But unlike Colston, his acts were illegal at the time. Colstons weren't. Do you not see that?like colston, his misdeeds are now quite widely known.
But unlike Colston, his acts were illegal at the time. Colstons weren't. Do you not see that?like colston, his misdeeds are now quite widely known.
Stand next to the Jimmy Saville statue and say that.
Did Jimmy Saville do something that was legal at the time then?
compare Colston to Saville?,
How about if we use a statue of Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Saddam, Gaddafi, Stalin, et al?don’t really see the connection between this colstoun bloke and Saville
Maybe deep down he felt the need to give away his ill-gotten gains.Bristol now would be a very different place, were it not for him so those now living in Bristol, of all colours and especially those living back then - owe him a debt of gratitude for that generosity. Nothing can change that.
We live by today's standards, and what is legal back then does not make it acceptable.The fact that much of his money came from slave trading, is incidental to what he did here in the UK - it was legal, it was the norm for the time.
Hanging, cutting up their bodies, drowning or burning women, taking children from their parents to be abused, locking away unmarried pregnant women and abusing them, taking away their children and either killing them or denying them a proper burial, etc, etc.The norm for the time in the UK was youngsters up chimneys cleaning them, down mines and working long hours in factories. Life was very hard back then for many, very different to now - live with it. My working life and quality of life improved dramatically over my life too. Things change, attitudes change - it always has and always will.
How about if we use a statue of Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Saddam, Gaddafi, Stalin, et al?
What they did wasn't illegal at the time.
How about Eadric Streona, Thomas Becket, Dick Turpin, Guy Fawkes, Oswald Mosely, et al?
I remember Saddam was a philanthropist, he gave lots of money to build Mosques.
Even Canaan Banana realised the offence caused by a statue of Rhodes so he had the statue moved.
But this comparison of various statues, and whether they would be offensive or not is pointless. The judgement was made about one statue. There isn't any progress to be made by going through loads of various hypothetical statues.
Maybe deep down he felt the need to give away his ill-gotten gains.
We live by today's standards, and what is legal back then does not make it acceptable.
Homosexuality was illegal, it doesn't make it unacceptable then or now.
Taking children from their parents for nefarious reasons was legal at one time, much more recent than the 19 century, but it doesn't make it morally nor ethically acceptable.
Beating children, hanging them, transporting them halfway round the world to be used and abused, for stealing a loaf of bread was legal at one time, it doesn't make it acceptable.
There are so many examples throughout history that was 'legal' back then but are still considered abominable deeds.
Hanging, cutting up their bodies, drowning or burning women, taking children from their parents to be abused, locking away unmarried pregnant women and abusing them, taking away their children and either killing them or denying them a proper burial, etc, etc.
They were all perfectly legal back then, but attitudes change, mainly due to the awareness and education of the horrific events that unfolded, thank goodness.
Education that is denied if we don't open our eyes to the reality of history. That was all that was asked for, for ten long years.
What protests?Any idea what time the protests are starting outside the imperial war museum and the British museum? Will you be going to protest?
That doesn't make them acceptable by today's standards. If you think they are still acceptable, then society has not moved on from 18 century morals.Look, things happened years ago that wouldn't have happened nowdays. Things, attitudes and laws change over time.
That is exactly the argument that was made for ten long years: for a plaque to be added to make Bristolians aware of the real history, and how Colston made his money, that Bristolians now enjoy.Doesn't mean they have to be airbrushed out of existence.
Straw man argument. No-one is suggesting we do that.AIf we tore down statues because the people depicted didn't live the life of a saint, we'd only be left with studs of........saints!
Did Jimmy Saville do something that was legal at the time then?
..and does he even have a statue? Another silly statement I fancy.
What protests?
That doesn't make them acceptable by today's standards. If you think they are still acceptable, then society has not moved on from 18 century morals.
That is exactly the argument that was made for ten long years: for a plaque to be added to make Bristolians aware of the real history, and how Colston made his money, that Bristolians now enjoy.
But frustration over delays and petty squabbles over words overcame patience.
Straw man argument. No-one is suggesting we do that.
After that response, I'll assume you've exhausted your capacity for intelligent discussion.Maybe it's time for you to get some new blinkers.
I think you exhausted yours on 16th September.After that response, I'll assume you've exhausted your capacity for intelligent discussion.
So I'll leave you to play with yourself.
Looks to me like that's all you have the time and inclination for today.I don't have the time nor inclination for silly comments today,