What was broken in Bristol was the rule of law and those responsible should be found and punished. What their criminal conduct revealed was the forces of inertia in this country are too strong. People had been trying to have this statue removed for decades. When legal means of decision making fail people take things into their own hands. This is a warning to society that we should heed. As to the statues themselves I really don't care. I have enough imagination to conceive that those who are the descendants of those who suffered might feel differently but I remain to be convinced that they cared either.
Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.
Much like Boris and his government.
Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
The Coliseum didn't do anything, it's just a building.
Can you genuinely not see a difference between a building where something evil happened and a statue glorifying someone who actually did those evil things?
Have you ever seen the Colosseum? If you think that siting a gigantic ornate amphitheatre in the centre of the imperial capital somehow doesn't glorify the activities that go on in it, then I have a Wembley Stadium to sell you!
Slavery is no doubt one of the most evil acts that human can inflict on human. The African slave trade was one of teh worst in history because of its industrial scale. However, with respect to statues and monuments it is worth considering that if the Americans follow our lead they will have to tear down most statues and effigies of their most notable historic figures. George Washington for one will need to be removed from their currency, and the city that takes his name renamed. It was interesting that most of those I could see who were jumping up and down on the statue were of Caucasian appearance. Anarchists perhaps, or just bandwaggoners or extremist virtue signallers?
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
Agreed. If we come away from this episode with a better understanding of our past and a renewed desire to end discrimination and improve the life chances of everyone then it will have been worth upsetting the Daily Mail. Actually, upsetting the Daily Mail is a worthy goal in itself, so it's a win-win.
How do you have a better understanding of the past ? You've just erased it.
Taking down statues does not erase the past, 90% of people walking past those statues hadn't got a clue who they were or what they did. Our history relating to slavery should rightly be displayed in museums.
Although pretty much in agreement with Alastair that's a lot of words to state the obvious. There is no place for a statue idolising a slave trader in modern Britain.
Toppling the tyrant has done more to wake up people to our mostly disgraceful colonial past than any history lessons of the last 100 years.
I suggest everyone watches Michael Portillo's Empire Journeys currently showing on Channel 5. It's deeply shocking, perhaps all the more so because delivered in such a gentle way.
Britain was built on slavery, oppression, abuse, violence and rape of people and land. There were a few lone souls who campaigned against the perpetrators but we shouldn't latch onto them too quickly in order to salve our consciences.
“ Britain was built on slavery, oppression, abuse, violence and rape of people and land.”
We’ve found the new BetterTogether2 slogan. IndyRef2 is a slam dunk for the Brit Nats.
Scots of course played a full part in the British Empire from the start.
It was an Englishman, Wilberforce, who led the abolition of the slave trade
Interesting. But I think @AlastairMeeks underplays the extent to which destruction of monuments can presage some rather more totalitarian and vile movements than simply people expressing outrage over honouring a historical figure.
The destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, of Mosul, of parts of Palmyra, of Christian churches was not done because of a bit of outrage over the Romans holding slaves but because the attackers wanted to obliterate a country’s past and culture and also the people who held onto these things. It was an attempt to wipe out memory.
It was not an attempt to right wrongs but to wipe out. It was genocidal in intent. Ditto the Chinese destruction of Uighur buildings.
The same could be said of the English attack on churches and monasteries during the Reformation. It was an attempt - quite a successful one - to destroy Catholic England and the memory of that England and it led to the persecution of those who held onto that. Much of the wealth of the aristocracy was made from the looting that took place - both here and in Ireland.
Not wanting to have a statue glorifying a slave trader does not make one ISIS of course. But there is concern that what some of those demanding statues be pulled down want is not a better appreciation of our history but to pretend it didn’t happen. Do they really want understanding? Or obliteration? Do they understand the injunction about the sins of the father not being visited on the sons - ignorance of which justified Christian anti-semitism - when they demand that Gladstone be attacked because of what his father did?
Slavery happened. We need to understand our part in it and how it was understood, then and later. So putting things in museums is fine. Adding in plaques which explain rather than glorify is also ok. Remove if the local community want this. Also OK. But allow a mob to throw away - no.
If Bristol Council did not resolve the issue around the Colston statue it was because they allowed one small group to stymie the rewriting of the plaque. They should not have done so. They should not now allow a small group to stymie the decision of the local people to keep it - if that is what it is. Power has not changed in a democracy where people have voted for a local council and if people are frustrated with the slowness of democracy then they need to make it work better not ignore it.
I don't think the people wanting to bring down statues want to pretend slavery never happened - quite the opposite.
If the Bristol public want to keep the statue they can put it back on the plinth. If the elected politicians don't do that and the Bristol public care to do so they can elect new politicians who put it back on the plinth.
There were some questions on the last thread about whether the Robert Milligan statue was part of the Grade I listing of the adjacent buildingS.
The answer is yes. Pure and simple. It’s part of a site that is listed, and making changes to such a site without listed buildings consent is an offence. Listing is here.
1) As there seems a non-trivial risk that if it hadn’t been removed it would have been illegally torn down, there might be a plea of necessity for removing it and placing it into storage;
2) Historic England have been clearly been intimidated by the violence of these mobs (see this statement on Colston’s statue) and are in any case in my experience highly ineffective. So I do not believe they will be taken steps to order it be put back up.
Therefore, conclusions:
1) Proper channels have not been followed in this case (we can be sure of that as there won’t have been time) and a council with a JCB have technically acted as illegally as a mob of violent anarchists;
2) Nothing will be done about it.
I think that's right.
The statue isn't mentioned within the listing so it's actually irrelevant whether it stays or goes as at the date of the listing the statue wasn't there.
From the listing:
A stone dedication plaque, originally placed on No. 5 Warehouse, has been re-sited on the western flank wall of the Dock Office building. The plaque describes the building of the West India Docks as part of 'an undertaking which under the favour of God, shall contribute Stablity, Increase, and Ornament to British Commerce.' A bronze statue of Robert Milligan (c1746-1809, statue 1812), original promoter of the Docks, stands on the North Quay outside the entrance to No. 1 Warehouse, the Museum in Docklands.
Nope that's from the article describing the area as is - the actual reason for listing can be seen at the bottom in the REASONS FOR DESIGNATION area and that is the bit that is most important as it determines which bits you really care about.
Mind while the reasons for designation doesn't mention the statue the fact it says "Strong connection with the British slave trade adds to historical interest of buildings, the warehouses having been built for the express purpose of receiving goods produced by slaves on West Indian plantations. " justifies the statue remaining in situ...
If an item is mentioned in any part of that listing, changes require listed buildings consent, because the environment is part of it.
Played this game with an otherwise unremarkable grave next to a rare box tomb...
But in practice, as I've said, it's moot. Even if the council didn't plead necessity, Historic England are as much use as the proverbial cat flap in an elephant house.
It was interesting that most of those I could see who were jumping up and down on the statue were of Caucasian appearance. Anarchists perhaps, or just bandwaggoners or extremist virtue signallers?
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
There was a lot of concern and dismay here last night regarding 'the mob', some of it from me. I've woken up this morning with a different perspective. 'The mob' of course, have no power at all. They don't even have the power to pull a statue down if they're challenged by the authorities. It is the politicians 'taking the knee' who have power, and they want to use the mob to advance their own agenda, in the absence (in most cases) of a democratic mandate.
Alistair's thread is obviously carefully considered, and his criteria for which statues get a stay of execution seems reasonable. But of course, it isn't. It is wholly unreasonable to remove any piece of public art because those who shout loudest and act the most aggressively demand that it must be so. The continuum is quite clear. Britain is a racist and imperialist power, so anyone who advanced its cause, be they General or field nurse, is clearly not going to be immune for long.
The solution must be to build, not to bulldoze. What does the UK BLM movement actually want to build - we know what they don't want to see, what do they want to see? Who are the heros they would like to be cast in bronze to make our streets more beautiful and say something about our times? Personally I highly doubt they would find anyone ideologically pure enough - the movement seems wholly negative in its approach. But we should at least try and make them stakeholders in the future.
Statues of those who derived most of their wealth and status from the slave trade should indeed be moved to a museum.
Others like Nelson, Churchill and Drake who were notable mainly for other achievements should be kept
You have just set yourself as an arbiter of taste and decency. What are your qualifications?
The fact I am a member of the party which forms the government
My point was a serious one.
With regards to your answer, some Jeremy Corbyn clone who gets elected in the future can claim him, or herself to be the arbiter of what is tasteful and decent too.
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If Bristol Council did not resolve the issue around the Colston statue it was because they allowed one small group to stymie the rewriting of the plaque. They should not have done so. They should not now allow a small group to stymie the decision of the local people to keep it - if that is what it is. Power has not changed in a democracy where people have voted for a local council and if people are frustrated with the slowness of democracy then they need to make it work better not ignore it.
