Oxford Black Students Demand Cecil Rhodes Statue to be removed

[arista]

Great Debate just on Ch4HD News.


Good on Jon Snow
who told the Young Student
we have many statues in London that have people a bit on the dodgy side.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/resources/images/4009352.jpg?htype=124&display=1&type=mc3




A Black Student Lad
demanded his statue
to be taken down.
because he was a Imperialist.


I say No
its more important that we know about their History
even if its Evil.

This is what Isis do
so there is no memory of the past.

http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_large/public/thumbnails/image/2015/07/13/12/rhodes-must-fall.jpg

A link on this Story
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/oxford-students-call-for-racist-statue-of-cecil-rhodes-to-be-pulled-down-10385293.html

[Rhodes made his fortune in the Kimberly diamond mines
and took control of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) under the auspices
of the British South Africa Company.]

Of course hundred years back or more
Africa was owned by Europeans
not just British.

He was a Respected man of his day
blacks were treated terrible - Thats all in our History.

[smudgie]

Hmmm, we celebrated Rhodes and Founders day back in my time in Zim.
Where do you start with trying to put right what wasn't considered wrong in the day..:shrug:

[arista]

Hmmm, we celebrated Rhodes and Founders day back in my time in Zim.
Where do you start with trying to put right what wasn't considered wrong in the day..:shrug:


Thats it.


If its taken down
we are getting like Isis

[JoshBB]

You wouldn't have hitler statues as 'history' and I think this is similar tbh.

[arista]

You wouldn't have hitler statues as 'history' and I think this is similar tbh.



No Way


Hitler was Far more Evil
and Murdered much more

[Livia]

You wouldn't have hitler statues as 'history' and I think this is similar tbh.

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.

[arista]

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.

Bang On Right
Livia.


Its Like Isis
who take down all former Statues

[bots]

Should we re-write all our history books too and pretend events didn't happen? History is there to be learned from, good and bad.

[arista]

Should we re-write all our history books too and pretend events didn't happen? History is there to be learned from, good and bad.


Maybe Josh wants that?

[Northern Monkey]

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.

This

[Northern Monkey]

Should we re-write all our history books too and pretend events didn't happen? History is there to be learned from, good and bad.

And this

[Mystic Mock]

Yeah it's good to keep history restored and not destroying it.

[Kizzy]

Hope that Thatcher one in the houses of parliament comes down for a start...

[arista]

Hope that Thatcher one in the houses of parliament comes down for a start...


That would be another Isis type of action

[jennyjuniper]

I am sick and tired of people being offended by our history and culture. If they don't like it...F... off and live somewhere that doesn't affect their delicate sensibilities.

[Northern Monkey]

I am sick and tired of people being offended by our history and culture. If they don't like it...F... off and live somewhere that doesn't affect their delicate sensibilities.

Trouble is.No country in the world has a squeaky clean past.People just have to accept that and we learn from the mistakes of the past.Blocking it out helps nobody.

[lostalex]

Why just focus on the statue? Why don't they all just drop out of the university, then it would be a win/win situation.

[kirklancaster]

I am sick and tired of people being offended by our history and culture. If they don't like it...F... off and live somewhere that doesn't affect their delicate sensibilities.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: How true Jenny, but if they did F Off, where would they go? Their problem would be in finding somewhere on this Earth that has not got a less than desirable history, because we British are not alone in the mistakes we have made in our Imperialistic past.

The great irony here is, that huge numbers of learned black people throughout the world owe their education to Rhodes, because when he died, he left almost a billion US dollars by today's value, to found 'Rhodes Scolarships to provide education for poor students - most of which went to OXFORD UNIVERSITY to provide places at Oxford for students from the BRITISH COLONIES as well as Germany and the United States.

[jennyjuniper]

:clap1::clap1::clap1: How true Jenny, but if they did F Off, where would they go? Their problem would be in finding somewhere on this Earth that has not got a less than desirable history, because we British are not alone in the mistakes we have made in our Imperialistic past.

The great irony here is, that huge numbers of learned black people throughout the world owe their education to Rhodes, because when he died, he left almost a billion US dollars by today's value, to found 'Rhodes Scolarships to provide education for poor students - most of which went to OXFORD UNIVERSITY to provide places at Oxford for students from the BRITISH COLONIES as well as Germany and the United States.

