|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Jun 8, 2020 7:12:21 GMT
what is ridiculous is people ignoring slavery and rape going on now in this Country.
why pull down a statue when you can stop slavery at the source ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2020 7:45:29 GMT
what is ridiculous is people ignoring slavery and rape going on now in this Country. why pull down a statue when you can stop slavery at the source ? Go on then... |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 8, 2020 7:46:40 GMT
what is ridiculous is people ignoring slavery and rape going on now in this Country. why pull down a statue when you can stop slavery at the source ? Didn’t realize it was so easy! Do explain |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 8, 2020 8:00:17 GMT
We are talking about human beings and as such they are flawed with both good and bad traits. Historical figures should be seen in the round, compared both with their peers and by today's standards to keep things within context. To condense a lifetime into a few sound bites does neither the subject, author or reader any favours. History should be read more widely and from different sources whilst keeping in mind any bias. Agree Stuart,let's not forget that Colston lived 300 years ago and was a man of his time: Children executed for minor offences. Life expectancy no more than 30 to 40. Poverty on a scale we cannot comprehend No universal suffrage No cure for many common illnesses Etc etc. It's easy for us to look back at Colston and his contemporaries from our very different world and criticise with no understanding of what it was like to walk in their shoes. I am 100 % sure that future generations will look at us and level criticism for many of the things that have happened on our watch. Sorry TG, but I couldn't disagree more. It might have been acceptable 300 years ago, but that doesn't mean it is acceptable. As humanity we need to look back at our mistakes and condemn the vile behaviour, rather than not criticise it because we weren't there. How can any white person here question 'who are we to criticise Colston "with no understanding of what it was like to walk in their shoes"' - yet we criticise BLM protestors for protesting and pulling down a statue of a slave trader. How does that make sense? |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Jun 8, 2020 8:45:35 GMT
Agree Stuart,let's not forget that Colston lived 300 years ago and was a man of his time: Children executed for minor offences. Life expectancy no more than 30 to 40. Poverty on a scale we cannot comprehend No universal suffrage No cure for many common illnesses Etc etc. It's easy for us to look back at Colston and his contemporaries from our very different world and criticise with no understanding of what it was like to walk in their shoes. I am 100 % sure that future generations will look at us and level criticism for many of the things that have happened on our watch. Sorry TG, but I couldn't disagree more. It might have been acceptable 300 years ago, but that doesn't mean it is acceptable. As humanity we need to look back at our mistakes and condemn the vile behaviour, rather than not criticise it because we weren't there. How can any white person here question 'who are we to criticise Colston "with no understanding of what it was like to walk in their shoes"' - yet we criticise BLM protestors for protesting and pulling down a statue of a slave trader. How does that make sense? Emm can't disagree with that and what I was trying to say is that conceptually it's very difficult to be in the head of someone who lived 300 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 8, 2020 8:52:22 GMT
Sorry TG, but I couldn't disagree more. It might have been acceptable 300 years ago, but that doesn't mean it is acceptable. As humanity we need to look back at our mistakes and condemn the vile behaviour, rather than not criticise it because we weren't there. How can any white person here question 'who are we to criticise Colston "with no understanding of what it was like to walk in their shoes"' - yet we criticise BLM protestors for protesting and pulling down a statue of a slave trader. How does that make sense? Emm can't disagree with that and what I was trying to say is that conceptually it's very difficult to be in the head of someone who lived 300 years ago. Difficult, I’d agree - but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t condemn it. Evil acts are there throughout history, and it is the current generation who benefits from looking back to criticize wrong doings. I do agree that many will look back on our generation and say the same, and I welcome that. As a species we should be looking to always improve and bring true equality to all. If the next generation says that we were a disgrace how we lived/acted then good on them for calling it out. Just because something was normal in it’s time, doesn’t make it right |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2020 8:55:12 GMT