My suspicion - and I could be entirely wrong - is that the reason the Mayor kept arguing about the plaque is because he didn't actually want the situation resolved in that way - he wanted the statue removed.
The Merchant Venturers, of course, didn't (and don't) want to admit that all their money came from the profits of slaving.
Oh ffs. Gladstone was not responsible for what his father did! These people are as bad as the right wing nutters they claim to despise. You are right Mr Dancer, moderates need to be a little more robust and tell them to go and fuck themselves
It is exactly the reverse. I am quite happy with the statues going. But yes I genuinely doubt the motives of the vast majority of those at these demonstrations in the UK. All you have to do is listen to them for a few minutes.
Do you feel the same way about generally well-respected protests of the past, like civil rights protests or suffragettes? Because I'm sure people were saying exactly the same thing of those at the time.
The civil rights movement under King was non-violent (I'm not going to go bail for Malcolm X and black power).
It is now generally accepted by actual historians that the suffragettes failed in their aims because of the violence of their actions - however famous and acclaimed they are.
Statues of those who derived most of their wealth and status from the slave trade should indeed be moved to a museum.
Others like Nelson, Churchill and Drake who were notable mainly for other achievements should be kept
You have just set yourself as an arbiter of taste and decency. What are your qualifications?
The fact I am a member of the party which forms the government
My point was a serious one.
With regards to your answer, some Jeremy Corbyn clone who gets elected in the future can claim him, or herself to be the arbiter of what is tasteful and decent too.
I presume he would like to see the Bannockburn monument and Bruce statue dynamited just because he doesn't approve of someone gaining status from achieving Scottish independence? Nothing stopping his primarily English party passing a revised Scotland Act to permit that, in his view of the way the devolution settlement should work.
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
You will probably find that it will be in the curtilage of the warehouses so is therefore also listed, which is how the system works.
I think it's going to be a hard sell to convince Scots that they were equal partners in the creation of Empire, rather than passive victims of the English.
It's hardly unusual for national identity to be built on a lie, but I can't say that I've ever seen it happening in real-time before. I don't think that a new country blaming its neighbour for its ills is likely to make good decisions on fixing its own problems.
Slavery is no doubt one of the most evil acts that human can inflict on human. The African slave trade was one of teh worst in history because of its industrial scale. However, with respect to statues and monuments it is worth considering that if the Americans follow our lead they will have to tear down most statues and effigies of their most notable historic figures. George Washington for one will need to be removed from their currency, and the city that takes his name renamed. It was interesting that most of those I could see who were jumping up and down on the statue were of Caucasian appearance. Anarchists perhaps, or just bandwaggoners or extremist virtue signallers?
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
Are you talking about the Milligan statue? I don't believe it was listed. The nearby building housing the docklands museum is.
Ms Cyclefree wrote, inter alia, that 'The destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, of Mosul, of parts of Palmyra, of Christian churches was not done because of a bit of outrage over the Romans holding slaves but because the attackers wanted to obliterate a country’s past and culture and also the people who held onto these things. It was an attempt to wipe out memory.'
Surely it was religious in intent; the aim was to wipe out what the destroyers saw as he emblems.... idols of a religion which was not only false, but a affront the 'one true god'? Rather like the bonfires of relics during the Reformation, and the Puritan 'cleansing' of particularly East Anglian churches a cou[le of hundred years late.
On schools the position is complicated but that really doesn't excuse the mess we are now in. My son's school breaks up for the summer in just over a week anyway but he has been getting 10-12 virtual classes a week with interaction with his teachers and the ability to ask questions. His maths teacher, who is very good, has been covering the syllabus "lightly". He has said that he wants to leave the more complicated stuff for next year when he can see their faces and see if they are actually getting it. It is a good example of the limitations of even the best virtual teaching. Most kids are not getting that. Kids are a very low risk group and so are most of their teachers. There seems to be either an inability to assess risk or a bizarrely extreme precautionary position. We need to stop this. We have to learn to live with this virus. We have to start doing so.
I think it's going to be a hard sell to convince Scots that they were equal partners in the creation of Empire, rather than passive victims of the English.
As noted upthread, in some cases Scots were the senior partners
Statues of those who derived most of their wealth and status from the slave trade should indeed be moved to a museum.
Others like Nelson, Churchill and Drake who were notable mainly for other achievements should be kept
You have just set yourself as an arbiter of taste and decency. What are your qualifications?
The fact I am a member of the party which forms the government
My point was a serious one.
With regards to your answer, some Jeremy Corbyn clone who gets elected in the future can claim him, or herself to be the arbiter of what is tasteful and decent too.
They can but this time our side won not theirs, that is democracy
On schools the position is complicated but that really doesn't excuse the mess we are now in. My son's school breaks up for the summer in just over a week anyway but he has been getting 10-12 virtual classes a week with interaction with his teachers and the ability to ask questions. His maths teacher, who is very good, has been covering the syllabus "lightly". He has said that he wants to leave the more complicated stuff for next year when he can see their faces and see if they are actually getting it. It is a good example of the limitations of even the best virtual teaching. Most kids are not getting that. Kids are a very low risk group and so are most of their teachers. There seems to be either an inability to assess risk or a bizarrely extreme precautionary position. We need to stop this. We have to learn to live with this virus. We have to start doing so.
If of course the way we do it in the end is by hiring many more teachers to bring class sizes down, that would be something good that's come out of this...
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
It is exactly the reverse. I am quite happy with the statues going. But yes I genuinely doubt the motives of the vast majority of those at these demonstrations in the UK. All you have to do is listen to them for a few minutes.
Do you feel the same way about generally well-respected protests of the past, like civil rights protests or suffragettes? Because I'm sure people were saying exactly the same thing of those at the time.
The civil rights movement under King was non-violent (I'm not going to go bail for Malcolm X and black power).
It is now generally accepted by actual historians that the suffragettes failed in their aims because of the violence of their actions - however famous and acclaimed they are.
Interesting. But I think @AlastairMeeks underplays the extent to which destruction of monuments can presage some rather more totalitarian and vile movements than simply people expressing outrage over honouring a historical figure.
The destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, of Mosul, of parts of Palmyra, of Christian churches was not done because of a bit of outrage over the Romans holding slaves but because the attackers wanted to obliterate a country’s past and culture and also the people who held onto these things. It was an attempt to wipe out memory.
It was not an attempt to right wrongs but to wipe out. It was genocidal in intent. Ditto the Chinese destruction of Uighur buildings.
The same could be said of the English attack on churches and monasteries during the Reformation. It was an attempt - quite a successful one - to destroy Catholic England and the memory of that England and it led to the persecution of those who held onto that. Much of the wealth of the aristocracy was made from the looting that took place - both here and in Ireland.
Not wanting to have a statue glorifying a slave trader does not make one ISIS of course. But there is concern that what some of those demanding statues be pulled down want is not a better appreciation of our history but to pretend it didn’t happen. Do they really want understanding? Or obliteration? Do they understand the injunction about the sins of the father not being visited on the sons - ignorance of which justified Christian anti-semitism - when they demand that Gladstone be attacked because of what his father did?
Slavery happened. We need to understand our part in it and how it was understood, then and later. So putting things in museums is fine. Adding in plaques which explain rather than glorify is also ok. Remove if the local community want this. Also OK. But allow a mob to throw away - no.
If Bristol Council did not resolve the issue around the Colston statue it was because they allowed one small group to stymie the rewriting of the plaque. They should not have done so. They should not now allow a small group to stymie the decision of the local people to keep it - if that is what it is. Power has not changed in a democracy where people have voted for a local council and if people are frustrated with the slowness of democracy then they need to make it work better not ignore it.
I don't think the people wanting to bring down statues want to pretend slavery never happened - quite the opposite.
If the Bristol public want to keep the statue they can put it back on the plinth. If the elected politicians don't do that and the Bristol public care to do so they can elect new politicians who put it back on the plinth.
As you are fully aware, the electorate of Bristol will vote for their politicians on a raft of issues, most of which will be 'bread and butter' ones that are more important to them than the presence or otherwise of a statue. Whether they continue to elect Labour politicians (more fool them) will have very little bearing on their thoughts on the statue. This is unless there is a specific democratic mechanism whereby they can decide on its future.
It is exactly the reverse. I am quite happy with the statues going. But yes I genuinely doubt the motives of the vast majority of those at these demonstrations in the UK. All you have to do is listen to them for a few minutes.
Do you feel the same way about generally well-respected protests of the past, like civil rights protests or suffragettes? Because I'm sure people were saying exactly the same thing of those at the time.
The civil rights movement under King was non-violent (I'm not going to go bail for Malcolm X and black power).
Statues of those who derived most of their wealth and status from the slave trade should indeed be moved to a museum.
