[arista]

Originally Posted by lostalex

I doubt it is only black students demanding it be taken down.

Correct


But the trouble maker upstart
Young Black Student is the Leader,


Sorry I did not write his name down
as what he said was crazy


we need our History on Display


The BBC even Educate kids with
Horrible History

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by arista

Correct


But the trouble maker upstart
Young Black Student is the Leader,


Sorry I did not write his name down
as what he said was crazy


we need our History on Display


The BBC even Educate kids with
Horrible History

I agree if you erased all people who did something great, but also had horrible views, you would have no statues.

Einstein was a known misogynist. Ghandi was a known racist who specifically called for all blacks to go back to africa. Nelson mandela advocated and participated in violence. All of the founding fathers were racist. Michael jackson had inappropriate relationships with children.

[arista]

Originally Posted by lostalex

I agree if you erased all people who did something great, but also had horrible views, you would have no statues.

Einstein was a known misogynist. Ghandi was a known racist who specifically called for all blacks to go back to africa. Nelson mandela advocated and participated in violence. All of the founding fathers were racist. Michael jackson had inappropriate relationships with children.

Yes Alex
if only Kizzy could see what
everyone else is saying


Sign Of The Times

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by arista

Correct


But the trouble maker upstart
Young Black Student is the Leader,


Sorry I did not write his name down
as what he said was crazy


we need our History on Display


The BBC even Educate kids with
Horrible History

We do yes, but horrible histories don't sugar coat the truth that's why it's horrible, because some actions, ethics and laws were in our 'civilised' times abhorrant...
As were the views and actions of Mr Rhodes, regardless of the contents of his will.

If we were to imagine for a second the plight of south Africans in the 19th century and not the conscience easing financial aspect it gives a different perspective.

'We know little about the lives of ordinary people of these times, but archival evidence reveals glimpses of slaves’ struggles against harsh conditions imposed by their white oppressors. Krotoa (known to the Dutch settlers as “Eva”) was a Khoi woman caught in the identity crisis of colonization: used by Dutch leader Jan van Riebeeck as an interpreter against her own people in the mid-1600s, she married a European but was rejected by white society. Sarah Baartman was taken in 1810 from Cape Town to Europe and displayed in exhibitions like an animal. Katie Jacobs, interviewed in 1910 as one of the last surviving ex-slaves, told of her harsh life, of a master who even refused to baptize her. Inhuman treatment sometimes led to resistance. For example, the slave woman Dina escaped during the Boers’ (or Afrikaners') Great Trek of the 1830s. In another instance in 1825, after suffering repeated floggings, Galant van der Caab, a slave on a farm northeast of Cape Town, led a small-scale revolt of slaves. Eventually, Great Britain pronounced the emancipation of slaves in the Cape Colony in 1833, but slavery was replaced by draconian Master and Servant laws that preserved a social hierarchy in which race closely corresponded to class.'

http://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/unit.php?id=65-24E-2

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes Alex
if only Kizzy could see what
everyone else is saying


Sign Of The Times

If only Kizzy thought like everyone else..... I thank god every day I don't Arista!



Sign Of The Times
#thoughtpolice

[arista]

"If we were to imagine for a second the plight of South Africans in the 19th century"

It was the same in America
at that early period.



I bought "Roots" on double sides DVDs

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by arista

"If we were to imagine for a second the plight of South Africans in the 19th century"

It was the same in America
at that early period.



I bought "Roots" on double sides DVDs

Kizzy is trying to whip you into saying Toby!

[bitontheslide]

War is commemorated through statues throughout the world. Which ever way you look at it, one side or other is going to be pissed about it. Does that mean they shouldn't exist? I don't think so.

Nelson wasn't exactly Mr Nice to everyone, yet we have a huge statue to him. Kings and Queens in our history were not always the nicest, fairest monarchs yet they are commemorated as part of our history. Should we now remove all palaces that they built, destroy their statues and erase them from history?

The whole point is to remember the good and the bad. This statue has prompted discussion and debate. It allows re-affirmation of what is right and what is wrong. Destroy the statue and the whole discussion is lost.

[arista]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Kizzy is trying to whip you into saying Toby!

I can take a Whip
but who is Toby?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Plenty of statues of Stalin dotted around, and Mao Zedong and plenty of other questionable men. Removing them would be like trying to rewrite history.

