People should be able to have public expression through art, even if it is 'unofficial', living in a place where freedom of expression is looked down on sounds miserable to me. 'Guerrilla art' is part of Bristol, the walls are filled with graffiti, with key places such as Turbo Island in Stokes croft show casing the views and desires for the world through the eyes of Bristolians. It’s exciting, authentic and beautiful to see. I personally don't see anything wrong with people changing the landscapes of their city and fighting back against narratives that celebrate people who profited off the enslavement of human beings. I love the change and movement with times, being stuck in the past and keeping things in the public simply because they have historic value is lame and right now people are wanting to express themselves. 

From studying an anthropology of material culture and museums I do see the value in keeping artifacts to learn from, so having the Colston statue in a museum in Bristol does make sense and documenting the 'guerrilla art' through photography is important too. However, the statue could have also been left in the river and a placard be placed there, adding a new stop to Bristol's Slavery Trail. Sometimes the destruction of things brings interest and dark tourism, allowing history to resurface. What is missing can speak more than what is there, having an empty plinth shows a true history.  

  

Did you know the statue of Edward Colston had a longer history of protest, dating back to 2006?  

I did know this as I am interested in Black histories and Bristol's history. I think you outlined it well and raised an interesting point about the status of the statue being static despite on-going public desire for its removal when you said 'It is almost as if violence was the last resort for Bristolians. If the statue hadn’t been violently torn down by protestors, would it have ever been removed, changed or re-contextualised by city institutions? '  

I don’t like the use of the word 'violence' to describe the removal of a statue, as no one was hurt. I understand damaging something is seen as an act of violence but it undoubtably adds a negative spin on the event. I personally would describe it as 'powerfully' or 'energetically' torn down, as for me this act was full of life and hope, which stems from pain, torture and human violence. However, I clearly present a bias! I like that you described the 1980s riots and the removal as Colston as ‘non isolated acts of violence’, giving insight to the build-up to events.   

  

What do you think about the jobless figures being 15% in St Pauls compared to 5.5% in the rest of Bristol? What does this suggest about the struggles residents faced?  

 This figure is important to publicise, I think it is difficult for many people to understand the struggle of Black citizens in the UK especially in having equal work opportunities. This is an issue that continues within the UK population and should be recognised as a long-lasting struggle. As highlighted by yourself economic hardship in Briton has always caused protests and riots, so it can be understood why people who were made to be disadvantaged through racism and lack of employment opportunities found themselves in riots.  

 

That being said, I do not necessarily stand with the Colston 4. I understand why dropping their charges would be in the interest of racial harmony in the city, but what would this say about our legal system if we can't prosecute those who break the law? It is unfortunate that the Colston 4 are having to bear the brunt of what many Bristolians were a part of. Nevertheless, the four individuals played a pivotal role in the statue's collapse. Whilst the Colston 4 did something that many support and admire, they broke the law and this cannot be overlooked.