Others like Nelson, Churchill and Drake who were notable mainly for other achievements should be kept
You have just set yourself as an arbiter of taste and decency. What are your qualifications?
The fact I am a member of the party which forms the government
My point was a serious one.
With regards to your answer, some Jeremy Corbyn clone who gets elected in the future can claim him, or herself to be the arbiter of what is tasteful and decent too.
I presume he would like to see the Bannockburn monument and Bruce statue dynamited just because he doesn't approve of someone gaining status from achieving Scottish independence? Nothing stopping his primarily English party passing a revised Scotland Act to permit that, in his view of the way the devolution settlement should work.
Well there must certainly be questions over the Wallace monument given he was at times a ruthless killer
Statues of those who derived most of their wealth and status from the slave trade should indeed be moved to a museum.
Others like Nelson, Churchill and Drake who were notable mainly for other achievements should be kept
You have just set yourself as an arbiter of taste and decency. What are your qualifications?
The fact I am a member of the party which forms the government
My point was a serious one.
With regards to your answer, some Jeremy Corbyn clone who gets elected in the future can claim him, or herself to be the arbiter of what is tasteful and decent too.
I presume he would like to see the Bannockburn monument and Bruce statue dynamited just because he doesn't approve of someone gaining status from achieving Scottish independence? Nothing stopping his primarily English party passing a revised Scotland Act to permit that, in his view of the way the devolution settlement should work.
We are perhaps subconsciously entering the mindset of the Taliban.
I am referring to those that destroyed Edward Colston's statue and those on here demanding Marx has his headstone removed equally.
On schools the position is complicated but that really doesn't excuse the mess we are now in. My son's school breaks up for the summer in just over a week anyway but he has been getting 10-12 virtual classes a week with interaction with his teachers and the ability to ask questions. His maths teacher, who is very good, has been covering the syllabus "lightly". He has said that he wants to leave the more complicated stuff for next year when he can see their faces and see if they are actually getting it. It is a good example of the limitations of even the best virtual teaching. Most kids are not getting that. Kids are a very low risk group and so are most of their teachers. There seems to be either an inability to assess risk or a bizarrely extreme precautionary position. We need to stop this. We have to learn to live with this virus. We have to start doing so.
I gave a talk to 200 or so people on Saturday. The one thing that dawned on me more and more as I gave it was that I had no means gauging if I was pitching at the right level and whether they had grasped a point before I moved on to the next point.
I think it's going to be a hard sell to convince Scots that they were equal partners in the creation of Empire, rather than passive victims of the English.
It's hardly unusual for national identity to be built on a lie, but I can't say that I've ever seen it happening in real-time before. I don't think that a new country blaming its neighbour for its ills is likely to make good decisions on fixing its own problems.
You might be surprised. There has of late been a great deal of research, and publicity/educational material thereof, on the Scottish role in the slave trade. BBC Scotland, various government depts such as NRS, the National Libraries, etc. I mentioined this a few days ago.
I think the real issue is the way in wehich the Britnats keep saying that the Union was glorious and wonderful and we should stay in it just because it was glorious and we used to be in it - that's an arguiment for bringing back the Austro-Hungarian empire, for heaven's sake. And yet the same people (at least on PB) seek to blame us also for empire. They can't have it both ways - either it was glorious or it wasn't. And it's the past anyway, as dead as the Holy Roman Empire, a few bits excepted.
I think it's going to be a hard sell to convince Scots that they were equal partners in the creation of Empire, rather than passive victims of the English.
It's hardly unusual for national identity to be built on a lie, but I can't say that I've ever seen it happening in real-time before. I don't think that a new country blaming its neighbour for its ills is likely to make good decisions on fixing its own problems.
Indeed, I have always enjoyed reminding the Nats on here that far from being a "colony" as Malcolmg likes to suggest, Scottish individuals and companies were great exponents of colonialism and their troops very capable of enforcing its expansion. The Scots are more "British" than the English in terms of their disproportionate contribution to the British Empire
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
The designation is the important bit, everything else is context...
And for due process to have been followed by Khan, the question of the curtilage of the listed building in relation to the statue should have been formally assessed by the local conservation officers.
What was broken in Bristol was the rule of law and those responsible should be found and punished. What their criminal conduct revealed was the forces of inertia in this country are too strong. People had been trying to have this statue removed for decades. When legal means of decision making fail people take things into their own hands. This is a warning to society that we should heed. As to the statues themselves I really don't care. I have enough imagination to conceive that those who are the descendants of those who suffered might feel differently but I remain to be convinced that they cared either.
Indeed inertia is an issue.
If the public or politicians truly wanted the Colston statue to be up then the mob pulling it down wouldn't make the slightest difference - it would instantly be put back up. If a mob had pulled down a statue of Churchill do you think it wouldn't be put back up?
If the public wants Colston up, it get can get Colston back up. The reality is that inertia is all that was involved as to why it was up - and inertia will keep it down.
I see that the US is today overtaking Spain in confirmed population-adjusted virus infection totals, whilst Peru yesterday overtook the US. Of countries of any size, the top three are now Chile - Peru - USA
In terms of deaths per head Belgium is still top, then the UK and Spain.
In terms of overall deaths the US is top, then the UK then Brazil
No Sweden. And our schools never closed. In fact, the wee one has his end of year class party this evening (grill party at the beach; water temp fantastic), while I’m off to puppy class. Life goes on much as normal.
Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.
Much like Boris and his government.
Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
The Coliseum didn't do anything, it's just a building.
Can you genuinely not see a difference between a building where something evil happened and a statue glorifying someone who actually did those evil things?
The whole of Rome's tourist trade is based on the persecution, torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of people.
How many people have died to promote Christianity? Should all churches and statues of Jesus be torn down.
How many catholics were killed at the hand of Elizabeth I . Should her statue be torn down and her tomb removed?
It is exactly the reverse. I am quite happy with the statues going. But yes I genuinely doubt the motives of the vast majority of those at these demonstrations in the UK. All you have to do is listen to them for a few minutes.
Do you feel the same way about generally well-respected protests of the past, like civil rights protests or suffragettes? Because I'm sure people were saying exactly the same thing of those at the time.
The civil rights movement under King was non-violent (I'm not going to go bail for Malcolm X and black power).
It is now generally accepted by actual historians that the suffragettes failed in their aims because of the violence of their actions - however famous and acclaimed they are.
That's interesting. How so?
I think it runs from the fact the violence instantly shut down any and all discussions regarding enlarging the franchise in 1910-14. It was only after WW1 that the discussions restarted and that was for very different reasons..
Statues of those who derived most of their wealth and status from the slave trade should indeed be moved to a museum.
Others like Nelson, Churchill and Drake who were notable mainly for other achievements should be kept
You have just set yourself as an arbiter of taste and decency. What are your qualifications?
The fact I am a member of the party which forms the government
My point was a serious one.
With regards to your answer, some Jeremy Corbyn clone who gets elected in the future can claim him, or herself to be the arbiter of what is tasteful and decent too.
I presume he would like to see the Bannockburn monument and Bruce statue dynamited just because he doesn't approve of someone gaining status from achieving Scottish independence? Nothing stopping his primarily English party passing a revised Scotland Act to permit that, in his view of the way the devolution settlement should work.
Well there must certainly be questions over the Wallace monument given he was at times a ruthless killer
At some point, we need to stop worrying about statues and names of student halls and start to take actions that will improve the lives and life chances of BAME (and working class!) people.
We do. But if we stop worrying about it too soon - i.e. before we've had the chance to process the worry into something definitive - we will have achieved nothing other than to raise tensions and both defer the resolution and make it less likely to be 100% peaceful. So I sense this exercise - "audit of public monuments celebrating colonialism and slavery" - has a way to run yet and whilst it has its problems and contradictions, so long as it remains non-violent I think it is a net positive. I'm certainly learning things and I'm sure others are too.
Of course the question at the heart of the matter is our old favourite - Where Do You Draw The Line? People will have their views. For me, the systematic enslavement over centuries and ending not so long ago of millions of African men and women, the trading of them as chattels, the reduction of them to something less than human, the consequent enrichment of our nation from this monstrous enterprise, the racist legacy of which still plagues us today, is just that little bit special - therefore this will no doubt influence where EYE draw the line.
It is exactly the reverse. I am quite happy with the statues going. But yes I genuinely doubt the motives of the vast majority of those at these demonstrations in the UK. All you have to do is listen to them for a few minutes.
Do you feel the same way about generally well-respected protests of the past, like civil rights protests or suffragettes? Because I'm sure people were saying exactly the same thing of those at the time.
The civil rights movement under King was non-violent (I'm not going to go bail for Malcolm X and black power).
It is now generally accepted by actual historians that the suffragettes failed in their aims because of the violence of their actions - however famous and acclaimed they are.
