A tenement, a dirty street
Walked and worn by shoe less feet…..
The days of Pearly Spencer
The race is almost run
– written and performed 1967 by David McWilliams from Ballymena, hi!
Boris Johnson, having a ‘few rotten apples’ in the Minneapolis Police Dept to thank for saving his politically plagued skin over the Dominic Cummings debacle, returned the favour by critically rounding on those in the UK protesting the death of George Floyd and not Anthony Grainger with references to COVID-19 and physical distancing - just as he did with Cummings! Priti Patel, not to be left out of the contrariety, followed in hot adulation of Boris by repeating his words in her tweet, originality being something Priti doesn’t suffer lightly.
Those who resorted to physical protestation when they dumped a statue of altruistic slave trader Edward Colston into the Bristol harbour were especially focused on as thugs and described by some, Peter Mandelson in particular, a man who’s very presence oozes living proof of moral and ethical etiquette, as mob rule.
Even Sir Keir Starmer, rounded on them and decried that their behaviour was wrong and that Colston’s statue should have been removed years ago after much discussion with tea and cake and possibly stored in a museum for historical reasons ... a man who after that remark is now destined to never enter 10 Downing Street!
Perhaps a ‘museum of historical cunts’ would be more suitable where those current cunts, mainly Bristol’s Society of Merchant Venturers, who previously and continuously supported its existence could go and worship him.
Actually destroying it and telling the historical truth of the man was never discussed ... a bit like Cromwell, Cecil Rhodes, Bomber Harris, Churchill or even Thatcher’s statue at Westminster and who all in their own individual way qualify for the museum of historical cunts. Just ask those on the receiving end of their actions!
Colston, a slave trader and Tory Member of Parliament, and no doubt an acquaintance of Oliver Cromwell, who used his fortune to justify his actions with philanthropic acts towards the good citizens of Bristol, just as all immoral and unethical murdering bastards do when seeking approval of their actions by the mob, now lies at the bottom of what constitutes part of the Bristol Channel.
Just as it has been estimated that up to 20,000 of his unwilling ‘shackled passengers’ on his transatlantic ships lie at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean due to food shortages or disease on board. Men women and children were shamefully dumped overboard to accommodate the survival of the rest of the cargo and guarantee profit. A moral compass that Britain retained throughout its history.
Slavery throughout the colonies was decreed immoral and unethical which apparently it wasn’t until then and abolished under the Abolishing of Slavery Act in 1833, even though trade in slavery was abolished in 1807. The descendants of those slaves now living in Britain were dutifully informed in 2015 by HRM Treasury that they had been paying of a debt in modern terms equivalent to £308 billion for the compensation to slave owners from the loss of earnings from their ancestors being declared free men and women ... they helped pay for it!
And in modern times the same duplicitous establishment attitude prevails with the Tory government policy of furlough. In 2008 the British government directly paid of the banking sectors debt to the tune of £137 billion. This time though the Tories came up with furlough. A pretentious government policy of kindness and consideration given to us by government to help us though this pandemic.
A policy that actually allows the government to ensure bank repayments are made while falsely endearing themselves to the people. 80% of wages, of which most of it goes on mortgages, car HP payments and credit card bills and thus staving off a run on the banks due to lack of payments – all routes of debt lead to the banks irrespective of the debt. Like the ancestors of the slaves, we’ve been duped.
And so:
Ring-a-ring o' roses,
A pocket full of posies,
A-tishoo! A-tishoo!
We all fall down…..
Some claim that the above nursery rhyme is in reference to the plague. But what specific pathogen it references has led to much debate on whether it is Bubonic or Black in nature. Bubonic being carried by the fleas of rats that jumped species to humans or Black (the Great Pestilence) that as yet is not fully understood but who’s wide disbursement and rapid spread is now widely believed to be down to something else rather than the usual suspects – rats.
Others believe it just a nonsense rhyme much like the daily briefing given by Conservative ministers on Covid-19 … although one is historical fact while the other is fiction.
Ring-a-ring o' roses, - normally references the red blotches on the skin…..government ministerial redners
A pocket full of posies, - normally references the sweet smelling flowers carried to ward of the plague….PPE or lack of it
A-tishoo! A-tishoo! – normally references the symptoms of the disease….Covid-19
We all fall down…..normally references those that succumb to its virulence, unfortunately the exception being Dominic Cummings!
