Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

rjsterry

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

Just to be clear, folk who are upset by the vandalism.

Which bothers you more, that a statue of the UK's biggest slave trader is still up, or the vandalism of said statue?

Using a word like vandalism really doesn't do justice to the scenes I watched on the news.

How would you describe it then? Besides the statue it seemed pretty peaceful. I don't see any way of preventing mass protests beyond addressing the underlying issues in sufficient time to avoid the build up of public resentment.

rjsterry

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Not many were responsible for the deaths and enslavement of tens of thousands, but happy to take each case on its merits. If it's OK for former Eastern Bloc to pull down statues of Lenin and Stalin, why is this objectionable?

nickice

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

Just to be clear, folk who are upset by the vandalism.

Which bothers you more, that a statue of the UK's biggest slave trader is still up, or the vandalism of said statue?

Using a word like vandalism really doesn't do justice to the scenes I watched on the news.

How would you describe it then? Besides the statue it seemed pretty peaceful. I don't see any way of preventing mass protests beyond addressing the underlying issues in sufficient time to avoid the build up of public resentment.

Don't know is my honest answer. Maybe 'destruction'. The first thing that came into my head when I read the word 'vandalism' was when people used to break the glasses off the statue of Donald Dewar in Glasgow.

And besides pulling down a statue and jumping on it like a nutcase, it seemed pretty peaceful? The Yorkshire Ripper was a peaceful guy apart from all the murders.

kingstongraham

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

nickice

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

I like this game. Oliver Cromwell. Most kings/queens outside the modern era (and even then....)

Maybe there should be a committee set up by government!

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

Chap in Shrewsbury has a petition in his name.

rick_chasey

(had this pointed out to me) I mean, it's not like the members of the Bullingdon club have never trashed things for no apparent reason.

TheBigBean

nickice said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Just to be clear, folk who are upset by the vandalism.

Which bothers you more, that a statue of the UK's biggest slave trader is still up, or the vandalism of said statue?

I think mob justice bothers me more than anything that is on display..

I suppose if the plaque said something like 'he was a slave trader and that makes him a great man' I might come close to disagreeing with you.

Thinking about this more, I suppose the question is whether I think direct action is ever justifiable. I haven't reached a conclusion on that.

kingstongraham

nickice said:

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

I like this game. Oliver Cromwell. Most kings/queens outside the modern era (and even then....)

Maybe there should be a committee set up by government!

Pull them down, see if they go back up.

Cromwell was voted in the top 10 greatest Britons in 2002. Behind Princess Diana and John Lennon, maybe it was the genocide counted against him. Say what you like about Lennon, he never did that.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

I like this game. Oliver Cromwell. Most kings/queens outside the modern era (and even then....)

Maybe there should be a committee set up by government!

Pull them down, see if they go back up.

Cromwell was voted in the top 10 greatest Britons in 2002. Behind Princess Diana and John Lennon, maybe it was the genocide counted against him. Say what you like about Lennon, he never did that.

Newton was robbed, but he wasn't a nice guy either.

TheBigBean

Richard III has a pretty decent following for a child killer.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

I like this game. Oliver Cromwell. Most kings/queens outside the modern era (and even then....)

Maybe there should be a committee set up by government!

Pull them down, see if they go back up.

Cromwell was voted in the top 10 greatest Britons in 2002. Behind Princess Diana and John Lennon, maybe it was the genocide counted against him. Say what you like about Lennon, he never did that.

Newton was robbed, but he wasn't a nice guy either.

It's an interesting list, with David Beckham just sneaking in ahead of Thomas Paine.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

I like this game. Oliver Cromwell. Most kings/queens outside the modern era (and even then....)

Maybe there should be a committee set up by government!

Pull them down, see if they go back up.

Cromwell was voted in the top 10 greatest Britons in 2002. Behind Princess Diana and John Lennon, maybe it was the genocide counted against him. Say what you like about Lennon, he never did that.

Newton was robbed, but he wasn't a nice guy either.

It's an interesting list, with David Beckham just sneaking in ahead of Thomas Paine.

I remember it well. Jeremey Clerkson propelled Brunel up the list with a passionate documentary. Newton's was very poor with little explanation about why he should obviously have won.

I also remember Thatcher being voted the greatest living Briton. Something I discussed with a keen Tory voter in the pub. He naturally challenged us to name a better one at the time. Not as easy as you think. I settled on Tim Berners Lee.

