Protests are everywhere, including in Bristol where the statue of a prominent slave trader ended up in the docks this weekend.

Some of the marches became out of control - and Edward Colston's monument was attacked. Colston was a great benefactor of the City of Bristol - and sold nearly 100,000 slaves.

Money came from many such slavers to our prestigious institutions - such as the Royal Academy, British Museum, Cambridge University, V&A etc.

And banks also benefited, including Barclays, Bank of England, Lloyds etc. - before slavery was abolished in 1863.



Even then there was compensation - not for the abused and used slaves - but for their owners who received £16 billion; these owners included government ministers.

This was an almighty sum then - and was only repaid, finally, through the National Debt in 2015!

Will, I wonder, the many monuments to our significant role in slavery soon disappear - and will the beneficiaries return their tainted receipts?

Beneficiaries of the slave compensation, and trading profits, include many of our most prominent English families - whose members still prop up our trade and politics.

Curtis Sliwa founder of the Guardian Angels is running for New York Mayor. They were outside a row of shops, yet they are still unnarmed, they were defending property. Looks like they have been doing police work for 40 years.

It won't be long until for the next Bernie Goetz either.

You cant condemn people for doing what was perfectly legal, in fact encouraged, at the time. It is ridiculous.

Honey wrote:
You cant condemn people for doing what was perfectly legal, in fact encouraged, at the time. It is ridiculous.


Yes, Honey - I tend to agree. But, the role of Britain - at the forefront of the slavery trade - is often overlooked.

Many don't know that slave owners had to be handsomely reimbursed for surrendering their slave investments; certainly, no altruism was involved!

Gladstone's father, for instance (with the help of the PM himself) received £100 million for his thousands of slaves - more than the GDP of most countries, in the 1830s.



And it is, at least, noteworthy that the institutions and organisations (mentioned in my previous post) rarely allude to their financial origins.

Your city Honey (Liverpool) - and Bristol, were the slave capitals - although the modus operandi ensured that the human cargo rarely reached our docks/shores.

Our apparent lack of interest in our former industry may be because the victims were all from a different continent - but, nonetheless, we were quick to honour our many heroes.


Such as - Sir Francis Drake...

Barney wrote:


Money came from many such slavers to our prestigious institutions - such as the Royal Academy, British Museum, Cambridge University, V&A etc.



And what is usually over-looked or ignored, the slave trade, and slavery in the British colonies, was ended thanks to two University of Cambridge graduates.

Barney wrote:
Honey wrote:
You cant condemn people for doing what was perfectly legal, in fact encouraged, at the time. It is ridiculous.


Yes, Honey - I tend to agree. But, the role of Britain - at the forefront of the slavery trade - is often overlooked.






And the role of Britain in ending it - before the US and others - is even more commonly over-looked. Add the sad face of your choosing.

Honey wrote:
You cant condemn people for doing what was perfectly legal, in fact encouraged, at the time. It is ridiculous.

That is absolutely horrendous position to take, of course you can condemn anyone who took part in slavery. It doesn’t matter if historically slavery was legal it should be condemned both then and now.

For reference, the definition of condemned is - To express an unfavourable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.to criticize something or someone strongly, usually for moral reasons.

Nobody is failing to condemn slavery today.
But tearing statues down is not just pointless and waste of energy but is futile, stupid and superficial.
When bent cops are killing people of all skin colours, sexual orientation and gender, it deflects attention from the real, current problem.

JK2006 wrote:
Nobody is failing to condemn slavery today.
But tearing statues down is not just pointless and waste of energy but is futile, stupid and superficial.
When bent cops are killing people of all skin colours, sexual orientation and gender, it deflects attention from the real, current problem.

It's even more worrying when police look and do nothing about vandalism. Putting a statue in a river or moat is not environmental friendly either.

Rick wrote:
And the role of Britain in ending it - before the US and others - is even more commonly over-looked. Add the sad face of your choosing.


To attempt to give Britain kudos for ceasing to inhumanely traffic men, women and children for profit - is perverse.

All northern US states had stopped it, nearly 30 years before Britain decided to, in effect, buy the slaves' freedom.

For over 180 years, the British taxpayer paid for this - and a significant number of the British elite (like the Gladstones) benefited enormously.

Just like they had during all the years of the slavery trade - often receiving (like Drake and others) honours and titles, as well.

Barney wrote:
Rick wrote:
And the role of Britain in ending it - before the US and others - is even more commonly over-looked. Add the sad face of your choosing.


To attempt to give Britain kudos for ceasing to inhumanely traffic men, women and children for profit - is perverse.





