Ive been reading the link put up by
butchersapron
In the light of recent moves to place a ‘corrective’ plaque on the statue of Edward Colston in the centre of Bristol and calls for it to be removed to a museum it seems the time is right to investigate the origins of this monument and the claim emblazoned on it that it was: Erected […]
www.brh.org.uk
The statue was funded and erected at a time of open class warfare in Bristol. The local wealthy business elites were feeling threatened. The statue of Colston was attempt to attempt to revitalise the cult of Colston. A man who had died 1721. The elites of Bristol had uccessfully set up Colston as a "moral saint" and successful entpreuneur who used his wealth to help the poor some decades before the idea of statue. Colston day was a big event in Bristol. It was not really about Colston it was to show that these Victorian bourgeoisie were the best to run society.
The article shows how they created a myth of Colston. The Colston they invented was how they saw themselves. And how they wanted the lower orders to see them. Elaborate events took place on Colston day - a picture of society were everyone knew there place.
So the statue, for which popular funding was lacking, was brought about in a period when the local bourgeois did not feel secure.
Read two other articles from the excellent site dispelling the myth of Colston.
This is where historical research matters. Colston didn't do the dirty work of slaving. He was the organiser. So at one remove. The defence is that he was a merchant and that his main business was trade not buying and selling slaves.That this part of his business was not main part of his business life. Slaving was part of society in his time so he could not avoid it. Its unfair to pick on him.
Introduction This research article is an examination of the Royal African Company (RAC) and the role of Edward Colston (b. 1636 d. 1721) within the organisation as both an investor and executive. It is unsurprising that this history has not been previously collated in this form as Colston still...
www.brh.org.uk
Article 2 shows that he was a main player in the Royal African Company. This was set up to buy slaves in the West coast of Africa and sell them in Carribbean. Mainly Jamaica and Barbados. Sanctioned by the King it was a privately run. Colston was a big investor and heavily involved in it- held positions and sat on committees. This was highly successful big operation. Even built its own forts in Africa to protect its interests. Colston left when the going was good with a fortune. He didnt leave because he didnt like slavery. He left as he saw the company future business prospects as poor.
So buying and selling slaves was his main business interest. It was how he became so rich.
He was an organiser of the slave trade. A significant one. Not a bystander or unwilling accomplice. He personally never saw how this was done.
Introduction Edward Colston was an investor, official and eventually deputy governor of the Royal African Company (RAC) from 1680-92. Over this period the RAC purchased and transported tens of thousands of enslaved Africans across the Atlantic into a life of hard labour. This article aims to...
www.brh.org.uk
Article one is about the number of human beings that this company transported to Carribbean. It all about numbers and estimates.Got to admire the work that historians have put into this.
Its estimated that 23% died on route.
Estimated 14% were children transported to be slaves.
The amount of money Royal African Company made in Colstons time there ( 1680 - 1692) :
A monetary estimate of the value of the 65,200 Africans sold in the Caribbean and mainland America yields more than 1 million pounds sterling which equates to somewhere between 2 and 35 billion pounds today.
Its this painstaking historical research that dispells the myth of Colston
He was an organiser and profited from the slave trade.