Jump to content

News story of the day


BOF

Recommended Posts

When the statue was put up in 1895 the plaque below it glorified him without mentioning his role in the slave trade... Not long before the protestors threw the statue in the river, the following new bronze plaque was close to being placed on the plinth and was actually manufactured (but then the mayor objected to some of the wording): 

"Edward Colston (1636–1721), MP for Bristol (1710–1713), was one of this city's greatest benefactors. He supported and endowed schools, almshouses, hospitals and churches in Bristol, London and elsewhere. Many of his charitable foundations continue. This statue was erected in 1895 to commemorate his philanthropy. A significant proportion of Colston's wealth came from investments in slave trading, sugar and other slave-produced goods. As an official of the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, he was also involved in the transportation of approximately 84,000 enslaved African men, women and young children, of whom 19,000 died on voyages from West Africa to the Caribbean and the Americas."
 
Edited by robby b
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

If it's placed in the context of the shit things that he did, as this one surely will be, no. There are all kinds of museum exhibits that include shitheads. 

Generally in a purely or largely negative light though, no? They don’t try too hard to give a balanced account of shitheads, because then people ask why you’ve chosen to highlight the life of a shithead over someone more worthy.

An exhibit on Colston was never going to portray him purely negatively, particularly if this had all been done before the protests. It’d likely be a relatively flattering exhibit focusing on his charitable work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, robby b said:

The original plaque from the 1800s of course only glorified him, listing his donations to almshouses, schools and hospitals without mentioning his role in the slave trade... Not long before the protestors threw the statue in the river, the following new bronze plaque was close to being placed on the plinth and was actually manufactured (but then the mayor objected to some of the wording): 

"Edward Colston (1636–1721), MP for Bristol (1710–1713), was one of this city's greatest benefactors. He supported and endowed schools, almshouses, hospitals and churches in Bristol, London and elsewhere. Many of his charitable foundations continue. This statue was erected in 1895 to commemorate his philanthropy. A significant proportion of Colston's wealth came from investments in slave trading, sugar and other slave-produced goods. As an official of the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, he was also involved in the transportation of approximately 84,000 enslaved African men, women and young children, of whom 19,000 died on voyages from West Africa to the Caribbean and the Americas."
 

That argument had been rumbling on for years with various organisations objecting to the wording, it wasn't just a particular Mayor. It was a game of semantic ping-pong

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

That argument had been rumbling on for years with various organisations objecting to the wording, it wasn't just a particular Mayor. It was a game of semantic ping-pong

Yeah I was just reading about several versions (wordings)... it sounds like it was all taking a bit too long to get agreement, to go ahead with a final version.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

particularly if this had all been done before the protests

Which protests? The BLM protest where the statue was dumped in the dock or the decades long protests about his name being associated with all kinds of landmarks and schools all over Bristol.

There were bands that refused to play the Colston Hall for years. Punters that refused to go. This wasn't something that just happened at a protest, it was the culmination of many years of civic discussion that was getting absolutely nowhere (see above comment about the new plaque for the statue, that in itself was about a decades worth)

Viewing the removal of the statue as just a one off doesn't have the right context, this was symbolic of the years of protesting about Colston that was met by no action. Even his closest living relative said the statue should come down.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Which protests? The BLM protest where the statue was dumped in the dock or the decades long protests about his name being associated with all kinds of landmarks and schools all over Bristol.

There were bands that refused to play the Colston Hall for years. Punters that refused to go. This wasn't something that just happened at a protest, it was the culmination of many years of civic discussion that was getting absolutely nowhere (see above comment about the new plaque for the statue, that in itself was about a decades worth)

Viewing the removal of the statue as just a one off doesn't have the right context, this was symbolic of the years of protesting about Colston that was met by no action. Even his closest living relative said the statue should come down.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t disagree with the removal of the statue. I generally disagree with the removal of statues when a complex historical figure is being judged by a facet of their legacy, but that’s not the case here - Colston is only famous for charitable works, which he paid for by slavery. Therefore he’s only famous for being a slaver. Not the kind of guy we should have statues of.

I just disagreed with the assertion that nobody would have a problem if the statue was put in a museum. The choice of what is shown in a museum is inherently a political choice, so I think displaying the statue in a museum ends up being judged as a political statement too (the statement being “this man is worthy of an exhibit”).

