What should replace the Colston statue in Bristol? | Page 13 | Vital Football

What should replace the Colston statue in Bristol?

Pulling down the statue is surely criminal damage (Nobby should know) they have them on video. Therefore if the evidence is there they should face the full force of the law. As they used to say in the westerns 'give them a fair trial then hang them.
 
PhilK66 said:
Fast forward a decade and these students will largely be married with 2 children, driving nice electric cars and voting Conservative (or Lib Dem) whilst publicly espousing socialist views. It's what happens in the real world.
Click to expand...

The real world? Where is that and how may I find it?
 
How about converting a Banksy street art to a sculpture and putting that on the plinth. Banksy is a Bristolian, after all.
Maybe a nice bronze of the two kissing coppers or the girl lifted skywards by the heart balloon.
Appropriately, most of his art relies on black and white working together in harmony.
 
I’ll be doing my one man protest outside the Tate Modern.
Art built on slavery.
Burn the art.
Burn the building.
Savanorola rules!
 
shotshy said:
I’ll be doing my one man protest outside the Tate Modern.
Art built on slavery.
Burn the art.
Burn the building.
Savanorola rules!
Click to expand...

You're allowed two people, shotty.

I would join you if the protest was just about changing the name.

But if you want to burn the art, I'm out. We could burn the building but only if all the art was removed first!
 
Pulling down old statues of historical figures just isn’t near the top of my list of priorities.
Actually, it’s not even on the list.
Where does it end?
Princess Pocahontas in the Gravesend church yard?
It could be argued that her collaboration ignited a genocide of native Americans.
You could go on forever.
General Haig?
General Gordon ?
Nelson Mandela?
Queen Victoria?
 
shotshy said:
Pulling down old statues of historical figures just isn’t near the top of my list of priorities.
Actually, it’s not even on the list.
Where does it end?
Princess Pocahontas in the Gravesend church yard?
It could be argued that her collaboration ignited a genocide of native Americans.
You could go on forever.
General Haig?
General Gordon ?
Nelson Mandela?
Queen Victoria?
Click to expand...

Erm. You've just written a list that's not even on your list! 😉
 
shotshy said:
Pulling down old statues of historical figures just isn’t near the top of my list of priorities.
Actually, it’s not even on the list.
Where does it end?
Princess Pocahontas in the Gravesend church yard?
It could be argued that her collaboration ignited a genocide of native Americans.
You could go on forever.
General Haig?
General Gordon ?
Nelson Mandela?
Queen Victoria?
Click to expand...

It's nowhere near the top of my list either, shotty. But it's on there somewhere, after a whole load of other more important things. Not all statues, only the offensive ones. And they'd be preserved, and displayed, just in more appropriate places, such as museums.

Where does it end? It never ends.

And nor should it. If a society of people decide that someone should be commemorated with a statue (though it's usually not the people, it's usually the government/authorities) then that's fine, that statue goes up. Take the Thatcher statue that's supposed to be going up in Grantham. Unsuprisingly it's caused some debate (I think it's erection may have been delayed again), and because (rightly or wrongly) it's so blatantly obvious that lots of people would want to vandalise or even pull it down, it's due to be put on top of a 10ft plinth.

It's no good arguing that people shouldn't vandalise statues, if enough people find a statue to be grossly offensive then they're gonna vandalise it. That's just human nature. All that can be done is for the authorities to protect the statues and punish those who vandalise them. But you see, the more you protect the statues and the harsher you punish those who vandalise them, the more of an authoritarian regime you become.

Statues should only be erected if they're popular (I imagine it is a popular decision in Grantham to erect the Thatcher one), that much should be obvious. But if then, over the course of time, the statues are no longer popular, but worse, have become grossly offensive to the local people, they should not be on display in prominent places. I agree that it's much better that they get removed (and then placed in museums) by the local authorities rather than an angry mob, but let's be honest now, if the Colston statue hadn't come down in the way it did, none of these statues of slavers would now be being got rid of.

I think it's good that they are, let's replace them with some statues of people who we, the current 'people', think are more deserving than those fuckers who lived affluent lives of plenty because they had made great wealth by trading human beings. Real life human beings; being sold, and transported, to live their lives as slaves.

Over eighty four thousand for Colston. Think about that for a moment, 84,000+ human beings. Bristol has a large black community. Many of them will have ancestors who were slaves. Perhaps some even relatives of those who Colston traded. Do you really think it was appropriate for the statue to have been still standing there? Don't forget that many people had been trying for quite a while to get the local authorities to remove it.
 
ThreeSixes said:
Probably not, no. I do think though if you asked the average black person in Stratford or Peckham or Hackney about a statue in Aldgate, they wouldn't care less
Click to expand...
That probably depends on who is asking them the question and how they phrase it. We can all be influenced if we have an open mind.
I knew nothing about Colston before I was educated about him. History catches up with some people after the event. When I was a teenager I would probably have supported a statue of Gary Glitter in Leicester Square.
 
[QUOTE="Buddha, post: 2655271, member: 13537"

...let's replace them with some statues of people who we, the current 'people', think are more deserving...[/QUOTE]

Therein lies the problem. At the time of erection these statues were deserving by the current people.

Perhaps we need a review every 10 years or so to see if a statue is still pertinent.
 
Burning_Blue_Soul said:
[QUOTE="Buddha, post: 2655271, member: 13537"

...let's replace them with some statues of people who we, the current 'people', think are more deserving...
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem. At the time of erection these statues were deserving by the current people.

Perhaps we need a review every 10 years or so to see if a statue is still pertinent.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's right, of course the statues were originally erected because the people (or the state) thought that they were worthy. I thought I'd covered this in my previous post.

Not sure about a review every ten years, that sounds like a lot of beaurocracy. But yeah, maybe every 100 years. And also at any time if lots of people are objecting, and making their objections known (as was the case in Bristol with the Colston statue). In those instances there should also be a review.
 
Vambogills said:
That probably depends on who is asking them the question and how they phrase it.
Click to expand...

"What do you think about the statue of Sir John Cass in the city of London?".

That's the question.

Ask it to people in the Stratford Centre indoor market on a lunchtime (out of lockdown obviously), and see what the response is
 
ThreeSixes said:
"What do you think about the statue of Sir John Cass in the city of London?".

That's the question.

Ask it to people in the Stratford Centre indoor market on a lunchtime (out of lockdown obviously), and see what the response is
Click to expand...

You would be surprised at how many people used to riduicule "liberals" and their attitude to apartheid and civil rights in America, saying similar things. It would also be interesting to speculate how people might think if explanatory, historical plaques were everywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.