Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Black Lives Matter demos and protests UK, 2020-2021

Churchill died of a stroke at the age of 90, I suspect prosecutions are more likely over the damage to his statue are more likely than over the one in Bristol to a guy who has been dead for three centuries. Don't think it's all likely that the Bristol statue will get put back up though. It was mainly the status quo that kept it there.
I predict the plinth will remain empty for 2 or 3 years then someone will suggest a statue to someone less divisive goes there. I reckon most likely move John Wesley's statue or put one up to Brunel.
 
Churchill died of a stroke at the age of 90, I suspect prosecutions are more likely over the damage to his statue are more likely than over the one in Bristol to a guy who has been dead for three centuries. Don't think it's all likely that the Bristol statue will get put back up though. It was mainly the status quo that kept it there.
I predict the plinth will remain empty for 2 or 3 years then someone will suggest a statue to someone else divisive goes there. I reckon most likely move John Wesley's statue or put one up to Brunel.
Put Boris Johnson there and don't let him get down
 
Churchill died of a stroke at the age of 90, I suspect prosecutions are more likely over the damage to his statue are more likely than over the one in Bristol to a guy who has been dead for three centuries. Don't think it's all likely that the Bristol statue will get put back up though. It was mainly the status quo that kept it there.
I predict the plinth will remain empty for 2 or 3 years then someone will suggest a statue to someone less divisive goes there. I reckon most likely move John Wesley's statue or put one up to Brunel.
I would have thought though someone more BLM friendly rather than a dead white man again.
 
Remind me again - what's your angle here? You were bursting for someone to act on this for those years right?

I haven't lived in Bristol for decades, but I do remember Colston's slave trading being discussed on local radio in the early 90s, when the naming of Colston Hall and this statue were mentioned.

So I am surprised by the fact that in all that time since, there wasn't even a plaque placed by the statue mentioning slavery. Then hearing the current mayor explain his opposition to the statue, but offer some excuses for why he has achieved absolutely nothing about it in four years..... I guess my angle is that despite twittering by politicians and others about democratic processes, no such course of action seemed available, so chucking it in the river was justified.
 
I haven't lived in Bristol for decades, but I do remember Colston's slave trading being discussed on local radio in the early 90s, when the naming of Colston Hall and this statue were mentioned.

So I am surprised by the fact that in all that time since, there wasn't even a plaque placed by the statue mentioning slavery. Then hearing the current mayor explain his opposition to the statue, but offer some excuses for why he has achieved absolutely nothing about it in four years..... I guess my angle is that despite twittering by politicians and others about democratic processes, no such course of action seemed available, so chucking it in the river was justified.
Marvin Rees vetoed the plaque that was going to go on there because it changed the wording from Colston being involved in the trafficking of slaves to merely 'transporting' them, removed reference to him being a tory MP, and removed reference to the fact that Colston's charity only extended to those who agreed with him politically and religiously.

As the son of a Jamaican father, don't you think Rees would have loved for the statue to be taken down under his direction? The fact that it wasn't is more a reflection on the influence and power of Colston's friends in the Merchant Venturer's Association than any inaction on Rees's part.
 
I haven't lived in Bristol for decades, but I do remember Colston's slave trading being discussed on local radio in the early 90s, when the naming of Colston Hall and this statue were mentioned.

So I am surprised by the fact that in all that time since, there wasn't even a plaque placed by the statue mentioning slavery. Then hearing the current mayor explain his opposition to the statue, but offer some excuses for why he has achieved absolutely nothing about it in four years..... I guess my angle is that despite twittering by politicians and others about democratic processes, no such course of action seemed available, so chucking it in the river was justified.
It was a statue to a fucking slave trader. Of course chucking it in the river was justified. And way preferable to any plaque that would have seen him stay there, some kind of compromise cos there are really different reasonable positions to take on it. Instead of a compromise, you have a victory. Now to get his name off that hall, the school and everything else.
 

The "Rochdale Herald" is good satire but there's a bit in there I want to quote because people might not realise what was actually being satirised.

This bit.

The slave trader Tory MP, was a self-described philanthropist, endowing schools, almhouses, hospitals and churches in Bristol, London and elsewhere with some of the proceeds of his human trafficking.

That bit in bold, no doubt in the interests of 'balance', was actually in a report on the BBC website yesterday.


  • He donated to churches and hospitals in Bristol, also founding two almshouses and a school
  • Colston also lent money to the Bristol corporation and was a city MP for a short time

Because, obviously, the BBC seem to think it's ok, still, to achieve balance in racism. By reporting the racist's 'good points'.

Appalling or what? They don't seem to realise they are exactly part of the problem. That, over 300 years later, they think it's still necessary to advertise that slavery 'had its good points'.

Well done to the Rochdale Herald for its satire. "The proceeds of his human trafficking" is a great line. But it's a great line because it's true. The BBC, our national broadcaster, doesn't seem to see this.

It's not balance. It's still a massive part of the problem to repeat this shit.
 
Marvin Rees vetoed the plaque that was going to go on there because it changed the wording from Colston being involved in the trafficking of slaves to merely 'transporting' them, removed reference to him being a tory MP, and removed reference to the fact that Colston's charity only extended to those who agreed with him politically and religiously.

As the son of a Jamaican father, don't you think Rees would have loved for the statue to be taken down under his direction? The fact that it wasn't is more a reflection on the influence and power of Colston's friends in the Merchant Venturer's Association than any inaction on Rees's part.
You mean son of a Black Jamaican father. Because some Jamaicans are white. I felt the distinction needed to be drawn in order for your post to make sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom