Will Mandela Gardens have to be renamed?

The statue was of him, a slave trader and not an abstract representation of his philanthropy

 

Dundas , Buchanan , Cochrane , Glassford ?

 

A very interesting analogy. The butcher was not an evil man, far from it. Possibly one of the best of us. Yet still abhorrent in the views of those 200 years hence.

Should his statue be torn down because of how future society views him, despite the good he did for the community of today?

 

Yes it was a statue of the man, but it was absolutely erected in recognition of his philanthropy and a homage to the difference his contribution he helped make and not about him as a person.
You may not like it but given the fact it was erected nearly 200 years after he died and nearly 100 years after Slavery was abolished in the U.K Is a bit of a clue.
So to say it was put up to celebrate a slaver is incorrect.

 

If you stick a statue up of someone it's a tacit celebration of him as a person

 

You said they was celebrating a slaver, I pointed out they weren’t.
The erection had nothing to do with him being a slaver.
I accept for a part of his life he was part of a Royal establishment that made their money by trading human beings( now known as Slavery), you seem unable to recognise his ‘fame’ and recognition was for the many more years (before and after) that he did good deeds for this less fortunate.

 

The reason he had the money to be philanthropic with though was through the slave trade. People in Bristol wanted it removed or an additional plaque put on it.

Jimmy Saville left all his money to Great Ormond street. Let the money do some good for the children but obviously you would nt want any wards named after him as a constant reminder for those who he abused.

 

Can't disagree there Farnham....when you consider Hattie McDaniel became the first black actor or actress to win an Oscar with her performance in the film, it seems rather counterproductive.

 

Actually it was painted white to cover the scorch marks caused when British troops burnt it down in the war of 1812.

 

He was a slaver, and they erected a statue to celebrate him. Not for being a slaver, but he was a slaver. So they were celebrating someone who was a slaver . Not sure why you are arguing about the semantics of this. The poster never said the statue was erected for his slavery exploits???

Would you have no issue with a statue being erected of Michael Jackson to celebrate his charity work, or Jimmy Savile for the same? I mean, the fact they were sex offenders is irrelevant isn't it and we wouldn't be celebrating sex offenders if we did that, just make sure we don't include nonce on the plinth and it'll be fine.

The world has changed since that statue was erected, I get that. Doesn't mean it has to stay like that though.

 

For a start there is a massive difference in that being a sex offender was illegal at the time of the actions. When he was on the board of a company that was set up by the Royal Family it wasn’t illegal. So you’re comparison is totally irrelevant.
Secondly as I have repeatedly said IF you actually do some research you will see that the statue was NOT to celebrate the man but the Philanthropy actions and the legacy left. This includes the continued support for hundreds of years after his death.
Do you really believe that nearly a hundred years after Slavery was abolished someone decided a statue to celebrate him would be a good idea/ accepted?

 

I think you quoted it before I had finished editing it.

 

No, I agree it doesn’t mean it should stay in today’s society.
In today’s society, why it was erected is irrelevant, if it generally offends people today(although that’s a whole new topic)that needs to be looked at.

 

The poster never said the statue was erected for his slavery exploits???

I believe he did, I asked how many statues were still in existence to celebrate Slavery and he replied with one less now it’s in Bristol harbour.
Which was where this difference of opinion began.

 

Again,

It did offend the people of Bristol, hence the years of campaigning for a new inscription if it wasnt to be taken down and it ending up in the river!

 

Exactly how it should be Helen(without the criminal damage part of course). The only reason a new inscription wasn’t made was because the council rejected the wording and the Foundation and Council couldn’t agree on the wording.
Now would have been the perfect time to raise pressure on the council to finalise the wording.
It was actually a small minority of the people in Bristol who were campaigning, that doesn’t make their campaign any less significant.

 

No, I said it celebrated a slaver not slavery.

 

The BLM movement risk losing hearts and minds by fixating on the past, rather than concentrating on the present/future. Changing attitudes now is far more important.

 

... every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

George Orwell, 1984