-
Exactly, the whole argument about history being "erased" or "revised" when statues are gone, or when the funding sources of National Trust properties is revealed is such utter shite.
The name Colston is so much more familiar to people now than it would have been if they'd added a small plaque to the statue or left it alone - people now understand more rather than less about how much of the wealth of some British cities was built up on the backs of Africans. That can only be bad for history if you want to cover your ears for the bad bits and present some nationalist bullshit.
The "where will it end?" is a misnomer too - we're talking about somebody who made huge wealth from brutal kidnap and trafficking.
I think it's worth having an honest debate about Jan Smuts, Churchill, etc, and what message their statues give - but for slave traders I don't think there's a debate necessary.
You are reading a single comment by @tbc and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
tbc
This is bullshit too, history isn't changed by getting rid of a statue, it all still happened. Now maybe it's being recalled more honestly in places and monuments to it's most successful monsters are rightly being evaluated as to whether they should be on prominent display in front of the descendents of people they may have owned.