Yeah agreed. I’ve lived in Bristol, and people have been lobbying for their statue to come down as well as all the buildings and roads with his name on it, so I’m familiar with the topic. HOWEVER, it should be done through the council and the ballot box and appropriate bureaucracy.
This is the UK, not fucking 2003 Baghdad.
By trying to remove any reference to that part of Bristol’s history, you’re essentially just trying to censor an important part of it’s past.
We’re going to have to start smashing up an awful lot of statues and busts all over the world if that’s the path we decide to take. It’s just a weird form of white washing history.
Is Empire not on the curriculum? If not then this would be an actual tangible demand rather than the weird protest I’m seeing at the moment which is asking me to listen without actually saying anything.
When I did history during my A-levels/IB in 2007/08 it was literally all just 20th century dictators, rise of fascism, rise of communism/stalin/lenin and the Korean War/Vietnamese war. Oh and the Unification of Italy.
It is in Key Stage Three, but I’d put the resources made for schools up against the kinds of text books made in certain American states that have disclaimers referring to evolution as an “unproven theory”
Assessment questions asking if the British Empire was good or bad for its colonies for example. Atrocities are under-explored, and “successes” overemphasised.
I don’t know of a school teaching the Empire in key stage four or five. I may be wrong about that. I’ve just never come across one in my job.
It’s not censorship nor white washing history. Nobody denies his existence. That is the interpretation you want to give it. It’s taking away the adoration of that person, said adoration is symbolized by that statue.
If I tomorrow drive to Emirates and take away the Henry statue because he isn’t deserving imo (or f.e. Wright or anyone deserves it more). Am I censoring Henry as part of the club’s history?
There’s definitely more shock value and “they mean business” in the tearing down of the statue, but I do agree with @Dr_Strangepass that it is mob rule.
SMH They look to be nearly all white people. And they can fuck off pulling over works of art that are historic. I hope they all get prosecuted. Are they going over to Nigeria to pull over statues of Slave Traders there? Because they exist. I didn’t think so.
Would be better off tearing down and put in a museum with an explanation as why it was torn down and why the shit he done was bad, and what he did in Bristol.
No one in Bristol glorified or idolised that statue lol They might have once, 150 years ago for the wealth and prosperity that he brought, but now that statue served as a reminder of his sins and the true cost at which the success of the city came.
Can’t just bury the past because it’s ugly, that’s weak.
I don’t see how this is censorship. Statutes and street naming are about glorification. It’s perfectly legitimate to want that glorification to stop giving the circumstances.
I can agree mob mentality is not the ideal way to go about these things but then again being a slave trader in the firsts place wasn’t that ideal either, so I can’t say I ultimately care.
Same arguments were being made when confederate statues were being vandalized in the U.S couple years ago despite most of them being put up during Jim Crow era. History was not in the interest of those whom erected these things in the first place.
Note: I don’t mind if people think the history is important to conserve. Just weird this is the defence of them. Besides I’m sure there’s better ways to ‘learn’ from history.
The meanings and purpose of statues and objects can change over time.
No one I ever met in Bristol ever said “Wow Colston, what a guy. He brought riches to Bristol and enslaved thousands! We should honour his memory and I will endeavour to raise my children to be like him!”
It was more of a “beware the sins of our capitalist past” vibe to it.
History has both ugly and beauty in it. His statue served as a reminder of wrongdoing and past transgressions.
Historical record is not maintained by way of erecting statues. Removing a statue does not constitute the erasure of history, I just can’t understand that line of argument. We don’t need statues to be cognisant of history, and we don’t need statues of slave traders to remind us of the sins of our capitalist and imperliast past. Statues exist to glorify and celebrate figures.
At Arsenal we put up statues of our heroes like Henry and Adams, we don’t put up statues of Mikael Silvestre to teach us important historical lessons and ensure they’re never forgotten.
I’ve seen it here first hand several people whinging about government not being strict enough on COVID lockdowns and releasing restrictions “ too early “ also attended or supported yesterday’s movement happening when it did.
I think attitude seemed to change from we have to stay at home and protect lives, too racism is a bigger problem so old people can now be sacrificial.
It’s a tough one tbh. No one can really defend the statue still being there but this is typical mob rule of people who are probably illiterate themselves to history and some of the intricacies involved.
It’s honestly why I hate Twitter, left overnight you just find mons of people who think they possess all the facts but just really have one side of history. As someone who studied politics I now largely keep out of it because I only end up hating myself for getting involved.