Speaker's Corner by Mike Gardner: Colston is one of the most evil men in English history ... his portrayal brings great shame upon this city | Bristol Post
Reader's letter: We cannot delete people from history | Bristol Post
Bristol Post readers vote to keep statue of Edward Colston where it is | Bristol Post
Bristol must do more to remember slavery
| Posted: June 26, 2014
By Prof Mark Horton (Bristol University) and Prof Madge Dresser (UWE)
Scene from a slave ship
Comments (21)
BETWEEN 1686 and 1807, 565,000 human beings were forcibly removed from their African families and communities and loaded onto ships owned and fitted out by Bristol and West Country merchants – to endure the horrific Middle Passage from Africa to the New World. Only 466,000 reached their destination, and 99,000 died on route, and their bodies most likely flung overboard to be eaten by sharks.
For those who managed to survive, they were then sold at auction into the sugar, cotton and tobacco plantations of the Caribbean and the southern states of America.
The majority – some 414,000 – ended up as field slaves on Jamaica, the Leeward and Windward islands. Here their daily task was working the cane fields, harvesting the stalks and processing them in the crushing and boiling houses.
Mortality rates were extremely high and the slaves were accommodated in primitive conditions with only the most basic food. For much of the period they could be tortured, murdered and raped with impunity. And planters were reluctant for them to have contact with Christian missionaries who might preach the equality of souls, while work was maintained by the lash and many other gruesome punishments.
Meanwhile the Bristol merchants become exceptionally rich on this human misery.
It wasn't just the slave trade (in fact this was the least profitable part of the whole system), but the whole economy that benefited. This ranged from fitting out the ships and the supply of trade goods with which to buy the slaves on the African coast, to the products of the West Indian plantations, especially the sugar that became the commodity that everyone wanted in Europe.
Bristol had no fewer than 20 refineries, supplying some 30 per cent of the nation's sugar needs. Then there was the banking and insurance, for those merchants who had so much money, that they could further increase their fortunes and increasingly distance themselves from a direct involvement in slave trading itself.
But as we walk around the West Country today, and marvel at the great houses or Georgian architecture, rarely do we pause to think where the money came from, to pay for all this.
So many buildings in the region from the eighteenth century have some connection to the slave trade, and even the nineteenth century left its mark, as the region's wealth burgeoned from the compensation given the plantation owners when the slaves were emancipated in 1834.
The slaves of course, while now free, received nothing. The cash that returned to Bristol in the 1830's helped pay for the great engineering projects of the period – often the brainchild of Isambard Kingdom Brunel.
Should we remember these legacies? We often hear people say, 'well that was a long time ago' or 'its just history'.
But history has lessons; it tells us that the exploitation of other humans in this way is wrong.
Religious and radical thinkers joined to form the abolition movement; the sermons of John Wesley, and the researches of Thomas Clarkson in Bristol, the poetry of Hannah More and Anne Yearsley helped to fuel a new sensibility and pave the way for the later human rights movement and many of the basic freedoms that we cherish today.
It is a complex story, but one that everyone needs to know. Even today, we are trying to stamp out modern slavery and human trafficking.
The tragedy is that we are now is danger of forgetting. Bristol's recent past seems full of bouts of denial about the eighteenth century inhumanities, with short episodes – generally at anniversaries (such as in 1998 and 2007) – of remembering.
If you were a visitor to Bristol, you would find it hard to find any public reference to the slave trade.
There is a small plaque on the M Shed, and Pero's bridge. Go out to Henbury Church and you might find a gravestone of Scipio Africanus, a slave who died in Bristol in the early eighteenth century.
Bristol needs to remember. It's not just plaques on the wall, but a permanent location is needed where the full story of slavery can be told.
Aside from a tiny and hard-fought for section on slavery in M Shed, there is little official commemoration.
Only a few months ago the two museums in the Bristol with any direct connection to slavery – Blaise Castle and the Georgian House – were threatened with closure. With this would have been a return to the dark days of denial.
Now is a good moment to think about Bristol's slave-trade past because our present, as Green Capital of Europe 2015, and our future have to be sustainable. Sustainability is everything slavery is not; it means living within the limits of resources, generating wealth through ingenuity, not by exploitation.
Slavery, Legacies and Remembrance – a panel discussion, is taking place in the Great Hall, Bristol University, takes place tonight at 6.30pm.
Bristol must do more to remember slavery | Bristol Post
Bristol University | News | June: Slavery debate
Bristol torn apart over statue of Edward Colston: But is this a figure of shame or a necessary monument to the history of slavery?
Bristol is not the only UK city struggling to agree on a way to face up to its role in slave trading
PAUL GALLAGHER
Sunday 22 June 2014
Edward Colston is fondly remembered in Bristol. A grand bronze statue on a pedestal of Portland stone was unveiled almost 120 years ago in the city centre, dedicated to the 17th-century merchant and MP. Depicting a middle-aged Colston leaning pensively on a stick, its inscription reads: “Erected by citizens of Bristol as a memorial of one of the most virtuous and wise sons of their city.”
Not mentioned are the thousands of slave victims that Colston and his family trampled over to obtain much of their wealth. He served as deputy governor of the Royal African Company – which held a monopoly on the trade – while his brother Thomas supplied the glass beads that were used to buy slaves.
The debate over how Bristol should commemorate Colston, if at all, has reared its head again in recent days after the Bristol Post asked whether the statue should be pulled down. Just over half (56 per cent) of the 1,100 respondents said it should stay – 44 per cent wanted it to go.
It followed a passionate article arguing for its removal by the retired journalist Mike Gardner in which he calls Colston “one of the most evil men in British history”. Bristol has more than a dozen streets, three schools, other buildings and an annual church ceremony named after Colston, but Mr Gardner said the 18ft statue was the worst reminder of all. “It’s time to rename the streets, the concert hall, the office block – everything,” he argued. “It’s time to stop little girls wearing flowers to celebrate his birthday. And it’s time to pull down that statue.”
Bristol’s Mayor, George Ferguson, has described the annual Colston celebrations as “perverse”, but his city remains divided. Many residents rage against what they view as sweeping history under the carpet should the statue disappear.
One said that Colston “built a load of schools, hospitals and almshouses for the poor. I imagine the people of Bristol were grateful, regardless of how he came by the money.” But another commented: “Whatever ‘good’ deeds he has done, he did it out of the proceeds of slavery. No one would condone a statue of Adolf Hitler as ‘the great builder of superior motorways’.”
Bristol torn apart over statue of Edward Colston: But is this a figure of shame or a necessary monument to the history of slavery? - Home News - UK - The Independent
Should Bristol's Colston Hall change its name – to distance itself from slavery?
Bristol's premier entertainment venue is named after 17th-century slave trader Edward Colston. Is it time to rename it – or is that just airbrushing history?
Edward Colston, slave trader and patron of Bristol, painted in 1694. Photograph: St Bartholomew's Hospital Museum
Ros Martin, a Bristol-based poet and playwright
There are those of us who wish to create or experience art in this city but who find ourselves excluded. We do not feel able to enjoy or contribute to Bristol's biggest venue while it continues to trade under the Colston name. Many roads and buildings in Bristol are named after Colston. Imagine how this must seem to a visitor to our city: they could only assume that Colston was a great man, a doer of good deeds. In fact, if it wasn't for those of us who boycott the hall (or question the status quo) being put into the spotlight time and again, most Bristolians would think the same, so successful has been this rebranding exercise.
Bristol has been the inspiration for much of my artistic creativity. I love Bristol – its anarchic and vibrant art scene. However, I am not sure Bristol loves me. As a descendant of enslaved Africans, a writer and artist, I feel insulted and alienated by seeing someone who built his wealth fromslavery now immortalised in a music venue paid for by the public purse. This is why I have long campaigned for this name change.
Colston Hall belongs to all the people, to express themselves in an environment of mutual respect.
Madge Dresser, associate professor of history, University of the West of England
I take your point, but airbrushing someone out of history makes me profoundly uneasy. I've long campaigned against Bristol's political amnesia about slavery, but do you really think social justice can be best served by a change in nomenclature?
The campaign to rename Colston Hall is part of a wider campaign to take down Colston's statue in the city centre. It may feel good in the short term but will be ultimately self-defeating if the truth is what we both wish to champion. The present building is steeped in the city's history. It's on the site of the great house of Sir John Young, the first Bristol merchant to trade with Africa in the 1550s. Bristol's first known black resident worked there in the 1570s. A century later it was converted into the city's first sugar house, to process Caribbean sugar. By Victorian times, when sugar refining was in decline, the house was demolished and a hall erected which was dedicated to Colston, in a bid to unite Bristolians in some faux version of their historical greatness. The Colston Hall has a history to acknowledge, not erase.
RM It is not true that changing the hall's name is part of a wider campaign to take down the statue. Nor is the campaign an attempt to airbrush him out of Bristol's history. I am happy for the roads and buildings to stay; what is invisible (and is in fact airbrushed) is recognition of the contribution from the brutalised lives of African ancestors, on which the wealth of the city is built.
Social justice is whatever the demands of an oppressed minority are for social inclusion that promotes their dignity and leads to mutual respect. It is an exercise for all of Bristol. "Formerly known as Colston Hall" could suffix the new name.
What I do take exception to is Colston's name serving as a cultural ambassador. Arts should be a unifier, not a divider. Sadly, the Colston legacy is now serving to divide the people of Bristol. The thorny issue surely is: how does one engage with other people's history (ie, the descendants of enslaved Africans) when clearly it's not one's own? You put yourself in the shoes of another. This is not an academic exercise.
MD There has been talk in the press of tearing the statue down, so I'm glad to hear it's not a formal part of the campaign to rename the hall.
Agreed, Colston's name is now a lightning rod for divisive attitudes about race as well as history, but let's make this the occasion for a grown-up discussion of history and citizenship and not a polarised one generating more heat than light. The term "Bristolian" now applies with equal validity to people from diverse backgrounds, including the descendants of the enslaved Africans, and you and I both despair at the ignorance and racism informing so much of the white public's response to this debate. But it is underpinned by an undercurrent of resentment with which we must engage. Many white working-class Bristolians feel Colston represents their history, and we dismiss their resentment at our peril. Their feeling that the white, educated, elite "outsiders" have failed to acknowledge the contribution working-class people have made to this city has a ring of truth. And even though this resentment can take a racist turn, even if it conflates the exploitation of workers with the more systematic and intense brutalisation of the enslaved, it should be fairly addressed and not simply dismissed.
RM You've summarised it well: marginalised lives, fear of upsetting the white working class, who represent the bulk of Bristol's population. Only, most black people in the city are working-class people who share common struggles of social exclusion and marginalisation with white working-class people. I have sympathy for any exploited life, now and in the past. Who doesn't?
Whenever black Bristolians demand social justice about anything in the city, an undercurrent of resentment follows and nothing happens. Someone has to be responsible for correcting the misinformation about Colston being a virtuous son of the city. We need to come together to fight our battles one by one. This is about arts and social inclusion, and respectfully honouring the memory of African ancestors. Bristol's black ancestry is part of the city's shared history and it informs British colonial history. White working-class Bristolians are not without the ability to empathise and wish for social justice for all. This fraught, divisive legacy bequeathed us the Colston name, which is why it should go.
MD You are right about fighting battles one by one. I would rather fight for a proper commemorative statue honouring the contribution which enslaved Africans made to Bristol's prosperity, preferably to be placed outside Colston Hall!
But your campaign may now have a better chance of success because it suits commercial interests. Corporate sponsors with few local associations and an eye to the youth market may also wish to avoid the "taint of Colston", and it's their sponsorship that the authorities are now courting. How ironic is that, and how very Bristolian!
If and when the hall's name is changed, what, then, will happen to all the schools, streets and charities that have a nominal association with Colston? Doesn't logic dictate they change their names too? But changing the name won't change the history – it could well obscure it. And it's important for our democracy that history, in all its messy complexity, informs our understanding of both our city and ourselves.
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment