America

[morepork]

It would seem unlikely a new Colston statue goes up because it would draw such criticism, but I do have some reservations about taking things down because by the standards of modern times the values that went into their construction/celebration is just plain wrong. I mean where does it end? Because I don't see many bigger vanity projects around constructed on the back of much worse than Colston than say the Great Pyramids. Our history is our history, not all of it is good, but I don't have a problem with keeping things people find offensive, just because something is offensive doesn't mean you get to be more than offended. And actually if we're willing to take down something symbolic like a statue should we be willing to take down the actual fruits of slavery, things like (or at east much of) Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool, London... Or why stop at buildings, there's a well known tapestry that speaks to the abuse of the average man by kings that details the Norman conquest of England, burn it? Why not burn Magna Carta whilst we're at it?

Which isn't to say nothing can be changed/removed, but there's a democratic process to go through, people deciding their entitlement is enough to remove stuff they don't like ad-hoc seems very similar to the entitlement they're critical of in some of the behaviour of people like Colston.

There’sa bit of a difference between tearing down something 100s off years old and tearing down a modern statue...

Actually there's not. In this instance, I shed no tears that this statue is removed.I don't think we should airbrush our history but a statue in a prominent place isn't appropriate today.

But those decisions should be taken by the council, not the mob. Thats the point of living in a democratic county.

Adorable sentiment.

[Sandydragon]

There’sa bit of a difference between tearing down something 100s off years old and tearing down a modern statue...

Actually there's not. In this instance, I shed no tears that this statue is removed.I don't think we should airbrush our history but a statue in a prominent place isn't appropriate today.

But those decisions should be taken by the council, not the mob. Thats the point of living in a democratic county.

Adorable sentiment.

Unless you like chaos, its the only practical option.

[Sandydragon]

Steve Lansdown probably wants a statue of Steve Lansdown...

Maybe they can do a faceless man to represent Bristol's most famous celebrity...who no-one knows the identity of.

Or is he too anti-establishment for them?

On the continued defense of "we need to remember our history", you can remember without erecting memorials. I'm very much in the camp of "this statue should have been taken down a long time ago".

It would seem unlikely a new Colston statue goes up because it would draw such criticism, but I do have some reservations about taking things down because by the standards of modern times the values that went into their construction/celebration is just plain wrong. I mean where does it end? Because I don't see many bigger vanity projects around constructed on the back of much worse than Colston than say the Great Pyramids. Our history is our history, not all of it is good, but I don't have a problem with keeping things people find offensive, just because something is offensive doesn't mean you get to be more than offended. And actually if we're willing to take down something symbolic like a statue should we be willing to take down the actual fruits of slavery, things like (or at east much of) Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool, London... Or why stop at buildings, there's a well known tapestry that speaks to the abuse of the average man by kings that details the Norman conquest of England, burn it? Why not burn Magna Carta whilst we're at it?

Which isn't to say nothing can be changed/removed, but there's a democratic process to go through, people deciding their entitlement is enough to remove stuff they don't like ad-hoc seems very similar to the entitlement they're critical of in some of the behaviour of people like Colston.

In the nicest possible way and with all due respect, that's specious tosh.

A statue in a town square has a sole function, which is to celebrate a person. It is not in a museum as art or history, with context and explanations - it is simply a memorial stating that that person is considered special and great by society. When that person's main function in life was kidnapping, torturing, and selling black people (but being very generous with the proceeds), what does that advertise about the values of our society?

The only one of your examples I'd have any truck with is the pyramids, as they were also monuments to slavers, but them being 5,000 years old and there being no identifiable descendants of the slaves in question changes the question slightly. As usual, the slippery slope argument is fallacious, cause it turns out it's not that slippery at all and cases can always be judged on their own merits.

Puja

Personally Id stick it in a museum and provide appropriate background material.

I think the wider point is that people get offended by all sorts of statues. In this case, few people give a toss. But what if Churchill's statue was torn down by a howling mob? Not so clear cut. Or Thatcher? Not so clear cut.

Point really is that if this is seen as acceptable then its basically mob rule.

[Son of Mathonwy]

This Colston statue issue is a complex one. My heart was with those guys pulling it down, no question. Slavers should not be celebrated - it should have come down years ago. But how it came down is a problem.

On the positive side, the statue is gone, Bristol no longer celebrates a slaver quite so visibly. That's a good message. Also it shows the depth of feeling about racism - it's a little revolution that will hopefully hurry any other such symbols to the scrapyard (or nearest river), and maybe make our leaders consider racism more seriously.

