Statues

[MrGongGong]

[Dave2002]

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).

That is one of the "problems" with owning and dealing in shares. Nasty capitalist stuff I know, but is it all bad? As a result of shares and trade Europeans and Britons have benefitted considerably over years - and centuries. Sometimes companies have a "good" side and a "bad" side. Many of us hold shares either directly, or indirectly if we have a pension or subscribe to pension plan. Are we each individually liable for the "bad" investments which others do on our behalf?

[eighthobstruction]

Ref GG post....Not before time....such a gathering of vitriol....all aboard the Dacre-Littlejohn Express....

[Count Boso]

An interesting article by Julian Baggini ('My other self' to quote the Bard), I think not yet published as I received it by email:

"I’d like to see more buildings and streets named after people like George Floyd and the leaders of the 1963 Bristol Bus Boycott, Roy Hackett, Owen Henry, Audley Evans and Prince Brown, who led the protests against the Bristol Omnibus Company’s refusal to employ black or Asian crews. But if we also remove our more problematic names we risk indulging our self-satisfied image of a rainbow city instead of acknowledging the racism that persists [i.e. in Bristol now, is his point].

"Smashing up statues and decrying dead Victorians risks becoming part of this comforting narrative. Ironically, it involves a version of the “othering” that powers much racism. Instead of recognising that Cabot, Colston, Wills et al were not inherently evil but products of their time, we demonise them, seeing nothing of ourselves in them. That is not the way to confront the deep-seated racism that decades of campaigning has not erased. When we see Colston we should see not a historical relic but ourselves."

I like his notion of 'othering', where black people are 'others', women are 'others' and as here the past are 'others'. Not me guv, I cheered when they toppled the statues.

[MrGongGong]

I like his notion of 'othering', where black people are 'others', women are 'others' and as here the past are 'others'. Not me guv, I cheered when they toppled the statues.

It's a well used (and useful IMV) way of describing how some people are treated

This is a recent example as well

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-colonialism-africa-british-empire-slavery-a9564541.html

The prime minister this week argued for the retention of controversial statues of slavers and British colonialists in UK cities, which he said should stay up because they “teach us about our past with all its faults”.

How about a statue of these women Boris ?
Will it teach you about how to treat people? ............I suspect not..




and (I can't seem to post more than one image)

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/aug/11/marina-wheeler-tells-of-cervical-cancer-diagnosis-boris-johnson

[kernelbogey]

An interesting article by Julian Baggini...

"....we demonise them, seeing nothing of ourselves in them. That is not the way to confront the deep-seated racism that decades of campaigning has not erased. When we see Colston we should see not a historical relic but ourselves."....

I like his notion of 'othering', where black people are 'others', women are 'others' and as here the past are 'others'.

Indeed, the most difficult task is to recognise, and then challenge, the racism within oneself.

[Count Boso]

Indeed, the most difficult task is to recognise, and then challenge, the racism within oneself.

What Baggini said was he (I think it was he himself) was, or is, a guide for a 'statue tour' of Bristol where 999 statues were elderly white men (figure invented) and one wasn't, so a token miner, Queen Victoria and an Indian Rajah were added. He thought the best solution was not to tear down any statues, but to gradually replace those who seemed less relevant - or even of less artistic value - with a more diverse selection.

How much more dignified was the 'taking the knee' on Brighton sea front (I can't find the BBC story now but it had a picture), the BLM crowds standing silently, than the bottle hurling, racist chanting thugs who want to 'protect our history'. Bring it on, lads! I'm sure nothing will turn people against protesters who attack the police as sharply as seeing behaviour like that.

I can't find the Brighton picture, so here's one of a protest at Bristol Cenotaph (story suggests not principally from Bristol):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-53034357

[Serial_Apologist]

What Baggini said was he (I think it was he himself) was, or is, a guide for a 'statue tour' of Bristol where 999 statues were elderly white men (figure invented) and one wasn't, so a token miner, Queen Victoria and an Indian Rajah were added. He thought the best solution was not to tear down any statues, but to gradually replace those who seemed less relevant - or even of less artistic value - with a more diverse selection.

How much more dignified was the 'taking the knee' on Brighton sea front (I can't find the BBC story now but it had a picture), the BLM crowds standing silently, than the bottle hurling, racist chanting thugs who want to 'protect our history'. Bring it on, lads! I'm sure nothing will turn people against protesters who attack the police as sharply as seeing behaviour like that.

I can't find the Brighton picture, so here's one of a protest at Bristol Cenotaph (story suggests not principally from Bristol):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-53034357

One gets some idea of where these people's brains must be if they think BLM protesters are a threat to war memorials.

[kernelbogey]

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).

In one of David Olusoga's tv programmes (not the House ones) he showed the records of the scheme by which slave owners in Britain were compensated for their loss when slavery was abolished. That is, the tax payer recompensed each at a set rate per slave. What astonished me was how widespread slave ownershp was at that point in the nineteenth century (sorry, can't quote dates) e.g the 'little old lady', widow of a CofE vicar, who owned three slave in the West Indies (slightly vague paraphrase by me of a real example). So there were many, many others who benefited.

(If I can I will add reference to DO's film.)

[Cockney Sparrow]

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

In one of David Olusoga's tv programmes (not the House ones) he showed the records of the scheme by which slave owners in Britain were compensated for their loss when slavery was abolished. That is, the tax payer recompensed each at a set rate per slave. What astonished me was how widespread slave ownershp was at that point in the nineteenth century (sorry, can't quote dates) e.g the 'little old lady', widow of a CofE vicar, who owned three slave in the West Indies (slightly vague paraphrase by me of a real example). So there were many, many others who benefited.

(If I can I will add reference to DO's film.)

Look no further - web link to the programme page in #56 on page 6 above:

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?21804-Statues&p=796183#post796183

[oddoneout]

The compensation bill was finally paid off in 2015.
Some interesting bits in this, another David Olusoga article https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-slave-owners.
More 'people who should know better' getting their facts wrong.

[Count Boso]

The compensation bill was finally paid off in 2015.
Some interesting bits in this, another David Olusoga article https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-slave-owners.
More 'people who should know better' getting their facts wrong.

And in one sense it was not a “surprising #FridayFact” at all: it was exactly what you would have expected back in 1833, on the 'rich get rich and the poor get nothing' basis. It was indeed surprising that the Treasury didn't see it that way in 2018.

But, I took in that quote: "What the records reveal is that the slave owners were not just the super-rich. They were widows, clergymen and shopkeepers - ordinary members of the middle-classes who exploited slave labour in distant lands. Yet many of them never looked a slave in the eye or experienced the brutal realities of plantation life…" Those words were from Olusoga's own script (on a video clip), and it's just on that kind of question that it depends where you stand on John Major's 'We must condemn a little more and understand a little less.' Even now we can buy goods manufactured abroad by sweated labour without knowing it. We've never 'looked a slave in the eye'.

[MrGongGong]

What seems to be emerging is that the assumption that "everyone was a racist in the past" isn't really true at all

for example

http://abolition.e2bn.org/people_33.html

and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-produce_movement

so on

[Dave2002]

Then there was Nelson - https://www.historyextra.com/period/...rce-dark-side/

[Bella Kemp]

If we look to history maybe we should also remember the children enslaved in factories during the Industrial Revolution, the children dragging coal trucks deep underground in the mines and the small boys sent up chimneys. And then, of course, those poor boys conscripted into the army during the First World War, forced to become murderers and then themselves inevitably murdered. Perhaps most of our statues are of villains, and many of our most noble buildings are built on the profits of slave labour, but it's silly to take them all down. Much better to attach signs giving the historical background.