Agree Stuart,let's not forget that Colston lived 300 years ago and was a man of his time: Children executed for minor offences. Life expectancy no more than 30 to 40. Poverty on a scale we cannot comprehend No universal suffrage No cure for many common illnesses Etc etc. It's easy for us to look back at Colston and his contemporaries from our very different world and criticise with no understanding of what it was like to walk in their shoes. I am 100 % sure that future generations will look at us and level criticism for many of the things that have happened on our watch. Sorry TG, but I couldn't disagree more. It might have been acceptable 300 years ago, but that doesn't mean it is acceptable. As humanity we need to look back at our mistakes and condemn the vile behaviour, rather than not criticise it because we weren't there. How can any white person here question 'who are we to criticise Colston "with no understanding of what it was like to walk in their shoes"' - yet we criticise BLM protestors for protesting and pulling down a statue of a slave trader. How does that make sense? Well, it’s a very complex argument, but, to reduce it to very simplistic terms slavery was legal in Colston’s day. Acts of vandalism in our day and age is not. Our morality is quite often guided by what is allowed and disallowed by law such that things that we consider perfectly normal now may not be perfectly fine at all in 100 years time- imagine your memory being tarnished for your grandchildren because something you did now was decided to be abhorrent in 100 years and you are considered a pariah even though at the time you acted in what you thought was good faith. That of course is a trivial example and Colston’s acts were not trivial so it’s not to absolve Colston at all. A lot of people will say “well slavery is very obviously wrong” and I think what TG is trying to say is would you really think that way in a culture in which it is accepted? But like I say it’s a very complex issue and some will look at the meta argument from a high level (people’s behaviour in the context of the time) whilst others will look at the raw emotion of the issue from the lens of the present. Either way I think Jock nailed the entire issue on the statue with the quote from Orwell. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2020 9:01:17 GMT
Emm can't disagree with that and what I was trying to say is that conceptually it's very difficult to be in the head of someone who lived 300 years ago. Difficult, I’d agree - but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t condemn it. Evil acts are there throughout history, and it is the current generation who benefits from looking back to criticize wrong doings. I do agree that many will look back on our generation and say the same, and I welcome that. As a species we should be looking to always improve and bring true equality to all. If the next generation says that we were a disgrace how we lived/acted then good on them for calling it out. Just because something was normal in it’s time, doesn’t make it right I don’t know, the beliefs of a crowd are easily controlled and manipulated by persuasive techniques that are very easy to research and very easy to learn, so I wouldn’t put any store by what the majority of the day think is right and wrong. I think that’s why I find myself unpopular on many forums because my first instinct is to argue the opposite view to the crowd (which is usually fuelled by emotion- the best weapon a manipulator has in their arsenal). Of course, the act of taking someone from their culture against their wishes to a foreign land and making them serve an “owner” whilst profiting from it should of course be “wrong” in any context of history but I still stand by the general point that this was actually legal in it’s time so it has to be framed in it’s historical context as a judgement of the era rather than the acts of one man. A man who was considered respectable enough by the general populace to represent Bristol as an MP no less. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2020 9:06:49 GMT
Not sure that's fair. Many have been calling for it to be moved for years. It's not about not caring. They had no way of doing it. I don't support the way it was done today, but a lot of people have wanted it gone for a long time. I think a prominent site in the museum would be the right place for the statue. Reflecting his historical importance but taking his effigy away from the modern world, which he is most definitely not a part of. Dont care is the wrong word, but kind of my point though. Yesterday it was done simply because of opportunity and to hide behind a protest. The statue was out in the open. Only would have taken a few people to do it at any point in time to 'make a statement' BLM organisers have said it was nothing to do with them and will be issuing a further statement today The statue would have been removed eventually, maybe the latest protests around the world would have been the catalyst, but now any such moment has lost any symbolism or significance People may remember the moment, but more importantly for what reasons will they remember it I’ll remember the moment of the statue coming down as the day a bunch of yobs hijacked a protest to carry out a bit an anarchic vandalism and helped spread a deadly virus in the meantime. Bristol seems to have a lot of professional protesters willing to jump on any bandwagon, if I were a member of the BAME community I would be pretty annoyed to think their genuine grievances were being used by the usual antagonists as a justifiable means to cause mayhem and disorder. |
