Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

tailwindhome

How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?

pangolin

tailwindhome said:

How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?

It's complex

rick_chasey

tailwindhome said:

How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?

You must be whiter than white to criticise anything, right?

shortfall

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

Jeremy.89 said:

Why does one have to preclude the other?

If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?

Have another whataboutery sticker.

It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out to self righteous liberals that having a conscience about things that happened centuries ago is easier than holding yourself to the same standard today. FWIW I'm not going to die on a hill defending every statue in the land, although I'm not happy that it's left to mob rule to decide which ones are fair game to get chucked in the sea.

Where do you stand on child labour?

I'm conflicted on it because it's a complex issue as you know, but I'm not the one wearing Nike trainers whilst tearing down statues on the grounds that they celebrated racists and slavers and neither am I finding excuses fire those that did.

I'll give you a clue: Nike do not abduct hundreds of thousands of people from one continent, brand them with the 'swoosh' and ship them to another continent, chucking the dead ones over the side. That's how you can tell them apart.

I don't disagree, but I'm not about to take lectures on exploitation from people who buy fast fashion in the certain knowledge that it's produced by children and poor people in dreadful conditions and poverty wages.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

Jeremy.89 said:

Why does one have to preclude the other?

If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?

Have another whataboutery sticker.

It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out to self righteous liberals that having a conscience about things that happened centuries ago is easier than holding yourself to the same standard today. FWIW I'm not going to die on a hill defending every statue in the land, although I'm not happy that it's left to mob rule to decide which ones are fair game to get chucked in the sea.

Where do you stand on child labour?

I'm conflicted on it because it's a complex issue as you know, but I'm not the one wearing Nike trainers whilst tearing down statues on the grounds that they celebrated racists and slavers and neither am I finding excuses fire those that did.

I'll give you a clue: Nike do not abduct hundreds of thousands of people from one continent, brand them with the 'swoosh' and ship them to another continent, chucking the dead ones over the side. That's how you can tell them apart.

That would be impressive stuff from a statue

TheBigBean

tailwindhome said:

How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?

I thought you would oppose mob justice given its prevalence in your neck of the woods

blazing_saddles

pangolin said:

tailwindhome said:

How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?

It's complex

Which is more than can be said about any of your responses.

Jeremy.89

shortfall said:

Jeremy.89 said:

I know time has been going weirdly since lockdown started, but I didn't realise George Floyd was killed centuries ago.

Jeez what's the point? I thought this was about the Colston statue and why it got torn down?

It got torn down during a wave of BLM protests that were triggered by that death though?

mr_goo

The demands from BLM movement about having certain statues removed from London is getting out of hand.
Removing Nelson's column or the statue on top is just taking the proverbial.

Are they calling for the purging of history?
Should the Great Pyramids be demolished because they were built by slaves?

How far do they take this?

coopster_the_1st

rick_chasey said:

tailwindhome said:

How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?

You must be whiter than white to criticise anything, right?

You can't criticise a 17th century slave trader but make money out of companies involved in the Holocaust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust


Looks like your client list will be a lot smaller from tomorrow morning, unless you are a raging hypocrite


*Coca-Cola surprised me on that list, as did Barclays but there are over 40

pangolin

mr_goo said:

The demands from BLM movement about having certain statues removed from London is getting out of hand.
Removing Nelson's column or the statue on top is just taking the proverbial.

Are they calling for the purging of history?
Should the Great Pyramids be demolished because they were built by slaves?

How far do they take this?

It's like groundhog day in here. Nobody is suggesting we let protesters pull down whatever they don't like.

What is has achieved is starting a conversation about who really deserves a statue. Seems like a successful protest to me.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-52977088

coopster_the_1st

mr_goo said:

The demands from BLM movement about having certain statues removed from London is getting out of hand.
Removing Nelson's column or the statue on top is just taking the proverbial.

Are they calling for the purging of history?
Should the Great Pyramids be demolished because they were built by slaves?

How far do they take this?

They take it as far until they eat themselves when their hypocritical mask slips

blazing_saddles

mr_goo said:

The demands from BLM movement about having certain statues removed from London is getting out of hand.
Removing Nelson's column or the statue on top is just taking the proverbial.

Are they calling for the purging of history?
Should the Great Pyramids be demolished because they were built by slaves?

How far do they take this?

