Originally Posted by
ramAnag
You may say whatever you like Ram, but isn’t there a huge difference between buildings such as the Coliseum and personal monuments to individuals who have subsequently been discredited?
Doubtless bad things happened in many British castles, in Victorian mills, schoolrooms and workhouses. There is, or used to be, an opportunity at Sudbury Hall for modern day children to crawl through a recreated chimney in the way that poor C18th and C19th children were made to...these are all things that we can learn from.
Unfortunately monuments/statues are usually erected to victors or those who have contemporary approval. This was undoubtedly the case with Saddam Hussein’s statue and Stalin’s in Budapest...both subsequently torn down when a different perspective of their actions was taken.
Didn’t you approve when Ceausescu’s images were destroyed just over thirty years ago?
Did you ever doubt that war criminals who killed thousands of Jews with Hitler’s approval during, and prior to WW2, should have subsequently been hunted down?
If, and I’m not in anyway suggesting this to be the case, such football icons as Brian Clough, Matt Busby or Bill Shankly should now be discovered to have been involved in some really bad and sordid practice it wouldn’t change our views of their achievements, but I wouldn’t want their statues to remain.
So it is, imo, with Colston. He undoubtedly did some good work...but it was ‘paid for’ by the treatment and deaths of those tens of thousands of black slaves. With that in mind a statue of such a character is not, again imo, appropriate in today’s society.
As regards your final question. I think I’m right in saying there was limited criticism during Colston’s lifetime, but a huge amount by the time his statue was erected.