On the negative side, it was undemocratic, the action of a mob. It should not have come to that - had our society been more sensitive to race issues, it would have been removed by legitimate means, and many, many years ago - so while understandable, this action could unfortunate consequences: ie say if another mob decides to destroy a different statue, if we approve of this how can we criticise that? Also, it will no doubt make some people angry or scared, in a way that an official demolition would not have done, and that can lead to more problems.

For a public figure, I think Keir Starmer's got it right, saying it was wrong to do it in that way, but it should have been taken down long ago. He can't condone lawlessness.

For me, a non-public figure, I'm really not sure if this was a good thing or not. If there was no prospect of the statue being removed officially in the foreseeable, then probably yes. And it sends a message to government that the people will only take so much. But on the other hand, there could be consequences - which probably depends on how many violent racists we have in the UK.


(Yeah, and of course if it's caused the coronavirus to spread too much then all these protests have been a disaster)

[morepork]

Actually there's not. In this instance, I shed no tears that this statue is removed.I don't think we should airbrush our history but a statue in a prominent place isn't appropriate today.

But those decisions should be taken by the council, not the mob. Thats the point of living in a democratic county.

Adorable sentiment.

Unless you like chaos, its the only practical option.

Bollocks. The system is broken. It’s time the definition of practical was revisited

[Puja]

It would seem unlikely a new Colston statue goes up because it would draw such criticism, but I do have some reservations about taking things down because by the standards of modern times the values that went into their construction/celebration is just plain wrong. I mean where does it end? Because I don't see many bigger vanity projects around constructed on the back of much worse than Colston than say the Great Pyramids. Our history is our history, not all of it is good, but I don't have a problem with keeping things people find offensive, just because something is offensive doesn't mean you get to be more than offended. And actually if we're willing to take down something symbolic like a statue should we be willing to take down the actual fruits of slavery, things like (or at east much of) Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool, London... Or why stop at buildings, there's a well known tapestry that speaks to the abuse of the average man by kings that details the Norman conquest of England, burn it? Why not burn Magna Carta whilst we're at it?

Which isn't to say nothing can be changed/removed, but there's a democratic process to go through, people deciding their entitlement is enough to remove stuff they don't like ad-hoc seems very similar to the entitlement they're critical of in some of the behaviour of people like Colston.

In the nicest possible way and with all due respect, that's specious tosh.

A statue in a town square has a sole function, which is to celebrate a person. It is not in a museum as art or history, with context and explanations - it is simply a memorial stating that that person is considered special and great by society. When that person's main function in life was kidnapping, torturing, and selling black people (but being very generous with the proceeds), what does that advertise about the values of our society?

The only one of your examples I'd have any truck with is the pyramids, as they were also monuments to slavers, but them being 5,000 years old and there being no identifiable descendants of the slaves in question changes the question slightly. As usual, the slippery slope argument is fallacious, cause it turns out it's not that slippery at all and cases can always be judged on their own merits.

Puja

Personally Id stick it in a museum and provide appropriate background material.

I think the wider point is that people get offended by all sorts of statues. In this case, few people give a toss. But what if Churchill's statue was torn down by a howling mob? Not so clear cut. Or Thatcher? Not so clear cut.

Point really is that if this is seen as acceptable then its basically mob rule.

The Mayor of Bristol has said that they'll probably rescue it from the harbour "at some point" and put it in a museum.

I think there is a spurious point here that I've seen repeated on social media, which is that all actions are comparable and that, if you support a mob tearing down a statue of a slaver, you must also support a mob tearing down a statue of Florence Nightingale, otherwise you are a hypocrite who only support mobs when they're doing things you agree with. To which the answer is clearly yes, of course I only support mobs doing things which I think are right. Not all statues are the same (#AllStatuesMatter) and it's perfectly possible to express approbation for a mob righting a wrong (as you see it) without therefore having to approve all future mob-statue-destructions.

People being happy about this aren't Pro-Mob-Destruction, they're Anti-Slaver-Statues. Therefore it's perfectly morally consistent to be in favour of this and not of other mob actions.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

The statue thing is great because the kind of people getting outraged by the icon of a slaver being pulled down are exactly the types of people who deserve to be outraged and so can fuck off.

[Puja]

The statue thing is great because the kind of people getting outraged by the icon of a slaver being pulled down are exactly the types of people who deserve to be outraged and so can fuck off.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

In the nicest possible way and with all due respect, that's specious tosh.

A statue in a town square has a sole function, which is to celebrate a person. It is not in a museum as art or history, with context and explanations - it is simply a memorial stating that that person is considered special and great by society. When that person's main function in life was kidnapping, torturing, and selling black people (but being very generous with the proceeds), what does that advertise about the values of our society?

