Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

[Gilbert Syndrome]

There would barely be a monument left in the UK. No doubt you have been to Westminster Abbey. Is there a monument or tomb there which doesn’t offend a group of people today? Churchill, the greatest Brit of the 20th Century (yes, I know about his role in Gallipoli) has had his statue defaced. Is that fair enough?

Christ, what is being achieved here? Where does it stop?

There are statues of footballers and cricketers outside stadiums here and elsewhere. If someone really, seriously didn’t like Shane Warne, can they pull his statue down?

Or is there some list of “dontlikeisms” where I can check to see if some ancient historical figure deserves his or hers likeness to be destroyed? Joan of Arc was responsible for killing people. Pull down her statue. Boudica was a terrorist. Remove her image forever more.

This is my take on the argument, too.

Where do you stop? Can we just chop and change connections to past events that we no longer find respectable? We'd never rest.

 

[Meadmaker]

Who erected it and when and who agreed to it?

1895, according to Wikipedia, but the article doesn't answer either of the "who" questions. It gives the sculptor's name, but I've never heard of him.

ETA: The above was from the article on Colston. There is also an article on the statue itself. It was paid for primarily by the head of the Anchor Society, a Bristol charity associated with Colston. There was some public fundraising, but it was mostly from that one individual. it was in the city centre, so I assume the town council agreed to it. How did they do things in late 19th century Bristol?

 

[Andy_Ross]

In the case of Bristol and Edward Colston, they are surely glorifying his philantrhopy in funding half the schools and hospitals (instead of bequeathing it to his chidlren).

My friend in Tennessee glorifies the Confederate generals and volunteers. The state has whole museums dedicated to it. I was shocked by the confederate flag on the lawn and her taking shooting lessons. Otherwise, she is a perfectly nice normal person. Just views life through a different lens from the chattering classes of Islington. She had ancestors who fought in the Civil War. We see her side as the wrong side. However, we are all proudcts of history and whilst I disapprove, I can understand why she honours her 'heritage' (sorry to use my pet hate word) and remembers her history.

As devil's advocate, for all you know, Edward Colston his done more good for Bristol than some semi-literate thug who thinks Love Island is the height of culture. The people stomping on Colston's statue didn't look oppressed to me. One had a long blond pony tail. Probably mostly ex-public school boys turned revolutionaries.

He made his money from kidnapping, branding and selling people as property. He made his money from the insurance on 20,000 people killed and thrown in to the sea.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Where do you stop? Can we just chop and change connections to past events that we no longer find respectable? We'd never rest.

*Raises my hand* I don't know but I know we can stop after "Black people don't have to look at monuments to people who literally fought a war to keep them as property while just going about their daily lives."

You can handwring later, you don't have to do it now.

 

[Pixel42]

Many criminals have been praised for doing charitable work in their local communities, even as mentioned earlier, Jimmy Saville was a prominent figure when it came to charities in the UK. Now, the man was a stone cold nonce, but the charity was still charity.

So I don't know that I'd only see charity as being charitable in certain situations, it's either charity or it isn't.

I understand what you're saying but it's pretty clear that Saville's charitable activities were designed solely to give him access to vulnerable children and adults, so he's probably not the best example to use.

 

[Brainster]

He made his money from kidnapping, branding and selling people as property. He made his money from the insurance on 20,000 people killed and thrown in to the sea.

You keep mentioning this insurance on 20,000 people killed and thrown into the sea; do you have a source for that? It strikes me that the insurance company marketing that particular policy must have gone broke.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

*Raises my hand* I don't know but I know we can stop after "Black people don't have to look at monuments to people who literally fought a war to keep them as property while just going about their daily lives."

You can handwring later, you don't have to do it now.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm simply asking valid questions that people don't ever really seem comfortable with answering.

I'm not arsed enough to handwring about any of this, it doesn't cause me any great trouble sleeping or anything. As I said, I can see it from both sides of the fence, I just wonder when and where it ends.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I understand what you're saying but it's pretty clear that Saville's charitable activities were designed solely to give him access to vulnerable children and adults, so he's probably not the best example to use.

That's definitely true, he took advantage of those situations. I mainly mentioned him because it had already been brought up earlier in the thread.

In a way, though, it's kind of highlighting the point that many people use charity as a tool of some kind, for their own gain, whether it be right or wrong.

 

[Babbylonian]

This is my take on the argument, too.

Where do you stop? Can we just chop and change connections to past events that we no longer find respectable? We'd never rest.

Why should we rest? If we're not going to continually reevaluate history, how can we possibly learn from it? If we learned that Abraham Lincoln had eaten a human baby every week during his presidency, wouldn't it be fair to reevaluate his position in history and how we remember him?

And let's be clear: There have always been opponents to slavery. We're they wrong during times when slavery was legal just because it was legal? Are we really stuck with having to believe that it was impossible to see that slavers were fundamentally terrible people even thousands of years after humans had organized into societies?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Why should we rest? If we're not going to continually reevaluate history, how can we possibly learn from it? If we learned that Abraham Lincoln had eaten a human baby every week during his presidency, wouldn't it be fair to reevaluate his position in history and how we remember him?

And let's be clear: There have alwaysbeen opponents to slavery. We're they wrong during times when slavery was legal just because it was legal? Are we really stuck with having to believe that it was impossible to see that slavers were fundamentally terrible people even thousands of years after humans had organized into societies?

I'm not necessarily saying we should rest, I'm merely asking if there's a point at which we do.

Does every person who has their own reason for disliking something get the right to eradicate it or at least have a good go? Is it just certain things we can rally against, based on our own version of morality, or can we have a vote on such things and see how many of us oppose it?

I don't disagree with doing away with certain reminders of a less tasteful past, but that doesn't mean I agree with it and think we should just tear things down that we no longer find to be worthy of remembrance. That's my point, it's not something that seems to be clearly set in stone, if you'll pardon the pun.

I'm just a bystander who is interested to know everyone else's take on it and I don't see the harm in the questions being asked here by some.

 

[Babbylonian]

I'm not necessarily saying we should rest, I'm merely asking if there's a point at which we do.

Does every person who has their own reason for disliking something get the right to eradicate it or at least have a good go? Is it just certain things we can rally against, based on our own version of morality, or can we have a vote on such things and see how many of us oppose it?

I'll tell you what, when one person decides to tear down a statue for some really dumb reason, particularly one based on historical falsehood, I'll jump on the bandwagon to castigate them for it. That, however, is not in any way what we're currently talking about.

ETA: And let me be clear: I have no problem with the idea of tearing down all statues of slaveowners everywhere. I think starting with the Confederate statues in the US makes perfect sense, but George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, for example, can get retroactively ****** as well.

 

[Meadmaker]

And let's be clear: There have always been opponents to slavery. We're they wrong during times when slavery was legal just because it was legal? Are we really stuck with having to believe that it was impossible to see that slavers were fundamentally terrible people even thousands of years after humans had organized into societies?

I'll go there. Yes, I will say that it's impossible to say that all slavers were fundamentally terrible people.

If you condemn the slavers, I don't see how you can avoid condemning all slave owners. And if you condemn all slave owners, I don't see how you can avoid all politicians who supported slavery, and all voters who elected the politicians.

That's a lot of fundamentally terrible people. It isn't everyone in the society, but it's a majority. How did that society have so many "fundamentally terrible" people, and our modern society get away with far fewer fundamentally terrible people?

If we further include all people who were part of the society and did not actively work to end slavery, then you add even more people to the mix. It becomes the vast majority of people. If you add merchants who traded in goods that were produced by slaves, it gets bigger. if you include consumers who purchased the goods, it becomes everyone who lived in those times.

I think moral relativism has to be recognized here. They were born into a society that holds values that we condemn today, and I think it's fair to condemn those values, but I don't think you can say that every single person who conformed to those societal values was a fundamentally terrible person, and I don't think you can absolve people of guilt if they supported slavery, even if they didn't personally engage in it.

In other words, the advocate of slavery is no less guilty than the slaver, and I don't believe that such societies were completely bereft of good people.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Why should we rest? If we're not going to continually reevaluate history, how can we possibly learn from it? If we learned that Abraham Lincoln had eaten a human baby every week during his presidency, wouldn't it be fair to reevaluate his position in history and how we remember him?

Yup.