So it's a case of biting the hand that feeds them.:crazy:
Anyway Happy Christmas Kirk and all the best in 2016.:dance:

[kirklancaster]

So it's a case of biting the hand that feeds them.:crazy:
Anyway Happy Christmas Kirk and all the best in 2016.:dance:

Merry Christmas to you and your family too Jenny love.

Yes - I believe that the statue of Rhodes was erected by Oxford - NOT to celebrate any imperialistic attainments by him, but specifically to commemorate the massive amount of money which he donated to found his scholarships at that 'Seat of Learning'.

Ignorance truly is bliss for some idiots.


UPDATE:

There is now a Daily Mail article about this. It seems the main protester is a 100% arrogant, ignorant ingrate hypocrite - in my opinion of course.

[URL=news/article-3369612/Mary-Beard-raps-zealots-Oxford-Rhodes-row.html[/URL]

[Kizzy]

He is quoted as saying that the British were the "finest race in the world" and "the more world we inhabit the better it is for the human race".

“The Rhodes scholarship was endowed with wealth extracted from the terrorised labour of Black African miners. Rather than place a murderous colonialist like Rhodes upon a pedestal,

Pull it down, pull ALL fascistic ideals down!

[Livia]

Hmmm getting rid of our history. Big Brother would approve.

[Kizzy]

Hmmm getting rid of our history. Big Brother would approve.

Manipulating our history to make this man appear some benevolent benefactor, hmmm.

[Livia]

Manipulating our history to make this man appear some benevolent benefactor, hmmm.

If you look at all the statues in all the world a massive number of them depict questionable people. You going to pull them all down? Wouldn't it be better if people strived to understand the difference in values between now and then? Those values are vastly different. Queen Victoria, the most powerful woman of her time, did bugger-all for women and their struggle... should we tear her statues down?

Teach people the truth but understand that it happened in the past and that you're looking at it through contemporary eyes.

[arista]

"UPDATE:

There is now a Daily Mail article about this. It seems the main protester is a 100% arrogant, ignorant ingrate hypocrite - in my opinion of course."

Yes Kirk
Bang On Right

[Kizzy]

If you look at all the statues in all the world a massive number of them depict questionable people. You going to pull them all down? Wouldn't it be better if people strived to understand the difference in values between now and then? Those values are vastly different. Queen Victoria, the most powerful woman of her time, did bugger-all for women and their struggle... should we tear her statues down?

Teach people the truth but understand that it happened in the past and that you're looking at it through contemporary eyes.

Best to focus on what people do actually do and say rather than coulda shoulda, it's so easy to misrepresent people isn't it?

"Why should we not form a secret society with but one object," he once said, "the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire?"

Gotta love the Aryan dream.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32131829

[Livia]

Oh Kizzy... you could talk a pie off a shelf.

[Kizzy]

Oh Kizzy... you could talk a pie off a shelf.


Nope, never heard that before.

Is that you saying you agree? :)

[Crimson Dynamo]

Next they will want to take down our town centre Jimmy Saville statue

its pc gone mad

[kirklancaster]

How can a man who founded free Scholarships for underprivileged students from the Colonies, Germany and the USA to the tune of one billion dollars of his own money be classed as anything other than a 'benevolent benefactor' (whatever this means means:laugh:) - in this one charitable act alone.

Yes - pull down his statue, rewrite history, and STOP thousands of the poor and unfortunate in life from availing themselves of a free education. :facepalm:

Pardon the pun, but this issue is not so black and white. Apartheid was undeniably a heinous regime, but once the detestable whites abdicated power, was South Africa TRULY a better place or worse?

Or did it largely remain unchanged, with blacks ill treating other blacks or blacks murdering other blacks, where once such appalling injustices were once the exclusive preserve of the ruling whites?

There are very few truly wealthy men in history who amassed such fortunes morally and/or legitimately - including many non-whites. How many of these found free education for ALL colours with a billion of their own money?

[Kizzy]

'benevolent benefactor' (whatever this means means :laugh:)'

'The actions of Rhodes and his BSAC forever changed the face of Southern Africa and the lives of its inhabitants. He built a large empire in Southern Africa, but in doing so he disregarded the rights of the people—the “natives,” as he referred to them—already living on the lands that he claimed. Rhodes’s treaties with the various African chiefs tended to be of dubious legality, and he routinely pushed against or ignored established boundaries with other European colonial powers, which sometimes put him at odds with Britain’s Foreign Office. Some of the legislation passed while he was prime minister of the Cape laid the groundwork for the discriminatory apartheid policies of South Africa in the 20th century.

