I think it's time to draw a line under our questionable history by removing all public tributes (statues etc) to the main protagonists. Their rightful place is in museums where their lives and actions can be properly explained to future generations and placed in the context of history. If I were a young person of colour living in Bristol, I certainly wouldn't like to be walking past such a tribute every day, knowing how this man made his fortune. In the same way that anyone from South Yorkshire would hate to walk past a statue of Thatcher...
TBH, it wasn’t so much about everyone makes mistakes, just trying to point out he spent most of his life time (before and after being involved in Slavery)and a long time after he died contributing towards bettering people’s lives. That was the reason the statue was erected at its time. Whether that is right or wrong is for the individual to decide. You are also correct in the issue lies with Bristol council the fact it got as far as trying to add a plaque so people knew about the other side of his life showed they knew it was a sensitive subject that had been raised and was actually stopped by the same Mayor over the wording who is on record saying Statues we’re not in the top ten issue to improve racial equality in Bristol(or words to that effect).
I would not want to go to a museum and look at a statue of a mass murderer as was this guy. I would though read about these horrible inderviduals in books.
That's not true Helen. There are no memorials to him in Bristol now. The Colston Hall (concert hall) removed the name, pubs changed their name (e.g. The Colston Yard became 'The Yard'), and all schools bearing the Colston name changed their names: Final Bristol school to shed name of slaver Edward Colston | Bristol | The Guardian
DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF RACISM & I demand an apology , I have said nothing at all racist & never would , I have referred to vandalism which I have every right to .
But likewise we can't keep everything either, at least not on public display. Seems odd that the statue was the last thing to remain, but with a fuller explanation attached to it, then maybe that would have been acceptable to all the residents of Bristol.
Here's another one for the 'no vandals and rule of law' lovers to get their knickers in a twister over.... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/06/kazakhstan-unrest-what-are-the-protests-about
I’ll say again I’m completely opposed to vandalism. But I feel the need to ask those frothing at the mouth about this… How will this episode in our history look in 20 or 200 years time. Do you not have the imagination to see this act ‘in historical context’. How can you dismiss the murder of thousands of people simply because it happened a long time ago, or worse that it was simply a by product of something that was ‘legal at the time’, and yet get upset about vandalism of a statue. Again; I don’t approve of vandalism, but WTAF? Can you not hear how that lands?
I think what we're trying to get at is you may well feel differently if you weren't white, or at least show more understanding. As a woman, did I agree with all the acts the suffragettes did in the past,maybe not, but I am glad they did them and I now have the vote and property rights etc despite men telling them how they should behave and feel at the time.
I don't think anyone is saying we should. By all means have a balanced piece about him in a museum, but a public statue is in itself hagiographic, which is inappropriate for a slave trader.
Having had a good read of this thread I must admit to being a bit puzzled by some of the responses The simple fact is that the Jury having listened to all the evidence decided that in this particular case the men were innocent of their charges To extrapolate this to suggest we should start knocking down buildings is a ridiculous argument, The Secret Barristor summarises this far better than I ever could "A jury hearing the particular facts of a trial and acquitting a defendant of assault on the basis of self-defence would not create a “precedent” that means that any violence is permissible for anybody in any circumstances. Nor would it in any way undermine the rule of law" To me the problem here is not that the Statue was vandalised but the fact that it became necessary to do this as all other avenues had failed. Despite what some have said above there had been a long campaign to either get the statue moved or at least have a plaque to explain the slavery connection. The plaque idea was approved but then no one could agree on the wording so nothing happened. As for the fact that slavery was legal at the time, thats a poor argument.. As others have pointed out thousands of slaves died in transit - but that wasnt illegal either as they werent considered as humans - just goods damaged or lost in transport. If you are fine with justifying classifying kidnapped victims as possessions of their kidnappers with no more rights than a crate of tea as something you can overlook because it was legal at the time you have a different set of morals to me. As I said in my op - I am pleased the Jury decided that in this case the circumstances lead to them deciding no offence was committed. It doesnt mean I support vandalism of any statue you dont like
Those condoning vandalism are on the wrong side of history. As pointed out by Donny-Red above, in 50 years this would have looked ridiculous to jail someone for pulling down a statue of a man who sold and bought black people, making himself a pretty penny in the process. History will vindicate this decision and the judge was clever enough to know this would be the case.