Is this really a good example to be setting to his history students?

IT was disappointing to read of Bristol-based Professor David Olusoga’s support for the unlawful and undemocratic toppling of the statue of the merchant, philanthropist, slave trader, and MP for Bristol, Edward Colston (1636-1721) during a Black Lives Matter protest, in a Radio Times article of September 5 to11, which was reported on in the Bristol Post of September 2.

Is this a good example to set to his students or to the viewers of his history programmes on TV?

He considers the toppling a historic event. I would agree, but to me and many other Bristolians this was a historic low for Bristol which feels more divided and dysfunctional than ever. He seems to be doing very well from it career-wise though...

It could have been very different. In March 2019 there could have been a historic unveiling of a second plaque on the Colston statue to repurpose it from commemoration to a vehicle to inform and educate on Colston’s involvement in the slave trade, and his philanthropy, and to publicly acknowledge the human cost involved. This had the potential to start healing divisions in the city over Colston and be a first step to a wider resolution of the Bristol and slavery question.

In view of his interest in the statue it is puzzling that David Olusoga did not get involved with the plaque project (he does not mention this important part of the Colston statue story in his threepage article). Or did he influence his friend Marvin to delay the project in the hope that a miraculous toppling event might take place in the future?

Perhaps someone could point out to the professor that outside of his BLM and Countering Colston bubble very many law-abiding Bristolians from all communities, already against racism and appalled by the killing of George Floyd in the US, found the scenes of the toppling abhorrent and a dangerous precedent, and the flouting of social distancing rules at the height of the pandemic very worrying.

It was also telling that in a long article the best he could do for a description of Colston was “17thcentury slaver” thereby denying readers a key part of the Colston story.

Not very creditable for a history professor, though entirely consistent with the dumbing down of our history typical of movements such as Countering Colston. Julian Hill Knowle