GB News

[Lower]

what do you mean by that?

His association with the slave trade through his membership of the Royal African Company, of which one revenue stream was slaves.

I don't believe it is know if he was ever directly involved in the slave trade.

 

[JohnD]

membership?

 

[sxturbo]

His association with the slave trade through his membership of the Royal African Company, of which one revenue stream was slaves.

I don't believe it is know if he was ever directly involved in the slave trade.

he was the equivalent of cheif executive for the last 2 years he was with the company, but by that time the company had been trading slaves for a number of years, and thus it was not his decision to trade slaves, in fact the slaves were being traded bprior to his memebership i believe, so yes you are correct imo, it is by association.

maybe because he is not around to defend himself, by the current logic the royal family should be overthrown as it was the duke of york later known as king james II that run and owned the company, with the slaves branded as DoY..

 

[Lower]

'Membership' taken from wikipedia. I've been unable to find any detail about the structure of the company so don't know how to classify his involvement. I know he was a shareholder, but its not clear whether the Royal African Company was a company as we understand it where everyone involved was an employee, or more of a guild where members were free to trade as they saw fit within the rules of the charter and pay a tithe to the Royal African Company.

 

[Notch7]

'Membership' taken from wikipedia. I've been unable to find any detail about the structure of the company so don't know how to classify his involvement. I know he was a shareholder, but its not clear whether the Royal African Company was a company as we understand it where everyone involved was an employee, or more of a guild where members were free to trade as they saw fit within the rules of the charter and pay a tithe to the Royal African Company.

I must admit, I’ve never looked into Colstons history. Theses details are important because it’s all too easy to see the headlines and take a tribal viewpoint.

 

[Lower]

I must admit, I’ve never looked into Colstons history. Theses details are important because it’s all too easy to see the headlines and take a tribal viewpoint.

Either way, it should be recognised that the Governor of the Royal African Company was King James II and an allowance for the standards of the day should be included when making a judgement of Colston.

 

[sxturbo]

Either way, it should be recognised that the Governor of the Royal African Company was King James II and an allowance for the standards of the day should be included when making a judgement of Colston.

That would be sensible, we can't be having that, it goes against the narrative...

 

[sxturbo]

'Membership' taken from wikipedia. I've been unable to find any detail about the structure of the company so don't know how to classify his involvement. I know he was a shareholder, but its not clear whether the Royal African Company was a company as we understand it where everyone involved was an employee, or more of a guild where members were free to trade as they saw fit within the rules of the charter and pay a tithe to the Royal African Company.

My understanding is that it was shareholding, and the company was run like a normal company.

Colston had his own business.

Colston became the deputy governor, equivalent to chief exec for 1 year, whilst still running his own business on the side.

Colston was "involved" with the business for 12 years, with 11 of these being as a shareholder.

Colston then "gave" a rather large proportion of his shares to the orange king (William III) when James 2nd died to curry favour with the new regime.

The remaining shares increased in value considerably, the majority of this wealth was spent on philanthropic projects within Bristol as he had no heirs.

In 1892, he withdrew from the African company and took his money. He continued to run his own business until 1708.

A point of note is thàt his own company did not trade in slave's.

The narrative that he was solely responsible and the wordings that people choose to use unfairly single colston out as the bad guy, when in fact it was many people and colston was just 1 man in a cog of many.

 

[AngleEyes]

His association with the slave trade through his membership of the Royal African Company, of which one revenue stream was slaves.

I don't believe it is know if he was ever directly involved in the slave trade.

I'm sure you'd believe anything to suit your narrative.

His association amounted to being Deputy Governor of a company who's primary business was slavery.

..he became involved in the slave trade ...which held a monopoly on the English trade in African slaves. He was deputy governor of the company...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Colston
​

It's an abomination to describe slavers as 'philanthropists'.

 

[Lower]

I'm sure you'd believe anything to suit your narrative.

His association amounted to being Deputy Governor of a company who's primary business was slavery.

..he became involved in the slave trade ...which held a monopoly on the English trade in African slaves. He was deputy governor of the company...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Colston
​

It's an abomination to describe slavers as 'philanthropists'.

You need to read round the subject a little more than just Wikipedia for a subject like this.

 

[AngleEyes]

You need to read round the subject a little more than just Wikipedia for a subject like this.

You need to read the words written in your sources, not selectively quote the words that suit your narrative.

 

[Lower]

My understanding is that it was shareholding, and the company was run like a normal company.

Colston had his own business.

Colston became the deputy governor, equivalent to chief exec for 1 year, whilst still running his own business on the side.

Colston was "involved" with the business for 12 years, with 11 of these being as a shareholder.

Colston then "gave" a rather large proportion of his shares to the orange king (William III) when James 2nd died to curry favour with the new regime.

The remaining shares increased in value considerably, the majority of this wealth was spent on philanthropic projects within Bristol as he had no heirs.

In 1892, he withdrew from the African company and took his money. He continued to run his own business until 1708.

A point of note is thàt his own company did not trade in slave's.

The narrative that he was solely responsible and the wordings that people choose to use unfairly single colston out as the bad guy, when in fact it was many people and colston was just 1 man in a cog of many.

Having managed to find a bit more out about the structure of the company, it does appear that Colston was heavily involved.

Although he was a share holder from 1680, he became a part time 'assistant' (one of the key executives operating the company) in 1681, becoming a full time assistant in 1685 and then becoming deputy governor in 1689.

He was involved in multiple sub committees that set the direction for the company, so would have been involved in the direction the company took.

Therefore, i would expect it's safe to assume he was directly involved in pursuing slaves as a tradeable commodity.

 

[sxturbo]

Having managed to find a bit more out about the structure of the company, it does appear that Colston was heavily involved.

Although he was a share holder from 1680, he became a part time 'assistant' (one of the key executives operating the company) in 1681, becoming a full time assistant in 1685 and then becoming deputy governor in 1689.

He was involved in multiple sub committees that set the direction for the company, so would have been involved in the direction the company took.

yes,

but they weren't ever colstons ships and he wasn't solely responsible for the direction the company took. thus to hold colston solely accountable is re-writing history and is inaccurate.

He is being used as a poster boy to suit a narrative. as i said in a previous post, should we be asking the monarchy to be dissolved because of their links with the slave trade? should we be tearing down any number of palaces and statues of the royal family?

the whole thing just seems a bit farcical with little common sense applied, the rhetoric being put out by activists and the media is innacurate and damaging, it is stirring up hate and devision and imo is a hate crime in itself.

i dont mind getting rid of the statue times change and history moves on, but lets give it some accuracy.

 

[JohnD]

to hold colston solely accountable

has anybody (apart from you) suggested that he single-handedly ran the slave trade?

No

It's just a foolish attempt at diversion on your part.

 

[EFLImpudence]

the rhetoric being put out by activists and the media is innacurate and damaging, it is stirring up hate and devision and imo is a hate crime in itself.

That is the real objective.