The only one of your examples I'd have any truck with is the pyramids, as they were also monuments to slavers, but them being 5,000 years old and there being no identifiable descendants of the slaves in question changes the question slightly. As usual, the slippery slope argument is fallacious, cause it turns out it's not that slippery at all and cases can always be judged on their own merits.

Puja

Personally Id stick it in a museum and provide appropriate background material.

I think the wider point is that people get offended by all sorts of statues. In this case, few people give a toss. But what if Churchill's statue was torn down by a howling mob? Not so clear cut. Or Thatcher? Not so clear cut.

Point really is that if this is seen as acceptable then its basically mob rule.

The Mayor of Bristol has said that they'll probably rescue it from the harbour "at some point" and put it in a museum.

I think there is a spurious point here that I've seen repeated on social media, which is that all actions are comparable and that, if you support a mob tearing down a statue of a slaver, you must also support a mob tearing down a statue of Florence Nightingale, otherwise you are a hypocrite who only support mobs when they're doing things you agree with. To which the answer is clearly yes, of course I only support mobs doing things which I think are right. Not all statues are the same (#AllStatuesMatter) and it's perfectly possible to express approbation for a mob righting a wrong (as you see it) without therefore having to approve all future mob-statue-destructions.

People being happy about this aren't Pro-Mob-Destruction, they're Anti-Slaver-Statues. Therefore it's perfectly morally consistent to be in favour of this and not of other mob actions.

Puja

Fair enough. But in my view the rule of law expends to all sorts of people I don't like. But its fair that it does. And criminal damage is still criminal damage, even if the object in question causes offence. Judging what is, or isn't, suitable for direct mob action is a conversation that can lead to real problems.

After all, everyone hates paedophiles. So if a mob decides to take direct action against a known paedophile that must surely be OK?

But this was just a statue I hear you cry. Yes it was. But it was a criminal act and those people who decided on vigilante justice in Bristol not that long ago also though they had a right to undertake their version of direct justice. We have the law for a reason; without it we descend back into chaos where my mob is bigger than your mob. People are perfectly able to make their point without resorting to crime.

[Sandydragon]

This Colston statue issue is a complex one. My heart was with those guys pulling it down, no question. Slavers should not be celebrated - it should have come down years ago. But how it came down is a problem.

On the positive side, the statue is gone, Bristol no longer celebrates a slaver quite so visibly. That's a good message. Also it shows the depth of feeling about racism - it's a little revolution that will hopefully hurry any other such symbols to the scrapyard (or nearest river), and maybe make our leaders consider racism more seriously.

On the negative side, it was undemocratic, the action of a mob. It should not have come to that - had our society been more sensitive to race issues, it would have been removed by legitimate means, and many, many years ago - so while understandable, this action could unfortunate consequences: ie say if another mob decides to destroy a different statue, if we approve of this how can we criticise that? Also, it will no doubt make some people angry or scared, in a way that an official demolition would not have done, and that can lead to more problems.

For a public figure, I think Keir Starmer's got it right, saying it was wrong to do it in that way, but it should have been taken down long ago. He can't condone lawlessness.

For me, a non-public figure, I'm really not sure if this was a good thing or not. If there was no prospect of the statue being removed officially in the foreseeable, then probably yes. And it sends a message to government that the people will only take so much. But on the other hand, there could be consequences - which probably depends on how many violent racists we have in the UK.


(Yeah, and of course if it's caused the coronavirus to spread too much then all these protests have been a disaster)

Exactly. I won't even go int the whole discussion over the legitimacy of slavery in that era and what the cultural attitudes towards it were. In today's world slavery is (correctly) reviled and that status should be in a museum to spark debate on changing moral values.

We do not get to pick and choose which laws we follow and when.

[Sandydragon]

The statue thing is great because the kind of people getting outraged by the icon of a slaver being pulled down are exactly the types of people who deserve to be outraged and so can fuck off.

Outraged at the loss of a statue or outraged at the breaking of the law? 2 very different things. Considering that we are all outraged at the (alleged) breaking of the law in the United States which led to Floyd's death, I'd suggest that none of us want a society where one can pick or choose which laws we follow?

[canta_brian]

This Colston statue issue is a complex one. My heart was with those guys pulling it down, no question. Slavers should not be celebrated - it should have come down years ago. But how it came down is a problem.

On the positive side, the statue is gone, Bristol no longer celebrates a slaver quite so visibly. That's a good message. Also it shows the depth of feeling about racism - it's a little revolution that will hopefully hurry any other such symbols to the scrapyard (or nearest river), and maybe make our leaders consider racism more seriously.

On the negative side, it was undemocratic, the action of a mob. It should not have come to that - had our society been more sensitive to race issues, it would have been removed by legitimate means, and many, many years ago - so while understandable, this action could unfortunate consequences: ie say if another mob decides to destroy a different statue, if we approve of this how can we criticise that? Also, it will no doubt make some people angry or scared, in a way that an official demolition would not have done, and that can lead to more problems.