That's interesting. How so?
I think it runs from the fact the violence instantly shut down any and all discussions regarding enlarging the franchise in 1910-14. It was only after WW1 that the discussions restarted and that was for very different reasons..
Thanks - so after WWI people were in the mood for change, etc? That makes sense. But would it even have been an issue without their actions?
The more we talk about statues the less we talk about the multiple failures of this hopeless government and the long term harm that having someone as useless as Boris Johnson in charge will do to the UK, up to and including putting the future existence of the country in serious doubt. The far left is too stupid to understand that, the hard right does perfectly. Hence the current discourse.
(Technically the tweet is wrong, it wasn't the Belgian Congo until 1910, until then being a personal possession of Leopold II)
I think Leopold was a monster.
But, I'd view Rhodes as more of a grey hat than a black hat, and would oppose removing his statue. Obviously, that's a subjective judgement.
To a large extent, I think it depends what one is commemorating. The person's role in doing things we would now consider appalling. Or their role in doing things we would consider admirable. So, for example, Sir Thomas Picton's statue was set up to commemorate his role in the Pensinuslar War and death at Waterloo, rather than his role in supporting slavery. I don't think his statue should come down.
WRT Colston, Bristol is a council with a large Labour majority. They could have put up the plaque any time they wanted to.
India proved a noble prospect for Scots on the make. So much so, in fact, that as early as 1750 almost 40 per cent of the writers — or clerks — working for the company in Bengal were Scots. Thirty years later the proportion of Scots had risen to nearly half; this at a time when Scotland’s population was barely a sixth of England’s. Half of the East India Company’s regiments were raised in Scotland. There was no English Empire; it was a British enterprise and often a brutal and sinful one.
The Scots are more British than the English when it comes to leading the Empire. Sorry Nats, much as nationalists all round the world like to burn books and rewrite history, you cannot cover that fact up. The Scots loved to expand empire.
Agreed. If we come away from this episode with a better understanding of our past and a renewed desire to end discrimination and improve the life chances of everyone then it will have been worth upsetting the Daily Mail. Actually, upsetting the Daily Mail is a worthy goal in itself, so it's a win-win.
How do you have a better understanding of the past ? You've just erased it.
Its not been erased, the past is still the past. We're talking more about the past so the past is still there, still able to be learnt about.
Removing statues from display doesn't erase the past.
English middle class bollocks. You re-arrange the artwork and claim tg have stopped discrimination.
I don't think Ive chuckled as much in ages as when I saw the Oxford protests.
A sea of white privileged faces protesting about white privilege, you couldn't make it up.
All pretending they care about the life chances of black people.
Patronising, nauseous, ghastly
How do you know they don't "care about the life chances of black people".
That's a pretty nasty slur.
But accurate.
Are you geniunely claiming that every middle class white person that went to the demonstration doesn't "care about the life chances of black people"?
I mean, if you want to argue there are better ways of achieving that goal than toppling statues or going down on one knee, I'd be right beside you. But my experience is - just like Oxbridge communists of the 1930s - that those young, overly sincere, people do feel that the world is unfair on certain minorities.
And I think it's genuinely appalling to doubt people's motives without any evidence at all. It would be like if I accused you of not really believing in wanting to leave the EU for principled reasons, and it was all because it was the trendy thing to do in your part of the country.
I wouldn't doubt your convictions, and I think it's unbelievably superior and rude and offensive, for you to doubt theirs.
I'd say there are some white people there in the manner you describe. However, I'd estimate that over half are there to be "on the right side of history". I was talking to some of my friends yesterday and I'm becoming more sceptical of white racial justice allies. For far too many it isn't about ensuring equal life chances for people with different racial backgrouds but a way to feel good about themselves, this is particularly true in America where racism runs so much deeper than here.
I watched a video on Instagram yesterday, it was one white woman talking to another white woman about racial inequality. It was the most patronising thing I've seen in ages and to my mind and experience that's the majority of white racial justice allies.
I see that the US is today overtaking Spain in confirmed population-adjusted virus infection totals, whilst Peru yesterday overtook the US. Of countries of any size, the top three are now Chile - Peru - USA
In terms of deaths per head Belgium is still top, then the UK and Spain.
In terms of overall deaths the US is top, then the UK then Brazil
No Sweden. And our schools never closed. In fact, the wee one has his end of year class party this evening (grill party at the beach; water temp fantastic), while I’m off to puppy class. Life goes on much as normal.
Sweden has one of the fastest rising death rates in Europe still
Statues of those who derived most of their wealth and status from the slave trade should indeed be moved to a museum.
Others like Nelson, Churchill and Drake who were notable mainly for other achievements should be kept
You have just set yourself as an arbiter of taste and decency. What are your qualifications?
The fact I am a member of the party which forms the government
My point was a serious one.
With regards to your answer, some Jeremy Corbyn clone who gets elected in the future can claim him, or herself to be the arbiter of what is tasteful and decent too.
I presume he would like to see the Bannockburn monument and Bruce statue dynamited just because he doesn't approve of someone gaining status from achieving Scottish independence? Nothing stopping his primarily English party passing a revised Scotland Act to permit that, in his view of the way the devolution settlement should work.
Well there must certainly be questions over the Wallace monument given he was at times a ruthless killer
That exactly proves my point about your thinking - he was a killer only because his country was invaded. To you, he was a traitor, and you think his monument ought perhaps to be demolished. Or are we to destroy Churchill's statues too?
It won't surprise the author to know I disagree with much of this.
Firstly, not all statues are political. Some are, but not all. It depends on whether they are of political figures, or not, and it depends on the regime under which they are created, and why. Raising statues of dictators in a country that has been under ruthless dictatorship for many years - where there was no choice or civic consensus - is different to raising one of a political, religious, business, military or civil leader of significance to our national story, in all its complexity, in a democracy. The former makes it supremely political (because there was no fair politics) the latter does not.
Secondly, celebrate is the wrong word: commemorate is a better word, and there's a subtle difference. You can commemorate a significant politician in our history (Kier Hardie, Gladstone, Churchill or Margaret Thatcher) without agreeing with everything they did - either at the time or in the context of today. Indeed, many people who objected to Margaret Thatcher's politics accepted her statue because of her historical significance. Other detested both. It's about recognising who they were, how significant they were and choosing to embody their legacy in the public realm (normally, post death) so it doesn't fade into the history books. The reason the statue was erected is also important: Cromwell is there due to him fighting (at least at first) for the rights of parliament over absolute monarchy, which put us on the path to a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, and not because of his actions in Ireland. Rhodes is similarly there because he founded and endowed the Rhodes Building at Oriel College and Rhodes scholarships, and not because of Rhodesia. What are people going to say about that in future with a blank space at the entrance? Who built that? "Oh, I don't know, you'll have to google it." Or will they just forget about his legacy entirely leading to us perhaps re-learning some of the lessons? Is a small statue 25ft above your head you can't see properly offensive? It's a bit weak.
Third, the tests will not be consistent: if there are politics around the erection of a statue at the time (when the individual still may polarise) then as time passes that becomes less relevant, not more, and of greater historical interest. Therefore, a higher challenge should be applied to statutes of great longevity in the public space, as its historic value supersedes its political one and its become part of the landscape of the city.
Fourthly, I'm a bit surprised by the argument here that if a political force hasn't won an election, then it's kind of legitimate for those frustrated by that to use mob violence to take a statue down. We live in a democracy and that's not how we do things here - we still don't know if that mob was representative (and knowing Bristol, its history and the previous considered policy of the very left-wing council I'd say it's not).
Fifthly, moving from the street (on a plinth) to a museum is real displacement activity. There's a better argument that it allows greater confrontation with our past and heritage by leaving it in the public realm, suitably challenged and caveated. Guides and teachers can walk people round and point them out. That's what Bristol concluded. Whatever happens cities like Bristol and Liverpool grew hugely during the years of the slave trade and the evidence will always be around. Hiding it seems the wrong way to deal with it. Moving it to a museum, that you have to choose to walk into to enter, is likely to less awareness. I'm sceptical about people getting incensed by them walking past on a daily basis.
Finally, I'm afraid I don't think much of this has to do with the rights of minorities but in fighting strawmen (stonemen?) and demonstrating ones sympathies through the nobility of the fight. There's a lot of talk about these "causing the black community great pain" - which sounds very patronising to me - and the truth is that the views of those who don't share the same skin colour are as diverse and varied as anyone else.
I wouldn't want somebody ascribing views to me who shares my skin colour just because a Momentum activist professes to speak for me, neither for a far-right fascist, and I think it's profoundly ignorant of some of the protesters to assume they do just because they've taken action.
They represent some, not all, and we should tread very carefully in responding to it.
