Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 958
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes. Slavery wasn't actually very profitable anyway. You had to pay and feed your crew, sail to Africa, buy the slaves then feed them too (albeit minimally but you did want to deliver them in reasonab

The protesters are going to tear down statues because of some things that those people did or thought that they dislike, and not look at the whole person. It seems the things those people did are

Posted Images

1984:

 Every statue & street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped.

Leave them be. They were erected in the context of the time. Any attempt to remove, rename or alter the facts (please note bbc) take away our human right to respect, analyse or evaluate our past.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I was thinking about this too

Everybody alive today in Britain, or anywhere for that matter, owes their life to events in history

Who lived and who died.

Right back through time.

Who killed who, Who was saved by an antibiotic

Who was on a slave ship and who wasn't

Every event shapes another that leads to somebody that is alive today who wouldn't otherwise be here.

So, it's odd to erase history

But then I realised we don't have statues to Adolf Hitler and we pulled down those that existed.

So then, I became conflicted.

Edited by Hopeful
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I agree the "we need statues to remember the past" argument.

Honestly who, outside of Bristol or the South West here had heard of (or more importantly could recall the name) Edward Colston before the events of yesterday. I have been to Bristol many times, I've no doubt seen and possibly been told during walking tours of who he was but it never made an impression on me. Not because of ignorance, he is just one of a long line of figures from history. 

Equally I'm also not sure on the argument that it needs to be taught in schools, again who here isn't aware of the UK's involvement of the slave trade? If you don't know about it then that says more about you than it does about a failing in the education system. The idea it's been hidden and not discussed goes very much against my life experience, maybe that's because I taken an interest in knowing stuff and educating myself outside of what I was spoon fed at school. But the idea that people in this country are unaware of the slave trade is actually a little bit offensive.

----

Anyway I just want to congratulate the people of Bristol for getting rid of and ending racism in Bristol. If all it takes is to remove a few statues and rename a few streets to get this ended then lets get it sorted.

For the record I'm not condoning how it was done.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sarahbell said:

I think they need to remove everything his money paid for. Even if that means removing the education from the descendants of those people who he help back in the 1800s with his philanthropy.


Without such philanthropy, where would the UK be? Would we have dirt roads and child deaths still in double figures? 

People today do not have a fucking clue what poverty is.

I'm being serious, if you start down that route you might as well just knock Bristol down. It's got a long and rich history, but it's current architecture was pretty much funded with slave profits.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gilf said:

I'm being serious, if you start down that route you might as well just knock Bristol down. It's got a long and rich history, but it's current architecture was pretty much funded with slave profits.

Every totalitarian regime does that as soon as they get into power and ends up with bland, sterile & featureless mass-poured concrete everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very easy to see statues as just historical monuments which should be preserved if the statue has no negative connotation to you. I personally don't like to see statues torn down or defaced but at the same time, if I was black I absolutely would feel offended that there were statues of slave owners still standing and I totally understand why they pulled it down although I don't think that was the right way to go about having it removed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, gilf said:

I'm not sure I agree the "we need statues to remember the past" argument.

Honestly who, outside of Bristol or the South West here had heard of (or more importantly could recall the name) Edward Colston before the events of yesterday. I have been to Bristol many times, I've no doubt seen and possibly been told during walking tours of who he was but it never made an impression on me. Not because of ignorance, he is just one of a long line of figures from history. 

Equally I'm also not sure on the argument that it needs to be taught in schools, again who here isn't aware of the UK's involvement of the slave trade? If you don't know about it then that says more about you than it does about a failing in the education system. The idea it's been hidden and not discussed goes very much against my life experience, maybe that's because I taken an interest in knowing stuff and educating myself outside of what I was spoon fed at school. But the idea that people in this country are unaware of the slave trade is actually a little bit offensive.

----

Anyway I just want to congratulate the people of Bristol for getting rid of and ending racism in Bristol. If all it takes is to remove a few statues and rename a few streets to get this ended then lets get it sorted.

For the record I'm not condoning how it was done.

 

 

I had never heard of him and I lived in Bristol for about four months in 1980 and have visited it many times over the years Most of these statues were put up by the Victorians who seem to have had a fetish for cluttering the streets and buildings with that sort of thing. I think the statue of Colston was put up in the 1870s which was 150 years after he had died. Best thing would be to fish his statue out of the water and then stick it in a Museum of Slavery rather than on a public street. Prior to the Renaissance most statues were confined to religious buildings.  The Italians started the fad for putting them up  in civic spaces and the Victorians with their desire to copy Imperial Rome just went overboard on it.
 

