Bristol, England

Symbols of crime and empire

"The statue of 17th century slave trader Edward Colston, which was pulled down by anti-racism protestors in Bristol earlier, has been dumped in the River Avon.

It had been situated in the city’s centre since 1895, and was subject to an 11,000-strong petition to have it removed." (Source: the Guardian online)

There are many similar statues in Britain. Most Brits do not care about their existence. They have accepted Winston Churchill on a five-pound note, a statue of Henry Havelock in Traflagr Square and another of General Charles Gordon also in London.

In a poll in the local newspaper, the Bristol Post, in 2014 56 per cent of the 1,100 respondents said it [Colston's statue] should stay while 44 per cent wanted it to go.

A comment by nwhithfield on the Guardian:

Many cities in Europe have squares, roads, tunnels and so on named after figures from the 20th century, often done post war - Roosevelt, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and even John Foster Dulles.

Renaming things is not so complicated. Old maps of the city where I grew up - Winchester - show some streets have had many names over the years.

We're not averse to renaming things for money. The Millenium dome became the O2. The Point in Dublin became the O2 then the 3Arena. The Eventim Apollo in Hammersmith has had several names. Sports grounds change with their sponsors. And no one says "but it's part of history! It has to be kept the same."

But try to rename a street, or a building, for morals, instead of money. And suddenly it's an outrage? An erasure of history?

We certainly gain some measure of absolution for the slave trade through the country's part in its abolition. But it surely can't be complete when we still celebrate with statues and street names many of those who earned their wealth from the trade in human beings.

Money really shouldn't be the only reason we decide to change something's name."

A surprising reaction from the mayor of Bristol and the police:

Marvin Rees said he felt no "sense of loss" after the bronze statue of Edward Colston was pulled down using ropes and thrown into the harbour on Sunday.

The statue of the prominent 17th Century slave trader has been a source of controversy in the city for years.

Avon and Somerset Police said a decision was taken not to intervene. (the BBC)

Statues linked to slave trade should be taken down, says Mayor of London, but not of [the criminal, racist] Churchill, for example.

Bansky has posted a picture suggesting what could happen to the empty plinth in the city which had housed the statue of slave trader Edward Colston.

He wrote on Instagram: “Here’s an idea that caters for both those who miss the Colston statue and those who don’t. We drag him out the water, put him back on the plinth, tie cable round his neck and commission some life size bronze statues of protestors in the act of pulling him down. Everyone happy. A famous day commemorated.” (The Guardian)

Another slave trader statue has been removed. And they say direct action doesn't work. 

The BBC also removed the TV series Little Britain.

Related

“The profits of slavery and the slave trade were promiscuous in English, and later British, merchant houses. Investors in the slave trade, for example, usually had a broad portfolio of other investments. Putting capital behind a slave-ship voyage meant investing not only in the slave trade, but also in the trade in the British textiles, weapons and other finished goods that slave-ship captains exchanged for enslaved captives, and in the sugar, molasses and rum that a slave ship emptied of enslaved people often carried to the mainland American colonies. For example, the Bristol merchant Edward Colston began his career in the 1650s as an apprentice to the London Mercers’ Company, the guild of dealers in English wool and other textiles. In 1680 he joined the Royal African Company. He later inherited his brother Thomas’s shipping business, and then became a partner in a Bristol sugar refinery.

Colston became fabulously rich. In the later years of his long life, Colston gave a fortune to charitable causes, especially in Bristol. He endowed churches, almshouses and schools for the children of the city’s poorer citizens – although he insisted that only Anglicans, and not members of Bristol’s large Quaker community, receive the benefits. He served on the board of the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, a prominent Anglican charity, and was eventually elected to Parliament. After his death in 1721, his birthday became an important date on the calendar for wealthy Bristolians, who observed the anniversary with fundraising dinners and parties. As one nineteenth-century admirer wrote, ‘His life had been one of almost spotless purity – of inexhaustible and untiring charity.’

That ‘almost’ did heavy labour for Colston’s legacy. The funds he and his heirs distributed to charities and institutions in Bristol came both directly from slavery and indirectly from all the commercial and colonial adventures that slavery made possible. As a prominent philanthropist and well-known public figure, Colston represented what ‘commerce’ was supposed to bring to England (and, after 1707, to Britain): a more pious, literate and educated tone in public life and public institutions; a sense of responsibility among the wealthy for the welfare of the poor; a close relationship between capitalism and civic duty. Colonial trade was inextricable from plantation slavery and the slave trade. It was also a foundation of polite public life.”

Excerpt From Padraic X. Scanlan‘s Slave Empire – How Slavery Built Modern Britain, 2020, ebook version, pp. 175-76