A legacy of a different nature was revealed when Rhodes’s will was read in April 1902, detailing an imaginative scheme of awarding scholarships at Oxford to young men from the colonies and from the United States and Germany. That appealed to the public instinct for a more-disinterested kind of imperialism. Most of his fortune was devoted to the scholarships. As the will forbade disqualification on grounds of race, many nonwhite students have benefited from the scholarships, though it is doubtful that such was Rhodes’s intention. He once defined his policy as “equal rights for every white man south of the Zambezi” and later, under liberal pressure, amended “white” to “civilized.” But he probably regarded the possibility of native Africans becoming “civilized” as so remote that the two expressions, in his mind, came to the same thing.'

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Cecil-Rhodes

[kirklancaster]

'benevolent benefactor' (whatever this means means :laugh:)'

'The actions of Rhodes and his BSAC forever changed the face of Southern Africa and the lives of its inhabitants. He built a large empire in Southern Africa, but in doing so he disregarded the rights of the people—the “natives,” as he referred to them—already living on the lands that he claimed. Rhodes’s treaties with the various African chiefs tended to be of dubious legality, and he routinely pushed against or ignored established boundaries with other European colonial powers, which sometimes put him at odds with Britain’s Foreign Office. Some of the legislation passed while he was prime minister of the Cape laid the groundwork for the discriminatory apartheid policies of South Africa in the 20th century.

A legacy of a different nature was revealed when Rhodes’s will was read in April 1902, detailing an imaginative scheme of awarding scholarships at Oxford to young men from the colonies and from the United States and Germany. That appealed to the public instinct for a more-disinterested kind of imperialism. Most of his fortune was devoted to the scholarships. As the will forbade disqualification on grounds of race, many nonwhite students have benefited from the scholarships, though it is doubtful that such was Rhodes’s intention. He once defined his policy as “equal rights for every white man south of the Zambezi” and later, under liberal pressure, amended “white” to “civilized.” But he probably regarded the possibility of native Africans becoming “civilized” as so remote that the two expressions, in his mind, came to the same thing.'

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Cecil-Rhodes

So let me get this article straight. Shall we start with FACTS?:

1) Rhodes left a will.
2) His will detailed an imaginative scheme of awarding scholarships at Oxford to young men from the colonies and from the United States and Germany.
3) Most of his fortune was devoted to the Scholarships.

So the above is merely exactly have I have said twice already then.

Now we'll come to the article's 'muddled bit' - the bit of deceitful 'double speak':

"As the will forbade disqualification on grounds of race, many nonwhite students have benefited from the scholarships, though[B] it is doubtful that such was Rhodes’s intention."

??????????

Q. Whose will was this?
A. Rhode's will.

Q. So who was the architect of the will and the author of the clause which 'forbade disqualification' to these free scholarships of Rhodes on the grounds of race'?
A. That's right - Rhodes himself.

It was Rhodes will. It was Rhodes money, and it was Rhodes himself who stipulated that NO ONE would be barred from his scholarships because of race.

This **** piece of propaganda makes it appear as if 'The Will' itself was a living, breathing entity and that it was 'The Will' NOT Rhodes himself which forbade disqualification to these scholarships because of race, so that non-white students only benefited by default.

How bent and devious can a writer get?

Rhodes STIPULATED the 'No bar because of colour clause' in his own will his so that coloured students could qualify for his free scholarships , but this article deceitfully tries to persuade the reader that: " it is doubtful that such was Rhodes’s intention."

And by doing so, the bent author moves seamlessly from FACT to dishonest FICTION.

:facepalm:

[Kizzy]

'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. For instance, although the first black Scholar from the U.S., Alain LeRoy Locke, was selected in 1907, the Scholarship was not awarded to another black American until 1962. This racial disparity was due, in part, to the fact that the majority of the awards were handed out to traditionally white institutions. Traditionally black institutions, meanwhile, often did not have campus representatives whose role it was to inform their students of the opportunities afforded by the Rhodes Scholarship. As American colleges began to desegregate and admit more minority students, an increasing number of minorities applied to and won the Rhodes Scholarship.'

