Statues

[jayne lee wilson]

You CHOOSE to IGNORE what the voices are saying, or you CHOOSE TO LISTEN....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/11/i-shared-my-home-with-edward-colston-for-more-than-20-years-good-riddance

[MrGongGong]

You CHOOSE to IGNORE what the voices are saying, or you CHOOSE TO LISTEN....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-good-riddance

Sadly, I think some people prefer to lecture other folks about why they are wrong.

[Count Boso]

You CHOOSE to IGNORE what the voices are saying, or you CHOOSE TO LISTEN....

I wholeheartedly agree. But when everyone is deaf to what others are saying, you pick your side and close your ears. Today we're seeing a backlash against the toppling of statues, and the right are just sooo much better at beating up and killing their opponents. I hope it doesn't come to that (any more than it already has).

There has been a total lack of leadership here. If those in power had strongly condemned what needed to be condemned (in this case the brutal murder of George Floyd) they might have contained these public convulsions. Trump's strong leadership was sending in the military police with rubber bullets and tear gas - sorry, pepper spray - to attack the protesters who had every reason to protest, and Johnson's government was silent. And it's now reduced to a stand-off between left and right over the removal of Baden-Powell's statue in Poole. I hear David Olusoga and I'm deeply saddened by what he had to put up with in Bristol (he happened to be in Bristol but he might have encountered the same thing elsewhere). Colston's statue was a lightning rod which attracted protest and yes, the best thing would have been to remove it to calm emotions. I don't think that in the lifetime of today's Bristolians it should be replaced.

But, yes, I'm bitter about having the statement of a fact referred to as a 'trope' which puts it on the level of the conspiracy theories against the Jews. Who is actually listening to whom?

[Dave2002]

Just down the road from me, and I used to drive past most weeks, there is a place where people were held against their will in conditions of slavery.
The people responsible were jailed in 2017
for many people, it hasn't ended at all............

Isn't it actually now the case that there are more people who are effectively slaves than there ever were in the period when slaves were clearly identifiable as such? So it definitely hasn't ended at all.

[kernelbogey]

Johnson is now quoted in the Guardian as tweeting
“We cannot now try to edit or censor our past,” he said. “We cannot pretend to have a different history. The statues in our cities and towns were put up by previous generations. They had different perspectives, different understandings of right and wrong. But those statues teach us about our past, with all its faults. To tear them down would be to lie about our history, and impoverish the education of generations to come.”

Wrong. A statue teaches nothing. It freezes a specific veneration of that figure from the time of its commissioning and imposes that vision on subsequent generations.

I'm with David Olusoga: this is not against history, it is history.

[jayne lee wilson]

I don't agree with Johnson, and with Olusoga in thinking this is history. It was an event of and about our own time. Where i depart from Olusoga is that I have read, I think, three Guardian articles by him on the subject and I feel that he stands on a platform of serious academic, but the essesnce of what he writes (the article linked to today somewhere) is based on his personal experiences, his feelings, thoughts and emotions. And whereas I don't thinkn that the Guardian is the place to publish new academic research, I would like to feel that he had uncovered new facts in the archives which added to what was being written by white historians before he was born (Prof MacInnes on Bristol and the Slave Trade (1968) in which he identified, if I remember, 290 names - of which Colston was not one).

Even the guilty deserve a hearing and a fair trial.

That (my bold emphasis) is an essential part of frequently ignored history, especially of oppressed minorities. SHOAH. STONEWALL. Surely you wouldn't deny the validity or truthfulness of David Olusoga's witnessings.

Testimony. Learning to listen and believe. AND CHANGE.

[MrGongGong]

“We cannot now try to edit or censor our past,” he said. “We cannot pretend to have a different history. The statues in our cities and towns were put up by previous generations. They had different perspectives, different understandings of right and wrong. But those statues teach us about our past, with all its faults. To tear them down would be to lie about our history, and impoverish the education of generations to come.”
.

More bullshit from the master


But I guess he would know all about lying

[ardcarp]

I've not read all the posts, but Oscar Wilde's Happy Prince always springs to mind. I'm sure everyone knows the story. Any lessons about statues to be learned?

In a town full of suffering poor people, a swallow who was left behind after his flock flew off to Egypt for the winter meets the statue of the late "Happy Prince", who in reality has never experienced true sorrow, for he lived in a palace where sorrow was not allowed to enter. Viewing various scenes of people suffering in poverty from his tall monument, the Happy Prince asks the swallow to take the ruby from his hilt, the sapphires from his eyes, and the gold leaf covering his body to give to the poor. As the winter comes and the Happy Prince is stripped of all of his beauty, his lead heart breaks when the swallow dies as a result of his selfless deeds and severe cold. The people, unaware of their good deeds, take the statue down from the pillar due to its shabbiness (intending to replace it with one of the Mayor,) and the metal melted in a furnace, leaving behind the broken heart and the dead swallow; they are thrown in a dust heap. These are taken up to heaven by an angel that has deemed them the two most precious things in the city. This is affirmed by God, and they live forever in his "city of gold" and garden of paradise.

[kernelbogey]

More bullshit from the master


But I guess he would know all about lying

Very rigid view of what history is. (Perhaps he went to some kind of private school...?)

[vinteuil]

.

... good, thoughtful articles on the issues raised by statues in this evening's / tomorrow morning's Times by Ben Macintyre, Caitlin Moran, and David Olusoga.


.

[subcontrabass]

(Prof MacInnes on Bristol and the Slave Trade (1968) in which he identified, if I remember, 290 names - of which Colston was not one).

.

Not really surprising. Colston moved to London as a child and spent most of his life there.

[johnb]

..... I would like to feel that he had uncovered new facts in the archives which added to what was being written by white historians before he was born (Prof MacInnes on Bristol and the Slave Trade (1968) in which he identified, if I remember, 290 names - of which Colston was not one).

Thanks for pointing to the interesting pamphlet by C. M. MacInnes. It has been digitized and is available here: http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/History/...ons/bha007.pdf

I can't see a list of 290 names but Edward Colston is mentioned in this para towards the bottom of page 8:

"Now, how was the slave trade organised? In spite of the prohibitions of the later Stuarts and the fact that such men as Edward Colston became members of the Royal African Company, it appears that a number of Bristol firms were illegally concerned with the African trade before the close of the seventeenth century but for obvious reasons the number of these is unknown. Here it must be acknowledged that no irrefutable proof of this can be adduced, but, in view of the frequently declared interest of Bristol merchants in this traffic during the second half of the seventeenth century, this would appear to be a fairly reasonable conjecture. Within a few years after it was thrown open Bristol's share of the slave trade was considerable and it is hard to believe that this started from zero in 1698."

[Count Boso]

"Now, how was the slave trade organised? In spite of the prohibitions of the later Stuarts and the fact that such men as Edward Colston became members of the Royal African Company, it appears that a number of Bristol firms were illegally concerned with the African trade before the close of the seventeenth century but for obvious reasons the number of these is unknown. Here it must be acknowledged that no irrefutable proof of this can be adduced, but, in view of the frequently declared interest of Bristol merchants in this traffic during the second half of the seventeenth century, this would appear to be a fairly reasonable conjecture. Within a few years after it was thrown open Bristol's share of the slave trade was considerable and it is hard to believe that this started from zero in 1698."

Thank you for digging out that quotation, johnb. If I read it aright, it does appear that before, during and after his connection with the RAC he might have traded in slaves illegally or under licence and if so, he might have amassed a large fortune, since other people probably did.

How ironic if Colston's philanthropic contribution ended with the sacrifice of his reputation to strengthen the anti-racism movement. This is history in the making which will be assessed in 100 years time, if anyone is still here.

[johnb]

Thank you for digging out that quotation, johnb. If I read it aright, it does appear that before, during and after his connection with the RAC he might have traded in slaves illegally or under licence and if so, he might have amassed a large fortune, since other people probably did.

That paragraph is really concerned with the possibility of slave trading being illegaly carried out by Bristol merchants before the Royal African Company lost their monopoly of trade with Africa. Edward Colston is only mentioned in passing and I'll not sure of his relevance to the argument as he had been based in London since he parents moved there when he was young.

I pasted the quote because Accidental posted that Colston hadn't been mentioned as a slave trader in the MacInnes pamphlet.

From the limited information I can find, it would seem that there is little evidence that Colston traded in slaves before joining the RAC.

[Count Boso]

From the limited information I can find, it would seem that there is little evidence that Colston traded in slaves before joining the RAC.

Thank you for clariifying that. As I see it there were 4 kinds of 'beneficiary' from the trade:

1. Slave hunters who brought the slaves to the traders. They sold them for some kind of currency but they didn't buy - they stole/kidnapped and unlike the others, they were black Africans.

2. Slave owners in the Americas who bought but didn't sell slaves: they exploited and mistreated them, and made fortunes out of them.

3. Slave traders who were the middle men, buying from the hunters, transporting to the Americas and selling to the owners.

4. At a more distant remove were those who benefited less directly, by holding shares in - mainly - the RAC (as Colston did), which held the monopoly on all trade 'from Sallee to the Cape of Good Hope'. Or, like Colston, by assisting with the running of the RAC. For most of the 11-12 years that he was connected with the company he was, it seems, one of 24 elected 'assistants', and for the year 1689-90 he was elected deputy governor - the governor being an honorary position held by a member of the royal family - I presume James II, since he is described as 'leading' the company'. There was also an elected sub-governor. All these officials presumably were remunerated for attending committee meetings as well as receiving share dividends. So, Colston was one of at least 25 company officials. After serving as deputy governor for one year, he left the company.

Anyone trading privately on the west coast of Africa between 1672 and 1698 was either doing it illegally or under licence. After 1698, traders were allowed to trade, and they did trade in slaves, though Colston himself retired from trading in 1708.

So he might have traded in slaves, as well as in commodities like textiles, wine, oil, fruit and fish, between about 1662 (after he had served his apprenticeship) and 1672 when the RAC's monopoly began, and by which time he was, like his father, already a wealthy man; and again between 1698 and 1708. But there is no evidence that he did, eg records of revenues from slaving. Any moneys from slaving would have been derived from share dividends and company remuneration, and culpability on that score must be shared equally with the highest in the realm.

Who knew this? (Not me until the last few days).