And it should be noted that nobody is saying that Colston shouldn't be mentioned. Nobody is talking about writing him out of history. Nobody is saying that his life - everything about it - can't be taught in history classes. It's literally just people saying "enough of dedicating half of Bristol to him".

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I'll tell you what, when one person decides to tear down a statue for some really dumb reason, particularly one based on historical falsehood, I'll jump on the bandwagon to castigate them for it. That, however, is not in any way what we're currently talking about.

ETA: And let me be clear: I have no problem with the idea of tearing down all statues of slaveowners everywhere. I think starting with the Confederate statues in the US makes perfect sense, but George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, for example, can get retroactively ****** as well.

I don't know why you believe me to be castigating you or anyone else, unless you're arguing with a hypothetical poster, because if you're arguing with me, it's all one-way, mate.

The topic of the thread is about tearing down statues associated with racial injustice, but as others have pointed out, some of these statues are not in existence because of their ties to racial injustice, Colston being the prime example.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

We're back to apologetics.

 

[JoeMorgue]

*Looks at the black community*

Sorry, guess the statues have to stay up. The white folk ain't done talking about where the line goes.

It will be a hundred years from now and in the discussion we'll being swapping out the perfectly spherical statues in a trolley problem piece until no original piece remains over an infinite plane of uniform gravity in a frictionless vacuum that's not technically in the Champagne region of France......and the goddamn statutes will still be there in real life.

 

[Babbylonian]

I'll go there. Yes, I will say that it's impossible to say that all slavers were fundamentally terrible people.

If you condemn the slavers, I don't see how you can avoid condemning all slave owners. And if you condemn all slave owners, I don't see how you can avoid all politicians who supported slavery, and all voters who elected the politicians.

That's a lot of fundamentally terrible people. It isn't everyone in the society, but it's a majority. How did that society have so many "fundamentally terrible" people, and our modern society get away with far fewer fundamentally terrible people?

If we further include all people who were part of the society and did not actively work to end slavery, then you add even more people to the mix. It becomes the vast majority of people. If you add merchants who traded in goods that were produced by slaves, it gets bigger. if you include consumers who purchased the goods, it becomes everyone who lived in those times.

I think moral relativism has to be recognized here. They were born into a society that holds values that we condemn today, and I think it's fair to condemn those values, but I don't think you can say that every single person who conformed to those societal values was a fundamentally terrible person, and I don't think you can absolve people of guilt if they supported slavery, even if they didn't personally engage in it.

In other words, the advocate of slavery is no less guilty than the slaver, and I don't believe that such societies were completely bereft of good people.

You can believe as you will. I disagree completely. You don't get to own or trade slaves and be anything but a terrible human being in my view. The same goes for those who held power and didn't do everything they could to stop slavery.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Yup.

And it should be noted that nobody is saying that Colston shouldn't be mentioned. Nobody is talking about writing him out of history. Nobody is saying that his life - everything about it - can't be taught in history classes. It's literally just people saying "enough of dedicating half of Bristol to him".

Is that everyone else's take on it, though? Because if that's the case, I'd agree with it, but I don't know if that's the stance being taken by everyone involved in tearing it down, tbh.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's curious to think that those Victorian statue builders are closer in time to us than they were to Colston.

It seems like the statue was intended to be a symbol of the city's enduring gratitude to a great benefactor, but was really a reflection of what a group of wealthy Victorians felt the public ought to admire: a prototype of themselves from almost two centuries before. The burden of being expected to continuing to admire their selected patron saint has become more painful over time.

Seems to me it's not an artefact of the man's time or society, it's a Victorian reinvention. When they dredge it up they can stick it in a museum with an honest description.

 

[Meadmaker]

ETA: And let me be clear: I have no problem with the idea of tearing down all statues of slaveowners everywhere. I think starting with the Confederate statues in the US makes perfect sense, but George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, for example, can get retroactively ****** as well.

To JoeMorgue,

You see, Joe. It isn't some right wing bogeyman.

It isn't some slippery slope fallacy.

I've been persuaded that statues of Confederate generals don't belong, and especially not in abundance, but let's be careful out there. You can throw out an awful lot of good with the bad. If you let the mob throw out Colston, and they enjoy it, they're going to look for other opportunities. It's human nature.