Anyway, deserves its own thread.

blazing_saddles

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

How about Winston Churchill, seeing his plinth was tagged with the racist word?

Obviously these particular protestors came under prepared and didn't have the heavy lifting gear to do a proper job.

rick_chasey

blazing_saddles said:

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

How about Winston Churchill, seeing his plinth was tagged with the racist word?

Obviously these particular protestors came under prepared and didn't have the heavy lifting gear to do a proper job.

I mean, he did lots of good things and I think it would be hard to get anyone to agree to removing his statue.

He was however obviously a racist. This is (very) well documented for anyone who wants to pay attention to it.

I mean, I think we should all be able to recognise that most people, as in life, aren't either great or awful and are different shades of in between.

In the case of Churchill, in case it isn't obvious, he led a democracy against one of the most murderous governments (who certainly had a pre-occupation for ethnic cleansing that Churchill did not have) the world has ever seen and refused to accommodate them despite pressure internally, and that doesn't suddenly disappear when you look at what else he did.

But then, nor does that erase his views on races in general.

I think we should all be grown up enough to understand that people are complex.

nickice

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

How about Winston Churchill, seeing his plinth was tagged with the racist word?

Obviously these particular protestors came under prepared and didn't have the heavy lifting gear to do a proper job.

I mean, he did lots of good things and I think it would be hard to get anyone to agree to removing his statue.

He was however obviously a racist. This is (very) well documented for anyone who wants to pay attention to it.

I mean, I think we should all be able to recognise that most people, as in life, aren't either great or awful and are different shades of in between.

In the case of Churchill, in case it isn't obvious, he led a democracy against one of the most murderous governments (who certainly had a pre-occupation for ethnic cleansing that Churchill did not have) the world has ever seen and refused to accommodate them despite pressure internally, and that doesn't suddenly disappear when you look at what else he did.

But then, nor does that erase his views on races in general.

I think we should all be grown up enough to understand that people are complex.

Yes, he was a racist (though probably wasn't considered to be more racist than most people at the time). But, then again, didn't Edward Colston also do a lot of good? That doesn't negate the bad but, as you said, people are complex. After all, he was a slave trader when some people who are considered great men held slaves.

bompington

I wonder how the statue-dunkers imagine they would have been behaving if they lived in the 16th century? Going to protests and all that?
Or do they lie awake at night worrying what things they do now that future generations will damn them for? Perhaps they should.

Still, I have a warm glow thinking about how all this will have improved the lives of black people round the world so much.

rick_chasey

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

How about Winston Churchill, seeing his plinth was tagged with the racist word?

Obviously these particular protestors came under prepared and didn't have the heavy lifting gear to do a proper job.

I mean, he did lots of good things and I think it would be hard to get anyone to agree to removing his statue.

He was however obviously a racist. This is (very) well documented for anyone who wants to pay attention to it.

I mean, I think we should all be able to recognise that most people, as in life, aren't either great or awful and are different shades of in between.

In the case of Churchill, in case it isn't obvious, he led a democracy against one of the most murderous governments (who certainly had a pre-occupation for ethnic cleansing that Churchill did not have) the world has ever seen and refused to accommodate them despite pressure internally, and that doesn't suddenly disappear when you look at what else he did.

But then, nor does that erase his views on races in general.

I think we should all be grown up enough to understand that people are complex.

Yes, he was a racist (though probably wasn't considered to be more racist than most people at the time). But, then again, didn't Edward Colston also do a lot of good? That doesn't negate the bad but, as you said, people are complex. After all, he was a slave trader when some people who are considered great men held slaves.

Erm, not really in comparison to kidnapping tens of thousands of people to enslave them and being chill when around a quarter of them die on ships en route to their life of slavery. Kind of hard to come back from that really.

And, to be clear, the discussion at the time was that slave trading was really not a good thing to be doing, and a bunch of people who wanted to make a lot of money.

What he does show is what the purpose of philanthropy often can be; whitewashing (pun intended) your past. Given it's a cycling forum I might as well drop in the Armstrong/livestrong chat, which many posters felt was an attempt to whitewash his nasty behaviour in his day job.

rjsterry

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

How about Winston Churchill, seeing his plinth was tagged with the racist word?

Obviously these particular protestors came under prepared and didn't have the heavy lifting gear to do a proper job.

I mean, he did lots of good things and I think it would be hard to get anyone to agree to removing his statue.

He was however obviously a racist. This is (very) well documented for anyone who wants to pay attention to it.