But I will leave you with this,
Let us rejoice at the irony of Edward Coulston’s statue as it lies at the bottom of the dock in Bristol - just as many of his passengers ended their days in a watery grave.
And George Floyd, in my day a man who would have been classed as a ‘hood’ and who at some point in his criminal career would probably have been kneecapped, whose image is now painted on the walls on the Falls road and hailed by those who would have physically punished him as a symbol of resistance.
I agree with that a hundred percent. Duped yet again.
ReplyDeleteI am not a fan of destroying statues and do believe they should be put in a museum. I don't believe historical artefacts should be destroyed but instead should be displaced. It resembles book burning too much for my liking.
ReplyDeleteAnthony,
ReplyDeleteYou're right, history is history no point pretending it didn't happen. Although I understand the mentality, i.e in a similar situation and there was a statue of Trevelyan say, I'd be in about it. Intellectually it achieves nothing.
Instead of removing why not accurately inform the reader of the epitaph of both sides of the character?
ReplyDeleteRipping down statues is an absolutist move which ignores the totality of history.
Sean Mallory says
ReplyDeleteAM
The problem with Britain’s public art is how Britain’s represents its history in that form. Public art is a matter of context and when Britain through Its public art eulogises it’s brutal and empirical past by whitewashing it with statues of those who served Her, irrespective of their vile and repugnant actions then demographics can play a very important role in whether that eulogy is any longer acceptable.
When the current demographics finds it repulsive, they have every right to pull it down and circumvent the discussion path advocated by the State and its offices that erected it and continue to defend it….By attacking the statue they were indirectly attacking the State historical narrative and that was unacceptable, not the action itself… That called in to question the very essence of the State and what it stands for or better, who it actually represents.
There is a huge difference between a public statue and a book on a shelf. One is picked up as a matter of choice the other isn’t….It is physically dominant.
There are a quite a few busts of former Roman Emperors on public display in various places throughout Europe and their actions would warrant their removal. But the history of their manic and bloody actions is well documented and there is no attempt by any State to whitewash their behaviour because they may have given alms to the poor on their way to the Colosseum to watch people being torn apart by wild animals.
That is the difference…..Britain refuses to acknowledge the insurmountable hurt it inflicted throughout its history and its statues and their plaques convey that.
Book burning is different and usually aimed at a particular group rather than an individual approved by the State.
Mr M
ReplyDeleteThere are a number of ways of dealing with issues that upset other than by diktat of the wokerati. Even to call it public art and then deny the public access to it is incongruent.
Context is never value free and more often than not it functions as alibi.
In the very act of destruction of the statue rather than its displacement the context can be viewed as follows: what we oppose we destroy and when demographics create a new majority it too can destroy the grave of Karl Marx or statues of James Connolly.
And because eulogy no longer being acceptable manifests itself in how we remove eulogy – through destruction, we invite endless destruction. The NUM will destroy Thatcher and the Tories will destroy Scargill, all justified by the self-serving and self-created context of the day. And it all becomes justified because you license the destruction on the grounds of “When the current demographics finds it repulsive, they have every right to pull it down.”
Should churches or religious statues be pulled down? If London were to become in Melanie Philips’ dystopian world Londonistan should the statues of religious denominations other than Islam be pulled down?
And what is the point of indirectly attacking the state narrative when it can be done directly? The state itself should be compelled to displace these statues on ethical grounds – the US military and Navy are doing it now with the confederate flag. That is a more powerful act of delegitimation. They don’t do it because they particularly agree with the sentiment of displacement but because the popular mood has so changed.
The difference between books and statues is not as pronounced as you think. Should the secularists destroy the bible, a book more powerful than any statue which justifies slavery, infanticide, genocide?
And if we are only talking about the physical dominance there are ways to combat that other than by destruction.
Should all Irish republican statues now be removed on the grounds that republicans have never acknowledged the “the insurmountable hurt it inflicted throughout its history?”
The fetishization of destruction is a dangerous path for any society to go down. It is a double edged sword that the powerful - when the pendulum swings back as it will – will use with gay abandon because they have won the seal of approval from those who have stated it is fine to destroy what we don’t like.
I think a park called Monsters Memorial would be a much better idea where rather than physical destruction of statues, we would have the intellectual deconstruction of the message the statues are meant to convey.
