History and Slavery

[Guest55]

+ 1

I can see both sides of the argument. How far do you go back? Slavery in Rome or earlier?

I'm not fond of judging people who lived in an different era and can't defend themselves.

[ConfusedFather]

Also let's not forget most people had a dark(er) side by today's standards.
Savile would have been forgotten in 50 years, he was a nobody in the grand scheme of things, so removing all references to him makes sense.

But would you really try to remove from history the following, should we ever find they were slavers/murderers/rapists/whichever big crime: Fleming, Pasteur, Caesar, Alexander the Great, The Wright brothers, Shakespeare, etc... ? Would you really? We need to accept that historical figures are likely to have a darker side, but we need to present their positive contribution and hail them for it, and keep their negatives for the more curious and for scholarly research. Otherwise we would need to remove Newton from history books if he was found to be a *** and be no better than the Pharaohs that tried to remove Akhenaten from history. Removing the likes of Herostratus from history makes sense, but Genghis Khan, Henry VIII or Muhammed because of their unacceptable behaviour by today's standards?

[Stroller]

Rewriting history is a different step. (And if we do that, could we please include more women this time?) Removing statues and giving more neutral names to institutions that were previously dedicated to honour someone iffy is simple. Why would anyone want a school to carry the name of a slave trader?

[Surferfish]

But would you really try to remove from history the following, should we ever find they were slavers/murderers/rapists/whichever big crime: Fleming, Pasteur, Caesar, Alexander the Great, The Wright brothers, Shakespeare, etc... ? Would you really? We need to accept that historical figures are likely to have a darker side, but we need to present their positive contribution and hail them for it, and keep their negatives for the more curious and for scholarly research.

Firstly no-one is suggesting that anyone or any event be removed from history.

Secondly the context of the individual is important. If Edward Colston had been a great scientist, playwright or composer etc and it was later discovered that he had investments and side interests in the slave trade then it would still be OK to honour his positive achievements today IMO. That's not the case with Colston though. His main claim to fame is that he was a successful slave trader.

[quasimodo]

But would you really try to remove from history the following, should we ever find they were slavers/murderers/rapists/whichever big crime: Fleming, Pasteur, Caesar, Alexander the Great, The Wright brothers, Shakespeare, etc... ? Would you really? We need to accept that historical figures are likely to have a darker side, but we need to present their positive contribution and hail them for it, and keep their negatives for the more curious and for scholarly research.

Firstly no-one is suggesting that anyone or any event be removed from history.

Secondly the context of the individual is important. If Edward Colston had been a great scientist, playwright or composer etc and it was later discovered that he had investments and side interests in the slave trade then it would still be OK to honour his positive achievements today IMO. That's not the case with Colston though. His main claim to fame is that he was a successful slave trader.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -forgotten" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ ... e-revealed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have a deep conflict.On the one side I want historical enquiry and scholarship and holding a torch upon successful slave traders is part of the process but on the other hand I am in sympathy with those who want to pull down the statutes of racists,colonialists and former slave owners.This is a period of history which is in gradual decay and decline and I know where history will pronounce its judgement's and I would therefore rather let the ravages of time take their course.I would rather we let the weeds grow round their monuments.It would provide proper historical context.In contrast in India after the British left many statutes from its Imperial past were removed to statute cemeteries to be replaced by Indian icons.The process and the history is different.

Symbols do matter but we are not at the fall of the Berlin Wall or the fall of Saddam Hussein to rejoice at the demolition of the wall or the fall of a statute symbolising much more.Neither do we have to share the revulsion of the destruction of ancient cities in Palmyria or the buddhas of Bhamiya. Here a light on the subject of slavery is far more important than the name a school carries.

I think it also would be better to focus on the between 10,000 to 13,000 estimated victims of slavery in the UK today than worry about name changes or statutes.

[Stroller]

This news story about the renaming of a literary award reminded me of this thread:
Laura Ingalls Wilder removed from book award over racist language http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44604844" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;