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.

Mad that in 2020 there are still people willing to put in writing their support for a slaver who enslaved and murdered thousands of people

If anything illustrates how important the Black Lives Matter movement is, it's this thread.

I'm guessing all the posters who are horrified at civil disobedience are going to refuse their right to vote since it was gained through criminal acts rather than polite petitions?

I'm guessing all the posters who are horrified at civil disobedience are going to refuse their right to vote since it was gained through criminal acts rather than polite petitions?

Maybe I will. I'm sickened by it all.

@lightsaver

"You can't argue for 'right' by doing wrong though. It makes a mockery of the cause imo."

Tell that to the suffragettes, the black rights activists in the middle of the last century, women in Saudi who drove when it was illegal (every oppressed group ever who have had to fight for their basic human rights)

If you are oppressed sometimes your only option to be heard is to go against the law.

Who are you to decide how oppressed people can or can't make a stand??

Colston being 'universally accepted' means 'by white people in England

No, acceptance of slavery by white races was pretty much worldwide. I’m seeing history from an objective perspective. You’re attempting to rewrite it. There are many things that were acceptable 300 years ago that aren’t now.

Who are you to decide how oppressed people can or can't make a stand??

Nobody. And I'm not pretending to be anyone. That was just my opinion. Right or wrong. That's all it was.

@alsohuman

Fine, 'white people everywhere' found it universally acceptable.

What about 'black people everywhere'?

300 years ago it was white opinion that counted. You can try to revise history as much as you like, I’m not going to. If you’re intent on doing it, carry on. You won’t convince me so we’re probably better leaving it there.

@Alsohuman

300 years ago it was white opinion that counted. You can try to revise history as much as you like, I’m not going to. If you’re intent on doing it, carry on. You won’t convince me so we’re probably better leaving it there.

But we're not 300 years ago, so what does popular opinion then have to do with having a statue celebrating a slaver now? Popular opinion now is that slavery is wrong, so we don't want a statue of a slaver.

Alsohuman
The statue was put up in 1895
Removing it in 2020 adds to the history,
not rewrites it.

Removing the Berlin wall did not rewrite history
it MADE history

@alsohuman

300 years ago it was white opinion that counted. You can try to revise history as much as you like, I’m not going to. If you’re intent on doing it, carry on. You won’t convince me so we’re probably better leaving it there.

Bloody hell, shown your true colours there!

Good

I think historian David Olusoga says it well

"Statues aren't the mechanism for understanding history...
Statues are about adoration, about saying this was a great man & he did great things. That is not true. He was a slave trader & a murderer."

The statue was put up in 1985, slavery had been illegal in Britain since 1807. Most people in Britain accepted that slavery was wrong then. For example one of the best selling books in Victorian England was Uncle Toms Cabin which was written to highlight the evils of slavery. During the American Civil War very poor cotton mill workers voted to stop working to support the abolition of slavery as the American slaves grew the cotton. So the historical context is that the person who put up the statue knew slavery was wrong.

The 87000 people he enslaved knew what he was doing was wrong at the time. Does their contemporary perspective not count.

The statue didn’t say he was a slave trader so in that sense history was erased.

The protesters chucking him in the river is symbolic as the 1900 people who died on his slave ships were chucked into the sea.

Bloody hell, shown your true colours there!

Are you genuinely that stupid? It’s your revisionist view of history I object to. At point have I or would I say attitudes in the world 300 years ago were right, ethical or moral. You can can’t change fact, however unpalatable it might be. I personally abhor this view but I’m not going to pretend the world was the same place then that it is now.

@alsohuman

I think you have lost the thread of what you are arguing. You said, when a PP said it's the reason why there are no longer statues of Hitler around:

"There's no comparison with Hitler, his deeds were abhorrent at the time"

I argued that many felt his views were perfectly reasonable. But many felt they were horrendous.

And in the case of Colston, yes, many white people thought his behaviour was perfectly acceptable. But many black people did not.

But your argument comes from the white imperialist viewpoint that because white people thought slavery was okay at the time (and most definitely not all did) then his statue should remain.

My argument is that, the same as with Hitler, his behaviour was so vile and upsetting to many that no statue of his face should ever exist outside of a museum.

Saying that 'white opinion' was all that mattered then IS THE PROBLEM. And now we are able to see that we need to rectify it, in the memory of those who died and those who to this day still suffer oppression.

Yeah OK. Whatever.

Basically if you think there shouldn't be statues of Hitler then there shouldn't be statues of Colston.

If you think there should be statues of Hitler then there's probably something wrong there.

@lightsaver you are entitled to an opinion and the other poster what gives them the right to tell you what opinion you can have , double standards for many

The statue should of gone long ago , to a museum or such like with an explanation of what he stood for etc
But I'm not sure I agree with it being taken down today although understand why , I think a better victory as such would of been after the last week or so it being acknowledged and removed by local council etc

A statue is not history, the history is known and recorded. This man basically murdered 19,000 people and enslaved 65,000 others. Regardless of the positive things he contributed, he is not man we should literally put on a pedestal.

Good riddance to it.

I raise my glass to those who got rid of that statue!

GOOD RIDDANCE TO IT

My only gripe with whoever took it down is that they didn't do it a lot sooner.
Whoever they are they deserve a bloody knighthood.

Lol at the poster upthread who said they had a “more objective view of history”. There is no objective view of history. History by its very act of creation is subjective.

The Colston statue was erected in 1895, more than 60 years after slavery had been abolished in Britain. It was a whitewash to spin Bristol’s past as being something other than built on suffering. For decades people have been campaigning to have it removed and for decades the council have done as little as possible. If you think a statue of a slave trader deserves to stand then your views are warped. If you think “the law” decrees that it should stand then you’ve missed the whole premise of these protests, which are to show that “the law” is deeply flawed and deeply damaging.

Whoever they are they deserve a bloody knighthood.

Really. I don't think so. A knighthood for an act of vandalism

**Let’s just destroy all history.

It's not destroying or rewriting history; tearing the statue down is recognising that some history shouldn't be celebrated.