'On this issue, South Africa posed a particular problem. Unlike any other jurisdiction to which Scholarships were allocated, South Africa had to select four out of its five Scholars from among the graduates of the four private boys’ secondary schools that had been named in Rhodes’ will. As these schools did not admit black students, the Scholars selected from their ranks were uniformly white, and the fact that South Africa was under apartheid left little doubt that the fifth Scholar selected would be white as well. Not until the 1960s was there any great global criticism of the South African selection process. When there finally was an outcry, the Trustees remonstrated that they lacked the authority to change the terms of Rhodes’ will; this could only be accomplished by amending the original piece of legislation under which his will was administered. Despite the Trustees’ argument that selecting Scholars from these schools defeated the real purpose of Rhodes’ will, the British courts maintained that it was the Trust’s duty to faithfully execute the will as written.

In the 1970s, in an effort to remedy the situation, the Trustees created four new “South-Africa-at-large” Scholarships, to which candidates from anywhere in the country could apply and be considered by a national committee made up of black, as well as white, selectors. Additionally, the Rhodes Trust allocated monies for the creation of the Rhodes Trust Scholarships to fund the university study of promising black candidates and hopefully nurture the development of black Rhodes Scholars. Not until the end of apartheid in 1991, however, was there a significant diversification in South African Scholars.'

http://rhodesproject.com/history-of-the-scholarship-part-two/

[Sticks]

[Political Correctness Gone Mad Mode]Of course they should remove the statue of this DWEM* along with all other statues of DWEM's

Only racist bigots will disagree

End OF[/[Political Correctness Gone Mad Mode]

Excuse me I seem to be foaming at the mouth.....:bored:

So goes the argument of some on that campus.


* DWEM (Dead White European Male) Google it...

[RichardG]

I'd imagine just about everyone held views that aren't acceptable now back when he was alive, the world was a very different place. Perhaps instead they could stick an information board near the statue detailing his views to educate people on his history rather than tearing it down? There are a lot of bad people terrorising living people in the world today, surely it would be a better use of time to campaign against those rather than a man who has been dead for an awfully long time. :shrug:

[Ammi]

..I don't know, this all seems like a misplaced focus to me..I know what he symbolises but I doubt he's the only one who has been a dubious patron of the university...ok, the only one with a statue erected for him but it's only a piece of stone and won't change anything whether it's there or not...how much money would it cost to take it down from a Grade II listed building, quite a bit I would imagine and who will fund it, the university...just seems silly in a world of limited money that some is used to destroy something, no matter what it is when it could be used to build instead...to build some lives..so many people who don't even have a roof to live under, let alone a university education so why not use that money, wherever it's coming from to do something that would change something, would make a difference, rather than to destroy..


..I mean I do understand the offence and why the students are offended but they have the privilege of what they have and of being there so what their offence compared to using some funds that would have been used on this, to make real differences to people who have nothing of what they have and a completely different future to them, in fact no future at all...I just can't see the sense in money being used to destroy when there is so much need in the world...

[arista]

..I don't know, this all seems like a misplaced focus to me..I know what he symbolises but I doubt he's the only one who has been a dubious patron of the university...ok, the only one with a statue erected for him but it's only a piece of stone and won't change anything whether it's there or not...how much money would it cost to take it down from a Grade II listed building, quite a bit I would imagine and who will fund it, the university...just seems silly in a world of limited money that some is used to destroy something, no matter what it is when it could be used to build instead...to build some lives..so many people who don't even have a roof to live under, let alone a university education so why not use that money, wherever it's coming from to do something that would change something, would make a difference, rather than to destroy..


..I mean I do understand the offence and why the students are offended but they have the privilege of what they have and of being there so what their offence compared to using some funds that would have been used on this, to make real differences to people who have nothing of what they have and a completely different future to them, in fact no future at all...I just can't see the sense in money being used to destroy when there is so much need in the world...


But that Young Black Student (a Trouble Maker)
on Ch4NewsHD
was being Political.
Even though a Black Lady next to him told him
he is wrong.

[Ammi]

..so it's just one student then..and the title says 'students', this is an outrage Arista, I'm all raged out ....

[arista]

..so it's just one student then..and the title says 'students', this is an outrage Arista, I'm all raged out ....


He is their Leader
there is a group of Political Students doing this Protest
getting Worldwide News to visit them,

[Ammi]

..it's a piece of stone and being there or not won't change the past or make any difference to the present or the future so maybe a focus on something that would or could for people whose only privilege in life at the moment is that they have breath...

[Ammi]

..there is just not enough money in the world, there just isn't so why use some to tear down/destroy..use it to build lives...

[arista]

..it's a piece of stone and being there or not won't change the past or make any difference to the present or the future so maybe a focus on something that would or could for people whose only privilege in life at the moment is that they have breath...


Yes but this Young Black Student
at the Rhodes College
says its Insulting him
and MUST be taken down.



"This is what Isis do"
Jon Snow Told him.

[Northern Monkey]

Bored students always need something to 'campaign' against or protest about.If it was'nt this it would be something else.

[arista]

Bored students always need something to 'campaign' against or protest about.If it was'nt this it would be something else.


Yes but he is on Loads on news Ch's
with his Mantra


So these days bringing in China TV
and Africa TV news
helps this trouble maker
get on our UK Ch4HD News

[Kizzy]

Hmmm, we celebrated Rhodes and Founders day back in my time in Zim.
Where do you start with trying to put right what wasn't considered wrong in the day..:shrug:

By acknowledging it as wrong might be a start I'd say.


Rhodes used legislation like the Glen Grey Act to have Blacks forcibly removed to reserves. He introduced policies to segregate non-whites in schools, hospitals, theatres, and public transport, imposed draconian labour laws, forced Blacks to carry passes, and removed thousands from the Cape Colony’s electoral rolls. He explained to the Cape Town Parliament in 1887 that “We must adopt a system of despotism, such as works so well in India, in our relations with the barbarians of South Africa.”

http://oxpaf.com/2015/06/18/why-must-rhodes-fall-in-oxford/

[arista]

"Cape Town Parliament in 1887"


Its Fecking 2015 now Kizzy


Everyone has said keep our History
You are crazy to say take it down

[Kizzy]

"Cape Town Parliament in 1887"


Its Fecking 2015 now Kizzy


Everyone has said keep our History
You are crazy to say take it down

Who's everyone...
If everyone was saying keep it there would be no issue would there?

I quoted his words, in this instance actions don't speak louder, they reveal the truth behind a legacy.

[arista]

Who's everyone...
If everyone was saying keep it there would be no issue would there?

I quoted his words, in this instance actions don't speak louder, they reveal the truth behind a legacy.


Everyone Knows he was Evil towards Blacks
BUT no one wants the statue down - but You



Thats what ISIS do remove all History

Shocking

[Kizzy]

Everyone Knows he was Evil towards Blacks
BUT no one wants the statue down - but You



Thats what ISIS do remove all History

Shocking

That's not strictly true is it?

The Jon Snow soundbite isn't gospel Arista.
'Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.'

[lostalex]

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

[arista]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

:laugh:

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]

"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!

[bots]

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]

Kizzy is trying to whip you into saying Toby!

I can take a Whip
but who is Toby?

[Vicky.]

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]

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]

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]

I can take a Whip
but who is Toby?

I guess you haven't watched Roots yet... :joker:
****a Kinte

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

[Livia]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:shrug:

[Kizzy]

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:shrug:



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/universityeducation/12064939/We-dont-want-to-erase-Cecil-Rhodes-from-history.-We-want-everyone-to-know-his-crimes.html

[Kizzy]

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/universityeducation/12064939/We-dont-want-to-erase-Cecil-Rhodes-from-history.-We-want-everyone-to-know-his-crimes.html

[smudgie]

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/universityeducation/12064939/We-dont-want-to-erase-Cecil-Rhodes-from-history.-We-want-everyone-to-know-his-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]

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]

'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-the-scholarship-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]

'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/universityeducation/12064939/We-dont-want-to-erase-Cecil-Rhodes-from-history.-We-want-everyone-to-know-his-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.

[Kizzy]

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.

If four of the five colleges stipulated in the will Oxford procure the south African scholars from don't allow black students how is that inclusive of ethnicity?

What were the benefits of Imperialism for the blacks in colonial times?

[Kizzy]

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.

Weak minded, would it not be weak minded to assume that Britain has never historically had a role to play in subversion, displacement or oppression?
All these students have done is nod to that and the establishment have closed ranks, that is sinister.

[Livia]

Weak minded, would it not be weak minded to assume that Britain has never historically had a role to play in subversion, displacement or oppression?
All these students have done is nod to that and the establishment have closed ranks, that is sinister.

No One has suggested that Britain has never historically been subversive etc... No one. And yet you keep suggesting it, like you're the only one with enough intelligence to grasp the facts, which is clearly not true.

