Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

1679111258

Posts

  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    rjsterry said:

    Pross said:

    It’s like people are being obtuse in their understanding of what a statue is for.

    Yes, you in this case. Do you think the Victorians erected that statue because of his services to the slave trade or because of what he did for the city?

    Should it still have been there in this day and age? Not in my opinion, there's been a lot of work in that area in the 20 odd years since I first worked in Bristol so ample chance to move it to a museum (the one lot of work would have coincided with the opening of the Commonwealth Museum) but you seem to be confused about why it was put there originally.
    His services to the city were fairly unremarkable beyond the amount of cash he spent. The statue didn't mention the schools, almshouses or churches he paid for. It doesn't even look like the portrait we have of him. It is a semi-fictional version of him put up by a city that was on the wane and needed a local boy done good to boost morale.
    That's a pretty big 'apart from'
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439

    Pross 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.
    Would you work with German companies that were involved in the Holocaust?
  • ProssPross Posts: 29,582
    rjsterry said:

    Pross said:

    It’s like people are being obtuse in their understanding of what a statue is for.

    Yes, you in this case. Do you think the Victorians erected that statue because of his services to the slave trade or because of what he did for the city?

    Should it still have been there in this day and age? Not in my opinion, there's been a lot of work in that area in the 20 odd years since I first worked in Bristol so ample chance to move it to a museum (the one lot of work would have coincided with the opening of the Commonwealth Museum) but you seem to be confused about why it was put there originally.
    His services to the city were fairly unremarkable beyond the amount of cash he spent. The statue didn't mention the schools, almshouses or churches he paid for. It doesn't even look like the portrait we have of him. It is a semi-fictional version of him put up by a city that was on the wane and needed a local boy done good to boost morale.
    Of course, statues are erected by the rich and powerful to celebrate the rich and powerful who had similar views. Rick seems to be suggesting it was put up to celebrate his slave trading though. I understand that everything else he achieved made use of the slavery but think the statue was intended as a symbol of the city's golden era rather than the foundation the wealth was built on.
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    Maybe we should change some names, too? 'Alexander the Great' could become 'Alexander the not so great'. I think 'Ivan the Terrible' should be OK.
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439

    Statues should be regularly renewed. Most of the statues standing are of people we dont know. I'm fairly knowledgable by mr coulstan was a new one on me.

    Statues of colonial times are meaningless to us now. Maybe keep a handful of a few notables but commemorate some more recent people too.

    Oliver Cromwell has not come in for criticism he was not a saint. When I first saw his statue I thought why is he standing there. Odious man.

    We do commemorate the wrong people alot but I am generally not in favour of mob rule tearing things down. Shame those in power seem resistant to change.


    It’s really simple. Don’t venerate mass murderers.
    Churchill has to go then. He was PM when Dresden was firebombed.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 17,774
    This seems to have degenerated somewhat.

    In my view, being against the statue that celebrates a slave trader but not also wanting to close schools and hospitals is better than being in favour of a slave trader statue and not wanting to close schools and hospitals that were founded by that person.

    Being against the statue celebrating a slave trader but also not being too bothered about some other statues is also better than being in favour of the slave trader statue.

    If you think those positions have inconsistency in them, the hypocrisy is surely still better than being in favour of celebrating a slave trader.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 57,312 Lives Here
    nickice said:

    Statues should be regularly renewed. Most of the statues standing are of people we dont know. I'm fairly knowledgable by mr coulstan was a new one on me.

    Statues of colonial times are meaningless to us now. Maybe keep a handful of a few notables but commemorate some more recent people too.

    Oliver Cromwell has not come in for criticism he was not a saint. When I first saw his statue I thought why is he standing there. Odious man.

    We do commemorate the wrong people alot but I am generally not in favour of mob rule tearing things down. Shame those in power seem resistant to change.


