Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
mattheus
Posts: 5043
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by mattheus »

Carlton green wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 9:08am
I really do want to take race away from the point that I was trying to make, sorry if that was not clear.
I think that's been perfectly clear from your posts.

But there are a lot of keyobard warriors determined to make race the biggest issue in discussions like this. It seems possible that this helps hide other problems in modern Britain.
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4628
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by slowster »

The statue is just a lump of metal. It only has significance and meaning to the extent that we ourselves imbue it with significance and meaning. 'We', however, are not homogenous and all of the same opinions and life experiences. Some will have no great feelings about the statue or Colston per se, but will abhor its toppling as an illegal act. Others will see the very prominent celebration and veneration of a slave trader as an obscenity, especially many people who are black.

The argument that a lawful democratic process should have been followed by those objecting to the statue disingenuously ignores that vested interests, such as the Society of Merchant Venturers, used their power and influence to frustrate and prevent those who were democratically elected from doing anything about the statue, even stopping something as simple as erecting a plaque which gave a more truthful account of who Colston was and what he did.

That different people have such different views about this issue is not especially remarkable. What is telling, is that those who complain most about the toppling of the statue and the 'not guilty' jury verdict, do not care what that statue meant to those who found it - and the lies it embodied - deeply offensive.

Context and meaning are everything in a case such as this. I doubt many Catholics in England now give a damn about the existence of the statue of Cromwell in Westminster, despite his persecution of Catholics. That is because persecution and discrimination is no longer a feature of the lives of Catholics in England. However, its erection in 1899 - the same era as the Colston statue - was very controversial, because the Catholic Emancipation Act had only been passed 80 years previously, and especially because Ireland was then part of the UK. For many people in Ireland, the statue remains offensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of ... er#History

https://www.irishpost.com/news/fresh-ca ... ent-186439

The erection of Colston's and Cromwell's statues was a manifestation of 'culture wars' then. The outrage voiced now about the toppling of Colston's statue seems to be to be less about concern for law and order, and more about people being upset because they see themselves losing those 'culture wars'.
mattheus
Posts: 5043
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by mattheus »

slowster wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 11:08am The erection of Colston's and Cromwell's statues was a manifestation of 'culture wars' then. The outrage voiced now about the toppling of Colston's statue seems to be to be less about concern for law and order, and more about people being upset because they see themselves losing those 'culture wars'.
Or maybe they are against criminal vandalism. (most of them are against slavery AND vandalism, based by the vox pop that I've experienced.)
Pebble
Posts: 1933
Joined: 7 Jun 2020, 11:59pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Pebble »

.
Last edited by Pebble on 20 Jan 2022, 3:10pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Jdsk »

Pebble wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 1:14pm "We" as in the country as a whole, and "They" as in the BLM'ers who in the UK are probably mostly white left wing corbynisters who have found a new vehicle to hate Britain from. Which probably brings us back to the toppling of the statue, just a lot of angry people who had found an excuse to riot.

Obviously to some extent racism will always exist and that is sad , but it can fall to a level where it is so insignificant that it can be argued that the country as a whole is not racist, and that is where I believe we are now.
Thanks

Jonathan
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4628
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by slowster »

mattheus wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 12:25pm Or maybe they are against criminal vandalism. (most of them are against slavery AND vandalism, based by the vox pop that I've experienced.)

Some people's outrage at the 'criminal vandalism' is sufficiently transparent that it does not require mind reading to see that their claim that they are against 'slavery AND vandalism' is specious. What gives them away is how vociferous they are now following the toppling of the statue, and how quiet they were beforehand about the statue, about the false history it represented, and about the offence it gave to Bristol's black residents. Those people were quite happy with things just as they were prior to the protest. Even defining this matter as vandalism vs. slavery is to deliberately misrepresent what was and is really at the heart of the issue, which is modern day racism.

Moreover, it was not criminal vandalism, because a jury found them 'not guilty'.
Last edited by slowster on 20 Jan 2022, 2:15pm, edited 1 time in total.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by thirdcrank »

Moreover, it was not criminal vandalism, because a jury found them 'not guilty'.
And that's it in a nutshell, so long as everybody takes the same view when a jury verdict doesn't align with their own opinions
Pebble
Posts: 1933
Joined: 7 Jun 2020, 11:59pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Pebble »

.
mattheus
Posts: 5043
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by mattheus »

slowster wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 1:46pm
Some people's outrage at the 'criminal vandalism' is sufficiently transparent that it does not require mind reading to see that their claim that they are against 'slavery AND vandalism' is specious. What gives them away is how vociferous they are now following the toppling of the statue, and how quiet they were beforehand about the statue, about the false history it represented, and about the offence it gave to Bristol's black residents. Those people were quite happy with things just as they were prior to the protest. Even defining this matter as vandalism vs. slavery is to deliberately misrepresent what was and is really at the heart of the issue, which is modern day racism.
Have you actually spoken to any of "those people"?

