• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

I didn't know about the statue but I was glad to hear a while back that they were going to rename Colston Hall.
 
Darat said:
Analogous yes, equivalent no.
Click to expand...

While I would never argue that treason is worse than slavery, it only takes preschool math to figure out that slavery+treason is worse than slavery alone.
 
WRT the statue in Bristol: https://twitter.com/MartinMcgrail/status/1269669660611563521

The statue was erected for his philanprathy in Bristol, not his crimes in the slave trade.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/mattbaker103/status/1269671802248323076?s=20

Hi martin, am I alright building a statue of jimmy saville in your front garden? For his charity work obviously not his paedophilia
Click to expand...

Saville is the go-to analogy ATM, it seems. For another example: https://twitter.com/sophielevin11/status/1269658817215725568

There used to be loads of pictures and plaques up around Leeds commemorating Jimmy Saville, then people learned about what he did and took them down and that's all I have to say about the "should we have still statues celebrating *********" debate
Click to expand...
 
Oh, and Auswitz is the go-to of the other side:

https://twitter.com/KhaosByDesignUK/status/1269676609717653504

I always saw them as a reminder of *********, not a celebration, the same reason Auschwitz is still standing.
If people aren't reminded of the horrors of the past then they fall out memory, and as the old saying goes "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/sophielevin11/status/1269678348986433538

Auschwitz is a monument to the *victims* of an atrocity, not the perpetrators. That's why the gas chamber doesn't have a statue of Hitler in it and I'm pretty sure we remember who he is without one.
Click to expand...
 
Why are 19th century statues to bastards always given such hallowed status?
When they knock down council estates to build luxury flats for bankers. That's a ******* outrage.
 
I reckon there are a lot of Britons who have learned more about the British slave trade since the statue got chucked in the Avon than they did at school.
 
Online Poll result says that the statue should be replace with one of Shaun the Sheep.
 
In 1895, when the statue of Colston was erected in 1895 175 years after his death. That's the same year that Oscar Wilde was arrested for homosexuality and the Army was attacking the Ashanti Empire in modern day Ghana and slaughtering them into submission.

Appropriate that it was thrown in the dock as at least 20,000 of his ‘cargo’ died and their bodies thrown in to the sea.
 
Last edited:
A crowd has climbed onto the statue of colonial King Léopold II in Brussels chanting “murderer” and waving the flag of the Democratic Republic of Congo
 
Captain_Swoop said:
A crowd has climbed onto the statue of colonial King Léopold II in Brussels chanting “murderer” and waving the flag of the Democratic Republic of Congo
Click to expand...

Good on 'em!

For those who don't know why:

Congo Free State

Failure to meet the rubber collection quotas was punishable by death. Meanwhile, the Force Publique were required to provide the hand of their victims as proof when they had shot and killed someone, as it was believed that they would otherwise use the munitions (imported from Europe at considerable cost) for hunting.[52] As a consequence, the rubber quotas were in part paid off in chopped-off hands. Sometimes the hands were collected by the soldiers of the Force Publique, sometimes by the villages themselves. There were even small wars where villages attacked neighboring villages to gather hands, since their rubber quotas were too unrealistic to fill. A Catholic priest quotes a man, Tswambe, speaking of the hated state official Léon Fiévez, who ran a district along the river 500 kilometres (300 mi) north of Stanley Pool:

All blacks saw this man as the devil of the Equator ... From all the bodies killed in the field, you had to cut off the hands. He wanted to see the number of hands cut off by each soldier, who had to bring them in baskets ... A village which refused to provide rubber would be completely swept clean. As a young man, I saw [Fiévez's] soldier Molili, then guarding the village of Boyeka, take a net, put ten arrested natives in it, attach big stones to the net, and make it tumble into the river ... Rubber causes these torments; that's why we no longer want to hear its name spoken. Soldiers made young men kill or rape their own mothers and sisters.[53]
Click to expand...

A reduction of the population of the Congo is noted by all who have compared the country at the beginning of Leopold's control with the beginning of Belgian state rule in 1908, but estimates of the death toll vary considerably. Estimates of some contemporary observers suggest that the population decreased by half during this period. According to Edmund D. Morel, the Congo Free State counted "20 million souls".[57] Hence, Mark Twain mentioned the number of ten million deaths.[58] According to British diplomat Roger Casement, this depopulation had four main causes: "indiscriminate war", starvation, reduction of births, and disease.[59] Sleeping sickness was also a major cause of fatality at the time. Opponents of Leopold's rule stated, however, that the administration itself was to be considered responsible for the spreading of the epidemic.[60]
Click to expand...

A genocide for which Belgium has never adequately paid.

Of course, the U.S. has never adequately paid for several genocides either (Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc.).
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
A crowd has climbed onto the statue of colonial King Léopold II in Brussels chanting “murderer” and waving the flag of the Democratic Republic of Congo
Click to expand...

That one I agree with.

At least somewhat seriously.

My opinion of all these people who are declared to be bad men because they were racists is that we cannot judge people based on standards of today. If they did great things, and they were racists, I'm not going to say that they were bad people if the entire culture in which they lived consisted of bad people. I can honor them for what they did, if they did something worthy of honor, even if not everything they did was worthy of honor.

I had to look up Edward Colston, and everything I know about the man is from one Wikipedia article, but it seems to me that he started a bunch of charities, and some of the charities he founded still existed at the time the statue was erected, and still exist today. That's worthy of praise. That remains true even if the source of the funds was a profession which today we find reprehensible. Reprehensible or not as we see it today, at the time it was a perfectly respectable profession, and had he stopped doing it, the same money for the same "goods" would have gone to people who would not have founded a hospital with it. He did good, even in the midst of a society that was rotten to the core, and even if he shared some of the rot.

As for Leopold of Belgium, I don't know too much about the man, but from my understaning, pretty much all he did was to grab a colony for Belgium, and to do so with incredible cruelty and bloodshed. In other words, I don't know of any great thing he did. The only thing he is remembered for was something that today we would find to be evil. So, very well, take down the statue.

So, if someone is honored for doing something evil, even if he did it very well, and the people of his day did not consider it evil, then take down the statues. If, on the other hand, someone did something that we consider great, but they lived in a time where evil was considered acceptable, and they participated in the evil, leave it up.

Churchill, Lincoln, Washington, apparently some fellow named Colston are not being honored for being racists or being slave owners or slave traders, even though they may have been those things. They are, and ought to be, honored for the good that they did.

In the case of Leopold II of Belgium, I'm not aware of anything worthy of honor. Maybe there was something and I'm just not aware of it.
 
To relate this all to the today and more directly to this thread topic....

there are a lot of people out marching and tearing down statues who are patting themselves on the back for opposing slavery and tearing down statues of people associated with slavery. Well, lah-dee-dah. Congratulations, but that's a pretty low bar to set. By all means work to fight modern injustice, and I'll congratulate you for it, but don't get all holier than thou about having mainstream, middle of the road, very easy to hold, values.
 
Colston founded his charities with the money he got for selling men. Over 20,000 of them died on his ships and were thrown in to the sea.
hr got paid out on insurance for them.
How does spending some of his blood money on a few charities make him good in any way?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Colston founded his charities with the money he got for selling men. Over 20,000 of them died on his ships and were thrown in to the sea.
hr got paid out on insurance for them.
How does spending some of his blood money on a few charities make him good in any way?
Click to expand...

Because he could have spent that money on lavish parties and fancy clothes. (Of course, he probably did, but he could have spent all of it that way, and never founded multiple hospitals.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom