The statue of Colston in Bristol has been taken down by the protestors

[MrsPeacockInTheLibrary]

If you know anything of the history of Bristol and the slave trade - his name and legacy is deeply controversial. There are two sides to it at least.

I don't know who was responsible for it being torn down. But it is a big development for this city and its long history of protests.

Go on, then, explain why you think those sentences contradict each other.

Some protestors pulled it down after the protest on College Green, it was then thrown into the river.

I agree it should have come down, and signed the petition to say so, I don't agree with how they did it or putting it in the river though. It could have been used within the museum or M Shed, to represent history (as a museum should good or bad)

Go on, then, explain why you think those sentences contradict each other

If you judged him in the context of his time, you would understand he made his money in a way that was accepted in the culture and society in which he lived. The statue was raised in gratitude of his benevolence to the city of Bristol. By rejecting the statue, you’re measuring his actions against 21st century mores, ie out of context.

But his statue is here in 2020. Well, was.

As pointed out above, statues are objects of commemoration or celebration (sometimes of grief, but those aren't usually depictions of the killer or oppressor).

I'm perfectly happy not to have this man held up for celebration in 2020. I don't want history to cease to record his existence or actions. I also understand perfectly well that many people in his time found slavery acceptable.

BTW, by the time the statue was put up in 1890, even the British Empire which benefitted from it had declared slavery legally and morally unacceptable. It was abolished in 1834.

By rejecting the statue, you’re measuring his actions against 21st century mores, ie out of context

Or just within the context of now. It doesn't mean he was a wholly bad person, but by today's standards we don't celebrate slave owners with statues.

No we don't celebrate slave owners. We barely recognise them these days. Because we are so happy to declare slavery has been abolished.

We do make demagogues our heroes for the day though! White, male, came equipped demagogues!

And slavery continues mere miles from that scene. Close to home, everyone's home.

And you get het up about the existence of a solid reminder of slavery?

Pshaw

The statue was erected long after his lifetime. People matter more than statues. So much pain and oppression involved here.

I'm a Bristolian and I am happy for it to be gone. I think it should be put in our MShed museum - maybe even left as it is when it's dredged up. It is the city of Banksy and the St Paul riots and protest and this is a clear signal.

I agree with people saying it should have been removed by the council, though, rather than wait for this.

Don't forget the masked white men threatening women speaking on women's issues.

Bristol is indeed sending clear messages, not all as you might like!

I've not been to Bristol, so I don't know how prominent the statue was. Generally, I am not keen on removing them, though. I would maybe move it to a less prominent position, and presumably if has some sort of plaque. I would have a secondary plaque to explain his involvement in the space trade

Whether the statue should be there or not what happened today is quite simply criminal damage. It ruins the whole idea of the protest when people resort to this kind of crap imo.

I'm glad it's down. Good on the people who pulled it down. Slavers should not be on pedestals. There are lots of ways to remember them and lots of ways for Bristol to tell its history - good and bad - without holding onto statues that were put up to honour dishonourable people.

Yes, seeing it falling into the water was appropriate.

About time OP.

I would have a secondary plaque to explain his involvement in the space trade

There was, the problem being that it was so small it was barely readable, and around the side, whilst the 1st was front and centre and big enough to catch the eye.

If it was a statue of Hitler no one would have an issue with it being pulled down

It was symbolic, but bet the Merchant Venturer's have it back within the week.

Regarding the teaching of history. What nit rehumanize the victims by teaching it from their viewpoint. Roots in the 70s taught millions more about history than walking by a statue of a slave owner ever could. Read Toni Morrison. Look at history from a non perpetrator viewpoint. Liverpool has a museum to slavery, far more educational than a statue.

@Alsohuman

Go on, then, explain why you think those sentences contradict each other

If you judged him in the context of his time, you would understand he made his money in a way that was accepted in the culture and society in which he lived. The statue was raised in gratitude of his benevolence to the city of Bristol. By rejecting the statue, you’re measuring his actions against 21st century mores, ie out of context.

The statue was pulled down in the 21st century. Quite a nice context if you ask me. Besides, salvery has enabled and made a lot of other things possible for the traders and masters of those slaves. Contribution of slavery to the British empire is far more than what he contributed. So 🤷🏻‍♀️

Yy to the visual of it going in the water (though I won't be upset if it gets fished out).

For those who don't know about the Zong massacre, in 1781 the British slaving ship Zong ran low on water. So the master solved the problem by throwing more than 130 enslaved Africans overboard. The Zong's owners then claimed on the insurance for the loss of their property. Strangely enough, even in the 1780s quite a lot of people did not find this acceptable by the mores of their time...

Turner's painting depicts the killings: Slavers Throwing overboard the Dead and Dying—Typhoon coming on

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zong_massacre

That should read *slaves, not slavery.

There’s no comparison with Hitler, his deeds weren’t acceptable at the time he lived.

Hitker got Times magazine man of the year in 1938. I think you need to re visit that thought.