I mean, I think we should all be able to recognise that most people, as in life, aren't either great or awful and are different shades of in between.

In the case of Churchill, in case it isn't obvious, he led a democracy against one of the most murderous governments (who certainly had a pre-occupation for ethnic cleansing that Churchill did not have) the world has ever seen and refused to accommodate them despite pressure internally, and that doesn't suddenly disappear when you look at what else he did.

But then, nor does that erase his views on races in general.

I think we should all be grown up enough to understand that people are complex.

Yes, he was a racist (though probably wasn't considered to be more racist than most people at the time). But, then again, didn't Edward Colston also do a lot of good? That doesn't negate the bad but, as you said, people are complex. After all, he was a slave trader when some people who are considered great men held slaves.

His money did and does a lot of good. He spent most of his life elsewhere.

Yes, few have clean hands in this. John Locke was a major investor in the RAC (not the motor organisation), at the same time as writing his theories on the natural rights of men (presumably excepting those who had been sold as slaves).

nickice

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

How about Winston Churchill, seeing his plinth was tagged with the racist word?

Obviously these particular protestors came under prepared and didn't have the heavy lifting gear to do a proper job.

I mean, he did lots of good things and I think it would be hard to get anyone to agree to removing his statue.

He was however obviously a racist. This is (very) well documented for anyone who wants to pay attention to it.

I mean, I think we should all be able to recognise that most people, as in life, aren't either great or awful and are different shades of in between.

In the case of Churchill, in case it isn't obvious, he led a democracy against one of the most murderous governments (who certainly had a pre-occupation for ethnic cleansing that Churchill did not have) the world has ever seen and refused to accommodate them despite pressure internally, and that doesn't suddenly disappear when you look at what else he did.

But then, nor does that erase his views on races in general.

I think we should all be grown up enough to understand that people are complex.

Yes, he was a racist (though probably wasn't considered to be more racist than most people at the time). But, then again, didn't Edward Colston also do a lot of good? That doesn't negate the bad but, as you said, people are complex. After all, he was a slave trader when some people who are considered great men held slaves.

Erm, not really in comparison to kidnapping tens of thousands of people to enslave them and being chill when around a quarter of them die on ships en route to their life of slavery. Kind of hard to come back from that really.

And, to be clear, the discussion at the time was that slave trading was really not a good thing to be doing, and a bunch of people who wanted to make a lot of money.

What he does show is what the purpose of philanthropy often can be; whitewashing (pun intended) your past. Given it's a cycling forum I might as well drop in the Armstrong/livestrong chat, which many posters felt was an attempt to whitewash his nasty behaviour in his day job.

So slave-trading is beyond the line and gets the statue taken down but holding slaves doesn't? I'm just trying to find the criteria.

rick_chasey

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

How about Winston Churchill, seeing his plinth was tagged with the racist word?

Obviously these particular protestors came under prepared and didn't have the heavy lifting gear to do a proper job.

I mean, he did lots of good things and I think it would be hard to get anyone to agree to removing his statue.

He was however obviously a racist. This is (very) well documented for anyone who wants to pay attention to it.

I mean, I think we should all be able to recognise that most people, as in life, aren't either great or awful and are different shades of in between.

In the case of Churchill, in case it isn't obvious, he led a democracy against one of the most murderous governments (who certainly had a pre-occupation for ethnic cleansing that Churchill did not have) the world has ever seen and refused to accommodate them despite pressure internally, and that doesn't suddenly disappear when you look at what else he did.

But then, nor does that erase his views on races in general.

I think we should all be grown up enough to understand that people are complex.

Yes, he was a racist (though probably wasn't considered to be more racist than most people at the time). But, then again, didn't Edward Colston also do a lot of good? That doesn't negate the bad but, as you said, people are complex. After all, he was a slave trader when some people who are considered great men held slaves.

Erm, not really in comparison to kidnapping tens of thousands of people to enslave them and being chill when around a quarter of them die on ships en route to their life of slavery. Kind of hard to come back from that really.

And, to be clear, the discussion at the time was that slave trading was really not a good thing to be doing, and a bunch of people who wanted to make a lot of money.

What he does show is what the purpose of philanthropy often can be; whitewashing (pun intended) your past. Given it's a cycling forum I might as well drop in the Armstrong/livestrong chat, which many posters felt was an attempt to whitewash his nasty behaviour in his day job.

