Should the protestors be made to dive in and put back that statue?

Watch
Pleasantri
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
As in the one thrown into the harbour in Bristol?
0
reply
alexschmalex
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Nope, leave it there to erode into nothingness
0
reply
username5301604
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Nope.
0
reply
Wired_1800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by Pleasantri)
As in the one thrown into the harbour in Bristol?
Why should they be made to dive and bring up the statue of a person who bought and sold 80,000 people? Anyone who feels wrong about the downing of the statue should have a real look at themselves. Stop hiding behind their “concerns” about the statue and honestly proclaim their real feelings.
1
reply
username3508100
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
...no?
0
reply
CatNamedAlan
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Pleasantri)
As in the one thrown into the harbour in Bristol?
Since the statue is already down, it should remain down. There is little point in putting it back in its former place. Instead, it should be placed in a museum for educational purposes.
1
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
They should burn down most of Bristol while they are at it.. after all it was mostly funded/built on slavery..

After they are done with bristol they can do the rest of the UK - after all most of our wealth and most of our most famous buildings and institutions have their roots in oppression/colonialism.

Or maybe if that's too destructive, we can just hand it all over to black people and be done with it.

(not my stuff though, just everything else that I don't use or need, but that can make me feel less guilty)
2
reply
NonIndigenous
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
They should burn down most of Bristol while they are at it.. after all it was mostly funded/built on slavery..

After they are done with bristol they can do the rest of the UK - after all most of our wealth and most of our most famous buildings and institutions have their roots in oppression/colonialism.

Or maybe if that's too destructive, we can just hand it all over to black people and be done with it.

(not my stuff though, just everything else that I don't use or need, but that can make me feel less guilty)
Lets blow up the moon as well, for being white.
1
reply
Wired_1800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by NonIndigenous)
Lets blow up the moon as well, for being white.
The moon is not white.
0
reply
NonIndigenous
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by Wired_1800)
The moon is not white.
Well, it's not black. Is it?

So what difference it makes?
0
reply
Wired_1800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by NonIndigenous)
Well, it's not black. Is it?

So what difference it makes?
It makes no difference. You made an inaccurate statement.
0
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
Yes- those that get convicted, can swim and are healthy.
Then thousands of hours of community service to remove all the rubbish and illegal corporate waste polluting English rivers.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
Nope they should let the protestors do what they want and infect everyone.
0
reply
username4903866
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by Pleasantri)
As in the one thrown into the harbour in Bristol?
Jesus Christ if you all love the damn statue so much why don’t you fish it out and jack off all over it ? It’s gone and there’s nothing you can do about it. Black lives over property!
1
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
They should burn down most of Bristol while they are at it.. after all it was mostly funded/built on slavery..

After they are done with bristol they can do the rest of the UK - after all most of our wealth and most of our most famous buildings and institutions have their roots in oppression/colonialism.

Or maybe if that's too destructive, we can just hand it all over to black people and be done with it.

(not my stuff though, just everything else that I don't use or need, but that can make me feel less guilty)
Rather silly for you.

There is clearly a legitimate case for removing statues glorifying people who played such an active role in enforcing the slave trade.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
Sure, if for no other reason than to tell them it's not okay to smash public property because their cute little feelings have been hurt somewhere along the line.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by DSilva)
Rather silly for you.

There is clearly a legitimate case for removing statues glorifying people who played such an active role in enforcing the slave trade.
No, because I am a moral relativist. Meaning there is no such thing as a universal moral code, and instead people must be judged within the morality of their society/time/place etc.

The line in the sand for me is this:

Did a person lead a good and moral life within the time that they existed?

If the answer is yes, then that's all we can expect of them, and even if the moral sphere shifts and changes over the next few hundred years, they were a good person and should be remembered as such.

If the answer is no, and they were considered an immoral/evil person within their own time, then no.. they should be forgotten, condemned and never celebrated.

---

This is the philosophical distinction that most people who discuss this topic lack. Its why you get replies like "Well we wouldn't have a statue of Hitler or Jimmy saville!!!!" What they fail to realise though is the distinction - both of those, within their moral era were widely condemned and considered evil. The problem with someone like Colston, is that within his life he was considered a good man, and after he died and left his wealth to charaties in the city, he was considered a great man. He lived by the moral code of the day, and acted in a decent way.