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Jun 8, 2020 9:17:39 GMT
what is ridiculous is people ignoring slavery and rape going on now in this Country. why pull down a statue when you can stop slavery at the source ? Didn’t realize it was so easy! Do explain No point explaining to you, if you don't see it happening you are blind to it, maybe it's the wrong colour slaves ? |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Jun 8, 2020 9:18:40 GMT
Sorry TG, but I couldn't disagree more. It might have been acceptable 300 years ago, but that doesn't mean it is acceptable. As humanity we need to look back at our mistakes and condemn the vile behaviour, rather than not criticise it because we weren't there. How can any white person here question 'who are we to criticise Colston "with no understanding of what it was like to walk in their shoes"' - yet we criticise BLM protestors for protesting and pulling down a statue of a slave trader. How does that make sense? Well, it’s a very complex argument, but, to reduce it to very simplistic terms slavery was legal in Colston’s day. Acts of vandalism in our day and age is not. Our morality is quite often guided by what is allowed and disallowed by law such that things that we consider perfectly normal now may not be perfectly fine at all in 100 years time- imagine your memory being tarnished for your grandchildren because something you did now was decided to be abhorrent in 100 years and you are considered a pariah even though at the time you acted in what you thought was good faith. That of course is a trivial example and Colston’s acts were not trivial so it’s not to absolve Colston at all. A lot of people will say “well slavery is very obviously wrong” and I think what TG is trying to say is would you really think that way in a culture in which it is accepted? But like I say it’s a very complex issue and some will look at the meta argument from a high level (people’s behaviour in the context of the time) whilst others will look at the raw emotion of the issue from the lens of the present. Either way I think Jock nailed the entire issue on the statue with the quote from Orwell. 365 you are correct in what I was trying to say,need to lay of the whisky when I'm trying to muster an intellectual thought😆 |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Jun 8, 2020 9:32:55 GMT
Difficult, I’d agree - but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t condemn it. Evil acts are there throughout history, and it is the current generation who benefits from looking back to criticize wrong doings. I do agree that many will look back on our generation and say the same, and I welcome that. As a species we should be looking to always improve and bring true equality to all. If the next generation says that we were a disgrace how we lived/acted then good on them for calling it out. Just because something was normal in it’s time, doesn’t make it right I don’t know, the beliefs of a crowd are easily controlled and manipulated by persuasive techniques that are very easy to research and very easy to learn, so I wouldn’t put any store by what the majority of the day think is right and wrong. I think that’s why I find myself unpopular on many forums because my first instinct is to argue the opposite view to the crowd (which is usually fuelled by emotion- the best weapon a manipulator has in their arsenal). Of course, the act of taking someone from their culture against their wishes to a foreign land and making them serve an “owner” whilst profiting from it should of course be “wrong” in any context of history but I still stand by the general point that this was actually legal in it’s time so it has to be framed in it’s historical context as a judgement of the era rather than the acts of one man. A man who was considered respectable enough by the general populace to represent Bristol as an MP no less. Let's hope I articulate this in the right way. One of the most significant symbols of the Holocaust is the preservation of Bergen Belsen, for the many thousands of people from the Jewish community who visit it must be the most excruciating experience imaginable but they do it to teach history and to ensure it never happens again and I have nothing but admiration for the way they engage with the challenges that period of history must present to them. So like Colstons statue Belsen is an affront to humanity so should it suffer the same fate? My preferred way is to have this out in the open to be explained, debated and to educate not to sit in a museum however,it's a matter of choice I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by ollyway on Jun 8, 2020 9:45:00 GMT
Every time I go past the bust of Alfred Fagon at the corner of Ashley Road, I feel sick.
This statue is a personal affront to my heritage.
I'm thinking of throwing a rope around it, pulling it down and chucking it in the harbour.
