I think there’s a distinction to be drawn between someone who was (by all accounts) an inveterate racist and someone whose wealth was substantially built off the back of the slave trade.
Slavery, as an act, is collectively the biggest stain on human history within the last millennium in terms of its duration, scale, absence of humanity and affront to common decency (haven’t applied my mind to anything from over 1000 years ago). This stain is accentuated by the modern world we inhabit, which has the descendants of slaves living in the UK in large numbers. People (for example) whose antecedents were stolen from West Africa, taken from their families, to a British colony, in truly appalling conditions, and forced to undertake back-breaking work in order to enrich men like Coulson. By virtue of our enduring colonial dominance of those territories, descendants of those slaves inhabit (inter alia) Bristol today, principally because this country has needed cheap labour over the course of the last 60 years.
So it’s the particular resonance of that narrative that makes the subsistence of that statue deeply uncomfortable at best, and hugely offensive at worst. It’s a particular set of facts which are so egregious, and so inextricably linked to human suffering, that a little historical re-evaluation is appropriate, given the society we inhabit today.
The reality is, that you walk round most great cities in this country, especially ones with significant ports, and many of the magnificent civic buildings that you see were bought and paid for by the exploitation of black people in particular. I don’t think that’s something that white people today should be ashamed of, but neither is it something to celebrate - and what is a statue other than a celebration of someone’s life?
So for me, there is a clear distinction between someone who was racist and someone whose wealth was founded upon slavery, irrespective of any subsequent acts of philanthropy - and that statue should consequently have been moved many years ago.