India proved a noble prospect for Scots on the make. So much so, in fact, that as early as 1750 almost 40 per cent of the writers — or clerks — working for the company in Bengal were Scots. Thirty years later the proportion of Scots had risen to nearly half; this at a time when Scotland’s population was barely a sixth of England’s. Half of the East India Company’s regiments were raised in Scotland. There was no English Empire; it was a British enterprise and often a brutal and sinful one.
And who was responsible for educating most adult Scots? Unionists.
The pro-Scottish era of government only started 13 years ago, and we even kept the deeply flawed Lib-Lab ‘Curriculum For Excellence’. One of the biggest unforced errors of the SNP government.
Very few Scots have the faintest clue about Scottish history, let alone colonial history. That is entirely intentional.
I think it's going to be a hard sell to convince Scots that they were equal partners in the creation of Empire, rather than passive victims of the English.
It's hardly unusual for national identity to be built on a lie, but I can't say that I've ever seen it happening in real-time before. I don't think that a new country blaming its neighbour for its ills is likely to make good decisions on fixing its own problems.
You might be surprised. There has of late been a great deal of research, and publicity/educational material thereof, on the Scottish role in the slave trade. BBC Scotland, various government depts such as NRS, the National Libraries, etc. I mentioined this a few days ago.
I think the real issue is the way in wehich the Britnats keep saying that the Union was glorious and wonderful and we should stay in it just because it was glorious and we used to be in it - that's an arguiment for bringing back the Austro-Hungarian empire, for heaven's sake. And yet the same people (at least on PB) seek to blame us also for empire. They can't have it both ways - either it was glorious or it wasn't. And it's the past anyway, as dead as the Holy Roman Empire, a few bits excepted.
Of course you can have it both ways - you can have it all ways. It was by turns and simultaneously exploitative, reforming, glorious and terrible. Scotland shared in its exploitation, its reform, its glory and its terror. It's not about 'blaming' Scotland but it is about us sharing and being comfortable with our chequered past.
1. Taking down statues and putting them into storage is very different from bulldozing the Colosseum. In one case, the artefact is preserved, in the other, it is not.
2. Within the bounds of the relevant laws (which it would appear have not been followed), it is clearly elected politicians who should choose which statues are on display. The mob doesn't get to overrule Bristol Council. Likewise, if (following proper procedures) the Mayor of London or Tower Hamlets (or whoever is responsible for the statue in Docklands) chooses to remove a statue of Mrs Thatcher or Mao or whoever, then that is there perogative. It's not like (see 1) that the statue is being destroyed. The elected politicians of the past got to choose which statues were on display, it seems odd that we should strip that right from the elected politicians of today.
3. Statues don't exist forever in a vacuum. Imagine if there was a statue of Jimmy Saville outside a children's hospital. Now, it may well have been that Jimmy was instrumental in getting the hospital built. Would any of us object to removing his statue? I was pretty shocked to discover there were Leopold II statues in existence, and I'm pretty sure that Leopold II was worse than Jimmy Saville.
Good points.
(except that statues probably would last for ever in a vacuum).
On point 2, Bristol Council have already conceded to rule by mob, because both the Mayor of Bristol and the Chief Constable went on television and explained they were both going to continue sitting on their arses, doing nothing.
What they have lost is the possibility of an inclusive and democratic political process, which was what was underway in Bristol already - no matter how much whataboutery has been forthcoming.
India proved a noble prospect for Scots on the make. So much so, in fact, that as early as 1750 almost 40 per cent of the writers — or clerks — working for the company in Bengal were Scots. Thirty years later the proportion of Scots had risen to nearly half; this at a time when Scotland’s population was barely a sixth of England’s. Half of the East India Company’s regiments were raised in Scotland. There was no English Empire; it was a British enterprise and often a brutal and sinful one.
The Scots are more British than the English when it comes to leading the Empire. Sorry Nats, much as nationalists all round the world like to burn books and rewrite history, you cannot cover that fact up. The Scots loved to expand empire.
The point I hav e been making is that they are rewriting history with the actrive support of several Scottish Governments in sequence - to expose those issues.
I also have no issue with Khan placing the other statue into storage. It's the prerogative of the Mayor to do such things. In the future another Mayor may decide that history is more complicated and bring it back out with an explanation along the lines of saying history is complicated and we can't ignore those parts we don't like.
On schools the position is complicated but that really doesn't excuse the mess we are now in. My son's school breaks up for the summer in just over a week anyway but he has been getting 10-12 virtual classes a week with interaction with his teachers and the ability to ask questions. His maths teacher, who is very good, has been covering the syllabus "lightly". He has said that he wants to leave the more complicated stuff for next year when he can see their faces and see if they are actually getting it. It is a good example of the limitations of even the best virtual teaching. Most kids are not getting that. Kids are a very low risk group and so are most of their teachers. There seems to be either an inability to assess risk or a bizarrely extreme precautionary position. We need to stop this. We have to learn to live with this virus. We have to start doing so.
I gave a talk to 200 or so people on Saturday. The one thing that dawned on me more and more as I gave it was that I had no means gauging if I was pitching at the right level and whether they had grasped a point before I moved on to the next point.
Was in a discussion on this point yesterday, with the WEA. It appears that 25 is about the maximum one can have for a Zoom audience; one has to have them muted (until question time obviously), but be able to see their faces. Does anyone here have shares in Zoom?
Bye bye, Guardian. Your writers supported slavery 150 years ago so you've been cancelled, and all that you are today is worthless. That's the Guardian logic, right?
India proved a noble prospect for Scots on the make. So much so, in fact, that as early as 1750 almost 40 per cent of the writers — or clerks — working for the company in Bengal were Scots. Thirty years later the proportion of Scots had risen to nearly half; this at a time when Scotland’s population was barely a sixth of England’s. Half of the East India Company’s regiments were raised in Scotland. There was no English Empire; it was a British enterprise and often a brutal and sinful one.
And who was responsible for educating most adult Scots? Unionists.
The pro-Scottish era of government only started 13 years ago, and we even kept the deeply flawed Lib-Lab ‘Curriculum For Excellence’. One of the biggest unforced errors of the SNP government.
Very few Scots have the faintest clue about Scottish history, let alone colonial history. That is entirely intentional.
Exactly so. Which is why the recent work on Scots and slavery was such a revelation. And still is, as new insights and findings appear.
Although pretty much in agreement with Alastair that's a lot of words to state the obvious. There is no place for a statue idolising a slave trader in modern Britain.
Toppling the tyrant has done more to wake up people to our mostly disgraceful colonial past than any history lessons of the last 100 years.
I suggest everyone watches Michael Portillo's Empire Journeys currently showing on Channel 5. It's deeply shocking, perhaps all the more so because delivered in such a gentle way.
Britain was built on slavery, oppression, abuse, violence and rape of people and land. There were a few lone souls who campaigned against the perpetrators but we shouldn't latch onto them too quickly in order to salve our consciences.
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
I think it's going to be a hard sell to convince Scots that they were equal partners in the creation of Empire, rather than passive victims of the English.
It's hardly unusual for national identity to be built on a lie, but I can't say that I've ever seen it happening in real-time before. I don't think that a new country blaming its neighbour for its ills is likely to make good decisions on fixing its own problems.
You might be surprised. There has of late been a great deal of research, and publicity/educational material thereof, on the Scottish role in the slave trade. BBC Scotland, various government depts such as NRS, the National Libraries, etc. I mentioined this a few days ago.
I think the real issue is the way in wehich the Britnats keep saying that the Union was glorious and wonderful and we should stay in it just because it was glorious and we used to be in it - that's an arguiment for bringing back the Austro-Hungarian empire, for heaven's sake. And yet the same people (at least on PB) seek to blame us also for empire. They can't have it both ways - either it was glorious or it wasn't. And it's the past anyway, as dead as the Holy Roman Empire, a few bits excepted.
Of course you can have it both ways - you can have it all ways. It was by turns and simultaneously exploitative, reforming, glorious and terrible. Scotland shared in its exploitation, its reform, its glory and its terror. It's not about 'blaming' Scotland but it is about us sharing and being comfortable with our chequered past.
That I don't have a problem with - study, remember, contemplate, perhyaps commemorate but be cautious about celebrating.
On schools the position is complicated but that really doesn't excuse the mess we are now in. My son's school breaks up for the summer in just over a week anyway but he has been getting 10-12 virtual classes a week with interaction with his teachers and the ability to ask questions. His maths teacher, who is very good, has been covering the syllabus "lightly". He has said that he wants to leave the more complicated stuff for next year when he can see their faces and see if they are actually getting it. It is a good example of the limitations of even the best virtual teaching. Most kids are not getting that. Kids are a very low risk group and so are most of their teachers. There seems to be either an inability to assess risk or a bizarrely extreme precautionary position. We need to stop this. We have to learn to live with this virus. We have to start doing so.