Personally I think removing Colston’s statue will do sod all to end racism in any form. It is an empty gesture carried out three centuries too late to make any difference to him or the slaves he traded.
 

Edited by Virgil Caine
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, gilf said:

I'm being serious, if you start down that route you might as well just knock Bristol down. It's got a long and rich history, but it's current architecture was pretty much funded with slave profits.

What is sad to me is how it reflects the ignorant and shallow nature of our youth.

It seems they would burn down their heritage to make a fashionable political statement..  yet once it is gone,  it is gone forever and they are denying their children to opportunity to decide if they would have liked it to be remembered for other reasons,  like the original things the people of Bristol were grateful to him for when they first erected it. 

The statue only represent slavery to them,  because that is what they have decided to focus on.  It may mean more than that to other people, but they have selfishly decided that their opinion is more important.   It's just mob rule by a small special interest group and I resent their selfishness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Libspero said:

What is sad to me is how it reflects the ignorant and shallow nature of our youth.

It seems they would burn down their heritage to make a fashionable political statement..  yet once it is gone,  it is gone forever and they are denying their children to opportunity to decide if they would have liked it to be remembered for other reasons,  like the original things the people of Bristol were grateful to him for when they first erected it. 

The statue only represent slavery to them,  because that is what they have decided to focus on.  It may mean more than that to other people, but they have selfishly decided that their opinion is more important.   It's just mob rule by a small special interest group and I resent their selfishness.

Agree totally.

Of course we have been down this road before in the 16th century when a thousand years of Catholic monuments and architecture was vandalised during the Reformation and much of our past culture was lost forever. Humans have a history of iconoclasm which often seems hard to understand to later generations.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, HolyCow said:

It's very easy to see statues as just historical monuments which should be preserved if the statue has no negative connotation to you. I personally don't like to see statues torn down or defaced but at the same time, if I was black I absolutely would feel offended that there were statues of slave owners still standing and I totally understand why they pulled it down although I don't think that was the right way to go about having it removed. 

Would you though..?

If you put the shoe on the other foot:

If you were an English person living in France,  would you feel it was your right to pull down the statue of William the Conqueror because he killed and oppressed your ancestors ?     Would you feel your offence was more important than whatever other reasons the French have to want to remember him ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_William_the_Conqueror#Description

 

Similarly,   would you pull down the one in Hertfordshire ?   Would you feel justified and vindicated ? 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-37648854

 

I suspect you probably wouldn't..     nor would I suspect you would condone others for doing it.      I could be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Libspero said:

What is sad to me is how it reflects the ignorant and shallow nature of our youth.

It seems they would burn down their heritage to make a fashionable political statement..  yet once it is gone,  it is gone forever and they are denying their children to opportunity to decide if they would have liked it to be remembered for other reasons,  like the original things the people of Bristol were grateful to him for when they first erected it. 

The statue only represent slavery to them,  because that is what they have decided to focus on.  It may mean more than that to other people, but they have selfishly decided that their opinion is more important.   It's just mob rule by a small special interest group and I resent their selfishness.

Listening to the radio yesterday the most annoying thing over the 2 hour conversation about the event was it was always referenced as "Statue of the slave trader Edward Colston". Taking @Virgil Caine point that it was indeed put up in the 19th century by Victorians who wouldn't have been bothered by his slave owning past, it was put there in recognition of his philanthropism and contribution to Bristol.

It was presented as a statue in celebration of a slave owner, which is false. I'm not keen on whataboutism but as mentioned else where, plenty of statues and roads named after the terrorist Nelson Mandela. I actually don't feel that way about him, but if you can cherry pick parts of peoples history and ignore the rest then it's just as valid.

His philanthropism doesn't cancel out his acts but it completely mis-represents history of the statue.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Libspero said:

Would you though..?

If you put the shoe on the other foot:

If you were an English person living in France,  would you feel it was your right to pull down the statue of William the Conqueror because he killed and oppressed your ancestors ?     Would you feel your offence was more important than whatever other reasons the French have to want to remember him ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_William_the_Conqueror#Description

 

Similarly,   would you pull down the one in Hertfordshire ?   Would you feel justified and vindicated ? 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-37648854

 

I suspect you probably wouldn't..     nor would I suspect you would condone others for doing it.      I could be wrong.

