Forum Topic

Unacceptable vandalism by thugs and vandals

I know my memory isn't what it was but even so, I'm sure I would remember our obnoxious Home Secretary complaining at this particular episode of statue toppling:

Richard Carter ● 2131d20 Comments

I understand that when a statue of Stalin in Budapest was removed in 1956 they just left his boots on the plinth. This still amuses he locals.

Jonathan Callaway ● 2130d

"I think the British education system needs looking into as a matter of urgency!"I agree - we should start with asking how people think colonialism is defended? And there certainly wasn't a lot of "Commonwealth" in Bengal where 2-3 million starved to death.

Ed Robinson ● 2130d

Thd daftest thing was the defacing of the statue of Abraham Lincoln. Know your cause springs to mind.

Andy Pike ● 2130d

Did the Bristol community know what Colston stood for (before recent events, I mean)? I lived in Bristol for nine years, and didn't know anything about his background. But that was some time ago, admittedly. Anyway, there's a certain poetic justice in his statue being thrown in the water, given the many thousands of slaves whose bodies were unceremoniously dumped in the sea when they died in the horrific conditions on the voyage across the Atlantic.

Richard Carter ● 2130d

That it took a few minutes (did it?) to clean up Churchill's statue is really not the point. Ignorance meant that it was defaced in the first place, which cannot be said about Colston when the Bristol community knew exactly what he stood for.

Lucille Grant ● 2130d

*without his defeat of Hitler the individual might not be in a position to express his thoughts on Churchill's statue!*This.

Lucille Grant ● 2130d

As the news footage showed, it only took a few minutes to clean up Churchill's statue, so no harm done.  Similarly, a crane should be able to haul Colston out of Bristol Docks without too much trouble, so not much damage done there. But then what?

Peter Evans ● 2130d

I agree with the views expressed so far.  As Michael says, history can be viewed with different filters, for example, the views of the French and the British regarding Napoleon. I also agree that history is written by the victors and the positive is highlighted and the not-so-positive, well, omitted? As Gabrielle says, British history is barbaric, but we cannot change the past, we must learn from it.  I would like to think that mankind has progressed in the last few hundreds of years?  What I certainly do not agree is applying today's views or opinions on events that happened over 50 years ago.  The mindset then was completely different and, while we may not agree with things that have happened, it is difficult to pin aspects like racism on Churchill as we see them today because things were very different. Of course racism existed then as it did in the US in the 19th and 20th century, in Africa, the West Indies, etc. but was it called racism then? Segregation yes.  Perhaps it is a question of terminology. I would wholeheartedly agree that we should trumpet a lot louder the racism against the Windrush generation and their recent deportation after years of living in the UK.   As for the British Empire, I do not think it was that different from the French, Belgium, Spanish or Dutch.  The "rulers" were really ruthless.  And that is an example we should all learn from and certainly not follow.  

Ivonne Holliday ● 2130d

I'm sympathetic with this view as I wouldn't go around tearing down statues or putting anti racist graffiti on memorials - but then some would consider I'm part of the privileged white, male set of individuals. (I could, though, reference those even more privileged than me with private education and offshore family trusts but let's not go there!) However, I can see how those who've suffered descrimination might want to take more direct action if they feel they're in a minority that isn't being listened to and who have a different view of history and whose relatives may have been affected by struggles for independence from European empires in the 1950-60s.

Michael Ixer ● 2130d

I'm sympathetic with this view as I wouldn't go around tearing down statues or putting anti racist graffiti on memorials - but then some would consider I'm part of the privileged white, male set of individuals. (I could, though, reference those even more privileged than me with private education and offshore family trusts but let's not go there!) However, I can see how those who've suffered descrimination might want to take more direct action if they feel they're in a minority that isn't being listened to and who have a different view of history and whose relatives may have been affected by struggles for independence from European empires in the 1950-60s.

Michael Ixer ● 2130d

Oddly i sort of agree with you both too.I dont have any strong feelings either way about Churchill being a rascist, i have a vague memory of him not having an exactly glorious record during the Boer war? The persons justification for defacing the statue sounds non-sensical though - agreed, send him back to school!In terms of the Bristol statue and others of their ilk, they belong in a museum. Imagine if you were black and you had to explain to your child why that person was celebrated with a statue.

Matt Palmer ● 2130d

@IvonneI fully agree with you.  Which proves there's a first time for everything!

Sue Hammond ● 2130d

Oops! Silly mistake: I meant, of course, that Patel wasn't in office at the time Saddam's statue was pulled down.

Richard Carter ● 2130d

No, I know that Patel wasn't in office when the Colston statue met its watery end, but she was a politically active so presumably held views of some kind: after all, she was over 30 at the time of the Iraq war. And Saddam was vile as you point out, though at the time of the hideous gas attacks in Halabja he was, in fact, an ally of ours. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack#Discovery_and_response).And I'd agree with your comment that the British education system needs looking into, but perhaps not for quite the same reasons: for example, it's taught that Britain deserves great credit for abolishing slavery, but somehow the part that we benefitted from it for many years is not trumpeted; I wonder why? And the same arguments apply to Churchill: for sure he was a great leader when we needed it most, but his earlier chequered past, including his blatant racism, shouldn't be forgotten either if we're to have a balanced view.