It's not just what happens in the classroom though. It's the school run, the dinner ladies and so on. And in state schools, there is very little slack in the system to do any sort of distancing with everyone in.
Conclusion: the right thing from an education and safeguarding point of view would be a rota, so that everyone is in for part of the week. As the nationwide risk falls, go from 6 in a group 1 day a week, to 12 and 2 days to 18 and 3 days. And have a package based on TV (not online, access isn't reliable enough) for home learning days.
That hasn't happened for a couple of reasons. One is the bullish attitude of the government- they produced some guidance that was a hot mess and got upset when schools didn't follow it. Another is the tendency of the government to leak wishful thinking. "It'll all be fine in 2 weeks and pubs/schools/shops/hairdressers will be open!" It buys them a good front page in The Sun and Express, but it means it isn't worth coming up with grown-up plans for a temporary world where things aren't normal.
Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.
Much like Boris and his government.
Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
The Coliseum didn't do anything, it's just a building.
Can you genuinely not see a difference between a building where something evil happened and a statue glorifying someone who actually did those evil things?
Have you ever seen the Colosseum? If you think that siting a gigantic ornate amphitheatre in the centre of the imperial capital somehow doesn't glorify the activities that go on in it, then I have a Wembley Stadium to sell you!
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
If there's any doubt at all about the matter, the local conservation officers need to be consulted to adjudicate as to what the relationship between the statue and the listed building is (the fact that the statue wasn't there at the time of listing does not prevent it being protected by the listed once it is in place).
I'd be very surprised if Khan followed due process and got all that done within the space of a few days.
Although pretty much in agreement with Alastair that's a lot of words to state the obvious. There is no place for a statue idolising a slave trader in modern Britain.
Toppling the tyrant has done more to wake up people to our mostly disgraceful colonial past than any history lessons of the last 100 years.
I suggest everyone watches Michael Portillo's Empire Journeys currently showing on Channel 5. It's deeply shocking, perhaps all the more so because delivered in such a gentle way.
Britain was built on slavery, oppression, abuse, violence and rape of people and land. There were a few lone souls who campaigned against the perpetrators but we shouldn't latch onto them too quickly in order to salve our consciences.
Yes, it is a brilliant show for the reasons you mention.
We should also remind ourselves that we are most likely complicit now in something that will repulse future generations. Eating meat? Drinking alcohol? Polluting the world with filthy air and car travel? Maybe one or maybe none of these, but there will be something.
I see that the US is today overtaking Spain in confirmed population-adjusted virus infection totals, whilst Peru yesterday overtook the US. Of countries of any size, the top three are now Chile - Peru - USA
In terms of deaths per head Belgium is still top, then the UK and Spain.
In terms of overall deaths the US is top, then the UK then Brazil
No Sweden. And our schools never closed. In fact, the wee one has his end of year class party this evening (grill party at the beach; water temp fantastic), while I’m off to puppy class. Life goes on much as normal.
Sweden has one of the fastest rising death rates in Europe still
We’ll see.
I’m waiting for the reliable stats when we see the overall fatalities for the year, and which countries stand out then.
This health crisis has not just been about Covid19. It has also been about the effect on other illnesses and conditions, including mental health.
Harsh lockdown, especially school closures, has likely long-term negative effects on mental health. Sweden will probably suffer less in 5 to 10 years time, when we have the wisdom of hindsight.
A couple of quick things on schools before getting back work.
All this talk about vulnerable children highlights the way that government dumped the work of social services on schools and now we see the consequences. What is needed in tje coming months is to disentangle this mess and ensure that child protection has a robust individual presence.
I signalled that the government would be humiliated by this very early. Why? Because they locked down too late. They are trying to act as though we locked down early. We didn’t, we have been slow and lax at pretty much every turn. You don’t get to claim that things are okay and that we can be like Denmark, when it is blindingly obvious that our early actions have put us months behind.
Bye bye, Guardian. Your writers supported slavery 150 years ago so you've been cancelled, and all that you are today is worthless. That's the Guardian logic, right?
No. Nobody is saying to get rid of the descendents of slave traders.
If there's a statue to the Guardian writers who supported slavery though, that's another matter.
@Stark_Dawning we had a short discussion on the demolition of much of medieval Windsor to make way for the Victorian remodelling last night - a quick Google isn't giving me much, so wondered if you had anywhere to go for further info?
And @StuartDickson you mentioned similar things happening in Gloucester, Leicester, and I forget where else. Again, any more info would be great.
Interesting. But I think @AlastairMeeks underplays the extent to which destruction of monuments can presage some rather more totalitarian and vile movements than simply people expressing outrage over honouring a historical figure.
The destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, of Mosul, of parts of Palmyra, of Christian churches was not done because of a bit of outrage over the Romans holding slaves but because the attackers wanted to obliterate a country’s past and culture and also the people who held onto these things. It was an attempt to wipe out memory.
It was not an attempt to right wrongs but to wipe out. It was genocidal in intent. Ditto the Chinese destruction of Uighur buildings.
The same could be said of the English attack on churches and monasteries during the Reformation. It was an attempt - quite a successful one - to destroy Catholic England and the memory of that England and it led to the persecution of those who held onto that. Much of the wealth of the aristocracy was made from the looting that took place - both here and in Ireland.
Not wanting to have a statue glorifying a slave trader does not make one ISIS of course. But there is concern that what some of those demanding statues be pulled down want is not a better appreciation of our history but to pretend it didn’t happen. Do they really want understanding? Or obliteration? Do they understand the injunction about the sins of the father not being visited on the sons - ignorance of which justified Christian anti-semitism - when they demand that Gladstone be attacked because of what his father did?
Slavery happened. We need to understand our part in it and how it was understood, then and later. So putting things in museums is fine. Adding in plaques which explain rather than glorify is also ok. Remove if the local community want this. Also OK. But allow a mob to throw away - no.
If Bristol Council did not resolve the issue around the Colston statue it was because they allowed one small group to stymie the rewriting of the plaque. They should not have done so. They should not now allow a small group to stymie the decision of the local people to keep it - if that is what it is. Power has not changed in a democracy where people have voted for a local council and if people are frustrated with the slowness of democracy then they need to make it work better not ignore it.
I don't think the people wanting to bring down statues want to pretend slavery never happened - quite the opposite.
If the Bristol public want to keep the statue they can put it back on the plinth. If the elected politicians don't do that and the Bristol public care to do so they can elect new politicians who put it back on the plinth.
I query whether this movement - who are they? Who elected them? Can we know about their actions and history and views - really want to ensure that we better understand our own history.
Who wrote that hymn? John Newton. A slave trader who repented of his actions and became active in the abolitionist movement. People are complicated. History is complicated. Bad people can sometimes do good things. Rich men launder their reputation through charitable works. They still do it now and plenty of those who abhor the sins of the past are willing to aid and abet them - see the LSE and Ghaddaffi or those willing to turn a blind eye to the money spent on charitable /educational generosity by rich Chinese, Qataris Saudis, Russians and Ukrainians.
Not to be unkind to @AlastairMeeks. But when in 2015 I wrote on here, following the Charlie Hebdo murders, that we should not allow Saudi money to fund educational establishments here because of the ideology that went with it he said that money had no smell. That is the view that allows all sorts of dodgy people - from slavers to today’s tyrants - to use their wealth to launder their reputation. I take the opposite view: that we should not permit this now. And I don’t want glorification of slave traders on our streets. Such things now belong in a museum where we can all learn from them.
BTW who is in charge of this “movement”. If they are going to be our inquisitors shouldn’t we know more about them?
On schools the position is complicated but that really doesn't excuse the mess we are now in. My son's school breaks up for the summer in just over a week anyway but he has been getting 10-12 virtual classes a week with interaction with his teachers and the ability to ask questions. His maths teacher, who is very good, has been covering the syllabus "lightly". He has said that he wants to leave the more complicated stuff for next year when he can see their faces and see if they are actually getting it. It is a good example of the limitations of even the best virtual teaching. Most kids are not getting that. Kids are a very low risk group and so are most of their teachers. There seems to be either an inability to assess risk or a bizarrely extreme precautionary position. We need to stop this. We have to learn to live with this virus. We have to start doing so.
I gave a talk to 200 or so people on Saturday. The one thing that dawned on me more and more as I gave it was that I had no means gauging if I was pitching at the right level and whether they had grasped a point before I moved on to the next point.
I've done the same on zoom for talks on insolvency and employment. It is discombobulating to have no feedback from your screen, no indication as to whether or not my witticisms are appreciated and no idea whether a point could usefully be expanded or not. One thing that my Chambers has done is to restrict each talk to about 15 minutes with 4 speakers in the hour just to break things up a bit. I think peoples' attention span is inevitably much shorter with a screen than it is in person. It must be a real challenge to teachers with 40 minute periods.