So slave-trading is beyond the line and gets the statue taken down but holding slaves doesn't? I'm just trying to find the criteria.

It's up to everyone to make up their own mind Nick.

rjsterry

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

How about Winston Churchill, seeing his plinth was tagged with the racist word?

Obviously these particular protestors came under prepared and didn't have the heavy lifting gear to do a proper job.

I mean, he did lots of good things and I think it would be hard to get anyone to agree to removing his statue.

He was however obviously a racist. This is (very) well documented for anyone who wants to pay attention to it.

I mean, I think we should all be able to recognise that most people, as in life, aren't either great or awful and are different shades of in between.

In the case of Churchill, in case it isn't obvious, he led a democracy against one of the most murderous governments (who certainly had a pre-occupation for ethnic cleansing that Churchill did not have) the world has ever seen and refused to accommodate them despite pressure internally, and that doesn't suddenly disappear when you look at what else he did.

But then, nor does that erase his views on races in general.

I think we should all be grown up enough to understand that people are complex.

Yes, he was a racist (though probably wasn't considered to be more racist than most people at the time). But, then again, didn't Edward Colston also do a lot of good? That doesn't negate the bad but, as you said, people are complex. After all, he was a slave trader when some people who are considered great men held slaves.

Erm, not really in comparison to kidnapping tens of thousands of people to enslave them and being chill when around a quarter of them die on ships en route to their life of slavery. Kind of hard to come back from that really.

And, to be clear, the discussion at the time was that slave trading was really not a good thing to be doing, and a bunch of people who wanted to make a lot of money.

What he does show is what the purpose of philanthropy often can be; whitewashing (pun intended) your past. Given it's a cycling forum I might as well drop in the Armstrong/livestrong chat, which many posters felt was an attempt to whitewash his nasty behaviour in his day job.

So slave-trading is beyond the line and gets the statue taken down but holding slaves doesn't? I'm just trying to find the criteria.

I think trying to find some objective criteria is a hiding to nothing. In this particular case, various people in authority seemed more worried about the reputation of a guy who had been dead for 300 years than recognising that the wealth of the city is built on selling tens of thousands of people.

nickice

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

How about Winston Churchill, seeing his plinth was tagged with the racist word?

Obviously these particular protestors came under prepared and didn't have the heavy lifting gear to do a proper job.

I mean, he did lots of good things and I think it would be hard to get anyone to agree to removing his statue.

He was however obviously a racist. This is (very) well documented for anyone who wants to pay attention to it.

I mean, I think we should all be able to recognise that most people, as in life, aren't either great or awful and are different shades of in between.

In the case of Churchill, in case it isn't obvious, he led a democracy against one of the most murderous governments (who certainly had a pre-occupation for ethnic cleansing that Churchill did not have) the world has ever seen and refused to accommodate them despite pressure internally, and that doesn't suddenly disappear when you look at what else he did.

But then, nor does that erase his views on races in general.

I think we should all be grown up enough to understand that people are complex.

Yes, he was a racist (though probably wasn't considered to be more racist than most people at the time). But, then again, didn't Edward Colston also do a lot of good? That doesn't negate the bad but, as you said, people are complex. After all, he was a slave trader when some people who are considered great men held slaves.

Erm, not really in comparison to kidnapping tens of thousands of people to enslave them and being chill when around a quarter of them die on ships en route to their life of slavery. Kind of hard to come back from that really.

And, to be clear, the discussion at the time was that slave trading was really not a good thing to be doing, and a bunch of people who wanted to make a lot of money.

What he does show is what the purpose of philanthropy often can be; whitewashing (pun intended) your past. Given it's a cycling forum I might as well drop in the Armstrong/livestrong chat, which many posters felt was an attempt to whitewash his nasty behaviour in his day job.

So slave-trading is beyond the line and gets the statue taken down but holding slaves doesn't? I'm just trying to find the criteria.

It's up to everyone to make up their own mind Nick.

Well what's your opinion? I don't care much for statues of businessmen as it often turns out they were pretty horrible people. I'm pretty wary of tearing down existing statues as I think it really opens a can of worms. They'll be after the Churchill one next.

rick_chasey

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

How about Winston Churchill, seeing his plinth was tagged with the racist word?

Obviously these particular protestors came under prepared and didn't have the heavy lifting gear to do a proper job.

I mean, he did lots of good things and I think it would be hard to get anyone to agree to removing his statue.

