Thread by @sundersays

Its interesting that the Prime Minister sees it as in his interests to engage in this argument about the jury verdict. His apparent argument seems confused in several respects.

- Nobody can change now what Colston/Royal Africa Company did from 1680-1692
- Erecting the statue *174 years after his death* was obviously an effort THEN to rewrite history of Colston & Bristol retrospectively
- So too the debates over its wording & its removal in last 20 years

Johnson's argument was a bit more fence-sitting than the headline.

"I think if people democratically want to remove a statue or whatever, that's fine. But in general we should preserve our cultural, artistic, historical legacy"

Not really 'like some person trying to edit their Wikipedia entry" - that would be if Colston was editing his own wikipedia entry.

Govt's Retain and Explain policy would
- keep statues
- debate plaques, interpretations
- be very open to the writing of new books, wiki entries!

I am in favour of more statues, and sceptical about removing more than a tiny number. If there were 3-6 exceptions, Colston would have a vg claim to be at the top of that list. Its a shame the debate even about reinterpretation over many years got stuck
capx.co/how-talking-mo…

The 1895 statue is a v.successful effort at rewriting history. (It worked for a whole century)
- The Colston society members wouldn't pay for it
- The people of Bristol absolutely refused
- So the donors put up the dosh and pretended a grateful public had!

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1269739837227249665

The 1895 plaque is basically a big fib about how the statue was put up. Due to a long stalled debate about a new plaque, so the 1895 plaque "Erected by citizens of Bristol as a memorial of one of the most virtuous and wise sons of their city" was still there in 2020

Remarkably, this was the more *pro-Colston* of the 2 potential draft plaques. "He was involved in the transportation of approx 84,000 enslaved African men, women and children, of whom 19,000 died on voyages from West Africa to the Caribbean and Americas"

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1269787596936355841

Kate Williams here set out the wording of the more critical draft (2018). 'Bristolians who did not subscribe to his religious and political beliefs were not allowed to benefit from his charities'.

But there was no agreement about which plaque to go for.

Much more in this Colston resources thread

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1269650204837449736

Its striking how those with a 'retain' intuition often came to think that Colston might be the exception to the rule. This 2017 Spectator piece sees Will Heaven find the Countering Colston group thoughtful and persuasive, at least for reinterpretation

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1269693607549849601

June 2020 attitudes
- Most of the public (53%) would remove the statue, but legally (40%) not by the crowd (13%)
- Most Conservatives (52%) in the 33% who would retain it - but a large group 43% of Conservatives would remove the statue too.

I expect most of the middle group - and maybe some of the Retainers too - would see imprisonment as disproportionate and OTT, though there are different views (both celebratory and sceptical) about the jury's decision to acquit.

I remain worried by these 'sauce for the goose' arguments if selectively condone law-breaking (a big reason why a legal process would have been much better). But a jury nullification decision to acquit becomes more likely if draconian sentences may apply in a symbolic case

Its self-evidently true that many people know more about Colston (broadly unknown to the general public outside Bristol) because his statue was removed. There are other risks & dangers of that direct action - but in terms of public history, clearly a somewhat educative impact