Indeed

A bunch of spoilt prissy students just need something to complain about tbh

[Kizzy]

History is being re written, he is lauded as a saint due to his 'charitable' posthumous work... and it just wasn't the case was it?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

History is being re written, he is lauded as a saint due to his 'charitable' posthumous work... and it just wasn't the case was it?

No thats a Viewpoint


I do not get Political on this.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by arista

No thats a Viewpoint


I do not get Political on this.

Yes it's my viewpoint :/
You did agree with the stance that opposition to the statue were ISIS like, is that your political, moral or ethical view?

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by arista

I can take a Whip
but who is Toby?

I guess you haven't watched Roots yet...

Spoiler:

****a Kinte

(wow, TiBB actually censors the name of the main character of Roots lol)

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

We do yes, but horrible histories don't sugar coat the truth that's why it's horrible, because some actions, ethics and laws were in our 'civilised' times abhorrant...
As were the views and actions of Mr Rhodes, regardless of the contents of his will.

If we were to imagine for a second the plight of south Africans in the 19th century and not the conscience easing financial aspect it gives a different perspective.

'We know little about the lives of ordinary people of these times, but archival evidence reveals glimpses of slaves’ struggles against harsh conditions imposed by their white oppressors. Krotoa (known to the Dutch settlers as “Eva”) was a Khoi woman caught in the identity crisis of colonization: used by Dutch leader Jan van Riebeeck as an interpreter against her own people in the mid-1600s, she married a European but was rejected by white society. Sarah Baartman was taken in 1810 from Cape Town to Europe and displayed in exhibitions like an animal. Katie Jacobs, interviewed in 1910 as one of the last surviving ex-slaves, told of her harsh life, of a master who even refused to baptize her. Inhuman treatment sometimes led to resistance. For example, the slave woman Dina escaped during the Boers’ (or Afrikaners') Great Trek of the 1830s. In another instance in 1825, after suffering repeated floggings, Galant van der Caab, a slave on a farm northeast of Cape Town, led a small-scale revolt of slaves. Eventually, Great Britain pronounced the emancipation of slaves in the Cape Colony in 1833, but slavery was replaced by draconian Master and Servant laws that preserved a social hierarchy in which race closely corresponded to class.'

http://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/unit.php?id=65-24E-2

Why don't you try to imagine the plight of poor people in the UK during that time, people who didn't profit at all from the Empire and were in fact living in what was the richest country in the world. A subject often overlooked... And at the same time bear in mind that the period being referred to is well over a hundred years ago and as we know, the past is a different country where things were done differently. Also bear in mind that it was good, decent white people who ended the slave trade because black people had no power at all.

Good luck with replacing all the statues with people from history you consider to be worthy and "good".

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

History is being re written, he is lauded as a saint due to his 'charitable' posthumous work... and it just wasn't the case was it?

And yet everyone on here knows that he had a questionable record, despite his charitable work. It's not only you who knows, you know. Everyone knows. And most people understand that a man who died that long ago would have been a creature of his time and not of ours.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

And yet everyone on here knows that he had a questionable record, despite his charitable work. It's not only you who knows, you know. Everyone knows. And most people understand that a man who died that long ago would have been a creature of his time and not of ours.

Not really as we abolished all slavery in 1833, he had to travel to south Africa to continue the exploitation.
I'm not interested in what is or isn't known by whom on the subject, I'm just presenting my take on the issue.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Why don't you try to imagine the plight of poor people in the UK during that time, people who didn't profit at all from the Empire and were in fact living in what was the richest country in the world. A subject often overlooked... And at the same time bear in mind that the period being referred to is well over a hundred years ago and as we know, the past is a different country where things were done differently. Also bear in mind that it was good, decent white people who ended the slave trade because black people had no power at all.

Good luck with replacing all the statues with people from history you consider to be worthy and "good".

I'll just comment on the topic at hand if it's all the same Liv.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

We do yes, but horrible histories don't sugar coat the truth that's why it's horrible, because some actions, ethics and laws were in our 'civilised' times abhorrant...
As were the views and actions of Mr Rhodes, regardless of the contents of his will.

If we were to imagine for a second the plight of south Africans in the 19th century and not the conscience easing financial aspect it gives a different perspective.

'We know little about the lives of ordinary people of these times, but archival evidence reveals glimpses of slaves’ struggles against harsh conditions imposed by their white oppressors. Krotoa (known to the Dutch settlers as “Eva”) was a Khoi woman caught in the identity crisis of colonization: used by Dutch leader Jan van Riebeeck as an interpreter against her own people in the mid-1600s, she married a European but was rejected by white society. Sarah Baartman was taken in 1810 from Cape Town to Europe and displayed in exhibitions like an animal. Katie Jacobs, interviewed in 1910 as one of the last surviving ex-slaves, told of her harsh life, of a master who even refused to baptize her. Inhuman treatment sometimes led to resistance. For example, the slave woman Dina escaped during the Boers’ (or Afrikaners') Great Trek of the 1830s. In another instance in 1825, after suffering repeated floggings, Galant van der Caab, a slave on a farm northeast of Cape Town, led a small-scale revolt of slaves. Eventually, Great Britain pronounced the emancipation of slaves in the Cape Colony in 1833, but slavery was replaced by draconian Master and Servant laws that preserved a social hierarchy in which race closely corresponded to class.'

http://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/unit.php?id=65-24E-2

Well, to be fair, Cecil John Rhodes was born in 1853, a good 20 years after the emancipation of slaves in the Cape Colony, and after the draconian Master and Servant laws.
Something it appears he can't be blamed for, unless of course we are rewriting history

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by NanaChristmas

Well, to be fair, Cecil John Rhodes was born in 1853, a good 20 years after the emancipation of slaves in the Cape Colony, and after the draconian Master and Servant laws.
Something it appears he can't be blamed for, unless of course we are rewriting history

his amendment of the Masters and Servants Act (1890) reintroduced conditions of torture for black labourers; his infamous racist “land grabs” set up a system in which the unlawful and illegitimate acquisition of land through armed force was routine.
Rhodes despised democracy. In 1887 he told the House of Assembly in Cape Town: “The native is to be treated as a child and denied the franchise. We must adopt a system of despotism in our relations with the barbarians of South Africa.” His 1892 Franchise and Ballot Act effectively eliminated African voting rights. He repeatedly reminded his colleagues of the “extreme caution” they must exercise when it comes to “granting the franchise to coloured people.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...is-crimes.html

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Plenty of statues of Stalin dotted around, and Mao Zedong and plenty of other questionable men. Removing them would be like trying to rewrite history.

'The removal of statues is not unprecedented. Indeed, removing iconography has always been central to the process of a nation’s reckoning with its problematic past. After the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in 2011, Egyptians waded through every street removing imagery of their finally-toppled dictator. Libyan rebels similarly tore down the statue of Muammar Gaddafi in his Bab al-Azizya compound in Tripoli. Statues of Josef Stalin are still – as recently as 2011 – being removed from all over Russia and Eastern Europe.
Of course, it would be absurd to claim that these moments deleted these figures from historical memory – rather, they represented a collective will to atone for their widely condemned actions, with the hope that by removing artefacts that idolise unethical ideologies, we can begin to learn from history’s mistakes.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...is-crimes.html

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

his amendment of the Masters and Servants Act (1890) reintroduced conditions of torture for black labourers; his infamous racist “land grabs” set up a system in which the unlawful and illegitimate acquisition of land through armed force was routine.
Rhodes despised democracy. In 1887 he told the House of Assembly in Cape Town: “The native is to be treated as a child and denied the franchise. We must adopt a system of despotism in our relations with the barbarians of South Africa.” His 1892 Franchise and Ballot Act effectively eliminated African voting rights. He repeatedly reminded his colleagues of the “extreme caution” they must exercise when it comes to “granting the franchise to coloured people.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...is-crimes.html

History teaches us nothing then...Mugabe ends up doing the exact same thing, torturing people and murderous land grabs.
Having made deals with Lobengula I can see where Rhodes thought the Africans were like children, very innocent and quite gullible due to not being educated in the ways of the West.
Masters and servants..a low budget version of Downton Abbey.
I can't comment on how it went way back in the early 1900's, or what is said in some history books, but I do know first hand that the British people we knew in the then called Rhodesia looked after their servants, as did the two previous generations of my family in South Africa.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by NanaChristmas

History teaches us nothing then...Mugabe ends up doing the exact same thing, torturing people and murderous land grabs.
Having made deals with Lobengula I can see where Rhodes thought the Africans were like children, very innocent and quite gullible due to not being educated in the ways of the West.
Masters and servants..a low budget version of Downton Abbey.
I can't comment on how it went way back in the early 1900's, or what is said in some history books, but I do know first hand that the British people we knew in the then called Rhodesia looked after their servants, as did the two previous generations of my family in South Africa.

