Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
The fact remains that he did what he did, and a lot of people have benefited from it. The statue was not erected to celebrate his evil deeds, nor were schools and streets so named. I would venture that very few people with statues have zero skeletons in their closet. History is what it is.[
|
It wasn't erected to celebrate his evil deeds but the good deeds he did do were funded by that slavery.
I think that's different to someone who's good deeds are unconnected to why there are honoured. George Washington owned slaves, but the Washington Monument exists to honour him as a Founding Father, Leader of the Patriot Army and the first US President.
So that's where I think a key difference lies, especially since all historical figures will likely be tainted by the period of the history they lived in. The question we should ask is what did they do and did the good outweigh the bad? Churchill? Absolutely yes, the good outweighs the bad.
Does Colston's charity outweigh slavery? I don't think so.
But going back to what I said many pages ago, and to reference Pierre's point about the pyramids, maybe the better thing to do is put new information up saying where the money that built those buildings in Bristol came from.
This is who Colston is, this is what he did with the money and this is where that money came from kind of a thing.