Much as I took delight in the momednt of Richard Colston's ceremonmiloa ducking, I do agree that depictions and artefacts shoiuld be stotred in museums rather than tower over a citizenfry who find tnheir memofries amd legacies reppellent. After all, history is there for all of us to study, interpret and learn from not just its elite custodians.
ReplyDeleteI can't deny a perverse satisfaction myself but it was in the sense of looking at the forbidden fruit. When we separate the emotive out from the intellect I sense it is the wrong approach.
DeleteMoreover, I don't want priesthoods, including the secular making decisions for me. I will be interested to know if it was a genuine act of spontaneity or a stunt by some political sect.
AM
ReplyDeleteWell said, that should have been an article in its own right. Judging the past from today's perspective is always fraught with danger. In 20 years time when the vegan wokerati are in positions of power will statues of Saint Obama be pulled down because he ate meat? In Coulston's time slavery was widely accepted, Christians would have quoted Exodus 21 to justify it and black's were widely regarded as inferior or 'savage'. Now we know different but that does not take away from Coulston's work in bringing wealth, prosperity and trade to Bristol. His statue should have been moved not ripped down. We can't change the past nor how society thought centuries ago and ripping down statues sets a terrible precedent.
Thank you Peter. I still think we can and must evaluate the past from the perspective of today otherwise a historical relativism creeps in which is also dangerous. How can we measure the value of progress otherwise?
DeleteI think we need to be aware of the dangers of any evaluation that we make. We factor in situational logic and the lack of options available to the agents and actors.
Because slavery was widely accepted in Coulston's day demands an even more stringent repudiation of it from the perspective of our day. It was not widely accepted by the slaves and we have to try to bring their perspective to bear on the matter.
But you hit on much that is right.
I think the matter is temporal: an original statue of a roman, greek, or eygptian emporeror or military leader would be considered a national treasure whereas the closer we move to modern life and values the greater comparision is made between what has gone before and prevailing attitudes, or, political dominance today. Nobody opposed the removal of Jimmy Savilles statue or other memorial plaques in his honour because it is now known what he represented and everyone share the same revulsion -whereas, for example, Cromwell represents different things to our own temporal past depending on our place in history. With ancient statutes there is a clear disconnect between modern society and all the abuses ancient emperors represented -wheras, the same disconnect is not sufficiently evident with modern historical figures because of what they represent or contributed to who we are today from whatever your political/ethnic origins.
ReplyDeleteI think there is much in that Christy and you outline the issues very well.
DeleteIf the Jimmy Saville Paedophile Appreciation Society wish to honour him let them do it in their own homes not the public space and take the flak for it.
I would feel the same way about the destruction of his statue as I would about the destruction of the Bristol one. A monster's theme park is where they should go.
I presume those artists who worked on the Saville statue were unaware of his child abuse history whereas the people who made the Bristol one were very aware of Coulston's slave trade.
Nor is the removal of statues the issue but their destruction.
In a sense it might be even worse than book burning particularly where there are other copies of the burned books to be obtained.
AM
ReplyDeleteYes, I think statues also represent some level of artistic or intellectual value - we might not wish to venerate them but certainly they do have a value that should not be erased -while most might not like Hitler -looking at a statue of him would probably invoke all sort of emotions that a picture or text cannot. I wouldn't like to come up close to a T-Rex but there is a certain awe if you see a re-essembled skeleton of one -it gives you perspective. So I agree with you that they do have a value and place -but not always pride of place.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteIn a similar vein Neil Oliver noted they were tearing down the statue while filming it with phones made by modern day slaves, wearing clothes made in sweatshops
Was reading an article just now, they want paw patrol banned as it depicts cops as good guys, hahaha. Where does it stop?
ReplyDeleteI just saw on the news that Churchill's statue has been borded up and I think that is wrong -those wanting to remove or destroy Churchill's statute seem not to see the forest for the trees... what of the grandure and symbolism of all the imperialist buildings surrounding the statue?? -they represent more than just Churchill's statue does --there is not one of those buildings that did not cost lives, oppression or abusive discrimination. Churchill's statue and surrounding area is a living museum of imperialism --- this could all go so far that we become like radical muslims -all paintings and statues must be destroyed -Ghandi and Mandella's statues may be next.
ReplyDelete