History has indeed taught us nothing.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

'As for women and minorities, the former were not permitted to apply according to the strict wording of Rhodes’ will; the latter, while theoretically accepted under article 24, which reads, “No student shall be qualified or disqualified for election to a Scholarship on account of his race or religious opinions,”(Schaeper and Schaeper 1998, 18) were limited by the racial realities of the countries and institutions from whence they came."
http://rhodesproject.com/history-of-...ship-part-two/

All this copy-pasted text is totally irrelevant except for dishonest propaganda purposes, and, just as with the previous copied and pasted text in previous posts, careful analysis of it actually absolves Rhodes of 'premortem' discrimination when drafting the terms of his will. Once again, let's see what all this bumpf is REALLY saying:

"As for women and minorities, the former were not permitted to apply according to the strict wording of Rhodes’ will;"

1) Rhodes lived in the 19th Century.
2) He died in 1902.
3) During Rhodes lifetime ALL women around the world were treated as 'Second Class' citizens. It was the NORM.
4) Women were not even ALLOWED to vote in Britain until 1918 - 16 years AFTER Rhodes died - and then it was only householders 'of the age of 30 or older'. 21 year old women were not allowed to vote until 1928 - over a quarter of a century AFTER Rhodes time.

Is it then, any honest reason to indict a 19th Century man, because he did not cater for women as equals in his will?

As for the next piece of meaningless tripe:

"the latter, while theoretically accepted under article 24, which reads, “No student shall be qualified or disqualified for election to a Scholarship on account of his race or religious opinions,”(Schaeper and Schaeper 1998, 18) were limited by the racial realities of the countries and institutions from whence they came"

So what the author of the article is REALLY admitting here, is that Rhodes did NOT wilfully preclude 'minorities' from benefiting under the philanthropic terms of his will, but rather that the reason that such minorities did not profit as Rhodes intended from his will, was due to geographical and institutional restrictions EXTRANEOUS to the will.

In simple ENGLISH - Rhodes was and is NOT to blame.

All the rest of this bumpf is just more of the same.

I do not like Rhodes, but I like dishonest attacks on him in articles which deviously attempt to rewrite history even less.

I also dislike the hypocrisy of black student ingrates who seek to tear down for sinister reasons, a statue which they claim represents 'Imperialism' and 'Slavery', whilst they have ACCEPTED and are enjoying the free benefits of that very imperialism.

Better that we equip all these protesters with parachutes, put them on a plane, and drop them into Palmyra where there now are no statues to offend them, and let some of the great silent majority of moderate black people - the ones who HAVE NOT protested - take up these ingrate agitators places in our universities.

Anything is better, than our continuing to allow these anti-Western, anti-Democratic political agitators. to change OUR traditions and culture.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

'Of course, it would be absurd to claim that these moments deleted these figures from historical memory – rather, they represented a collective will to atone for their widely condemned actions, with the hope that by removing artefacts that idolise unethical ideologies, we can begin to learn from history’s mistakes.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...is-crimes.html

Sheer hypocrisy.

Shall we tear down the Pyramids of Giza, the Great Wall of China? and other priceless antiquities built by the blood, sweat and tears of slaves?

Shall we burn the American Declaration of Independance and demolish all that is good which followed from it, because Adams and Jefferson and the other authours of it were 'slave-owners' ?

Shaka Zulu killed, oppressed, and displaced more Africans than Rhodes and a hundred like him could ever have achieved. Shall we tear down and burn the airport in Durban South Africa named after him?

(His statue was removed from the airport in 2010 - not because of his tyrannical past, but because it showed him unarmed and tending cattle, whereas the protesters demanded that such a 'fine, legendary warrior king' should be shown with a spear and shield')

What about here in the United Kingdom - Shall we demolish every institution and technological advancement which the wealth gained by the imperialistic practices of our Victorian ancestors afforded us?

The argument against Rhodes statue is not only hypocritical, but one being voiced by sinister political agitators for their own anti-British, anti-Democratic, anti-Western agendas.

Rhodes was a creature of his time. As were the great Egyptian Pharoes, the Roman Emperors, the Chinese Emperors, the American 'Founding Fathers' and the great Industrialists of the Victorian Era.

It is enough to recognise and condemn the wrongs that they did from our lofty perches of 'New Enlightenment', but it is equally as wrong to seek to destroy the monuments they left or the statues which commemorate the undoubted good that flowed from some of those wrongs - especially when the architects of such destruction are subversive political agitators manipulating the weak-minded and gullible into supporting that sinister agenda.