Will the police be ok with this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 8, 2020 9:45:11 GMT
Didn’t realize it was so easy! Do explain No point explaining to you, if you don't see it happening you are blind to it, maybe it's the wrong colour slaves ? What are you going on about? You said "why pull down a statue when you can stop slavery at the source" - How can they stop slavery at the source? Surely if you're wanting to comment and highlight the problem, the very least you could do is explain how to do it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2020 9:51:38 GMT
No point explaining to you, if you don't see it happening you are blind to it, maybe it's the wrong colour slaves ? What are you going on about? You said "why pull down a statue when you can stop slavery at the source" - How can they stop slavery at the source? Surely if you're wanting to comment and highlight the problem, the very least you could do is explain how to do it. Don't even try with Newmarket |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 8, 2020 9:51:41 GMT
Difficult, I’d agree - but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t condemn it. Evil acts are there throughout history, and it is the current generation who benefits from looking back to criticize wrong doings. I do agree that many will look back on our generation and say the same, and I welcome that. As a species we should be looking to always improve and bring true equality to all. If the next generation says that we were a disgrace how we lived/acted then good on them for calling it out. Just because something was normal in it’s time, doesn’t make it right I don’t know, the beliefs of a crowd are easily controlled and manipulated by persuasive techniques that are very easy to research and very easy to learn, so I wouldn’t put any store by what the majority of the day think is right and wrong. I think that’s why I find myself unpopular on many forums because my first instinct is to argue the opposite view to the crowd (which is usually fuelled by emotion- the best weapon a manipulator has in their arsenal). Of course, the act of taking someone from their culture against their wishes to a foreign land and making them serve an “owner” whilst profiting from it should of course be “wrong” in any context of history but I still stand by the general point that this was actually legal in it’s time so it has to be framed in it’s historical context as a judgement of the era rather than the acts of one man. A man who was considered respectable enough by the general populace to represent Bristol as an MP no less. I agree it can be complex, but just because it was legal - still doesn't make it right. Was it therefore right that women shouldn't have voted? The list can go on and on, as you can imagine. If our generation is deemed to be evil in 100 years because of social norms at the time, then good - I hope the society they'll be living in will be better than the one we're living in now. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 8, 2020 9:53:21 GMT
What are you going on about? You said "why pull down a statue when you can stop slavery at the source" - How can they stop slavery at the source? Surely if you're wanting to comment and highlight the problem, the very least you could do is explain how to do it. Don't even try with Newmarket "no point explaining it to you" - reminds me of someone else... |
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Jun 8, 2020 9:57:03 GMT
Back to your echo chamber boys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2020 9:57:58 GMT
I don’t know, the beliefs of a crowd are easily controlled and manipulated by persuasive techniques that are very easy to research and very easy to learn, so I wouldn’t put any store by what the majority of the day think is right and wrong. I think that’s why I find myself unpopular on many forums because my first instinct is to argue the opposite view to the crowd (which is usually fuelled by emotion- the best weapon a manipulator has in their arsenal). Of course, the act of taking someone from their culture against their wishes to a foreign land and making them serve an “owner” whilst profiting from it should of course be “wrong” in any context of history but I still stand by the general point that this was actually legal in it’s time so it has to be framed in it’s historical context as a judgement of the era rather than the acts of one man. A man who was considered respectable enough by the general populace to represent Bristol as an MP no less. Let's hope I articulate this in the right way. One of the most significant symbols of the Holocaust is the preservation of Bergen Belsen, for the many thousands of people from the Jewish community who visit it must be the most excruciating experience imaginable but they do it to teach history and to ensure it never happens again and I have nothing but admiration for the way they engage with the challenges that period of history must present to them. So like Colstons statue Belsen is an affront to humanity so should it suffer the same fate? My preferred way is to have this out in the open to be explained, debated and to educate not to sit in a museum however,it's a matter of choice I guess. True But if Jews wanted to burn it down in disgust, would they be wrong? The point being it's for those that suffered to decide that not, as in our case, white Bristolians. On the point about slavery being legal during Colston's time. It's not a valid point. Look at the constituent make up of our legislature at the time, there was no universal suffrage, Parliament was made up of people who had the most to gain. They set laws accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 8, 2020 9:58:40 GMT
Seems reasonable from Marvin IMO, time to move on. Speaking on Kay Burley@Breakfast, Marvin Rees said that "as an elected politician I cannot condone criminal damage". But he added: "I can't pretend, as the son of a Jamaican migrant myself, that the presence of that statue to a slave trader in the middle of the city was anything other than a personal affront to me and people like me." Mr Rees continued: "We will get the statue back and it will highly likely end up in one of our museums. "What's happened to this statue is part of this city's history and it's part of that statue's story." news.sky.com/story/george-floyd-protests-slave-trader-statue-was-an-affront-says-bristol-mayor-as-he-reveals-what-will-happen-to-it-now-12002703Whilst I understand the feelings on both sides, I can't help but think the reaction of the Home Secretary and Kit Malthouse shows a lack of understanding and would inflame things further. |
|
