Thread by @sundersays

If Lord Sumption wants to be historically accurate, and not to efface history, then he should make sure the Telegraph correct this misleading claim. Edward Colston was the Deputy Governor of the Royal Africa Company, a very major role.

The company structure of the Royal African Company. King James II played an active role as Governor but this became an honorific position for William of Orange after 1688 for the period when Colston was Deputy Governor
brh.org.uk/site/articles/…

This was the more pro-Colston of two draft plaques, in the debate about replacing the plaque left unresolved in the years before 2020. This draft supported by the Society of Merchant Venturers, the main 'defenders' of the Colston legacy in the debate

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

I do not know if calling it the "Royal Africa Company" was just a typo - it was the Royal African Company - that the author & editors did not notice, or if it may somewhat indicate a lack of research that has gone into this attempt to misleadingly minimise Colston's involvement.

The Merchant Venturers draft was responding to one proposed by Bristol Council in 2018.

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1269786977639059457

Sumption has somewhat fallen for the mythology by which the Colston societies successfully rewrote and effaced history with the 1895 plaque, which deliberately misleads about the failed effort to get the citizens of Bristol to fund the statue

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1479235397901332484

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

After the public appeal for funds was ignored by the Bristol public, organisers tried to get the Colston societies to make up the shortfall, at dinners held after the statue unveiling in 1895. The results were again disappointing! (From Roger Ball)
brh.org.uk/site/articles/…

These are the historical facts for Sumption's 'participated for a few years in slaving ventures' which seems to want to convey an impression of a marginal, passing interest of this minor shareholder

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1269885477286486016

It does not efface history to report the historic facts that relate to arguments about individuals, their record and reputation. Those who do not wish to 'impose the values of the present on the past' should not object to clarity about the historical facts
brh.org.uk/site/articles/…

Sumption can criticise the jury, or defend the statue if he wishes but here he effaces the history.

Its just misleading to suggest that Colston, who led this company, had a tangential involvement, a role analogous to Locke or Pepys. (James II was heavily involved, with Colston).

This is one fact about Locke and Pepys that a full account of their lives could include. But there is a simple, common sense test by which Colston's role is distinct from that of Locke or Pepys, or Jefferson or Washington. Slavery is central & core to his public life.

Its an odd feature of a "slippery slope" *warning* (this now means Locke, Pepys, Washington, Gladstone will all go too) that it chooses to erase all distinctions between different types of central, significant or peripheral involvement, or its relationship to the life as a whole.