He was however obviously a racist. This is (very) well documented for anyone who wants to pay attention to it.

I mean, I think we should all be able to recognise that most people, as in life, aren't either great or awful and are different shades of in between.

In the case of Churchill, in case it isn't obvious, he led a democracy against one of the most murderous governments (who certainly had a pre-occupation for ethnic cleansing that Churchill did not have) the world has ever seen and refused to accommodate them despite pressure internally, and that doesn't suddenly disappear when you look at what else he did.

But then, nor does that erase his views on races in general.

I think we should all be grown up enough to understand that people are complex.

Yes, he was a racist (though probably wasn't considered to be more racist than most people at the time). But, then again, didn't Edward Colston also do a lot of good? That doesn't negate the bad but, as you said, people are complex. After all, he was a slave trader when some people who are considered great men held slaves.

Erm, not really in comparison to kidnapping tens of thousands of people to enslave them and being chill when around a quarter of them die on ships en route to their life of slavery. Kind of hard to come back from that really.

And, to be clear, the discussion at the time was that slave trading was really not a good thing to be doing, and a bunch of people who wanted to make a lot of money.

What he does show is what the purpose of philanthropy often can be; whitewashing (pun intended) your past. Given it's a cycling forum I might as well drop in the Armstrong/livestrong chat, which many posters felt was an attempt to whitewash his nasty behaviour in his day job.

So slave-trading is beyond the line and gets the statue taken down but holding slaves doesn't? I'm just trying to find the criteria.

It's up to everyone to make up their own mind Nick.

Well what's your opinion? I don't care much for statues of businessmen as it often turns out they were pretty horrible people. I'm pretty wary of tearing down existing statues as I think it really opens a can of worms. They'll be after the Churchill one next.

Who are we talking about here?

Churchill is not going to have his statue taken down any time soon.

I generally don't go into the whole 'great people' genre of history anyway, so I don't spend huge amounts of time trying to wrestle with the morality and judgements of individual lives. It's a bit too much of a soap opera for me. I'm more interested in the structural side and more macro topics.

If you think Colston is a can of worms, wait till you check out the debate in Belgium about king Leopold II statues...

blazing_saddles

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

How about Winston Churchill, seeing his plinth was tagged with the racist word?

Obviously these particular protestors came under prepared and didn't have the heavy lifting gear to do a proper job.

I mean, he did lots of good things and I think it would be hard to get anyone to agree to removing his statue.

He was however obviously a racist. This is (very) well documented for anyone who wants to pay attention to it.

I mean, I think we should all be able to recognise that most people, as in life, aren't either great or awful and are different shades of in between.

In the case of Churchill, in case it isn't obvious, he led a democracy against one of the most murderous governments (who certainly had a pre-occupation for ethnic cleansing that Churchill did not have) the world has ever seen and refused to accommodate them despite pressure internally, and that doesn't suddenly disappear when you look at what else he did.

But then, nor does that erase his views on races in general.

I think we should all be grown up enough to understand that people are complex.

We agree on this.
Churchill may just have been the racist that saved millions of "British Empire" subjects from said ethnic cleansing.
Had Lord Halifax had his way, who knows?

A pity that a minority of the protesters weren't grown up enough to understand this conundrum.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

DeVlaeminck said:

It's probably better it doesn't go back up, maybe stick it in a local museum with some other stuff related to local history.

I don't think it's totally clear cut and I can understand the existence of the statue causing upset as I can understand the tearing down of a local landmark causing upset.

Thing is you can erect another statue of something else and let's be honest so many well loved buildings are pulled down in the name of profit it's hard to make the case this statue is of huge importance that something else relating to Bristol's history couldn't replace it.

The trouble with these things is you can often find a reason why someone isn't deserving of a statue. I mean trafficking slaves is a pretty big reason but you get objections made to statues of Churchill, there's an ongoing debate about whether Thatcher should be remembered with a statue, if it turns out when the papers are released properly that Martin Luther King did indeed encourage a rape should his memorials be torn down?

Personally I'd rather they put up art work rather than statues of the great and the good in the first place.

I am sure whatever art work you put up someone can vandalise whilst citing some historical reasoning. Van Gogh might well have been either an early hallucinogenic drug user and created an entire industry. One eared mad man whose paintings should definitely be burnt.

The Colston statue was straightforward commemoration of someone who gave a lot of money to the city. It wasn't anything to do with art or great sculpture.

Where do we draw the line? There are a lot of statues of basically horrible people who did horrible things.

