Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

ballysmate

The point I am making is how people see a name of a road, pub, priory etc and the knee jerk response is to get all offended, usually on behalf of someone else, without knowing the provenance of the name.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

The point I am making is how people see a name of a road, pub, priory etc and the knee jerk response is to get all offended, usually on behalf of someone else, without knowing the provenance of the name.

Right.

I usually see it in the context of some old duffer feigning offence to 'make a point', and I've not seen anything here that differs from that.

elbowloh

ballysmate said:

The point I am making is how people see a name of a road, pub, priory etc and the knee jerk response is to get all offended, usually on behalf of someone else, without knowing the provenance of the name.

Ok, but has anyone taken that offense at that particular name or is this fake news?

kingstongraham

secretsam

rick_chasey said:

I don't get the point you're making. Who has beef with the name?

No-one, it was just something a colleague pointed out - I'd never even considered it. It's quite an odd name, if you think about it.
TBH, the provenance of both names is unclear, and subject of some debate. But it's just odd...
Don't recall anyone being 'offended', just something that makes you wonder.

briantrumpet

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

The point I am making is how people see a name of a road, pub, priory etc and the knee jerk response is to get all offended, usually on behalf of someone else, without knowing the provenance of the name.

Ok, but has anyone taken that offense at that particular name or is this fake news?

I seem to remember that there was ridiculing of 'politically correct' language by making jibes about "huperson" and "personhole covers", and thereby diminish the push to get rid of offensive terminology. You've only got to watch certain 1970s TV to realise how far we've come in language terms.

secretsam

briantrumpet said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

The point I am making is how people see a name of a road, pub, priory etc and the knee jerk response is to get all offended, usually on behalf of someone else, without knowing the provenance of the name.

Ok, but has anyone taken that offense at that particular name or is this fake news?

I seem to remember that there was ridiculing of 'politically correct' language by making jibes about "huperson" and "personhole covers", and thereby diminish the push to get rid of offensive terminology. You've only got to watch certain 1970s TV to realise how far we've come in language terms.

Most of that stuff was intended as a joke - and the usual suspects would pick up on it, or - in some cases - simply make it up, to generate a story.

ballysmate

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

The point I am making is how people see a name of a road, pub, priory etc and the knee jerk response is to get all offended, usually on behalf of someone else, without knowing the provenance of the name.

Ok, but has anyone taken that offense at that particular name or is this fake news?

I would sincerely hope not. That's the point.

secretsam

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

The point I am making is how people see a name of a road, pub, priory etc and the knee jerk response is to get all offended, usually on behalf of someone else, without knowing the provenance of the name.

Ok, but has anyone taken that offense at that particular name or is this fake news?

I would sincerely hope not. That's the point.

Crumbs, there's a point?

rick_chasey

I know it's obvious Bally, but presumably even you can see why having a statue up of a slaver, venerating him, can make some people who are black feel quite uncomfortable?

And how that isn't the same as, say, the Black Country?

david37

rick_chasey said:

I don't get the point you're making. Who has beef with the name?

Secretsam but he's happy to throw names like nonce around ------- does not compute

david37

rick_chasey said:

I know it's obvious Bally, but presumably even you can see why having a statue up of a slaver, venerating him, can make some people who are black feel quite uncomfortable?

And how that isn't the same as, say, the Black Country?

How about statues of Roman Emperors ? should they be torn down and destroyed?

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

The point I am making is how people see a name of a road, pub, priory etc and the knee jerk response is to get all offended, usually on behalf of someone else, without knowing the provenance of the name.

Who's offended exactly? You seem to be belittling something that didn't actually happen, which is odd.

rjsterry

david37 said:

rick_chasey said:

I know it's obvious Bally, but presumably even you can see why having a statue up of a slaver, venerating him, can make some people who are black feel quite uncomfortable?

And how that isn't the same as, say, the Black Country?

How about statues of Roman Emperors ? should they be torn down and destroyed?

They already have been. All of them. Long ago. The head of one was famously found buried under the steps of a temple in what is now Sudan, so that visitors would symbolically trample on Augustus's head.

secretsam

david37 said:

rick_chasey said:

I don't get the point you're making. Who has beef with the name?

Secretsam but he's happy to throw names like nonce around ------- does not compute

No one else seems to care. Are you being a snowflake?

