Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Well, given that the earlier suggested compromise that was rejected was a second plaque explaining where his fortune came from, it seems likely that at least some people are taking that stance.

Well that's at least something, because it is history, whether we like it or not.

This is what's being done here regarding street names relating to the trade, whereby plaques are erected to explain the link, etc.

 

[Agatha]

Put it back. It's important Bristol isn't allowed to whitewash it's past and avoid scrutiny.

I disagree; I think it should be recovered from the river and put into a museum in the same way Liverpool has done with much of its slavery monuments and history, as Gilbert Syndrome has mentioned. I don't think it should be returned to the plinth. We need to learn from history, not pretend it never happened.

 

[William Parcher]

It's now an archeological artifact.

 

[Matthew Best]

Calm down, Nigel. I heard the statue had underlying health problems.

Well, maybe he didn't deserve to be thrown in the river, but if you look into it he certainly had "a chequered past", if you know what I mean. He was no angel, let's put it that way.

 

[Meadmaker]

Now that surprised me. I'm familiar with the "triangular trade" story of slaves taken directly from Africa to the West Indies and America, and the sugar, tobacco and cotton which was the produce of their labour shipped to Britain, but not that slaves were brought to Britain, specifically because as I understood it slavery was not lawful here (though plenty were happy to tolerate and profit from it overseas). Is it really the case that African slaves were held in Bristol?

I thought the same thing, although I am pretty sure that slavery was completely forbidden in England only by a court case which, if I recall correctly, was some period shortly before the American revolution. (I remember the pronouncement along the lines that "The air of England was too pure to be breathed by a slave.")

In the twitter thread itself, there was a post claiming to debunk part of that original tweet. "Black Boy Hill" was not, in fact, named for the slave trade. Rather, it was named for the "Black Boy Tavern" that at one point was located there. And "The Black Boy" was Charles II.

No independent confirmation available.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

That part seems believable. A couple of centuries ago if you talked about a black man in Britain you meant a man with black hair. That much I gleaned from, amongst others, Patrick O'Brian, who delighted in using quaint but authentic dialogue.

 

[Meadmaker]

I disagree; I think it should be recovered from the river and put into a museum in the same way Liverpool has done with much of its slavery monuments and history, as Gilbert Syndrome has mentioned. I don't think it should be returned to the plinth. We need to learn from history, not pretend it never happened.

Building a building around it seems rather expensive. A few pictures of it in the local historical museum seems fine to me. It seems like a fine, but rather unremarkable, statue.

Melt it down and use the bronze for a new statue of something....more modern? Seems unfortunate that they are going to have to pay someone to salvage the metal, but hey, a bunch of white kids got to have a cool party by throwing it in the harbor, so it's all good.

 

[Matthew Best]

It's Bristol, so they should put up a statue of Banksy.

Might be a problem for Banksy, though.

 

[Giordano]

There are arguments that it is unfair to judge people who lived in the past by our current moral values. But statues to these people exist in our current reality; they are here now, in our time, and it is therefore certainly fair to judge them by our current values. The question is not if it was right for people to honor in 1860 a slaver, or a Confederate general, by building a statue in 1860. I think not, but that boat has sailed. They were honored by the standards of their time, by enough people to have made the statues happen. And because of the racist standards of the 1870s, 1880s, etc. the honor continued and statues stayed up.

But now most of us recognize slavery to be a horror and an affront to humanity. Time for the statues to come done and either be melted away or placed in a museum of horrors. We don’t have to continue to honor people just because moral standards in the past were not what we hold to be true now.

 

[William Parcher]

Would Egyptian monuments and ancient Egyptian artifacts be destroyed if there was found to be any connection to slavery? Or, is that something different or not applicable?

 

[lionking]

There are arguments that it is unfair to judge people who lived in the past by our current moral values. But statues to these people exist in our current reality; they are here now, in our time, and it is therefore certainly fair to judge them by our current values. The question is not if it was right for people to honor in 1860 a slaver, or a Confederate general, by building a statue in 1860. I think not, but that boat has sailed. They were honored by the standards of their time, by enough people to have made the statues happen. And because of the racist standards of the 1870s, 1880s, etc. the honor continued and statues stayed up.

But now most of us recognize slavery to be a horror and an affront to humanity. Time for the statues to come done and either be melted away or placed in a museum of horrors. We don’t have to continue to honor people just because moral standards in the past were not what we hold to be true now.

For how long do you seek atonement (through destroying things) for past misdeeds?

I certainly get pulling down statues of Saddam Hussain and Stalin as there were people still alive who directly suffered from their actions. But should statues of pharaohs be destroyed because they were notorious slave owners?

ETA ninja’d by William...

 

[Delphic Oracle]

"Judge historical figures by the perspectives of their own time and culture" is a guiding principle of historiography. It makes great sense to keep it in mind if you want to write a biography that will be respected in academic circles. It's part of stripping away biases and pretentions to get at the "why" of the observed and recorded behaviors of the subject.

When addressing today's broad and complex social issues, please just leave it at home.

 

[lionking]

When addressing today's broad and complex social issues, please just leave it at home.

Why? I love history, particularly ancient history. I hate the thought of destroying monuments because they are offensive to some today.

 

[Meadmaker]

There are arguments that it is unfair to judge people who lived in the past by our current moral values. But statues to these people exist in our current reality; they are here now, in our time, and it is therefore certainly fair to judge them by our current values. The question is not if it was right for people to honor in 1860 a slaver, or a Confederate general, by building a statue in 1860. I think not, but that boat has sailed. They were honored by the standards of their time, by enough people to have made the statues happen. And because of the racist standards of the 1870s, 1880s, etc. the honor continued and statues stayed up.

But now most of us recognize slavery to be a horror and an affront to humanity. Time for the statues to come done and either be melted away or placed in a museum of horrors. We don’t have to continue to honor people just because moral standards in the past were not what we hold to be true now.

I think the question is whether the fact that they held slaves, which was normal for their time, negates whatever extraordinary thing that they did in their lives that cause them to have a statue put up.

We can judge a George Washington and criticize him for holding slaves. Fine. Do we say that, because of that, we cannot honor him for his leadership of the Continental Army of his role in ensuring a democratic future for the United States?

As for Edward Colston, do we judge him only for his slave trade, or can we also acknowledge his role as someone who founded charitable institutions that have endured 300 years? In Colston's case, there's a tighter connection, so maybe it makes sense to say, "Thanks for the money, but, really, you only earned it through slavery, so, maybe that's not so good after all."

Or Robert E. Lee who, in addition to defending slavery...…..Hmmm....Is there anything else that he did other than defending slavery? Unless someone comes up with something, I'm ok with taking down the statues. In Lee's case, I think your reasoning applies just fine. I won't say he is a thoroughly awful person because he owned slaves or because he fought to end slavery, but I will say that there's nothing really commendable about him, except that he was good at it. Very well. Keep him in the books and praise his generalship, but maybe no statue for you.

 

[bruto]

In the Wikipedia article about the statue of Edward Colston it says that more than 20,000 African men died during the voyage. I think Captain Swoop has translated "died during the voyage" into "killed and thrown into the sea".

Not completely unfairly. Surely the slavers were responsible for their deaths, but I think the words paint an inaccurate picture.

Their lawyers weren't as detailed and verbose as we are today, but I'm guessing that even then the insurance policies refused to pay in cases where the deaths were deliberate. Even back then I'm sure that insurance companies had some way of protecting themselves against people who would deliberately create a coverable insurance event.

So the deaths were not deliberate by the standards of the time, but one of the things under discussion here is the divide between excusable foibles of one's time and things which require a new viewpoint. I think by any reasonable modern criterion, both of what is right and wrong, and what we believe now should have been the criterion then, taking people by force, chaining them up and subjecting them to inhuman and loathsome conditions and lethal discipline, in which their individual death was of no consequence, counts as killing them. Why should slavers be exempted from the general principle of felony murder? And I think there's little doubt about how the bodies would be disposed of when it happened.