For a public figure, I think Keir Starmer's got it right, saying it was wrong to do it in that way, but it should have been taken down long ago. He can't condone lawlessness.

For me, a non-public figure, I'm really not sure if this was a good thing or not. If there was no prospect of the statue being removed officially in the foreseeable, then probably yes. And it sends a message to government that the people will only take so much. But on the other hand, there could be consequences - which probably depends on how many violent racists we have in the UK.


(Yeah, and of course if it's caused the coronavirus to spread too much then all these protests have been a disaster)

Exactly. I won't even go int the whole discussion over the legitimacy of slavery in that era and what the cultural attitudes towards it were. In today's world slavery is (correctly) reviled and that status should be in a museum to spark debate on changing moral values.

We do not get to pick and choose which laws we follow and when.

Surely there is more reason for it to be in a museum now. History is stuff that happened and for it to have happened it has to happen in the here and now.

Maybe the story in the museum is just as much about how changed public attitudes to slavery have not resulted in equal societies.

But by all means leave them up and don’t worry that in almost all metrics in the western world being black means you will have it worse than if you are white.

[canta_brian]

“it was only in 2015 that we finally finished paying the debt borrowed by the UK state to pay off the slave owners after the abolition of slavery act in 1833. It was the biggest payment in our history, more than the bankers bailout in 2008. It was 40% of our entire GDP. Not a penny went to slaves who still had to work as interns for free for a further 5 years.“

http://ajustchurch.blogspot.com/2020/06 ... avery.html

[Puja]

Personally Id stick it in a museum and provide appropriate background material.

I think the wider point is that people get offended by all sorts of statues. In this case, few people give a toss. But what if Churchill's statue was torn down by a howling mob? Not so clear cut. Or Thatcher? Not so clear cut.

Point really is that if this is seen as acceptable then its basically mob rule.

The Mayor of Bristol has said that they'll probably rescue it from the harbour "at some point" and put it in a museum.

I think there is a spurious point here that I've seen repeated on social media, which is that all actions are comparable and that, if you support a mob tearing down a statue of a slaver, you must also support a mob tearing down a statue of Florence Nightingale, otherwise you are a hypocrite who only support mobs when they're doing things you agree with. To which the answer is clearly yes, of course I only support mobs doing things which I think are right. Not all statues are the same (#AllStatuesMatter) and it's perfectly possible to express approbation for a mob righting a wrong (as you see it) without therefore having to approve all future mob-statue-destructions.

People being happy about this aren't Pro-Mob-Destruction, they're Anti-Slaver-Statues. Therefore it's perfectly morally consistent to be in favour of this and not of other mob actions.

Puja

Fair enough. But in my view the rule of law expends to all sorts of people I don't like. But its fair that it does. And criminal damage is still criminal damage, even if the object in question causes offence. Judging what is, or isn't, suitable for direct mob action is a conversation that can lead to real problems.

After all, everyone hates paedophiles. So if a mob decides to take direct action against a known paedophile that must surely be OK?

But this was just a statue I hear you cry. Yes it was. But it was a criminal act and those people who decided on vigilante justice in Bristol not that long ago also though they had a right to undertake their version of direct justice. We have the law for a reason; without it we descend back into chaos where my mob is bigger than your mob. People are perfectly able to make their point without resorting to crime.

Part of the point of these protests is that some people aren't able to make their point - there are structural barriers, inbuilt biases, the sheer blunt indifference of the majority towards problems that don't affect them - and it is entrenching further inequalities in our society. Saying, "They are perfectly able to make their point legally," is ignoring the incredible privilege that you have as a white person in a white society to enact change about problems that white people have.

Note that I am not condoning mob justice; I am saying that it's a bit tone deaf to say, "Why didn't they just?" when prior to these protests and that mob, Colston's statue was just a minority problem. The fact that they couldn't just is kinda where we came in.

Puja

[Puja]

Exactly. I won't even go int the whole discussion over the legitimacy of slavery in that era and what the cultural attitudes towards it were. In today's world slavery is (correctly) reviled and that status should be in a museum to spark debate on changing moral values.

I mean, that's a whole different topic, but one that is worth touching upon. People talk about slavery back in the day like people had always owned people, no-one understood it was wrong, and it was William Wilberforce who invented the new and novel idea that you shouldn't, but it's not true. As far back as 1102, we have records of a church council of ministers from across the British Isles proclamating, "Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals." The Normans despised the practice and stamped it out. During Colston's lifetime, there were preachers who spoke against it and common law even stated that slavery was impossible on English soil and there were a fair few slaves who won their freedom by making it to England. It actually turned out to be illegal in English law - it wasn't a change in the law, but just that someone managed to bring a case to an English court. It wasn't a case of "My god, these are actually people, we never realised, change the law!"; it was a case that people chucked money and influence at getting it heard so it couldn't be ignored as something that happened overseas.

