America

[Digby]

Supposing they can move them, also supposing the plinths would support them to begin with. Possibly more expensive to replace too, and that will be an interesting question now in Brizzle, what goes up to replace what was?

[Stom]

Supposing they can move them, also supposing the plinths would support them to begin with. Possibly more expensive to replace too, and that will be an interesting question now in Brizzle, what goes up to replace what was?

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

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

Or is he too anti-establishment for them?

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

[Puja]

Supposing they can move them, also supposing the plinths would support them to begin with. Possibly more expensive to replace too, and that will be an interesting question now in Brizzle, what goes up to replace what was?

Well, I don't think it'll be a new Colston now the advantage of inertia is on the anti-CelebratingASlaver side. I actually wouldn't be averse to an empty plinth and a plaque explaining his impact on the slave trade and the city (in that order).

Puja

[Puja]

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

Ellis Genge doing his sausage speech.

Puja

[cashead]

Supposing they can move them, also supposing the plinths would support them to begin with. Possibly more expensive to replace too, and that will be an interesting question now in Brizzle, what goes up to replace what was?

How about someone who didn't make their fortune making money off of human misery and suffering?

[Sandydragon]

JK Rowling?

[Digby]

Supposing they can move them, also supposing the plinths would support them to begin with. Possibly more expensive to replace too, and that will be an interesting question now in Brizzle, what goes up to replace what was?

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

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

Or is he too anti-establishment for them?

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

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

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

[Sandydragon]

Supposing they can move them, also supposing the plinths would support them to begin with. Possibly more expensive to replace too, and that will be an interesting question now in Brizzle, what goes up to replace what was?

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

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

Or is he too anti-establishment for them?

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

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

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

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

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

[Stom]

Supposing they can move them, also supposing the plinths would support them to begin with. Possibly more expensive to replace too, and that will be an interesting question now in Brizzle, what goes up to replace what was?

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

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

Or is he too anti-establishment for them?

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

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

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

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

[Banquo]

Supposing they can move them, also supposing the plinths would support them to begin with. Possibly more expensive to replace too, and that will be an interesting question now in Brizzle, what goes up to replace what was?

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

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

Or is he too anti-establishment for them?

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

Cary Grant?

[Sandydragon]

Supposing they can move them, also supposing the plinths would support them to begin with. Possibly more expensive to replace too, and that will be an interesting question now in Brizzle, what goes up to replace what was?

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

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

Or is he too anti-establishment for them?

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

Cary Grant?

Banksy?

[Sandydragon]

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

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

Or is he too anti-establishment for them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Puja]

Supposing they can move them, also supposing the plinths would support them to begin with. Possibly more expensive to replace too, and that will be an interesting question now in Brizzle, what goes up to replace what was?

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

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

Or is he too anti-establishment for them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Puja

[Banquo]

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

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

Or is he too anti-establishment for them?

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

Cary Grant?

Banksy?

er yes.....I was, um joking.....I'll get me coat.....

[morepork]

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

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

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

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

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

Adorable sentiment.

[Sandydragon]

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

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

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

Adorable sentiment.

Unless you like chaos, its the only practical option.

[Sandydragon]

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

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

Or is he too anti-establishment for them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Puja

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

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

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

[Son of Mathonwy]

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

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

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

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

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


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

[morepork]

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

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

Adorable sentiment.

Unless you like chaos, its the only practical option.

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

[cashead]

JK Rowling?

Hmm yes, replace a statue of a slaver with an open bigot. Yes, can’t see that being a problem.

[Puja]

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

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

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

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

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

Puja

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

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

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

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

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

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

Puja

[Which Tyler]

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

[Puja]

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

Puja

[Sandydragon]

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

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

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

Puja

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

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

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

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

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

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

Puja

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

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

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

[Sandydragon]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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