Surprisingly, William the Conqueror was the first person to legally abolish slavery in England.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Virgil Caine said:

Surprisingly, William the Conqueror was the first person to legally abolish slavery in England.

Doesn't matter as we have seen, one positive element of your history absolutely cannot cancel out or absolve you of blame for the others.

It goes wider than the current situation but, in this new world you simply cannot be rehabilitated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

5 minutes ago, gilf said:

Listening to the radio yesterday the most annoying thing over the 2 hour conversation about the event was it was always referenced as "Statue of the slave trader Edward Colston". Taking @Virgil Caine point that it was indeed put up in the 19th century by Victorians who wouldn't have been bothered by his slave owning past, it was put there in recognition of his philanthropism and contribution to Bristol.

It was presented as a statue in celebration of a slave owner, which is false. I'm not keen on whataboutism but as mentioned else where, plenty of statues and roads named after the terrorist Nelson Mandela. I actually don't feel that way about him, but if you can cherry pick parts of peoples history and ignore the rest then it's just as valid.

His philanthropism doesn't cancel out his acts but it completely mis-represents history of the statue.

 

Exactly. The whole reason for the statues existence is philanthropy, not slavery. This re-enforces further the sheer stupidity of the rioters. For all they know Colston may have renounced his involvement in slavery during this time. Most importantly the community at his death deemed the statue worthy and we should be allowed to reflect on that today.

Edited by desertorchid
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Moral judgements regarding the character of people from history based on the norms of today irritate me intensely.

Churchill was an aristocrat born in 1874, so yes, he was almost certainly racist by today's standards and and had many character flaws even in the judgement of his own contemporaries. So what? - he was still a great man and his achievements are not diminished by the stupid application of modern moral norms.

Colston made a lot of money by means that were extremely morally questionable even for the norms of the time, then spent a lot of it on those he considered his own people.  So what? Next year will be the 300th anniversary of his death FFS! It was another world. (he must have been a strong bastard to live to nearly 95 in those pre-antbiotic days)

I think there probably should be a statue to Hitler somewhere. And Blair. And Pol Pot. And all the others of the same ilk.  Put them all together somewhere with an explanation of their lives underneath and why they're there, and have school trips to educate all children against the dangers of dark charisma.

 

 

 

As I have mentioned elsewhere if Churchill had not refused to backdown to the Nazis then it is highly likely that slavery would exist in a Europe united under the Third Reich today. Hitlers whole economic model was pretty much based on enslavement of foreign workers. Strange that people don’t remember that the Nazis had about 13.5 million forced labour many of who were simply  abducted and put on a formal path of extermination by work. Some of those people were still alive in the 1990s I wonder how many BLM members use products manufactured by the likes of IG Farben, AEG, VW, BMW, Porsche all of whom used slave workers in the past. Presumably happy to support the legacy of slavery as long as the slaves are not black.

Edited by Virgil Caine
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Virgil Caine said:

As I have mentioned elsewhere if Churchill had not refused to backdown to the Nazis then it is highly likely that slavery would exist in a Europe united under the Third Reich today. Hitlers whole economic model was pretty much based on enslavement of foreign workers. Strange that people don’t remember that the Nazis had about 13.5 million forced labour many of who were simply  abducted and put on a formal path of extermination by work. Some of those people were still alive in the 1990s I wonder how many BLM members use products manufactured by the likes of IG Farben, AEG, VW, BMW, Porsche all of whom used slave workers in the past. Presumably happy to support the legacy of slavery as long as the slaves are not black.

As mentioned elsewhere Anthony "I'm not a racist" Joshua is sponsored by official Nazi uniform supplier Hugo Boss. Hugo Boss also used forced labour (slavery*) during the war.

No conflict of interest of hypocrisy there.

* Slaves were treated brutally, but.... they were an investment you beat them to an inch of their lives, forced labour in Germany they went that extra inch.

Edited by gilf
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, gilf said:

As mentioned elsewhere Anthony "I'm not a racist" Joshua is sponsored by official Nazi uniform supplier Hugo Boss. Hugo Boss also used forced labour (slavery*) during the war.

No conflict of interest of hypocrisy there.

* Slaves were treated brutally, but.... they were an investment you beat them to an inch of their lives, forced labour in Germany they went that extra inch.

Perhaps time to send Anthony Joshua a picture of the man whose legacy he endorses

image.thumb.jpeg.c5c4a80f5a642a436299c7cab2b4aa7d.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...