Its a really important distinction to make, because if we loose moral relitivism, we are all condemed.

Think about yourself...

You live a moral life, and I truly believe, based on your posts, that you are a good person who lives by a good moral code.

What if the moral code shifts over the next 200 years, and something that your doing today that is socially fine, becomes a moral evil?

Does that make you a bad person? No of course not, you don't even know what its going to be, and you can't even think outside of your moral era without guessing/hypothesizing, so how could you possibly predict the world in 200 years? Things that could change in the future, don't change that you are a good person now.

Thats the core of moral relativism.

In the same way that you are a good person now, colston was a good person in his time. We can acknowledge that times have changed, and that's fine.. we can put plaques on statues explaining things in todays context.. or we can move statues to museums in place of more updated and relivant monuments... but to tear down the statue of a man who contributed so much of the city, and throw it in the river, is both hugely disrespectful, and utterly philosophically naive.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
No, because I am a moral relativist. Meaning there is no such thing as a universal moral code, and instead people must be judged within the morality of their society/time/place etc.

The line in the sand for me is this:

Did a person lead a good and moral life within the time that they existed?

If the answer is yes, then that's all we can expect of them, and even if the moral sphere shifts and changes over the next few hundred years, they were a good person and should be remembered as such.

If the answer is no, and they were considered an immoral/evil person within their own time, then no.. they should be forgotten, condemned and never celebrated.

---

This is the philosophical distinction that most people who discuss this topic lack. Its why you get replies like "Well we wouldn't have a statue of Hitler or Jimmy saville!!!!" What they fail to realise though is the distinction - both of those, within their moral era were widely condemned and considered evil. The problem with someone like Colston, is that within his life he was considered a good man, and after he died and left his wealth to charaties in the city, he was considered a great man. He lived by the moral code of the day, and acted in a decent way.

Its a really important distinction to make, because if we loose moral relitivism, we are all condemed.

Think about yourself...

You live a moral life, and I truly believe, based on your posts, that you are a good person who lives by a good moral code.

What if the moral code shifts over the next 200 years, and something that your doing today that is socially fine, becomes a moral evil?

Does that make you a bad person? No of course not, you don't even know what its going to be, and you can't even think outside of your moral era without guessing/hypothesizing, so how could you possibly predict the world in 200 years? Things that could change in the future, don't change that you are a good person now.

Thats the core of moral relativism.

In the same way that you are a good person now, colston was a good person in his time. We can acknowledge that times have changed, and that's fine.. we can put plaques on statues explaining things in todays context.. or we can move statues to museums in place of more updated and relivant monuments... but to tear down the statue of a man who contributed so much of the city, and throw it in the river, is both hugely disrespectful, and utterly philosophically naive.
There's a limit to that principle. Moral relativism isn't a get out clause for all heinous acts just because they were committed in the past. Just as cultural relativism isn't an excuse for doing anything you want.

If Colston had merely spoken or written in favour of the slave trade, then maybe we overlook it. But he didn't. He played a key and leading role in it. His actions led to the deaths of 19,000 people and the enslavement of many thousands more. That crosses the line of what can be put down to moral relativism.

There is no context that makes that justifiable or defensible. None. And people did oppose the slave trade at the time.

You mention its disrespectful to tear down the statue, and you may have a point. But it's equally disrespectful to have a statue glorifying a man who killed thousands of people and enslaved thousands more of the ancestors of BAME people living in your city. Had they been alive at the time, they would have been enslaved by him too.

The statue should be put in a museum.
2
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What support do you need with your UCAS application?

I need help researching unis (7)
11.48%
I need help researching courses (5)
8.2%
I need help with filling out the application form (3)
4.92%
I need help with my personal statement (26)
42.62%
I need help with understanding how to make my application stand out (15)
24.59%
I need help with something else (let us know in the thread!) (2)
3.28%
I'm feeling confident about my application and don't need any help at the moment (3)
4.92%

Watched Threads

View All