After six years of debate, Bristol city councillors have finally agreed on the wording for a new plaque to be placed on the empty plinth where the Colston Statue once stood.
However, changes to the original proposal, which removed a reference to the 17th-century slave trader being celebrated as a city benefactor when the monument was first erected, were met with strong criticism from a Tory councillor, who labelled the omission as “utterly historical revision that is worthy of the Nazis”.
Bristol Live readers have been joining in the discussion in our comments section. The development control committee voted 7-1 in favour of the revised wording, with Cllr Richard Eddy (Conservative, Bishopsworth) voting against. The committee had approved planning permission last February on the condition that the proposed sentences were altered due to concerns that the plaque ‘downplayed and glossed over’ Edward Colston’s role in the slave trade.
The statue was toppled and thrown into the harbour by Black Lives Matter protesters four years ago and is now permanently displayed at M Shed museum as part of an exhibition about protest in Bristol.
On Wednesday, November 20, Cllr Eddy told the committee: “In my view and in the view of most Bristolians I’ve spoken to, the events of June 7, 2020, are a stain and shameful on Bristol’s long past. We saw a mob of criminals and hooligans vandalise a protected monument, which we as the local planning authority should have been protecting”
Fabian Breckels (Labour, St George Troopers Hill) responded by saying: “Colston was seen as a benefactor but it was dirty money, it was blood money because 20,000 died. History can be uncomfortable when you start to realise that cities including ours got rich on the back of enslavement of people”.
Commenter Katiem says: “The history behind it all has been revised. Like it or not, Colston was a benefactor of the City. A lot of Bristol people of the time probably earned a living in some way as an offshoot of this. Like it or not what he was doing was not illegal at the time. Thank goodness it was made illegal with Britain leading the fight against it. Those that were forcibly sold by tribes in Africa should be remembered. A small plaque can only ever show a very, very small part of the horrible, contorted history.”
HanhamHeights states: “What’s most concerning is how many people seem more upset about a statue being removed than about the actual historical atrocities it celebrated. Colston was directly responsible for the enslavement of 84,000 people and the deaths of 19,000 of them during transport.
“What’s most frustrating is that the people defending the statue often seem to be the ones least familiar with the historical record. But they’d rather cry ‘woke’ than actually engage with Bristol’s real history. The real question isn’t why the statue came down – it’s why we waited so long to stop celebrating a man who made his fortune from human trafficking. If you care about ‘erasing history,’ visit the museum. The full history is there, properly contextualised, not sanitised on a celebratory plinth.”
Sparky7 disagrees: “It is a shame that councillors wish to airbrush away this part of the city’s history. Colston, like so many merchants of the period, both British and European, did in fact trade in slaves, which they bought from African and Arab slavers in North West Africa. Colston did use a lot of his wealth for the benefit of people living in Bristol and this still should be recognised.”
Aspiringtwunk thinks: “The very act of memorialising someone in a statue or plaque shows an appreciation for them – after all how many people with roles similar to Colston have there been that are forgotten or monument-less? But having a vile slave trader shown in any positive light is not something that we should want to do.”
Dicktater believes: “Common sense says that any plaque should state the truth about Colston and his deeds. His slavery connections and his beneficial acts for Bristol should be highlighted and historically correct. No woke moralising is needed. Readers of the plaque can then make up their own minds on whether he was a saint, a sinner or somewhere between?”
Bmw writes: “Put the statue back, it was illegally pulled down and defaced by mindless persons. Put it back and do not pander to the minority, take a vote with next year’s council tax bills – you will get the truth, or are you too frightened to see the truth?”
Blackbeard83 replies: “Dry those tears, it’s gone. Get over it. No need to turn slave traders into heroes. Statues are meant to represent people we can admire.”
Rams1974 says: “You can’t erase history in case people forget. Good or bad, he did a lot for Bristol. The statue should be left where it was for history which no one can change.”
HanhamHeights replies: “No one is erasing history – quite the opposite. The statue’s removal is now itself a significant part of Bristol’s history, sparking more public discussion and education about Colston than the statue ever did in its 125 years standing. The statue wasn’t even erected during Colston’s lifetime – it went up in 1895, nearly 174 years after his death, during the Victorian era’s efforts to rewrite his legacy.
“Museums, history books, and educational programs are where we learn history, not from celebratory statues. That’s why the statue is now in a museum, properly contextualised, where people can learn about both Colston’s impact on Bristol and why the statue was ultimately removed. This actually preserves and teaches history far more effectively than leaving it on a pedestal ever did.”
How do you feel about the Colston statue? Should it be reinstated or was it right that it was pulled down? Have your say in our comments section.