I realize there's some danger in historical revisionism, but I don't have much problem calling that "killed and thrown into the sea."

I would add that we mustn't forget that having a statue is not the default condition of people whom we consider in history to have been good, or at least not all bad. A statue is something special. Tearing down a statue is not eradicating a person from history. It's saying we don't want our culture to be represented by his likeness.

 

[Meadmaker]

So the deaths were not deliberate by the standards of the time, but one of the things under discussion here is the divide between excusable foibles of one's time and things which require a new viewpoint. I think by any reasonable modern criterion, both of what is right and wrong, and what we believe now should have been the criterion then, taking people by force, chaining them up and subjecting them to inhuman and loathsome conditions and lethal discipline, in which their individual death was of no consequence, counts as killing them. Why should slavers be exempted from the general principle of felony murder? And I think there's little doubt about how the bodies would be disposed of when it happened.

Forum conversations get weird and disjointed sometimes. Captain Swoop said that he had 20,000 people killed and the bodies thrown overboard and then claimed the losses on his insurance.

Brainster was saying that sounded fishy, because such a policy seemed like it might bankrupt the insurance company.

I was pointing out that perhaps Captain Swoop's description was a bit misleading, and that the insurance company, even then, probably had the means to protect themselves from deliberately damaging the goods.

It's a conversation about insurance. Insurance. No morality involved. No judgements. Just insurance. Everyone understands that the slavers are responsible for the deaths, but that wasn't really what was being discussed. A later poster provided some more details about what losses were and were not covered by insurance.



As for stature worthiness of people who lived during the era of African slavery, see my previous answers for Washington, Colston, and Lee.

 

[Robin]

I am seeing pictures of the statue of Carl Linnaeus with the words "He's next".

Any idea what he is supposed to have done?

 

[William Parcher]

Any idea what he is supposed to have done?

He named all the plants.

 

[bruto]

Forum conversations get weird and disjointed sometimes. Captain Swoop said that he had 20,000 people killed and the bodies thrown overboard and then claimed the losses on his insurance.

Brainster was saying that sounded fishy, because such a policy seemed like it might bankrupt the insurance company.

I was pointing out that perhaps Captain Swoop's description was a bit misleading, and that the insurance company, even then, probably had the means to protect themselves from deliberately damaging the goods.

It's a conversation about insurance. Insurance. No morality involved. No judgements. Just insurance. Everyone understands that the slavers are responsible for the deaths, but that wasn't really what was being discussed. A later poster provided some more details about what losses were and were not covered by insurance.



As for stature worthiness of people who lived during the era of African slavery, see my previous answers for Washington, Colston, and Lee.

I was speaking not so much to the issue of insurance as to whether that level of responsibility should or should not be loosely translated as killing and throwing into the sea. I don't much have a problem with that.

As for the insurance, I imagine there may have been some kind of insurance based on a predicted percentage of loss, and although 20 thousand seems like a lot, it depends a little on how many people were transported and for how many years. 20 thousand could be a fairly acceptable percentage for a large number of slaves given the low cost of transport and the high rate of return. It's probably cheaper to lose a percentage than it is to provide more space and food for everyone.

Anyway, I think we're basically in agreement about the responsibility. I don't think it's wise or reasonable to start demolishing the memorials to every person whose character was tainted by the custom of the times, but some are worse than others. A person who made a fortune transporting slaves is in a different category from a person who participated in the practice of slavery, bad as that also was. And I don't think we should expunge such people from history. We should learn from them, and, among other things, remember to have a little humility when we think of how our own practices might be seen by people in the future. But I also think that one of the privileges we should gain for our progress and the enlargement of our sensibility is that of setting aside monuments that declare the goodness of things we no longer consider good.

 

[bruto]

He named all the plants.

He also named the animals, and some people consider him the father of "scientific racism," by including four races as separate subcategories of homo sapiens. Others would trace the problem back further, and no doubt racism of one sort or another goes back as far as you'd care to look, but Linnaeus was pretty important in providing modern racism with the scent of science.