Mentions up thread that the consensus now is that the pyramids weren't built by slaves, although I find the idea that no slaves were involved, rather fanciful.

Anyhow it seems that the BLM movement have already made that demand.

https://egyptindependent.com/british-anti-racism-protestors-call-for-destruction-of-giza-pyramids/

coopster_the_1st

pangolin said:

Again thanks for the reminder Coop

I hope following this donation you have never made any money out of, worked for or had any dealings with the following companies who were involved in the Holocaust

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust

It really would not be a good look for you

shortfall

tailwindhome said:

How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?

Yeah I'm up for that, except it didn't happen that way. Some people started protesting in London about a policeman killing a black man in America. The police in London went down on one knee in front of the protestors and in one instance actualky ran away from them, as well as simply standing by watching whilst monuments were vandalised. A yob element amongst the protestors was emboldened by the Polices apparent unwillingness to er... police and when further protests took place around the country, in the case of Bristol, a criminal element tore down the Colston statue and threw it in the harbour seemingly untroubled by Mr Plod. Now if you want to defend mob justice then sorry I'm not going to agree with you. Once the idea gets abroad that the police aren't going to uphold the law it isn't going to end well, particularly when only a short while ago they were salivating at being able to enforce arbitary government dictat to preserve the lockdown, just so long as it was only lone walkers in the peak district or the odd sunbather in a park of course.

nickice

Jeremy.89 said:

Why does one have to preclude the other?

It just feels like supporting removing statues is an easy-way for some of the people to ease their conscience (not that I think they should have slavery on their conscience) without making any meaningful change that might cost them money or change their lifestyle. There are far more recent (and continuing horrors) that they don't seem bothered about.

If someone made a great effort to protect the environment but did occasionally fly, I wouldn't have much of a problem with that ( we still need to live in the world). However, if someone took private jets and drove everywhere but then unplugged their iphone charger to protect the environment, that'd be a different matter.

rjsterry

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

Jeremy.89 said:

Why does one have to preclude the other?

If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?

Have another whataboutery sticker.

It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out to self righteous liberals that having a conscience about things that happened centuries ago is easier than holding yourself to the same standard today. FWIW I'm not going to die on a hill defending every statue in the land, although I'm not happy that it's left to mob rule to decide which ones are fair game to get chucked in the sea.

Where do you stand on child labour?

I'm conflicted on it because it's a complex issue as you know, but I'm not the one wearing Nike trainers whilst tearing down statues on the grounds that they celebrated racists and slavers and neither am I finding excuses fire those that did.

I'll give you a clue: Nike do not abduct hundreds of thousands of people from one continent, brand them with the 'swoosh' and ship them to another continent, chucking the dead ones over the side. That's how you can tell them apart.

I don't disagree, but I'm not about to take lectures on exploitation from people who buy fast fashion in the certain knowledge that it's produced by children and poor people in dreadful conditions and poverty wages.

Who are you referring to here, and how are you determining whether they buy fast fashion or not? If you don't know anything about Colston or Bristol, that's fine, but don't pretend the transatlantic slave trade is remotely comparable to modern clothing production.

pangolin

nickice said:

Jeremy.89 said:

Why does one have to preclude the other?

It just feels like supporting removing statues is an easy-way for some of the people to ease their conscience (not that I think they should have slavery on their conscience) without making any meaningful change that might cost them money or change their lifestyle. There are far more recent (and continuing horrors) that they don't seem bothered about.

If someone made a great effort to protect the environment but did occasionally fly, I wouldn't have much of a problem with that ( we still need to live in the world). However, if someone took private jets and drove everywhere but then unplugged their iphone charger to protect the environment, that'd be a different matter.

I follow your working but does this mean the right answer should be to do nothing?

I can't completely avoid exploitation so I should just lean into it?

I can't live carbon neutral so why not get a 3rd car?

Why let perfect be the enemy of good?

pblakeney

It might not be comparable but it is fixable. In fact, it is comparable. It might be measurably less wrong, but it is still wrong.
Why not concentrate on the possible instead of getting knickers in a twist over something that can't be fixed?
(Slavery, not the simple issue of statues. Move them to a museum with full history. All of them).

rjsterry

shortfall said:

tailwindhome said:

How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?

Yeah I'm up for that, except it didn't happen that way.