    It’s really simple. Don’t venerate mass murderers.
    Churchill has to go then. He was PM when Dresden was firebombed.
    Can’t tell if this is pro removing Churchill statues or anti removing slave traders.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 57,312 Lives Here
    nickice said:

    Pross 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.
    Would you work with German companies that were involved in the Holocaust?
    Such as?
  • blazing_saddlesblazing_saddles Posts: 18,203
    edited June 2020






    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.

    Ah, you see I think this is why we are all a logger heads.

    How were the rest of us to know that we had to limit our responses to your personal terms and conditions, when you haven't posted a set of rules we could read?

    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439

    nickice said:

    Pross 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.
    Would you work with German companies that were involved in the Holocaust?
    Such as?
    IBM, Volkswagen, Siemens etc.
  • ProssPross Posts: 29,582

    Pross 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.
    First point was what I was getting at and was dismissed as ridiculous by Pangolin and 'what is this' by you. Is it therefore acceptable to have a statue of Caesar on display in the centre of Rome as he ran an equal opportunities slavery empire? Is slavery less unacceptable if the slaves have the same colour skin as the slave owner? For obvious reasons slavery from the colonial days is inextricably linked with race and a symbol of oppression but surely the worst issue with slavery is that you are literally stealing the lives of other humans for your benefit rather than the colour of their skin?

    On the second point, are you 100% certain that none of your Clients are making their money from exploiting child labour in Asia? No-one making money from mining or oil operations in Africa? I'm sure they all have nice CSR and modern slavery policies on their websites but what happens a few tiers down the supply chain?

  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,724
    edited June 2020
    nickice said:

    nickice said:

    Pross 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.
    Would you work with German companies that were involved in the Holocaust?
    Such as?
    IBM, Volkswagen, Siemens etc.
    I think it's worth considering that had the City Council remounted the statue in a way that acknowledged his role in the RAC, and generally made more efforts to recognise the role slavery played in the city's development, then it might not have come to this.

    But they fannied around and worried about Colston's reputation and this is the result.

    I do find the absolutists on either side pretty ridiculous. Most historical figures and certainly every city has its dark secrets. It's the pretence that they don't exist that is damaging as was the case with Colston.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 14,593

    Pross 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.
  • pangolinpangolin Posts: 3,952
    Pross said:

    Pross 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.
    First point was what I was getting at and was dismissed as ridiculous by Pangolin and 'what is this' by you. Is it therefore acceptable to have a statue of Caesar on display in the centre of Rome as he ran an equal opportunities slavery empire? Is slavery less unacceptable if the slaves have the same colour skin as the slave owner? For obvious reasons slavery from the colonial days is inextricably linked with race and a symbol of oppression but surely the worst issue with slavery is that you are literally stealing the lives of other humans for your benefit rather than the colour of their skin?

    On the second point, are you 100% certain that none of your Clients are making their money from exploiting child labour in Asia? No-one making money from mining or oil operations in Africa? I'm sure they all have nice CSR and modern slavery policies on their websites but what happens a few tiers down the supply chain?

    I said it was rubbish actually, cheers.
    Genesis Croix de Fer
    Cube Attain
  • ProssPross Posts: 29,582
    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    nickice said:

    Pross 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.
    Would you work with German companies that were involved in the Holocaust?
    Such as?
    IBM, Volkswagen, Siemens etc.
    I think it's worth considering that had the City Council remounted the statue in a way that acknowledged his role in the RAC, and generally made more efforts to recognise the role slavery played in the city's development, then it might not have come to this.
    And longer term would have had more benefit. Hopefully the current protests will make a long term difference but I suspect in 12 months Colston will be largely forgotten by most.

    Removing the statue in front of the Docklands museum rather than making use of it educationally seems particularly odd.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 17,774

    Pross 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.
  • pangolinpangolin Posts: 3,952
    Pross said:

    The other thing to consider is that whilst the slavery of the times of Colston was predominantly black people taken from Africa to the plantations of the Caribbean, Deep South and South America slavery both historically and today isn't necessarily about colour.