I don’t think there’d be as much fuss as the statue being left out in public, of course. But I’m sure someone would find it objectionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Davkaus said:

The thing I couldn't help but notice in the video of the BLM verdict celebrations was it being a big group of white mofos front and centre with a couple of token black people, right at the back of the group :D 

Bristol innit 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

The snow penis erected in the roundabout - again

640@60.jpg

In January last year, a little less than a year ago, someone built a large snow penis in a roundabout in Dalsjöfors just outside Borås.

However, the Swedish Transport Administration believed that it could pose a danger.

- Actually, you can say that it was very enterprising to think like that, but there is a small downside to it all as well, said Bengt Olsson, press manager at the Swedish Transport Administration, then.

On the one hand, he meant that the person or persons who placed the object there may have exposed themselves to danger, and on the other hand, that as a motorist you need to be aware of the connecting roads.

- And therefore there can even be a little traffic danger in connection, he says.

When asked if he was impressed by the artwork as such, he replied:

- Impressed and impressed ... I have not seen anything close yet

Now a new snow penis has been erected in the same place, which Borås Tidning first noticed on Saturday. 

Next to the snow penis, which according to BT is over three meters high, there is also a sign with the admonition:

- Let it stand!

https://www.expressen.se/gt/snopenisen-rest--i-rondellen-igen/

Kenneth williams GIFs - Get the best gif on GIFER

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59912361

"Ahmaud Arbery: Jogger's murderers sentenced to life in prison". 

So they'll have plenty of time to think about their shocking and disgusting racial murder of a clearly unarmed man who was obviously posing no threat to them as he actually tried to run away from them.

They claim they suspected he was a burglar apparently because he was running. Well for a start it really should have crossed their minds that this guy may well have simply been out jogging, as he was wearing what joggers wear: trainers, shorts and a T-shirt. 

But besides, even if a person is wearing jeans and a shirt, and therefore very unlikely to be out for a jog, it's still wrong to assume that they're likely to be a burglar just because they're running. Often a person is running simply because they're late for an appointment or a bus or train. (Or another possibility is that they could be in danger, perhaps fleeing a bad person with a weapon, for example!)

And anyway, even in the US with all its gun rights, even if a person saw that someone had just robbed or attempted to rob someone else's property, i.e. if there was some form of actual evidence, then I believe the witness should call the police instead of acting as vigilantes with a gun. The judge in this case specifically condemned the three white men on trial for taking the law into their own hands. 

Would McMichael junior have chased and shot dead a white person running down his street? 

The prosecutors are right, race was a factor.

Assuming that Travis McMichael and his father Gregory and their neighbour William Bryan did suspect Ahmaud Arbery to be a burglar, they did so because he was a young, black male. Which means that they thought/think the worst of young, black males (and perhaps of black people in general) and that is racism. 

It's easy to understand that there are many white people who are burglars or some other kind of criminal and there are so, so many young black males who are not burglars or some other kind of criminal, and that the southern US states are not an exception to that despite how their legacy of slavery, segregation and marginalisation has shaped the present. In any deprived, racially oppressed group there are many, many people who don't react by turning to a life of crime as a way out of their situation, as a way out of  racial oppression.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Phil Silvers said:

Shocking disaster footage here, poor people had no chance.

 

Shocking and very sad. Not overly keen on the footage being shared on twitter but oh well. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Phil Silvers said:

Agree, I thought twice about putting it up on here tbh, happy to take it down if it's too distasteful.

It's weird. If it was on the news I don't think I'd think twice and I've seen worse on news shows (various wars or terrorism incidents), but something about twitter just makes it feel wrong. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

It's weird. If it was on the news I don't think I'd think twice and I've seen worse on news shows (various wars or terrorism incidents), but something about twitter just makes it feel wrong. 

I'd happily stick the whole of social media in the bin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Genie said:

Apart from VT*

I never think of VT as social media. Possibly because the people on here are actually quite nice and social people and not insane, cave dwelling, bottom feeding gits. But then I guess I never really go into On Topic anymore. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rds1983 said:

I never think of VT as social media. Possibly because the people on here are actually quite nice and social people and not insane, cave dwelling, bottom feeding gits. But then I guess I never really go into On Topic anymore. 

**** off you clearing in the woods. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â