhaoYai

[GinBoy2]

1 minute ago, polpott said:

Err excuse me, was there not a bit of a brew ha in the US recently over the taking down of Robert E Lee statues?

You are a little bit missing the point.

 

Of course statues are a part of out discussion, but it goes deeper into what the effects of slavery had to out society.

 

You exported the problem, reaped the profits, but never had to deal with the fallout, since there were no, or at least very few slaves in the country that facilitated the trade.

 

So now the worst you have to worry about are statues. The rest of us have some rather more structural issues to deal with in the aftermath

[polpott]

2 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

You exported the problem, reaped the profits, but never had to deal with the fallout, since there were no, or at least very few slaves in the country that facilitated the trade.

 

So now the worst you have to worry about are statues. The rest of us have some rather more structural issues to deal with in the aftermath

Not as bad as the US but still a problem. Before every premier League football match all players and officials take the knee. Mind you our leaders don't call them traitors for doing that.

[NanLaew]

8 hours ago, polpott said:

Culston was fully involved. He made his fortune directly on the backs of his slaves and he built the city of Bristol with that fortune. An inarguable fact that nobody disagrees with.

 

 

 

Then they should bulldoze Bristol into the Severn, no?

 

Or maybe they can get around all this angst by just having a plaque on the big entry signs saying, "Welcome to Bristol. Built on slavery."

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, polpott said:

Before every premier League football match all players and officials take the knee.

 

Not for much longer I hope.

 

Note that it's Wilfried Zaha and other Black players that are saying that taking the knee is degrading and well beyond it's use-by date.

 

https://www.espn.com/soccer/crystal-palace/story/4318940/black-lives-matter-uk-back-zaha-comments-on-taking-a-knee

[7by7]

10 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

From the "Bristol Post": "Whenever the question was asked in the past two decades in opinion polls, letters pages and radio phone-ins, it seemed that the majority of people in Bristol said they wanted the Colston Statue to stay."

 

The majority of people who were asked in the opinion polls, wrote to the letters pages or called the radio phone ins.

 

Not the majority of people in Bristol.

 

The only way to come close to determining that is to hold a Bristol wide referendum. 

[7by7]

8 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

Not for much longer I hope.

 

Note that it's Wilfried Zaha and other Black players that are saying that taking the knee is degrading and well beyond it's use-by date.

 

https://www.espn.com/soccer/crystal-palace/story/4318940/black-lives-matter-uk-back-zaha-comments-on-taking-a-knee

 

I wonder what their reaction will be when spectators are allowed back in and the monkey chants when a black player has the ball start again!

 

Yes, I know it's only a mindless minority who make these chants; but it still happens.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

‘Riot’ is a specific charge that comes after the reading of the ‘Riot Act’.

 

I witnessed it once in an otherwise sleepy English provincial town.

 

If the ‘Riot Act’ was not read then it’s unlikely that charges of riot would be brought.

 

That aside, tossing a statue into the ‘oggy’ is a rather strenuous physical act, but don’t think it meets the definition of criminal violence.

 

The way my mind is wired, some phrases automatically conjure tunes or movie scenes (seem to recall an American sitcom based on a similar premise).

 

So 'Riot Act'...yeah. Some of the lyrics could be used in this topic (certainly others), even.

 

 

Riot Act / Elvis Costello

 

Forever
It doesn't mean forever anymore
I said forever
But it doesn't look like I'm gonna be around much anymore

 

When the heat gets sub-tropical
And the talk gets so topical

 

Riot act, you can read me the riot act
You can make me a matter of fact
Or a villain in a million
A slip of the tongue is gonna keep me civilian

 

Why do you talk such stupid nonsense
When my mind could rest much easier
Instead of all this dumb dumb insolence
I would be happier with amnesia

 

They say forget her
Now it looks like you're either gonna be
Be for me or against me
I got your letter
Now they say I don't care for the color that it paints me

 

Trying to be so bad is bad enough
Don't make me laugh by talking tough
Don't put your heart out on your sleeve
When your remarks are off the cuff

 

Riot act, you can read me the riot act
You can make me a matter of fact
Or a villain in a million
Slip of the tongue is gonna keep me civilian

 

Riot act, you can read me the riot act
You can make me

 

Riot act, you can read me the riot act
You can read me the riot act
You can read me the riot act

 

 

[nauseus]

9 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

This whole topic, and reading the comments remind me very much that the British are yet to fully understand their part in slavery.

 

In the US, and the New World in general, we live with it's legacy every day, be it police forces basically derived from slave catchers, to social inequality as a legacy from segregation.

 

Yet in Britain, you can sit back and talk about statues, yet a lot of your country was built on the fortunes made from the triangular slave trade, yet statues are what you focus on!

 

Slave ownership was so ingrained into your society, people that had never been to the Americas owned slaves and derived their income from slavery.

 

I'd prefer you focused on that miscarriage of justice from than a few stupid statues

 

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

 

From that it sounds like  the Americans are yet to fully understand their part in slavery either.

[nauseus]

6 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

The majority of people who were asked in the opinion polls, wrote to the letters pages or called the radio phone ins.

 

Not the majority of people in Bristol.

 

The only way to come close to determining that is to hold a Bristol wide referendum. 

 

But you don't like referendums.