In Bristol that is exactly what happened. Long before last weekend. For years Colston's apologists blocked the efforts to remove the statue, then they blocked the efforts to change the plaque.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

tailwindhome said:

How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?

Yeah I'm up for that, except it didn't happen that way.

In Bristol that is exactly what happened. Long before last weekend. For years Colston's apologists blocked the efforts to remove the statue, then they blocked the efforts to change the plaque.

I can't think why a politician who used a golliwog as a mascot in 2004 would do such a thing. I mean, the Black and White Minstrels had only been pulled from British TV 26 years before that, so who'd know in 2004 that it might be offensive?

shortfall

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

Jeremy.89 said:

Why does one have to preclude the other?

If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?

Have another whataboutery sticker.

It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out to self righteous liberals that having a conscience about things that happened centuries ago is easier than holding yourself to the same standard today. FWIW I'm not going to die on a hill defending every statue in the land, although I'm not happy that it's left to mob rule to decide which ones are fair game to get chucked in the sea.

Where do you stand on child labour?

I'm conflicted on it because it's a complex issue as you know, but I'm not the one wearing Nike trainers whilst tearing down statues on the grounds that they celebrated racists and slavers and neither am I finding excuses fire those that did.

I'll give you a clue: Nike do not abduct hundreds of thousands of people from one continent, brand them with the 'swoosh' and ship them to another continent, chucking the dead ones over the side. That's how you can tell them apart.

I don't disagree, but I'm not about to take lectures on exploitation from people who buy fast fashion in the certain knowledge that it's produced by children and poor people in dreadful conditions and poverty wages.

Who are you referring to here, and how are you determining whether they buy fast fashion or not? If you don't know anything about Colston or Bristol, that's fine, but don't pretend the transatlantic slave trade is remotely comparable to modern clothing production.

I'm not making a direct comparison as well you know, I'm saying it's easy for people to make value judgements on past behaviours whilst being (wilfully) blind to some of the terrible things going on around us today that they could actually change or not support simply by changing their shopping habits. Most of us own consumer goods that are made in sweat shops and I am simply saying that we would do well to look at ourselves before excusing mobs who tear down statues of people from history. And you're right I don't know a great deal about Bristol and Colston other than what I've read up on since recent events took place. I do know enough to say though that if you allow a mob to decide on what should be agreed by a democratic process whilst the police stand idly by then it won't end well.

shortfall

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

tailwindhome said:

How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?

Yeah I'm up for that, except it didn't happen that way.

In Bristol that is exactly what happened. Long before last weekend. For years Colston's apologists blocked the efforts to remove the statue, then they blocked the efforts to change the plaque.

Town hall politics is crippled by bureaucracy who knew? Just remember that if you support the sort of direct action that results in statues you disapprove of getting lobbed in the ocean, next time it might be something you wish to protect, and then what?

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Let's just clear a few things up.

People don't put up statues of bad people. Statues are always up there as a celebration.

Ergo, statues of racists are essentially saying we are celebrating a racist.

Nor is history written in statues, else we'd all have forgotten a whole bunch of nasty folk.

Did the concept of racism even exist when the statues were put up? Even in the 19th Century the British Empire were waging war on 'savages' in Africa so the statues were erected to celebrate the achievements of people who did things in accordance with the social norm of the times.

That's not to say the statues shouldn't have been removed in the intervening hundred odd years when the social norm has changed but to say they were put up to celebrate racism isn't really true.

It's about time all those statues of Roman emperors and generals were ripped down and their names deleted from buildings and streets worldwide as they were all slave owners.

Judging the behaviours of the past by today's accepted behaviour is folly. Yes, remove the statues from public spaces or leave them be with educational information rather than glorifying words but ultimately the wealth of the nation has been mainly built on behaviour we would mainly criticise today.

Even now, how many of the companies you count as Clients in the big city meet your high standards of ethics? If they do, were they completely innocent in the way they initially amassed their fortunes? Should we give back all the wealth we plundered from the natural resources of countries that remain impoverished to the current day?

So the racism we’re referring to here came into existence in the 19th Century.

They were put up to celebrate the people who they were statues of. They didn’t care at the time about the whole mass murder bit.

We now do, ergo they need to go.

As for the Romans, as above, they are not specific race issues are they?

As for modern firms - well, most of them didn’t exist until more recently.

I mean, I think it is too far gone and it would be far too complicated to try to work our reparations for people who have since long died. It is too long ago and too entwined.