People weren't markedly different beings back then with no concept of empathy - they understood that they were selling people, but rationalised it to themselves because it benefitted them. It's not even like the Good Nazi idea where not going along with the flow puts one in danger - there was no risk to being anti-slavery except passing up the opportunity to be rich.

I'll acknowledge that being a slaver was socially without penalty in that era and it was very easy to do. But a moral person should not need the threat of obloquy to know that kidnapping, torturing, and selling human beings (and, in some cases, murdering them for the insurance money as I found out today) was wrong.

Puja

[Stom]

I can imagine how some of our posters feel about this show, but just putting this here. Especially for the last ten minutes.

[morepork]

Looking for equality and not revenge. She is absolutely magnificent and on the mother fucking money.

[Donny osmond]

I can imagine how some of our posters feel about this show, but just putting this here. Especially for the last ten minutes.

Tells me it's not available in this country, however John Oliver is generally magnificent.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Donny osmond]

Exactly. I won't even go int the whole discussion over the legitimacy of slavery in that era and what the cultural attitudes towards it were. In today's world slavery is (correctly) reviled and that status should be in a museum to spark debate on changing moral values.

I mean, that's a whole different topic, but one that is worth touching upon. People talk about slavery back in the day like people had always owned people, no-one understood it was wrong, and it was William Wilberforce who invented the new and novel idea that you shouldn't, but it's not true. As far back as 1102, we have records of a church council of ministers from across the British Isles proclamating, "Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals." The Normans despised the practice and stamped it out. During Colston's lifetime, there were preachers who spoke against it and common law even stated that slavery was impossible on English soil and there were a fair few slaves who won their freedom by making it to England. It actually turned out to be illegal in English law - it wasn't a change in the law, but just that someone managed to bring a case to an English court. It wasn't a case of "My god, these are actually people, we never realised, change the law!"; it was a case that people chucked money and influence at getting it heard so it couldn't be ignored as something that happened overseas.

People weren't markedly different beings back then with no concept of empathy - they understood that they were selling people, but rationalised it to themselves because it benefitted them. It's not even like the Good Nazi idea where not going along with the flow puts one in danger - there was no risk to being anti-slavery except passing up the opportunity to be rich.

I'll acknowledge that being a slaver was socially without penalty in that era and it was very easy to do. But a moral person should not need the threat of obloquy to know that kidnapping, torturing, and selling human beings (and, in some cases, murdering them for the insurance money as I found out today) was wrong.

Puja

I'm not going to post another long twitter thread, however I did read one just yesterday about Scots law approach to slavery over the years and in a horribly dispassionate way it was very interesting.

Basically Scots law used Roman definitions for over a thousand years after the Romans had gone. This meant that if one owned slaves, they were in law not regarded as people, with human rights etc, but merely as things to be treated at the whim of their owner. But only outside Scotland, inside Scotland definitions were different and people inherently had the right to not be owned... In theory, of course in reality the clan and feudal systems were in full effect.

So there seems to have been a weird duality that rich Scots owned slaves in far flung plantations and Scots courts would happily look away while those slaves were treated as mere objects to be bought, sold, raped, murdered, whatever, but those same rich merchants would be held, and indeed hold themselves, to an entirely different set of standards at home.

I realise I have taken an interesting subject and made it rubbish, but that's just how I roll.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Donny osmond]

It would seem unlikely a new Colston statue goes up because it would draw such criticism, but I do have some reservations about taking things down because by the standards of modern times the values that went into their construction/celebration is just plain wrong. I mean where does it end? Because I don't see many bigger vanity projects around constructed on the back of much worse than Colston than say the Great Pyramids. Our history is our history, not all of it is good, but I don't have a problem with keeping things people find offensive, just because something is offensive doesn't mean you get to be more than offended. And actually if we're willing to take down something symbolic like a statue should we be willing to take down the actual fruits of slavery, things like (or at east much of) Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool, London... Or why stop at buildings, there's a well known tapestry that speaks to the abuse of the average man by kings that details the Norman conquest of England, burn it? Why not burn Magna Carta whilst we're at it?

Which isn't to say nothing can be changed/removed, but there's a democratic process to go through, people deciding their entitlement is enough to remove stuff they don't like ad-hoc seems very similar to the entitlement they're critical of in some of the behaviour of people like Colston.

