Colston has been removed from the University Crest…now what?

By Hope Talbot, Editor-in-Chief of the Bristorian, 3rd Year History

In a statement last month, the University chose to remove symbols associated with slave trader Edward Colston from its crest. After this decision, how will the University continue to represent its histories? The Bristorian discusses the future of the crest alongside Dr. Richard Stone.

Cities are obsessed by the stories they tell about themselves. Bristol is no exception. Renowned for its sea-faring ways, the city basks in a view of itself as cosmopolitan and progressive, striving towards sustainable practices with an expansive arts and culture sector.

While this reputation may well be deserved, the story of Bristol was thrown into disarray, when in 2020, protesters tore down the statue of slave trader Edward Colston, sparking new interest in a figure that has loomed large for centuries.

Honouring Colston, the statue spoke to a specific view of the slave trader. This view sought to ignore his transportation of approximately 84,000 enslaved Africans, 19,000 of whom died on voyages from West Africa to the Caribbean and the Americas. Instead, it sought to focus on his philanthropy and the many institutions that had relied on his donations.

In tearing down the statue, protesters drew attention to the view of Colston as a slave trader, disrupting wider views of the city.

In the years since the toppling of the Colston statue, a slew of Bristol institutions have removed the name of the former slave trader from their premises, including Bristol Beacon, Montpelier Girls School and The Open Arms, to name a few.

Until recently, an institution which retained symbols of Colston was the University of Bristol.

In a statement on 28th November, the University announced that, while it would retain all building names linked to slavery, it would remove the Colston Dolphin insignia from its logo. Part of their justification for this decision was that “Colston was not a donor to the University and had no relationship with the institution or its predecessors”.

This decision was also followed by an apology from the Vice-Chancellor, which alluded to racism experienced by students racialised as non-white: “I am deeply sorry for these damaging and hurtful experiences which continue to the present day, and I apologise to everyone impacted by those injustices. We aspire to be an inclusive institution and we must do better”.

The statement was accompanied by the announcement of a 10-year “Reparative Futures Investment Programme”. The Programme seeks to retain and explain the names of key buildings, such as Wills and Fry, and will “seek to present the complexities of the past in new ways”.

Much of these changes have been made in response to a ‘Consultation and Engagement’ report, which gained responses from students, staff and alumni on whether it was appropriate to have major buildings named after individuals associated with the trade of enslaved labour.

In the survey, it was found that 49.4% of Black African-Caribbean and Black British respondents said the naming of buildings in the University had a major or moderate impact on them.

Despite these findings and the Vice-Chancellor’s apologies, these buildings are still retaining names which are linked to individuals who benefitted from enslaved labour, continuing discomfort for Black and ethnic minority students and staff at the University of Bristol.

Along with retaining building names, the University crest will continue to include the symbols of a horse and a sun, representing the Fry and Wills families respectively.

The Fry family were chocolatiers who relied on cocoa produced through enslaved labour. The Wills family were tobacconists who traded in tobacco grown by enslaved Africans and their descendants.

While the University promises to make clear the families’ links to slavery, some within the University disagree with the decision to retain the existing crest.

Dr. Richard Stone, a senior lecturer who specialises in the legacies of transatlantic enslavement, feels that the changes fundamentally misrepresent the role that symbols play.

He said: “In the current crest, it’s the notion of celebration that feels particularly problematic…You can ask questions over (the families’) involvement in slavery, but regardless of this, these companies were participating in business practices which caused huge amounts of human misery.”

In his discussion with the Bristorian, Stone pointed to a 1909 scandal in which the Fry family and other chocolatiers were found to be buying cocoa beans from the Isle of Sao Tome, a country where slaving practices were allowed to continue well beyond the supposed end of slavery.

In statements by the University, much has been made of the fact that donors attached profited from enslaved labour but were not complicit in enslavement. This historical controversy, however, contradicts this view.

“Regardless of whether it ‘counts as slavery’, you still have labour happening that is still fundamentally immoral…you still have individuals finding legal loopholes to continue shady practices.”

For Stone, choosing to remove Colston and to retain donors who profited from enslaved labour, chooses to prioritise wealth and status as the leading narrative for the University. By choosing this crest and its symbols, the University is “stating that money buys respect”.

For a university which continues to make commitments towards social equity, a crest that celebrates the generosity of the wealthy feels remarkably inconsistent.

As a historian, Dr. Stone was also keen to stress the multitude of narratives that the University could be utilising in its symbols. “If we decentred this part of our story, explain yes, but seek to say that’s not what we identify with now, then we could make progress. There are so many other histories this university has, and we can talk about the many positive things that this University has done…I’d much rather be seen as the University which invented Ribena.”

The Vice-Chancellor has encouraged continued debate and discussion around how the University represents its histories. In response, students and academics alike are continuing to push for future change.

Recently, the University of Bristol’s History Society has chosen to remove the University’s logo from its merchandise, citing its links to transatlantic enslavement. Other societies are also in discussions over the continued use of the logo in society branding and merchandise.

Likewise, Dr. Stone draws attention to the continued work needed across the campus as a whole:

“Other names across the university still need further work….Tyndall’s Park Road is on campus and is named after a family of plantation owners. Equally, Goldney Hall has undeniable links to the trade in enslaved people, that needs to be fully explored and discussed publicly.”

Ultimately, symbols are a vital part of storytelling and identity-making. By choosing to retain symbols which centre wealth, the University is sending a message that, regardless of the ethics of that past, they’re still going to honour it.

 “We need to move on from Colston…we need to let the fire burn, and let it take down the whole slavery economy associated with this University.”