Statues should be left alone

[Rubyroost]

Ffs why target statues of Oliver Cromwell, Peel etc. They are history and should be left. Sorry, I know this is probably controversial. When will the book burning start?

I am genuinely stunned by what I'm reading. It's rare I'm so taken aback but also rare to see such blatant racism and denial of its harms.

@MNHQ @JustineMumset Is this the kind of racist undertones you meant on that anti racism and misogyny thread earlier?

Don't delete this one. Let all the members who come across it see for themselves why these protests are an absolute necessity in this day and age.

@SimonJT no its not, its far more complex than that.

Look just think about how racism today could be linked to the Atlantic slave trade instead of just squeaking on about what 'you believe'. Just think about it ...that's all. Shouldn't be that hard surely...

I don't think it's a case of you can tear down something you find offensive - it's that if you don't find slavery offensive there's something really fucking wrong with you. It's not like commemorating slavery is something we need to decide if it's good or bad is it? Civil rights movements throughout time have to resort to civil disobedience because no one bloody listens otherwise. I can't think of a single campaign that was entirely peaceful or just full of people asking for rights and respect. Tearing down that one statue has made cities across the country think about their own statues. Years of asking didn't do this.

This

@Destroyedpeople I've read about it, I've thought about it and I don't agree. And yes I'll say I believe because it's what I believe. Just like people who believe it is linked to the slave trade. As I said it's opinion, theory and not fact! I'm not arrogant enough to claim that what I believe is fact.

If people had as much sympathy for victims of racism as they do for themselves when called racist, it's very likely we wouldn't be in the position we are today.

Instead of sarcastic responses and rolling eyes, I'd be asking what I'd said to cause harm and looking critically at my own behaviours.

If you can't see how saying slavery isn't linked to racism today isn't a racist statement you need to go away and listen and learn more.

Exactly @Nousernamehistory

I didn't like Maggie, but I don't want her removed. She's a reminder of our past ansld present, as is a Cromwell and Peel.

If this carries on we will destroy all statues in this country for multiple reasons. Queen Victoria oppressed India etc. Nelson wasn't nice to the French. Boadicea killed a lot of Romans. Maybe the statue of David represents biblical indoctrination. It's just getting silly.

Have a vote and put certain statues in museums but others should be left to remind humanity how much as changed. Let them be talking points on what British imperialism was about and how it shaped the world, whether for good or bad.

We are not defined by our history but how we act and think today. We are a nation who devotes a chunk of our GDP to developing nations, are a country with a huge charitable tradition, we are a force for good in many parts of the world. I am not ashamed or guilty to be British.

*is a racist statement, not isn't

You do sound incredibly arrogant though.

Reading about the compensation paid to slave owners when slavery was abolished.
Does anyone know if the Royals supported or benefitted from slavery?

Oh they all come out now. I must be racist. Do you know what delete the thread, remove me from mumsnet. Absolutely pathetic.

But why shouldn't we change all our statues and put ones up of people who did good things instead? These people do exist.

How much have you honestly learnt about a person from a statue? Honestly?

I didn't say you were a racist, I said it was a racist statement. If we're white we have all likely said racist things at some point. But you listen and you learn about why it's wrong. Not flounce off at being questioned. This whole movement is about opening our eyes and learning.

I would agree that it should be in a museum, with its white paint in place, and an explanation of how at different moments, one person can be both a benefactor and a villain. The narrative shift is historically important.

All the 'big' families profited and continue to profit from slavery like the Barclay family, the Barings..most if the titled aristocracy. The Lascelles family.
Couldn't say about the royals.

I think the situation around the Colston statue is a little bit more complex than it first seems.

The vote one whether to keep the statue was a newspaper poll of 1100 people in 2014.

There was a campaign to change the wording on the plaque of the statue. The plaque makes no mention whatever of Colston's slave trading - and surely this is whitewashing history - so a revised wording was proposed which acknowledged his philanthropy and also the extent of his involvement in the slave trade. However this was blocked by one councillor and the Merchant Venturers, which is the organisation to which Colston left his money and which still runs schools, care homes and almshouses in the city.

The council rejected the amended wording because it didn't fully acknowledge the slaving - it didn't mention the children he bought and sold, and said he was involved in the 'transportation' of slaves as if they'd somehow accidentally ended up on his ships. It also didn't mention that he was very strict about who should benefit from his philanthropy - he excluded anyone who didn't share his political and religious views.

So the plaque remained the same, because the council wouldn't accept the wording that the Merchant Venturers wanted. Because they considered that whitewashing of history to be worse than what was already there.

I fully accept the concern about the idea of 'the mob' because who knows when the mob will turn on me. But maybe if the 'proper channels' have shown that they're weighted against the people there comes a point where they will take things into their own hands.

The plaque on the statue said it was erected by the citizens of Bristol, and on Sunday the citizens of Bristol took it down. I'm glad my black friends in Bristol don't have to walk past it any more.

@YinMnBlue

Your post is citing attitudes in America, not the UK. Contemporary accounts of former slaves note the lack of racial prejudice in C19 England:

Incidents in the life of a slave girl written by herself (Harriet Jacobs)

“My visit to England is a memorable event in my life, from the fact of my having there received strong religious impressions. The contemptuous manner in which the communion had been administered to colored people, in my native place and the buying and selling of slaves, by professed ministers of the gospel, had given me a prejudice against the Episcopal church. The whole service seemed to me a mockery and a sham. But my home in Steventon [in England] was in the family of a clergyman, who was a true disciple of Jesus... I remained abroad ten months, which was much longer than I had anticipated. During all that time, I never saw the slightest symptom of prejudice against color. Indeed, I entirely forgot it, till the time came for us to return to America.”

Considering Colston's Royal Africa Comapny was set up by the Stuart's in the 1600s, it's a sure thing that royals have benefited from the slave trade.

No love lost for the Windsors, they're still doling out medals on behalf of the empire and doing tours to remind citizens of the "commonwealth" to stay in their place. They've stayed silent when words against it should have been said. Equally guilty.

@TheChestnutCafe

If you want to know if the royals supported or benefitted from slavery please look up the company of royal adventurers.

Oh dear...should have been obvs. I just read in the Jamaica observer that it was Elizabeth first and her sponsorship of Hawkins that set up the slave trade...and the royals owned the trade for 150 years.....