I agree. I'd rather put up a sign explaining why he was such a c*nt (or even move the statue to a less high profile location) than just rip down our history. The fact is we did indulge and promote the slave trade and then we took the lead in stopping it. You can't cherry pick the bits of history you like.

I do understand that the nature of a statue his to commemorate and there are good reasons to remove them. But that is the decision of the local democratically elected council, not a mob.

So presumably both of you would have had objections to the plaque that was added that sanitised Colston's history of slavery, focusing on his philanthropy. After all, if "you can't cherry pick the bits of history you like," then conversely, you can't downplay the bits you don't like, right?

The arguments made by the both of you are literally the same shit peddled by people who try to argue to keep Confederate statues standing, and it's quite telling that both of you are also downplaying local criticism and efforts to even have the fucking plaque on the statue to acknowledge Colston's role in the slave trade, which was heavily obstructed by Tory councillors and the Society of Merchant Venturers, who did not want any mention of his affiliation in Parliament mentioned (can't imagine why), his role in the slave trade downplayed, and the punitive measures he took against any individuals or groups that did not share his views on the slave trade - all of which are recorded facts with primary evidence supporting them.

So, is it OK that the Merchant Venturers and the Tories went out of their way to play interference against the democratically elected City Council's attempt at any acknowledgement of Colston's role in the slave trade, including a campaign of misinformation? Do the local community campaigns against the statue and other Colston shit in Bristol not count? How is it fair, or democratic that a small cabal of Tories or the Merchant Venturers get to continue publicly celebrating someone like Colston and sanitising his history over the objections from the wider community?

On the other hand, this fucking guy?

The statue thing is great because the kind of people getting outraged by the icon of a slaver being pulled down are exactly the types of people who deserve to be outraged and so can fuck off.

This fucking guy gets it.

As far as rugby rebels goes, you're really the only one displaying any outrage?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Puja]

Exactly. I won't even go int the whole discussion over the legitimacy of slavery in that era and what the cultural attitudes towards it were. In today's world slavery is (correctly) reviled and that status should be in a museum to spark debate on changing moral values.

I mean, that's a whole different topic, but one that is worth touching upon. People talk about slavery back in the day like people had always owned people, no-one understood it was wrong, and it was William Wilberforce who invented the new and novel idea that you shouldn't, but it's not true. As far back as 1102, we have records of a church council of ministers from across the British Isles proclamating, "Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals." The Normans despised the practice and stamped it out. During Colston's lifetime, there were preachers who spoke against it and common law even stated that slavery was impossible on English soil and there were a fair few slaves who won their freedom by making it to England. It actually turned out to be illegal in English law - it wasn't a change in the law, but just that someone managed to bring a case to an English court. It wasn't a case of "My god, these are actually people, we never realised, change the law!"; it was a case that people chucked money and influence at getting it heard so it couldn't be ignored as something that happened overseas.

People weren't markedly different beings back then with no concept of empathy - they understood that they were selling people, but rationalised it to themselves because it benefitted them. It's not even like the Good Nazi idea where not going along with the flow puts one in danger - there was no risk to being anti-slavery except passing up the opportunity to be rich.

I'll acknowledge that being a slaver was socially without penalty in that era and it was very easy to do. But a moral person should not need the threat of obloquy to know that kidnapping, torturing, and selling human beings (and, in some cases, murdering them for the insurance money as I found out today) was wrong.

Puja

I'm not going to post another long twitter thread, however I did read one just yesterday about Scots law approach to slavery over the years and in a horribly dispassionate way it was very interesting.

Basically Scots law used Roman definitions for over a thousand years after the Romans had gone. This meant that if one owned slaves, they were in law not regarded as people, with human rights etc, but merely as things to be treated at the whim of their owner. But only outside Scotland, inside Scotland definitions were different and people inherently had the right to not be owned... In theory, of course in reality the clan and feudal systems were in full effect.

So there seems to have been a weird duality that rich Scots owned slaves in far flung plantations and Scots courts would happily look away while those slaves were treated as mere objects to be bought, sold, raped, murdered, whatever, but those same rich merchants would be held, and indeed hold themselves, to an entirely different set of standards at home.

I realise I have taken an interesting subject and made it rubbish, but that's just how I roll.

I don't know; you did better than me!

Interesting that the Scots had a very similar duality to the English. We didn't use the Roman definitions for abroad though, we just didn't look at it/actively ignored what was happening abroad on the basis that, if the courts looked at it too closely, it'd become clear that it had no basis in English law (as eventually happened with the James Somerset case that set the state for abolition).