Just listening to radio five and the line of questioning is way off. Saying this is about a reaction to OFSTED ignores the fact that independent schools are leading the way in not increasing face to face teaching. This is about the pandemic and the reaction to it, nothing more.
Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.
Much like Boris and his government.
Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
The Coliseum didn't do anything, it's just a building.
Can you genuinely not see a difference between a building where something evil happened and a statue glorifying someone who actually did those evil things?
Have you ever seen the Colosseum? If you think that siting a gigantic ornate amphitheatre in the centre of the imperial capital somehow doesn't glorify the activities that go on in it, then I have a Wembley Stadium to sell you!
Total bollocks I'm afraid.
Now there's a reasoned argument. Let me guess, you have no background in ancient history?
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
If there's any doubt at all about the matter, the local conservation officers need to be consulted to adjudicate as to what the relationship between the statue and the listed building is (the fact that the statue wasn't there at the time of listing does not prevent it being protected by the listed once it is in place).
I'd be very surprised if Khan followed due process and got all that done within the space of a few days.
(5)In this Act “listed building” means a building which is for the time being included in a list compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under this section; and for the purposes of this Act—
(a)any object or structure fixed to the building;
(b)any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before lst July 1948,
As Carnyx seems to be around I thought I would mention Pusey House and St. Cross College - St. Cross (not technically a college but a society of the collegiate university) shares what was Pusey House buildings - it was really a rescue mission for Pusey House - seeing the ancient vicars wandering around was always nice - there was a spectacularly rotund one a few years back straight from Trollope - a friend of mine used to take care of them and there were serious debates about how much lemon curd was being eaten by a few of the old boys.
St Cross had the best lounging sofas of any common room I ever spent time in as well.
One of those bits of Oxford life a million miles from the real world and all the better for it...
Although pretty much in agreement with Alastair that's a lot of words to state the obvious. There is no place for a statue idolising a slave trader in modern Britain.
Toppling the tyrant has done more to wake up people to our mostly disgraceful colonial past than any history lessons of the last 100 years.
I suggest everyone watches Michael Portillo's Empire Journeys currently showing on Channel 5. It's deeply shocking, perhaps all the more so because delivered in such a gentle way.
Britain was built on slavery, oppression, abuse, violence and rape of people and land. There were a few lone souls who campaigned against the perpetrators but we shouldn't latch onto them too quickly in order to salve our consciences.
Yes, it is a brilliant show for the reasons you mention.
We should also remind ourselves that we are most likely complicit now in something that will repulse future generations. Eating meat? Drinking alcohol? Polluting the world with filthy air and car travel? Maybe one or maybe none of these, but there will be something.
It could well be political correctness. Objectively, it is one of the absurdities of our age. It's not likely to be eating meat is it, considering that has been going on since the dawn of time. Nor is it likely to getting from A to B.
You make a mistake in assuming that society can only go 'one way', toward what left wing politicians call 'progressive' values.
I also have no issue with Khan placing the other statue into storage. It's the prerogative of the Mayor to do such things. In the future another Mayor may decide that history is more complicated and bring it back out with an explanation along the lines of saying history is complicated and we can't ignore those parts we don't like.
Indeed that's democracy for you. I agree with you.
As Carnyx seems to be around I thought I would mention Pusey House and St. Cross College - St. Cross (not technically a college but a society of the collegiate university) shares what was Pusey House buildings - it was really a rescue mission for Pusey House - seeing the ancient vicars wandering around was always nice - there was a spectacularly rotund one a few years back straight from Trollope - a friend of mine used to take care of them and there were serious debates about how much lemon curd was being eaten by a few of the old boys.
St Cross had the best lounging sofas of any common room I ever spent time in as well.
One of those bits of Oxford life a million miles from the real world and all the better for it...
I am indeed here - and thank you very much for explaining just what happened. As a bonus it brings back memories of visiting my friend who was there at the transition period!
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
If there's any doubt at all about the matter, the local conservation officers need to be consulted to adjudicate as to what the relationship between the statue and the listed building is (the fact that the statue wasn't there at the time of listing does not prevent it being protected by the listed once it is in place).
I'd be very surprised if Khan followed due process and got all that done within the space of a few days.
(5)In this Act “listed building” means a building which is for the time being included in a list compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under this section; and for the purposes of this Act—
(a)any object or structure fixed to the building;
(b)any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before lst July 1948,
LOL nevermind! What squirrel will he point to next?
Comments
As to the statues themselves I really don't care. I have enough imagination to conceive that those who are the descendants of those who suffered might feel differently but I remain to be convinced that they cared either.
It was an Englishman, Wilberforce, who led the abolition of the slave trade
If the Bristol public want to keep the statue they can put it back on the plinth. If the elected politicians don't do that and the Bristol public care to do so they can elect new politicians who put it back on the plinth.
Played this game with an otherwise unremarkable grave next to a rare box tomb...
But in practice, as I've said, it's moot. Even if the council didn't plead necessity, Historic England are as much use as the proverbial cat flap in an elephant house.
Alistair's thread is obviously carefully considered, and his criteria for which statues get a stay of execution seems reasonable. But of course, it isn't. It is wholly unreasonable to remove any piece of public art because those who shout loudest and act the most aggressively demand that it must be so. The continuum is quite clear. Britain is a racist and imperialist power, so anyone who advanced its cause, be they General or field nurse, is clearly not going to be immune for long.
The solution must be to build, not to bulldoze. What does the UK BLM movement actually want to build - we know what they don't want to see, what do they want to see? Who are the heros they would like to be cast in bronze to make our streets more beautiful and say something about our times? Personally I highly doubt they would find anyone ideologically pure enough - the movement seems wholly negative in its approach. But we should at least try and make them stakeholders in the future.
With regards to your answer, some Jeremy Corbyn clone who gets elected in the future can claim him, or herself to be the arbiter of what is tasteful and decent too.
The Merchant Venturers, of course, didn't (and don't) want to admit that all their money came from the profits of slaving.
So it suited both sides to have a stalemate.
It is now generally accepted by actual historians that the suffragettes failed in their aims because of the violence of their actions - however famous and acclaimed they are.
It's hardly unusual for national identity to be built on a lie, but I can't say that I've ever seen it happening in real-time before. I don't think that a new country blaming its neighbour for its ills is likely to make good decisions on fixing its own problems.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/cn/news/thomas-jefferson-statues-latest-target-campaigners-us
Surely it was religious in intent; the aim was to wipe out what the destroyers saw as he emblems.... idols of a religion which was not only false, but a affront the 'one true god'?
Rather like the bonfires of relics during the Reformation, and the Puritan 'cleansing' of particularly East Anglian churches a cou[le of hundred years late.
His maths teacher, who is very good, has been covering the syllabus "lightly". He has said that he wants to leave the more complicated stuff for next year when he can see their faces and see if they are actually getting it. It is a good example of the limitations of even the best virtual teaching.
Most kids are not getting that. Kids are a very low risk group and so are most of their teachers. There seems to be either an inability to assess risk or a bizarrely extreme precautionary position. We need to stop this. We have to learn to live with this virus. We have to start doing so.
Anyway, speaking of teaching, see you later.
The designation is the important bit, everything else is context...
I am referring to those that destroyed Edward Colston's statue and those on here demanding Marx has his headstone removed equally.
I think the real issue is the way in wehich the Britnats keep saying that the Union was glorious and wonderful and we should stay in it just because it was glorious and we used to be in it - that's an arguiment for bringing back the Austro-Hungarian empire, for heaven's sake. And yet the same people (at least on PB) seek to blame us also for empire. They can't have it both ways - either it was glorious or it wasn't. And it's the past anyway, as dead as the Holy Roman Empire, a few bits excepted.
It polled appallingly with the majority of Americans saying it set back the cause of African Americans
Was it?
If the public or politicians truly wanted the Colston statue to be up then the mob pulling it down wouldn't make the slightest difference - it would instantly be put back up. If a mob had pulled down a statue of Churchill do you think it wouldn't be put back up?
If the public wants Colston up, it get can get Colston back up. The reality is that inertia is all that was involved as to why it was up - and inertia will keep it down.
How many people have died to promote Christianity? Should all churches and statues of Jesus be torn down.
How many catholics were killed at the hand of Elizabeth I . Should her statue be torn down and her tomb removed?
Of course the question at the heart of the matter is our old favourite - Where Do You Draw The Line? People will have their views. For me, the systematic enslavement over centuries and ending not so long ago of millions of African men and women, the trading of them as chattels, the reduction of them to something less than human, the consequent enrichment of our nation from this monstrous enterprise, the racist legacy of which still plagues us today, is just that little bit special - therefore this will no doubt influence where EYE draw the line.