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

david37 said:

rick_chasey said:

I know it's obvious Bally, but presumably even you can see why having a statue up of a slaver, venerating him, can make some people who are black feel quite uncomfortable?

And how that isn't the same as, say, the Black Country?

How about statues of Roman Emperors ? should they be torn down and destroyed?

They already have been. All of them. Long ago. The head of one was famously found buried under the steps of a temple in what is now Sudan, so that visitors would symbolically trample on Augustus's head.

Sure I've seen some in Bath.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

david37 said:

rick_chasey said:

I know it's obvious Bally, but presumably even you can see why having a statue up of a slaver, venerating him, can make some people who are black feel quite uncomfortable?

And how that isn't the same as, say, the Black Country?

How about statues of Roman Emperors ? should they be torn down and destroyed?

They already have been. All of them. Long ago. The head of one was famously found buried under the steps of a temple in what is now Sudan, so that visitors would symbolically trample on Augustus's head.

Sure I've seen some in Bath.

They're late Victorian (1897) to tart up the Baths; certainly not original. The Colston statue has been reerected in Bristol Museum, but I guess that doesn't suit the 'they're cancelling history' message.

ballysmate

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

The point I am making is how people see a name of a road, pub, priory etc and the knee jerk response is to get all offended, usually on behalf of someone else, without knowing the provenance of the name.

Who's offended exactly? You seem to be belittling something that didn't actually happen, which is odd.

I was belittling the idea that the mention of a building or road etc containing reference to black/white should automatically cause people to think of racial connotations.

secretsam

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

david37 said:

rick_chasey said:

I know it's obvious Bally, but presumably even you can see why having a statue up of a slaver, venerating him, can make some people who are black feel quite uncomfortable?

And how that isn't the same as, say, the Black Country?

How about statues of Roman Emperors ? should they be torn down and destroyed?

They already have been. All of them. Long ago. The head of one was famously found buried under the steps of a temple in what is now Sudan, so that visitors would symbolically trample on Augustus's head.

Sure I've seen some in Bath.

They're late Victorian (1897) to tart up the Baths; certainly not original. The Colston statue has been reerected in Bristol Museum, but I guess that doesn't suit the 'they're cancelling history' message.

LOL that's its new "secret location"?!?! Hopefully in a section about Bristol's links to slaving.
I'm always terrified going there, one day I swear that plane's going to fall down.

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

The point I am making is how people see a name of a road, pub, priory etc and the knee jerk response is to get all offended, usually on behalf of someone else, without knowing the provenance of the name.

Who's offended exactly? You seem to be belittling something that didn't actually happen, which is odd.

I wasn't belittling the idea that the mention of a building or road etc containing reference to black/white should automatically cause people to think of racial connotations.

I've not seen any evidence that such a thing exists. Or have I missed the campaign against Blackfriars Station. I'm really not sure which side of the debate is choosing to get upset.

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

david37 said:

rick_chasey said:

I know it's obvious Bally, but presumably even you can see why having a statue up of a slaver, venerating him, can make some people who are black feel quite uncomfortable?

And how that isn't the same as, say, the Black Country?

How about statues of Roman Emperors ? should they be torn down and destroyed?

They already have been. All of them. Long ago. The head of one was famously found buried under the steps of a temple in what is now Sudan, so that visitors would symbolically trample on Augustus's head.

Sure I've seen some in Bath.

They're late Victorian (1897) to tart up the Baths; certainly not original. The Colston statue has been reerected in Bristol Museum, but I guess that doesn't suit the 'they're cancelling history' message.

The Colston statue was erected 174 years after Colston died. Surely it is even more offensive to decide much later to put up statues of slave owners like him and Julius Caesar.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

david37 said:

rick_chasey said:

I know it's obvious Bally, but presumably even you can see why having a statue up of a slaver, venerating him, can make some people who are black feel quite uncomfortable?

And how that isn't the same as, say, the Black Country?

How about statues of Roman Emperors ? should they be torn down and destroyed?

They already have been. All of them. Long ago. The head of one was famously found buried under the steps of a temple in what is now Sudan, so that visitors would symbolically trample on Augustus's head.

Sure I've seen some in Bath.