Puja

[Sandydragon]

It would seem unlikely a new Colston statue goes up because it would draw such criticism, but I do have some reservations about taking things down because by the standards of modern times the values that went into their construction/celebration is just plain wrong. I mean where does it end? Because I don't see many bigger vanity projects around constructed on the back of much worse than Colston than say the Great Pyramids. Our history is our history, not all of it is good, but I don't have a problem with keeping things people find offensive, just because something is offensive doesn't mean you get to be more than offended. And actually if we're willing to take down something symbolic like a statue should we be willing to take down the actual fruits of slavery, things like (or at east much of) Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool, London... Or why stop at buildings, there's a well known tapestry that speaks to the abuse of the average man by kings that details the Norman conquest of England, burn it? Why not burn Magna Carta whilst we're at it?

Which isn't to say nothing can be changed/removed, but there's a democratic process to go through, people deciding their entitlement is enough to remove stuff they don't like ad-hoc seems very similar to the entitlement they're critical of in some of the behaviour of people like Colston.

I agree. I'd rather put up a sign explaining why he was such a c*nt (or even move the statue to a less high profile location) than just rip down our history. The fact is we did indulge and promote the slave trade and then we took the lead in stopping it. You can't cherry pick the bits of history you like.

I do understand that the nature of a statue his to commemorate and there are good reasons to remove them. But that is the decision of the local democratically elected council, not a mob.

So presumably both of you would have had objections to the plaque that was added that sanitised Colston's history of slavery, focusing on his philanthropy. After all, if "you can't cherry pick the bits of history you like," then conversely, you can't downplay the bits you don't like, right?

The arguments made by the both of you are literally the same shit peddled by people who try to argue to keep Confederate statues standing, and it's quite telling that both of you are also downplaying local criticism and efforts to even have the fucking plaque on the statue to acknowledge Colston's role in the slave trade, which was heavily obstructed by Tory councillors and the Society of Merchant Venturers, who did not want any mention of his affiliation in Parliament mentioned (can't imagine why), his role in the slave trade downplayed, and the punitive measures he took against any individuals or groups that did not share his views on the slave trade - all of which are recorded facts with primary evidence supporting them.

So, is it OK that the Merchant Venturers and the Tories went out of their way to play interference against the democratically elected City Council's attempt at any acknowledgement of Colston's role in the slave trade, including a campaign of misinformation? Do the local community campaigns against the statue and other Colston shit in Bristol not count? How is it fair, or democratic that a small cabal of Tories or the Merchant Venturers get to continue publicly celebrating someone like Colston and sanitising his history over the objections from the wider community?

On the other hand, this fucking guy?

The statue thing is great because the kind of people getting outraged by the icon of a slaver being pulled down are exactly the types of people who deserve to be outraged and so can fuck off.

This fucking guy gets it.

Utter rubbish. I would have explained all of Colston's history (indeed I have pointed that out below so I suggest you actually read some of these posts properly).

You highlight a debate in the local council. Thats what its there for, not everyone agrees with you and your viewpoint.

Do try and get your head around the fact that people who don't agree with you aren't necessary supporting racism. We just have different views on how it should be dealt with.

[Sandydragon]

Exactly. I won't even go int the whole discussion over the legitimacy of slavery in that era and what the cultural attitudes towards it were. In today's world slavery is (correctly) reviled and that status should be in a museum to spark debate on changing moral values.

I mean, that's a whole different topic, but one that is worth touching upon. People talk about slavery back in the day like people had always owned people, no-one understood it was wrong, and it was William Wilberforce who invented the new and novel idea that you shouldn't, but it's not true. As far back as 1102, we have records of a church council of ministers from across the British Isles proclamating, "Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals." The Normans despised the practice and stamped it out. During Colston's lifetime, there were preachers who spoke against it and common law even stated that slavery was impossible on English soil and there were a fair few slaves who won their freedom by making it to England. It actually turned out to be illegal in English law - it wasn't a change in the law, but just that someone managed to bring a case to an English court. It wasn't a case of "My god, these are actually people, we never realised, change the law!"; it was a case that people chucked money and influence at getting it heard so it couldn't be ignored as something that happened overseas.

People weren't markedly different beings back then with no concept of empathy - they understood that they were selling people, but rationalised it to themselves because it benefitted them. It's not even like the Good Nazi idea where not going along with the flow puts one in danger - there was no risk to being anti-slavery except passing up the opportunity to be rich.

I'll acknowledge that being a slaver was socially without penalty in that era and it was very easy to do. But a moral person should not need the threat of obloquy to know that kidnapping, torturing, and selling human beings (and, in some cases, murdering them for the insurance money as I found out today) was wrong.

Puja

Of course there were differing opinions, but what is telling is that whilst the issue of slavery within Britain was frowned upon and then made unlawful (owning another white person was wrong), the issue of slavery overseas in territories owned by protectorates and various companies was seen ass a different matter. There were voices against it, but lets also not assume that the weight off opinion was as firmly against slavery as it would be today.