    Hahaha
    Pross said:

    It's about exploiting the weak and vulnerable. Today it seems to be mainly Eastern Europeans and Asians being tricked, back in the days of the Roman Empire it was people from all other their conquered Empire black or white. Arguably much of the workforce on which the industrial revolution was based were little more than the slaves of the company employing them and were native to the country.

    Yes Pross our ancestors in factories were poor suffering slaves too. Get a grip.
    Genesis Croix de Fer
    Cube Attain
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    Pross said:

    Pross 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.
    First point was what I was getting at and was dismissed as ridiculous by Pangolin and 'what is this' by you. Is it therefore acceptable to have a statue of Caesar on display in the centre of Rome as he ran an equal opportunities slavery empire? Is slavery less unacceptable if the slaves have the same colour skin as the slave owner? For obvious reasons slavery from the colonial days is inextricably linked with race and a symbol of oppression but surely the worst issue with slavery is that you are literally stealing the lives of other humans for your benefit rather than the colour of their skin?

    On the second point, are you 100% certain that none of your Clients are making their money from exploiting child labour in Asia? No-one making money from mining or oil operations in Africa? I'm sure they all have nice CSR and modern slavery policies on their websites but what happens a few tiers down the supply chain?

    I have to say, it is rather amusing watching you run rings round him here.

  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 14,593

    nickice said:

    Pross 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.
    Would you work with German companies that were involved in the Holocaust?
    Such as?
    What about Swiss Banks
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    pangolin said:

    Pross said:

    The other thing to consider is that whilst the slavery of the times of Colston was predominantly black people taken from Africa to the plantations of the Caribbean, Deep South and South America slavery both historically and today isn't necessarily about colour.

    Hahaha
    Pross said:

    It's about exploiting the weak and vulnerable. Today it seems to be mainly Eastern Europeans and Asians being tricked, back in the days of the Roman Empire it was people from all other their conquered Empire black or white. Arguably much of the workforce on which the industrial revolution was based were little more than the slaves of the company employing them and were native to the country.

    Yes Pross our ancestors in factories were poor suffering slaves too. Get a grip.
    He did say 'little more' and he's not that far off the mark.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 14,593

    Pross 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?
  • blazing_saddlesblazing_saddles Posts: 18,203
    pangolin said:

    Pross said:

    The other thing to consider is that whilst the slavery of the times of Colston was predominantly black people taken from Africa to the plantations of the Caribbean, Deep South and South America slavery both historically and today isn't necessarily about colour.

    Hahaha
    Pross said:

    It's about exploiting the weak and vulnerable. Today it seems to be mainly Eastern Europeans and Asians being tricked, back in the days of the Roman Empire it was people from all other their conquered Empire black or white. Arguably much of the workforce on which the industrial revolution was based were little more than the slaves of the company employing them and were native to the country.

    Yes Pross our ancestors in factories were poor suffering slaves too. Get a grip.
    Judging from your rather insulting and dismissive one liners, you are the one who needs to get a grip.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • Dorset_BoyDorset_Boy Posts: 4,354
    One of these days Pangolin will contribute something constructive to these pages rather than his/her snide sneering attempts to put other's views down.

    How far back do you draw the line?
    If I see Cromwell's statue I might think the guy was a censored , and that might remind me that there are plenty of other shits who have had influence in the world.
    Remove his statue and those thoughts wouldn't be considered.

    There was a black activist on R5 this morning who basically said there were no limits and literally everything should go.......
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 57,312 Lives Here
    Pross said:

    Pross 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.
    First point was what I was getting at and was dismissed as ridiculous by Pangolin and 'what is this' by you. Is it therefore acceptable to have a statue of Caesar on display in the centre of Rome as he ran an equal opportunities slavery empire? Is slavery less unacceptable if the slaves have the same colour skin as the slave owner? For obvious reasons slavery from the colonial days is inextricably linked with race and a symbol of oppression but surely the worst issue with slavery is that you are literally stealing the lives of other humans for your benefit rather than the colour of their skin?