Did any say anything to you to support these allegations you make?
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by reohn2 »

Slowster
A comprehensive and balanced reply,as ever.
Thanks
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4628
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by slowster »

mattheus wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 3:12pm
slowster wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 1:46pm
Some people's outrage at the 'criminal vandalism' is sufficiently transparent that it does not require mind reading to see that their claim that they are against 'slavery AND vandalism' is specious. What gives them away is how vociferous they are now following the toppling of the statue, and how quiet they were beforehand about the statue, about the false history it represented, and about the offence it gave to Bristol's black residents. Those people were quite happy with things just as they were prior to the protest. Even defining this matter as vandalism vs. slavery is to deliberately misrepresent what was and is really at the heart of the issue, which is modern day racism.
Have you actually spoken to any of "those people"?

Did any say anything to you to support these allegations you make?
Spoken to them? Some of them have made their views very clear on this forum. They start by posting about their concern for respect for the law and democratic process etc., but after a while their true colours show through. If you want actual examples they are not difficult to find, e.g. just read through the original thread about the George Floyd protests and the statue.
mattheus
Posts: 5043
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by mattheus »

slowster wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 4:33pm
mattheus wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 3:12pm
slowster wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 1:46pm
Some people's outrage at the 'criminal vandalism' is sufficiently transparent that it does not require mind reading to see that their claim that they are against 'slavery AND vandalism' is specious. What gives them away is how vociferous they are now following the toppling of the statue, and how quiet they were beforehand about the statue, about the false history it represented, and about the offence it gave to Bristol's black residents. Those people were quite happy with things just as they were prior to the protest. Even defining this matter as vandalism vs. slavery is to deliberately misrepresent what was and is really at the heart of the issue, which is modern day racism.
Have you actually spoken to any of "those people"?

Did any say anything to you to support these allegations you make?
Spoken to them? Some of them have made their views very clear on this forum. They start by posting about their concern for respect for the law and democratic process etc., but after a while their true colours show through. If you want actual examples they are not difficult to find, e.g. just read through the original thread about the George Floyd protests and the statue.
So that would be "No" then.

Whereas I know quite a few non-racist people who were also against the vandalism of statues. These are people I've known for years.

To be honest I've seen hardly any racists posting on this forum (and I think I've read all the George Floyd / Colston threads). I guess we see the world through different prisms.
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4628
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by slowster »

mattheus wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 6:07pm I know quite a few non-racist people who were also against the vandalism of statues. These are people I've known for years.
I would expect a 'non-racist' who learnt that there had been a prominent statue of slave trader in the centre of Bristol to be appalled. I would expect them to be horrified by what that statue may have signified to someone in Bristol who was black.

If someone's response on learning of the toppling of the statue, and also of the truth about Colston and how that was suppressed, is to consider the outrageousness of the toppling outweighs the outrageousness of the statue remaining where it was, they are not 'non-racist'. Those who prioritise the preservation of that obscene statue over the offence it caused to black people, are not 'non-racist'.
mattheus wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 6:07pm To be honest I've seen hardly any racists posting on this forum (and I think I've read all the George Floyd / Colston threads). I guess we see the world through different prisms.
There is an irony in your telling me that.
ANTONISH
Posts: 2967
Joined: 26 Mar 2009, 9:49am

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by ANTONISH »

I think it is reasonable to be disturbed at the idea of people taking the law into their own hands.
There are any number of statues or monuments which some one or other may find objectionable.
I could argue that Richard 1 was a war criminal and I had a moral right to tear down his equestrian statue outside parliament - I might need a mob to help me.
The problem with the term racist is that it can be thrown at anyone who disagrees with some of the actions of anti racist protesters.
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Jdsk »

ANTONISH wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 9:29am I think it is reasonable to be disturbed at the idea of people taking the law into their own hands.
I've never understood this phrase. Is it anything more than rhetoric?

The people who removed the Colston statue were acquitted of all the criminal charges that were brought against them.

Jonathan
Post Reply