Sorry, you're quite wrong - patronisingly and offensively wrong. Many black colleges were named after one or both of the two men from Cambridge who helped end the slave trade and slavery. Is that perverse? Lincoln made speeches praising them. Is that perverse? Martin Luther King made speeches praising them. Is that perverse? Obama did the same. Is that perverse? You seem to be on some weird self-flaggelation kick. So be it. But don't lecture the rest of us on the basis of your febrile and strangely smug ignorance. Best stick with your 'the end of the world is nigh' whinings about the virus, you're just being insultingly ill-informed about this topic.

Yes, many made speeches - and Wilberforce went to Cambridge.

Substitute 'odd' for perverse.


To expect congratulations for stopping extreme cruelty, for commercial gain.

But please advise which of my facts are wrong - about the Gladstones etc.


And the enormous burden to the taxpayers.

For the benefit of reprehensible profiteers...

Barney wrote:
Honey wrote:
You cant condemn people for doing what was perfectly legal, in fact encouraged, at the time. It is ridiculous.


Yes, Honey - I tend to agree. But, the role of Britain - at the forefront of the slavery trade - is often overlooked.

Many don't know that slave owners had to be handsomely reimbursed for surrendering their slave investments; certainly, no altruism was involved!

Gladstone's father, for instance (with the help of the PM himself) received £100 million for his thousands of slaves - more than the GDP of most countries, in the 1830s.



And it is, at least, noteworthy that the institutions and organisations (mentioned in my previous post) rarely allude to their financial origins.

Your city Honey (Liverpool) - and Bristol, were the slave capitals - although the modus operandi ensured that the human cargo rarely reached our docks/shores.

Our apparent lack of interest in our former industry may be because the victims were all from a different continent - but, nonetheless, we were quick to honour our many heroes.


Such as - Sir Francis Drake...







What lack of interest? We have got a dirty great museum about the slavery.

There certainly seems to be a lack of interest in CURRENT slavery.

Blue Boy wrote:
Honey wrote:
You cant condemn people for doing what was perfectly legal, in fact encouraged, at the time. It is ridiculous.

That is absolutely horrendous position to take, of course you can condemn anyone who took part in slavery. It doesn’t matter if historically slavery was legal it should be condemned both then and now.

For reference, the definition of condemned is - To express an unfavourable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.to criticize something or someone strongly, usually for moral reasons.

There is a difference between condemning the slave trade (which goes without saying) and picking on individual people.

Yes Honey - Rick is confused about the two also. Wilberforce, and his mates, were the good guys - Colston, Rhodes etc. were the villains.

Obama and Lincoln praised the abolitionists - quite rightly. And - when visiting Guiana in 2018 - Prince Charles described the 'appalling atrocity' of the English slave trade?

But should we have places and monuments commemorating the 200 years of shame - like Penny Lane and Drake overlooking Plymouth Sound.

Honey wrote:
There is a difference between condemning the slave trade (which goes without saying) and picking on individual people.[/quote]

The individual people who profited from the slave trade should be condemned regardless of whether the act was legal or not. Apartheid was legal in South Africa that shouldn't stop anyone from condemning the person who supported that system. The SS in Germany were acting within German law during the 1930's. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

Blue Boy wrote:
Honey wrote:
There is a difference between condemning the slave trade (which goes without saying) and picking on individual people.

The individual people who profited from the slave trade should be condemned regardless of whether the act was legal or not. Apartheid was legal in South Africa that shouldn't stop anyone from condemning the person who supported that system. The SS in Germany were acting within German law during the 1930's. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.[/quote

I am sure my view isn't that unusual,Blue Boy, because I believe it was considered bad form after the war to blame the German people for supporting the system?

Bad people do good things, and good people do bad things and sometimes things that seem outrageous now that we have better understanding, were completely normal at the time.

Judging the past through today's eyes seems unfair to me, but I can understand how others might see it differently.

They should do what they do in the Southern States have museums about the Confederacy with statues and artifacts.

If the people of Bristol didn't like the statue what stopped them not taking it down ? The police just looked and let the demonstraters carry on. I'm sure the city would have a museum about the history of Bristol.

Seems the world is full of sheep.

I have Never met anyone who said Robert E Lee was a good man, but he is an important figure of American history. The statues to me represent local importance whether it's good or bad.

Maybe the Bristol officials and citizens should tear down the buildings Colstone built including the university.

Keir Starmer talked sense on LBC for once.

Green Man, I read somewhere that there was a petition to remove the statue two or three years ago but it only got ten signatures.

There are several schools of thought about slavery monuments and places named after its infamous traders; with people who:-


- wonder how they lasted so long

- think they're an appropriate part of our history

- opine that they commemorate abhorrent practices

- consider that all should be expunged

- are of the opinion that those who benefited should make reparation

- are of the view (like Priti Patel) that their removal amounts to thuggery


Oriel College, Oxford - funded largely by Cecil Rhodes, often described as the Hitler of Africa - were simply swayed by the money, which still accrues.