    On the second point, are you 100% certain that none of your Clients are making their money from exploiting child labour in Asia? No-one making money from mining or oil operations in Africa? I'm sure they all have nice CSR and modern slavery policies on their websites but what happens a few tiers down the supply chain?

    Well on point one, it is entirely a race issue, which is why it has come up in the BLM movement.

    It's a reflection of the colonial past, which had racism deep at the heart of its entire justification (both for it, and the violence that occurred as a result of it). That's why it makes some of the residents of Bristol uncomfortable, and why it has become a symbol for them for what they see is the problem with racism in the UK - that too many people turn a blind eye to it.

    On the second point - you must have come across the modern slavery act? We won't (and I think are bound by our insureres) to not work with clients who do not meet the criteria of that.

    But what point are you making here? That it's hypocritical? That all critics of mass murderers must be, pun intended, whiter than white?
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    We should stop venerating certain figures in the Bible and Koran because they held slaves. I look forwards to those campaigns.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 14,593

    One of these days Pangolin will contribute something constructive to these pages rather than his/her snide sneering attempts to put other's views down.

    How far back do you draw the line?
    If I see Cromwell's statue I might think the guy was a censored , and that might remind me that there are plenty of other shits who have had influence in the world.
    Remove his statue and those thoughts wouldn't be considered.

    There was a black activist on R5 this morning who basically said there were no limits and literally everything should go.......

    To survive a statue will have to be less worse than the holy trinity of Ghandi, Churchill and Mandela.
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439

    Pross said:

    Pross 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.
    First point was what I was getting at and was dismissed as ridiculous by Pangolin and 'what is this' by you. Is it therefore acceptable to have a statue of Caesar on display in the centre of Rome as he ran an equal opportunities slavery empire? Is slavery less unacceptable if the slaves have the same colour skin as the slave owner? For obvious reasons slavery from the colonial days is inextricably linked with race and a symbol of oppression but surely the worst issue with slavery is that you are literally stealing the lives of other humans for your benefit rather than the colour of their skin?

    On the second point, are you 100% certain that none of your Clients are making their money from exploiting child labour in Asia? No-one making money from mining or oil operations in Africa? I'm sure they all have nice CSR and modern slavery policies on their websites but what happens a few tiers down the supply chain?

    Well on point one, it is entirely a race issue, which is why it has come up in the BLM movement.

    It's a reflection of the colonial past, which had racism deep at the heart of its entire justification (both for it, and the violence that occurred as a result of it). That's why it makes some of the residents of Bristol uncomfortable, and why it has become a symbol for them for what they see is the problem with racism in the UK - that too many people turn a blind eye to it.

    On the second point - you must have come across the modern slavery act? We won't (and I think are bound by our insureres) to not work with clients who do not meet the criteria of that.

    But what point are you making here? That it's hypocritical? That all critics of mass murderers must be, pun intended, whiter than white?
    As mentioned above, it's not celebrating slavery per se. And lots of things make lots of people uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean they should be removed.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 57,312 Lives Here
    As a broader point, this is entirely the problem with 'great men' style history, and celebrating individuals who are above and beyond everyone else.

    It only ever ends in tears.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 14,010

    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.

    Statues of racists were essentially saying they were celebrating a racist.
    We still live amongst them today.
    I don't think statues, buildings, monuments etc. represent the values of today, but clearly we disagree about this. If they did, and we took action, then it would lead to a mini Mao style cultural revolution.

    That said, I've never had much interest in statues at all, so they can all go as far as I'm concerned.

  • kingstoniankingstonian Posts: 2,482

    nickice said:

    Pross 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.
    Would you work with German companies that were involved in the Holocaust?
    Such as?
    What about Swiss Banks

    German banks too
Sign In or Register to comment.