But, I'd view Rhodes as more of a grey hat than a black hat, and would oppose removing his statue. Obviously, that's a subjective judgement.
To a large extent, I think it depends what one is commemorating. The person's role in doing things we would now consider appalling. Or their role in doing things we would consider admirable. So, for example, Sir Thomas Picton's statue was set up to commemorate his role in the Pensinuslar War and death at Waterloo, rather than his role in supporting slavery. I don't think his statue should come down.
WRT Colston, Bristol is a council with a large Labour majority. They could have put up the plaque any time they wanted to.
https://twitter.com/nj_timothy/status/1270626539554603008?s=21
I watched a video on Instagram yesterday, it was one white woman talking to another white woman about racial inequality. It was the most patronising thing I've seen in ages and to my mind and experience that's the majority of white racial justice allies.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.crmvet.org/docs/60s_crm_public-opinion.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiStv6p8fbpAhUraRUIHZpMC-MQFjACegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3LCpYR9HkqJeI3morFZ3gJ
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1270631841192710144
It won't surprise the author to know I disagree with much of this.
Firstly, not all statues are political. Some are, but not all. It depends on whether they are of political figures, or not, and it depends on the regime under which they are created, and why. Raising statues of dictators in a country that has been under ruthless dictatorship for many years - where there was no choice or civic consensus - is different to raising one of a political, religious, business, military or civil leader of significance to our national story, in all its complexity, in a democracy. The former makes it supremely political (because there was no fair politics) the latter does not.
Secondly, celebrate is the wrong word: commemorate is a better word, and there's a subtle difference. You can commemorate a significant politician in our history (Kier Hardie, Gladstone, Churchill or Margaret Thatcher) without agreeing with everything they did - either at the time or in the context of today. Indeed, many people who objected to Margaret Thatcher's politics accepted her statue because of her historical significance. Other detested both. It's about recognising who they were, how significant they were and choosing to embody their legacy in the public realm (normally, post death) so it doesn't fade into the history books. The reason the statue was erected is also important: Cromwell is there due to him fighting (at least at first) for the rights of parliament over absolute monarchy, which put us on the path to a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, and not because of his actions in Ireland. Rhodes is similarly there because he founded and endowed the Rhodes Building at Oriel College and Rhodes scholarships, and not because of Rhodesia. What are people going to say about that in future with a blank space at the entrance? Who built that? "Oh, I don't know, you'll have to google it." Or will they just forget about his legacy entirely leading to us perhaps re-learning some of the lessons? Is a small statue 25ft above your head you can't see properly offensive? It's a bit weak.
Third, the tests will not be consistent: if there are politics around the erection of a statue at the time (when the individual still may polarise) then as time passes that becomes less relevant, not more, and of greater historical interest. Therefore, a higher challenge should be applied to statutes of great longevity in the public space, as its historic value supersedes its political one and its become part of the landscape of the city.
Fourthly, I'm a bit surprised by the argument here that if a political force hasn't won an election, then it's kind of legitimate for those frustrated by that to use mob violence to take a statue down. We live in a democracy and that's not how we do things here - we still don't know if that mob was representative (and knowing Bristol, its history and the previous considered policy of the very left-wing council I'd say it's not).
Conti..
Fifthly, moving from the street (on a plinth) to a museum is real displacement activity. There's a better argument that it allows greater confrontation with our past and heritage by leaving it in the public realm, suitably challenged and caveated. Guides and teachers can walk people round and point them out. That's what Bristol concluded. Whatever happens cities like Bristol and Liverpool grew hugely during the years of the slave trade and the evidence will always be around. Hiding it seems the wrong way to deal with it. Moving it to a museum, that you have to choose to walk into to enter, is likely to less awareness. I'm sceptical about people getting incensed by them walking past on a daily basis.
Finally, I'm afraid I don't think much of this has to do with the rights of minorities but in fighting strawmen (stonemen?) and demonstrating ones sympathies through the nobility of the fight. There's a lot of talk about these "causing the black community great pain" - which sounds very patronising to me - and the truth is that the views of those who don't share the same skin colour are as diverse and varied as anyone else.
I wouldn't want somebody ascribing views to me who shares my skin colour just because a Momentum activist professes to speak for me, neither for a far-right fascist, and I think it's profoundly ignorant of some of the protesters to assume they do just because they've taken action.
They represent some, not all, and we should tread very carefully in responding to it.
The pro-Scottish era of government only started 13 years ago, and we even kept the deeply flawed Lib-Lab ‘Curriculum For Excellence’. One of the biggest unforced errors of the SNP government.
Very few Scots have the faintest clue about Scottish history, let alone colonial history. That is entirely intentional.
What they have lost is the possibility of an inclusive and democratic political process, which was what was underway in Bristol already - no matter how much whataboutery has been forthcoming.
So be it.
Does anyone here have shares in Zoom?
And they’re not even a majority.
Conclusion: the right thing from an education and safeguarding point of view would be a rota, so that everyone is in for part of the week. As the nationwide risk falls, go from 6 in a group 1 day a week, to 12 and 2 days to 18 and 3 days. And have a package based on TV (not online, access isn't reliable enough) for home learning days.
That hasn't happened for a couple of reasons. One is the bullish attitude of the government- they produced some guidance that was a hot mess and got upset when schools didn't follow it. Another is the tendency of the government to leak wishful thinking. "It'll all be fine in 2 weeks and pubs/schools/shops/hairdressers will be open!" It buys them a good front page in The Sun and Express, but it means it isn't worth coming up with grown-up plans for a temporary world where things aren't normal.
I'd be very surprised if Khan followed due process and got all that done within the space of a few days.
We should also remind ourselves that we are most likely complicit now in something that will repulse future generations. Eating meat? Drinking alcohol? Polluting the world with filthy air and car travel? Maybe one or maybe none of these, but there will be something.
I’m waiting for the reliable stats when we see the overall fatalities for the year, and which countries stand out then.
This health crisis has not just been about Covid19. It has also been about the effect on other illnesses and conditions, including mental health.
Harsh lockdown, especially school closures, has likely long-term negative effects on mental health. Sweden will probably suffer less in 5 to 10 years time, when we have the wisdom of hindsight.
All this talk about vulnerable children highlights the way that government dumped the work of social services on schools and now we see the consequences. What is needed in tje coming months is to disentangle this mess and ensure that child protection has a robust individual presence.
I signalled that the government would be humiliated by this very early. Why? Because they locked down too late. They are trying to act as though we locked down early. We didn’t, we have been slow and lax at pretty much every turn. You don’t get to claim that things are okay and that we can be like Denmark, when it is blindingly obvious that our early actions have put us months behind.
If there's a statue to the Guardian writers who supported slavery though, that's another matter.
And @StuartDickson you mentioned similar things happening in Gloucester, Leicester, and I forget where else. Again, any more info would be great.
Danke.
Remember this - https://youtu.be/7pbEBxQPWGc?
Who wrote that hymn? John Newton. A slave trader who repented of his actions and became active in the abolitionist movement. People are complicated. History is complicated. Bad people can sometimes do good things. Rich men launder their reputation through charitable works. They still do it now and plenty of those who abhor the sins of the past are willing to aid and abet them - see the LSE and Ghaddaffi or those willing to turn a blind eye to the money spent on charitable /educational generosity by rich Chinese, Qataris Saudis, Russians and Ukrainians.
Not to be unkind to @AlastairMeeks. But when in 2015 I wrote on here, following the Charlie Hebdo murders, that we should not allow Saudi money to
fund educational establishments here because of the ideology that went with it he said that money had no smell. That is the view that allows all sorts of dodgy people - from slavers to today’s tyrants - to use their wealth to launder their reputation. I take the opposite view: that we should not permit this now. And I don’t want glorification of slave traders on our streets. Such things now belong in a museum where we can all learn from them.
BTW who is in charge of this “movement”. If they are going to be our inquisitors shouldn’t we know more about them?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396195/Professor-says-10-people-coronavirus-develop-antibodies.html#comments
Surveillance testing suggests that 8.5 per cent of people in England have already had the coronavirus, based on measuring antibodies.
'But there is a snag, and that’s that less than 10 per cent of infected people have antibodies. (Prof Kikora)
The only logical conclusion is that Prof Karol Sikora reckons 85% of people have had the virus.
Preposterous.
(5)In this Act “listed building” means a building which is for the time being included in a list compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under this section; and for the purposes of this Act—
(a)any object or structure fixed to the building;
(b)any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before lst July 1948,
St Cross had the best lounging sofas of any common room I ever spent time in as well.
One of those bits of Oxford life a million miles from the real world and all the better for it...
I'm surprised you give a damn about seeing less of that, frankly.
You make a mistake in assuming that society can only go 'one way', toward what left wing politicians call 'progressive' values.