It’s not practical or feasible. But maybe not having people at the heart of some of the worst practices of colonialism up as statues is a good start.

I think it is a cop out to say “too long ago” why not liquidate everything from Colston and use it for good causes in Zanzibar or Sierra Leone or fund an organisation dedicated to fighting modern slavery.

Pulling down statues and renaming roads and buildings is inexpensive virtue signalling. If people truly gave a censored they would do the hard expensive stuff.

This is the same batshit argument against making environmental changes that says you shouldn't drive a bit less because you aren't vegan.

Am I the vegan or is Rick?

I think you'd be the one driving a 4x4 to the butchers and criticising cyclists for not being vegan. I'm not really sure myself.

I see Rick as putting the recycling out before driving to the airport in a Prius to get on a private jet, ie doing all the painless stuff.

Resources (people) were forcibly removed from Africa and sold in the Americas, ultimately that profit was used to fund Colston school. I am just suggesting that we acknowledge that fact and make a more equitable distribution of the profits.

I am quite surprised this is seen as a radical idea

How would you work it out?

if he paid for a building sell it, if he provided an endowment give it up

harder than changing a name plate but surely more meaningful

I'm not sure that Trustees can unilaterally liquidate a fund. To whom or what would you pay the proceeds. Would this actually achieve your aim?

No harm is n checking, then set up a fund for doing good in parts of Africa where slaves came from. Maybe create job opportunities and/or improve the provision of education

TheBigBean

Sir Francis Drake has been moved on to the hitlist which at least demonstates some consistency. Just his statues and not the replica boat, so a stroll along the Thames can still take in the Clink prison and a pirate ship.

I'm wondering about making the case for Jane Austen being a bit racist. I could then encourage everyone to dump their tenners.

Pross

shortfall said:

tailwindhome said:

How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?

Yeah I'm up for that, except it didn't happen that way. Some people started protesting in London about a policeman killing a black man in America. The police in London went down on one knee in front of the protestors and in one instance actualky ran away from them, as well as simply standing by watching whilst monuments were vandalised. A yob element amongst the protestors was emboldened by the Polices apparent unwillingness to er... police and when further protests took place around the country, in the case of Bristol, a criminal element tore down the Colston statue and threw it in the harbour seemingly untroubled by Mr Plod. Now if you want to defend mob justice then sorry I'm not going to agree with you. Once the idea gets abroad that the police aren't going to uphold the law it isn't going to end well, particularly when only a short while ago they were salivating at being able to enforce arbitary government dictat to preserve the lockdown, just so long as it was only lone walkers in the peak district or the odd sunbather in a park of course.

I thought you'd be happy. A couple of months ago you were fearing a police state and now you're complaining that the police aren't even using powers they had since they were founded.

tailwindhome

shortfall said:

tailwindhome said:

How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?

Yeah I'm up for that, except it didn't happen that way. Some people started protesting in London about a policeman killing a black man in America. The police in London went down on one knee in front of the protestors and in one instance actualky ran away from them, as well as simply standing by watching whilst monuments were vandalised. A yob element amongst the protestors was emboldened by the Polices apparent unwillingness to er... police and when further protests took place around the country, in the case of Bristol, a criminal element tore down the Colston statue and threw it in the harbour seemingly untroubled by Mr Plod. Now if you want to defend mob justice then sorry I'm not going to agree with you. Once the idea gets abroad that the police aren't going to uphold the law it isn't going to end well, particularly when only a short while ago they were salivating at being able to enforce arbitary government dictat to preserve the lockdown, just so long as it was only lone walkers in the peak district or the odd sunbather in a park of course.

I'll ask the question, which was clearly with regards to this thread, again.

How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?

Maybe think about it without deflecting to the issues you have with the police strategy or strawmen about defending mob justice.

tailwindhome

To be honest the UK should be quite proud of how their police handled the riots over the past couple of days, though I fear people who ask, 'Why didn't they do something?' really mean 'why didn't they beat the shit out of them?'

tailwindhome

It says a lot about a man's mindset if they hear 'take a knee with' as 'take a knee for'.

Funny, I don't remember it being seen as a submissive gesture when Colin Kaepernick was doing it.

veronese68

A question my son just asked me. If taking it down was undemocratic and the majority of people wanted it kept, why is the conversation now about which other statues should be taken down rather than about putting it back up?