Give some examples of statues of people who on balance were thoroughly bad sorts like Colston, and we can decide if they should stay or go.

How about Winston Churchill, seeing his plinth was tagged with the racist word?

Obviously these particular protestors came under prepared and didn't have the heavy lifting gear to do a proper job.

I mean, he did lots of good things and I think it would be hard to get anyone to agree to removing his statue.

He was however obviously a racist. This is (very) well documented for anyone who wants to pay attention to it.

I mean, I think we should all be able to recognise that most people, as in life, aren't either great or awful and are different shades of in between.

In the case of Churchill, in case it isn't obvious, he led a democracy against one of the most murderous governments (who certainly had a pre-occupation for ethnic cleansing that Churchill did not have) the world has ever seen and refused to accommodate them despite pressure internally, and that doesn't suddenly disappear when you look at what else he did.

But then, nor does that erase his views on races in general.

I think we should all be grown up enough to understand that people are complex.

Yes, he was a racist (though probably wasn't considered to be more racist than most people at the time). But, then again, didn't Edward Colston also do a lot of good? That doesn't negate the bad but, as you said, people are complex. After all, he was a slave trader when some people who are considered great men held slaves.

Erm, not really in comparison to kidnapping tens of thousands of people to enslave them and being chill when around a quarter of them die on ships en route to their life of slavery. Kind of hard to come back from that really.

And, to be clear, the discussion at the time was that slave trading was really not a good thing to be doing, and a bunch of people who wanted to make a lot of money.

What he does show is what the purpose of philanthropy often can be; whitewashing (pun intended) your past. Given it's a cycling forum I might as well drop in the Armstrong/livestrong chat, which many posters felt was an attempt to whitewash his nasty behaviour in his day job.

So slave-trading is beyond the line and gets the statue taken down but holding slaves doesn't? I'm just trying to find the criteria.

It's up to everyone to make up their own mind Nick.

Well what's your opinion? I don't care much for statues of businessmen as it often turns out they were pretty horrible people. I'm pretty wary of tearing down existing statues as I think it really opens a can of worms. They'll be after the Churchill one next.

Who are we talking about here?

Churchill is not going to have his statue taken down any time soon.

I generally don't go into the whole 'great people' genre of history anyway, so I don't spend huge amounts of time trying to wrestle with the morality and judgements of individual lives. It's a bit too much of a soap opera for me. I'm more interested in the structural side and more macro topics.

If you think Colston is a can of worms, wait till you check out the debate in Belgium about king Leopold II statues...

I tend to go with what was acceptable both legally and morally at the time. This should put Colston in the clear but it still feels wrong.
I would like to say that I think it was a disgrace that it took so long for a statue of Arthur Harris to be erected and that if you take that down then you should take Churchill with it.

Jeremy.89

The more, to use Coopster's favourite newly learnt word "woke" amongst my Facebook wall would like to see the same happen to Churchill's statues

blazing_saddles

Jeremy.89 said:

The more, to use Coopster's favourite newly learnt word "woke" amongst my Facebook wall would like to see the same happen to Churchill's statues

Morons.

rick_chasey

Jeremy.89 said:

The more, to use Coopster's favourite newly learnt word "woke" amongst my Facebook wall would like to see the same happen to Churchill's statues

You're not gonna get much support doing that.

I do think the idea that *even Churchill* can be murky on the topic, could, if it enters the public consciences (unlikely), open up the broader idea that colonialism generally isn't all that, and a lot of positives are off the back of an awful lot of violence.

Pross

Whilst it's pretty much impossible to separate Bristol as a city from the slave trade and the tobacco trade (which itself was obviously dependent on slavery) I'm amazed that the statue was still on display in the city centre especially as Bristol feels like it is quite a liberal city these days. It looks like the Colston Hall is going to be 'rebranded' now too.

I don't think we should re-write history but as statues are generally celebrating a person's achievements there's not really any justification for having them on public display when those achievements would no longer be considered acceptable. It should have been moved to the British Empire & Commonwealth Museum years ago where it would be an appropriate display of the city's history. There are now calls for the removal of the statue of Sir Thomas Picton from the Welsh heroes section in Cardiff museum as he'd been a slave owner and was allegedly guilty of cruelty and torture when Governor of Trinidad before going on to die whilst fighting as one of the Generals during the Battle of Waterloo. As others have said, most 'heroes' from that era did plenty of bad things.