They're late Victorian (1897) to tart up the Baths; certainly not original. The Colston statue has been reerected in Bristol Museum, but I guess that doesn't suit the 'they're cancelling history' message.

The Colston statue was erected 174 years after Colston died. Surely it is even more offensive to decide much later to put up statues of slave owners like him and Julius Caesar.

Yes they are both anachronistic, and coincidentally (or perhaps not) were erected at about the same time. The Colston statue is now in a museum, as are the Roman emperors. Previously the Colston statue was in a different context, with a plaque saying what a decent chap he was. I'm not sure chucking him in the Frome achieved a lot other than some catharsis and getting people talking about the subject. But I think the new context is probably better.

DeVlaeminck

Removing it is a better solution than the status quo but maybe it's a missed opportunity to use the statue as something that would illuminate the city's history.

The plaque celebrating his life could have been replaced with one with a more honest account and maybe a statue commemorating those who were transported as slaves could have been erected close by - possibly an individual whose story was known so you have the contrast between the wealthy trader and the victim of his trade .

I suppose that can still be done but I doubt anyone would want to risk the criticism returning the statue might bring upon them.

elbowloh

DeVlaeminck said:

Removing it is a better solution than the status quo but maybe it's a missed opportunity to use the statue as something that would illuminate the city's history.

The plaque celebrating his life could have been replaced with one with a more honest account and maybe a statue commemorating those who were transported as slaves could have been erected close by - possibly an individual whose story was known so you have the contrast between the wealthy trader and the victim of his trade .

I suppose that can still be done but I doubt anyone would want to risk the criticism returning the statue might bring upon them.

You could maybe have put the statue in an exhibition of the slave trade and the history of the city?

pangolin

DeVlaeminck said:

Removing it is a better solution than the status quo but maybe it's a missed opportunity to use the statue as something that would illuminate the city's history.

The plaque celebrating his life could have been replaced with one with a more honest account and maybe a statue commemorating those who were transported as slaves could have been erected close by - possibly an individual whose story was known so you have the contrast between the wealthy trader and the victim of his trade .

I suppose that can still be done but I doubt anyone would want to risk the criticism returning the statue might bring upon them.

The change in plaque was suggested previously but ignored.

Nearby is Pero's bridge, a footbridge named after a slave.

Ironically people have adopted this bridge as one to attach padlocks to as a token of love or whatever. Sigh...

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck said:

Removing it is a better solution than the status quo but maybe it's a missed opportunity to use the statue as something that would illuminate the city's history.

The plaque celebrating his life could have been replaced with one with a more honest account and maybe a statue commemorating those who were transported as slaves could have been erected close by - possibly an individual whose story was known so you have the contrast between the wealthy trader and the victim of his trade .

I suppose that can still be done but I doubt anyone would want to risk the criticism returning the statue might bring upon them.

It is on display in the city museum so I think that's a pretty good outcome. They could probably have avoided it being chucked in the docks if they'd responded more constructively to earlier approaches.

secretsam

rjsterry said:

DeVlaeminck said:

Removing it is a better solution than the status quo but maybe it's a missed opportunity to use the statue as something that would illuminate the city's history.

The plaque celebrating his life could have been replaced with one with a more honest account and maybe a statue commemorating those who were transported as slaves could have been erected close by - possibly an individual whose story was known so you have the contrast between the wealthy trader and the victim of his trade .

I suppose that can still be done but I doubt anyone would want to risk the criticism returning the statue might bring upon them.

It is on display in the city museum so I think that's a pretty good outcome. They could probably have avoided it being chucked in the docks if they'd responded more constructively to earlier approaches.

There's been debate about Colston's legacy for years. Council kept ducking it for fear of upsetting the kind of people who get upset by statues being removed, theatres being renamed...and streets...bloody Colston is everywhere.

DeVlaeminck

Yeah I'm aware the issue has been ducked and I can certainly see the offence caused by the statue being left as it was. Agree the museum isn't a bad outcome I just wonder if something more public wouldn't have a greater reach and the juxtaposition of the slave trader, a person enslaved with their story and the sea wouldn't have been more powerful.

kingstongraham

This statue must be replaced in its rightful place. The woke trying to rewrite history cannot be stood for. Who's with me?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19822296

DeVlaeminck

Maybe that'd make a good exhibit in the People's Palace?