Brooks wrote:

Maybe a new bit of Madame Tussaud's called "The Hall of Shits".

Because Madame Tussaud's definitely doesn't have loads of shits in it already eh brainlord

I think Pugs post shows that statues as a way of informing about history are utterly pointless as he's walked past the statue multiple times without knowing what the fuck it was.

No one is even saying to destroy statues, it just happened that in this case after years of trying to get just a plaque explaining that he was a slave trader which was blocked by the fucking Society of Merchant Venturers people got pissed off enough to take matters into their own hands.

Does it say he is a wonderful person?

No but he's very handsome.

I can't even think of any statue that would have a balanced plaque - "He did lots for this city but he was also a bit of a prick, especially to women."

There's statues but I'm guessing there's a pile of other stuff. Buildings, street names, gravestones, parks, God knows what.

The UK has a fuckton of statues and hardly anyone notices them. That isn't the point. The point is they are artifacts of history. And just because some of them are associated with our unsavoury past doesn't mean we get rid. We update them, replace them, whatever - as long as there is evidence retained. And physical evidence enhances written records if trying to educate and inform.

Diluted Dante wrote:

I think Pugs post shows that statues as a way of informing about history are utterly pointless as he's walked past the statue multiple times without knowing what the fuck it was.

This is not conclusive. I think if you consider an alternative format for a statue or monument, where something is clearly toppled or altered or in some way that stands out from the background imperial architectural furniture you might find that more people take an interest in it's meaning and history.

Like I said, if you shove the idea of big brass vainglorious posturing dickhead statues out of your head, and think about the other more relevant and interesting ways to represent and remember people now, public monuments can be very useful and valuable.

If some kind of recognition of his actions was what you were suggesting Davy you really buried in the whole "it's akin to holocaust memorials" 

The statue educated no one. It did nothing, it was an inert piece of glorification that did nothing to teach the history of Bristol. You look at it, you see he's the most wise and and virtuous son of the city. You move along. How many more people now know the history of Bristol's roots in the slave trade, versus how many knew before? Is that a failing of our education system, and our lack of curiosity in general? Sure, but there's only so much a person can learn about this vast world of ours, at some point action speaks louder than words.

Should the statue have been torn down? Debatable - I don't give a fuck, as far as I am concerned you can consign this stuff to the drink and enact real change.

Should the statue have been amended? Absolutely. Did people try? Yes. Was it refused? Yes. What's the next course of action? Eventually when things refuse to change, you always end up at the radical. The radical is nearly always flawed, but it is never inert. As a result an action is taken, and people learn something. Thinking about how to keep that knowledge, how to adapt that action into history is more important now that going on about whether or not the statue should be amended, or could be amended. I've said it so many times now - they could not get the plaque updated. At that point, the statue does nothing to help people understand history. 

You cannot even begin to compare this with the monuments and museums to the war dead, the holocaust dead, it's an inert piece of architecture that serves no useful purpose. We don't need a statue to tell us that people revered the people who built Britain of the back of colonialism - we have centuries of art and literature, as well as our current status in the world telling us this - and decades of Post-Colonial theory trying to educate people about it, frequently written off because they're defined as the exact kind of left, cultural marxism that are being railed against by the people who think all of this PC, SJW stuff has gone too far. Achebe wrote an Image of Africa in 1975, 19 fucking 75. So little has been done to change the way we treat heritage and tradition since.

Kow wrote:

What would the amended plaque say? "Slave trading arsehhole"? It's better off in a river.

It was gonna say that "Bristol Council does not condone the actions of Mr. Colston and this statue is in no way an endorsement of racism so please address all future reparations claims to central government."

"Stay alert > vote for statues of slave traders > save lives"

Kow wrote:

What would the amended plaque say? "Slave trading arsehhole"? It's better off in a river.

The proposed plaque was 

As a high official of the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, Edward Colston played an active role in the enslavement of over 84,000 Africans (including 12,000 children) of whom over 19,000 died en route to the Caribbean and America.

“Colston also invested in the Spanish slave trade and in slave-produced sugar. As Tory MP for Bristol (1710-1713), he defended the city’s ‘right’ to trade in enslaved Africans.

“Bristolians who did not subscribe to his religious and political beliefs were not permitted to benefit from his charities

This was opposed by a Tory counciller, who stated "I have never been a believer in taking the law into one's own hands. However, if this partisan and nauseous plaque is approved, I can not find it in my heart to condemn anyone who damages or removes it", and by the Society of Merchant Venturers, who got it changed to

"Edward Colston, 1636-1721, MP for Bristol 1710-1713, was one of this city’s greatest benefactors.

“He supported and endowed schools, almshouses, hospitals and churches in Bristol, London and elsewhere. Many of his charitable foundations continue. This statue was erected in 1895 to commemorate his philanthropy.

“A significant proportion of Colston’s wealth came from investments in slave trading, sugar and other slave-produced goods.

“As an official of the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, he was also involved in the transportation of approximately 84,000 enslaved African men, women and young children, of whom 19,000 died on voyages from West Africa to the Caribbean and the Americas.”"

When the Mayor found out what it was changed to, he axed it.

Morgan Freeman?

Are there many put up these days? Other than of footballers on private property outside grounds.

I feel like we are moving away from them as a society, with more focus on groups of people or events.

Kow wrote:

The hoi polloi are the common masses, not the opposite. FYI. Unless I misunderstood what you're saying.

Jesus you're right....totally misused that phrase - will edit.


EDIT: not the 1st time I have misused that - it somehow auto suggests the opposite of its meaning to me and trips me up.