Richard Carter ● 2130d

I think there are ways of looking at history with different filters on. The  Independent article beliw discusses some aspects of Churchill's life other than his defeat of the Nazis - an achievement which was obviously of benefit to us all in the modern world. Many of these things are history and we can view them with a different filter now and, yes, we cannot change them. However the Obama story is something that occurred in our lifetime and is something that some of our parents or grandparents make have indirectly supported by voting for him? This might explain why some now view Churchill as a racist? But, of course, the irony is that without his defeat of Hitler the individual might not be in a position to express his thoughts on Churchill's statue! One can see that some Irish might not also be a fan of Sir Winston but again would some of them now be part of a democratic EU as opposed to servants on the Third Reich if Hitler had been appeased? Finally, Coulston may have been a philanthropist but one has to consider where his wealth game from; ok, it was legal at the time to indulge in slavery to genberate income and wealth, and the capture and trading of slaves, but on a broader perspective it does highlight where the wealth underpinning the initial of growth of the relatively prosperous economies of Europe and North America originally started, and where the view that its population was superior is rooted? I'm certainly not saying I've got answers but I think it's worth looking through those different historic filters and understanding others views on what happened are how it affects different views in the modern world? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

Michael Ixer ● 2130d

Ivonne, I do agree with your point (re Hussein and a 300 year old statue).I don't think any of us have issue with the statue not being there (my opinion it should be in a museum like The Engine House in Bristol which is dedicated to learning more about the slave trade). However I struggle to condone individuals bringing it upon themselves to take down the statue.I do not know what the alternative was however as clearly this was an issue in Bristol for some time which clearly the Mayor of Bristol still couldn't sort out. Ultimately it is the history of England which has a number of inhumane stories within it and it should not be just left in the sea.Also, how far do we go? In Bristol there are streets called "Whiteladies" and "Black Boy Hill". Similarly do we rename Colston Hall/Wills Memorial Building? What about the houses built with money from this? Regarding Churchill I did not know that was the reason and i actually thought it referred to his views on India etc. By today’s standards what he did and said was terrible, but our history is barbaric and we can’t change that. The British empire did some terrible things, but at the time the country and monarchy will likely have fully supported it.

Gabrielle O'Mahoney ● 2130d

"we cannot change history."The Victorians put up the statue to this man one hundred years ago. Would we do the same now? Our views on history change.

David Ainsworth ● 2130d

Hello Richard, I am not too sure I follow the line of thought here.  However much I dislike Priti Patel, she was not in office when Saddam Hussein's statue being toppled. As far as I remember, this statue was toppled when Saddam Hussein was defeated by the US-led army in 2003 following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.  It was virtually 5 years after Hussein's army had attacked the Kurdish town Halabja with mustard gas and nerve agents although he always maintained these attacks were carried out by Iran.  Saddam Hussein was alive when the statue was toppled, albeit in hiding. I find this quite different to toppling a statue of a man who had died 300 years before.  While I agree that the slavery trade was not a period of British history to be proud of, it happened over 300 years ago and we cannot change history.  We must learn from it, improve today with a view to a better future.  As far as I know, Colston was also a philanthropist in his time and left all his wealth to the City of Bristol. Another, but different, thing I do not understand, is the defacing of Churchill's statue.  Apparently it was done "because Churchill was a confirmed racist who fought the Nazis to protect the Commonwealth from invasion — he did not do it for black people or for people of colour or for people of anything; he was just defending colonialism."  I think the British education system needs looking into as a matter of urgency!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2130d

Michael, no perhaps about it: there is a very clear distinction between those who were demonstrating at the iniquities of racism and the - always small - minority at events like this who are simply out for trouble. It's important that people's entirely understandable anger at the attacks on the police, etc, should not be allowed to dominate the discussion of the serious issue here.

Richard Carter ● 2130d

Yes, lots of contradictions. Pehaps one should distinguish between those acting out of conscience to remove what is now seen as a racist symbol and very offensive to many, and those throwing bricks at police or bicycles at horses; and let's hope those outraged by the despicable act of throwing things at horses are also campaigning to have horse racing banned rather than dressing up,  drinking champagne and shrugging their shoulders when horses get destroyed at Aintree for their entertainment, or someone's financial gain? Do the police in Bristol understand more about the consent of the locals they're providing as service to protect than the Home Secretary does? I wonder if in a century or so if the burghers of Stoke Mandeville will be erecting a statue to a James Saville in honour to his his charity work at the local hospital saying, OK, he wasn't perfect but he did do lots of good chgarity work  ... just wondering? Some shades of grey rather than black and white? Or perhaps that's a bad analogy for a couple of reasons ... just askin' ...

Michael Ixer ● 2131d