Reply With QuoteColston was the governor of the Royal African Company, a company granted a monopoly by Parliament on the trading of slaves. He himself didn't own or trade slaves. His own business was that of merchantOriginally Posted by Croesy Blue
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Yes
No
Leo Fortune West
If pulling down statues doesn't erase history what's wrong with pulling them down?
Colston was the governor of the Royal African Company, a company granted a monopoly by Parliament on the trading of slaves. He himself didn't own or trade slaves. His own business was that of merchant
Colston didn't trade black people. Read your history ffs
We can all copy and paste from the bbc article
Seems to me that he was pretty involved tbh.
Nothing. But I asked what does it achieve other than making a few citizen Smith types fell ultra woke?
I used to pass Colston Tower every day, and Colston Hall....We can all copy and paste from the bbc article
Seems to me that he was pretty involved tbh.
His name is quite popular in Bristol so being the individual that I am I read up on him.
I suppose it makes black people living in the community feel like the country they're living in doesn't glorify slave traders. Which if you "read your history" rather than the bbc website Colston was.
I don't know why you've reduced it to this one specific statue and tried to get him off on a technicality anyway.
The question is what's the point of having the statue up?
And then copy and pasted a line from the bbc news story about him? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-42404825
http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/History/...ons/bha096.pdf seems to think he was a slave trader anyway.
But the discussion isn't just about thisone statue anyway.
No its not, and I've still not had an answer to what does pulling down his statue achieve?
Haven’t 5 different people answered this?
What’s the point of leaving it up?
No point arguing with him, his mind is made up.
Firstly, I'm not getting him off on anything. He wasn't a slave traders but was complicit in the slave trade. But this was the 17th century, the world was quite different then.
Most people wouldn't know who the statue was of, or if they knew who it was, may not know his part in this particular part of history. So I doubt people would object to the statue.
I've asked several times now, but still no answer. What does pulling his statue down achieve?
I'm not arguing leaving it up, imasking what will be achieved by pulling it down?
Have we stopped racism as a result? Or are we carrying on as before?
My mind is open to you explaining what will be achieved by this statue being pulled down?
It’s achieved annoying racists so all good in my book.
Which many people have explained to you. Go away
✌️
How many racists do you know? How do you know they were annoyed? Did you ask them or perhaps you took a poll
No one has explained anything.
The statue was erected in the late 19th century by the Victorians. Victorian Britain funded the West Africa Squadron that ended the slave trade.I guarantee celebrating slavery wasn't in their thinking when this statue was erected.
His question has been answered 100 times too.
The question that hasn’t been answered is what’s the point of leaving the statue up? No one knows who he was apparently and he was complicit in the slave trade.
Seems like the least inspiring statue ever.
I've asked what has been accomplished by pulling it down? It wasn't erected to celebrate slavery, he was hardly known, and was less known as being governor of the RAC. We've not ended racism, we've achieved nothing.
You guarantee that the people 130 years ago erecting the statue 170 years after Colston's death weren't thinking about slavery. How does this guarantee work?
Because the Victorians fought tooth and nail to end the slave trade in the Atlantic.
Have you ever read about Manchester (cottonopolis) in the American Civil War? If not, you should do so. You'll see what the Victorians thought of the slave trade.
You are saying that because "Victorians" fought tooth and nail to end the slave trade "in the Atlantic" you can "guarantee" that the "Victorians" who erected the Colston statue weren't thinking about slavery when they did it. It's almost like these "Victorians" were some kind of tribe that followed a sacred path and that's why you can "guarantee" what you say is right. Is "bollocks" too strong a word for your line of argument?
Posting Permissions