I don't assume Wilberforce just came out of nowhere preaching an ew message. But equally the hurdles he and his supporters overcame were considerable.

[Sandydragon]

This Colston statue issue is a complex one. My heart was with those guys pulling it down, no question. Slavers should not be celebrated - it should have come down years ago. But how it came down is a problem.

On the positive side, the statue is gone, Bristol no longer celebrates a slaver quite so visibly. That's a good message. Also it shows the depth of feeling about racism - it's a little revolution that will hopefully hurry any other such symbols to the scrapyard (or nearest river), and maybe make our leaders consider racism more seriously.

On the negative side, it was undemocratic, the action of a mob. It should not have come to that - had our society been more sensitive to race issues, it would have been removed by legitimate means, and many, many years ago - so while understandable, this action could unfortunate consequences: ie say if another mob decides to destroy a different statue, if we approve of this how can we criticise that? Also, it will no doubt make some people angry or scared, in a way that an official demolition would not have done, and that can lead to more problems.

For a public figure, I think Keir Starmer's got it right, saying it was wrong to do it in that way, but it should have been taken down long ago. He can't condone lawlessness.

For me, a non-public figure, I'm really not sure if this was a good thing or not. If there was no prospect of the statue being removed officially in the foreseeable, then probably yes. And it sends a message to government that the people will only take so much. But on the other hand, there could be consequences - which probably depends on how many violent racists we have in the UK.


(Yeah, and of course if it's caused the coronavirus to spread too much then all these protests have been a disaster)

Exactly. I won't even go int the whole discussion over the legitimacy of slavery in that era and what the cultural attitudes towards it were. In today's world slavery is (correctly) reviled and that status should be in a museum to spark debate on changing moral values.

We do not get to pick and choose which laws we follow and when.

Surely there is more reason for it to be in a museum now. History is stuff that happened and for it to have happened it has to happen in the here and now.

Maybe the story in the museum is just as much about how changed public attitudes to slavery have not resulted in equal societies.

But by all means leave them up and don’t worry that in almost all metrics in the western world being black means you will have it worse than if you are white.

Ive written previously that it should be in a museum. With a full explanation to allow for healthy debate.

[Sandydragon]

The Mayor of Bristol has said that they'll probably rescue it from the harbour "at some point" and put it in a museum.

I think there is a spurious point here that I've seen repeated on social media, which is that all actions are comparable and that, if you support a mob tearing down a statue of a slaver, you must also support a mob tearing down a statue of Florence Nightingale, otherwise you are a hypocrite who only support mobs when they're doing things you agree with. To which the answer is clearly yes, of course I only support mobs doing things which I think are right. Not all statues are the same (#AllStatuesMatter) and it's perfectly possible to express approbation for a mob righting a wrong (as you see it) without therefore having to approve all future mob-statue-destructions.

People being happy about this aren't Pro-Mob-Destruction, they're Anti-Slaver-Statues. Therefore it's perfectly morally consistent to be in favour of this and not of other mob actions.

Puja

Fair enough. But in my view the rule of law expends to all sorts of people I don't like. But its fair that it does. And criminal damage is still criminal damage, even if the object in question causes offence. Judging what is, or isn't, suitable for direct mob action is a conversation that can lead to real problems.

After all, everyone hates paedophiles. So if a mob decides to take direct action against a known paedophile that must surely be OK?

But this was just a statue I hear you cry. Yes it was. But it was a criminal act and those people who decided on vigilante justice in Bristol not that long ago also though they had a right to undertake their version of direct justice. We have the law for a reason; without it we descend back into chaos where my mob is bigger than your mob. People are perfectly able to make their point without resorting to crime.

Part of the point of these protests is that some people aren't able to make their point - there are structural barriers, inbuilt biases, the sheer blunt indifference of the majority towards problems that don't affect them - and it is entrenching further inequalities in our society. Saying, "They are perfectly able to make their point legally," is ignoring the incredible privilege that you have as a white person in a white society to enact change about problems that white people have.

Note that I am not condoning mob justice; I am saying that it's a bit tone deaf to say, "Why didn't they just?" when prior to these protests and that mob, Colston's statue was just a minority problem. The fact that they couldn't just is kinda where we came in.

Puja

Petitions are raised to councils all the time. You don't have to be wealthy to have your say. There are plenty of ways to organisae protests against stuff you don't like which don't involve breaking the law.

I'll return to my main point. You don't get to choose which laws you like or don't like. Criminal damage is still criminal damage. Assaulting police officers remains an offence. Protesting about a police officer in the US who broke the law (allegedly) and then breaking the law yourself in the UK does your argument no favours.