The students demanded the statue is removed and quite rightly they have been told no.

[Kizzy]

No One has suggested that Britain has never historically been subversive etc... No one. And yet you keep suggesting it, like you're the only one with enough intelligence to grasp the facts, which is clearly not true.

The students demanded the statue is removed and quite rightly they have been told no.

I don't need to reaffirm my intelligence by calling into question the intelligence of others, it's irrelevant to me and my take frankly.

I posed a question, it wasn't suggesting anyone had suggested anything.

They called into question his legitimacy is all.

[RichardG]

I don't think each new generation should remove a structure from the past just becsuse it doesn't fully represent modern values. They add to our culture and make our streets a little more diverse. Loads of people had probably never heard of Rhodes before this campaign was launched so why should we remove the statue to prevent future generations from learning? Take this opportunity to put an information board nearby explaining all about him so that people can make up their own minds about who he was. They say that if we don't learn from the mistakes of our past then we are doomed to repeat it so I don't see the point in removing such an easily accessible piece of history like a statue.

[Livia]

Great post, Richard.

[kirklancaster]

Weak minded, would it not be weak minded to assume that Britain has never historically had a role to play in subversion, displacement or oppression?
All these students have done is nod to that and the establishment have closed ranks, that is sinister.

If we - and they - are talking here of "subversion, displacement or oppression", not only have you not addressed my points about Shaka Zulu, but also perhaps, these 'students' should stop focusing their rage solely on a statue of their benefactor - historical imperialist oppressor or not - and instead broaden such 'genuine' outrage to include monuments, statue, and all forms of euologies to Saint Nelson Mandela, the self-confessed murderer and terrorist who at his trial pleaded guilty as the head of terrorist organisation UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), to 156 acts of violence perpetrated against innocent South African civilians.

These acts comprised of organising terrorist bombing campaigns which injured and killed innocent civilians - including women and children - in public places such as railway stations, shopping centres, Magistrate’s Courts, and cinemas.

I know this may not weigh as heavily in your view as the deeds of that nasty imperialist Rhodes, but if these students protests ARE truly based on the injustice and oppression of South African people, then surely Mandela should be high on their 'Statue Removal' hit list?

Finally - it is over 20 years since the abhorrent regime of Apartheid ended in South Africa, so I would be interested in anyone posting a factual account of just how much that country has progressed and evolved, and how life for ORDINARY South Africans has improved since that day.

How are the ANC doing?

[kirklancaster]

I don't think each new generation should remove a structure from the past just becsuse it doesn't fully represent modern values. They add to our culture and make our streets a little more diverse. Loads of people had probably never heard of Rhodes before this campaign was launched so why should we remove the statue to prevent future generations from learning? Take this opportunity to put an information board nearby explaining all about him so that people can make up their own minds about who he was. They say that if we don't learn from the mistakes of our past then we are doomed to repeat it so I don't see the point in removing such an easily accessible piece of history like a statue.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: Yes - another great post Richard.

[Kizzy]

I don't think each new generation should remove a structure from the past just becsuse it doesn't fully represent modern values. They add to our culture and make our streets a little more diverse. Loads of people had probably never heard of Rhodes before this campaign was launched so why should we remove the statue to prevent future generations from learning? Take this opportunity to put an information board nearby explaining all about him so that people can make up their own minds about who he was. They say that if we don't learn from the mistakes of our past then we are doomed to repeat it so I don't see the point in removing such an easily accessible piece of history like a statue.

A statue says nothing, we have other things that are even more easily accessible that tell of our past... they're called books ;)

[Kizzy]

If we - and they - are talking here of "subversion, displacement or oppression", not only have you not addressed my points about Shaka Zulu, but also perhaps, these 'students' should stop focusing their rage solely on a statue of their benefactor - historical imperialist oppressor or not - and instead broaden such 'genuine' outrage to include monuments, statue, and all forms of euologies to Saint Nelson Mandela, the self-confessed murderer and terrorist who at his trial pleaded guilty as the head of terrorist organisation UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), to 156 acts of violence perpetrated against innocent South African civilians.

These acts comprised of organising terrorist bombing campaigns which injured and killed innocent civilians - including women and children - in public places such as railway stations, shopping centres, Magistrate’s Courts, and cinemas.

I know this may not weigh as heavily in your view as the deeds of that nasty imperialist Rhodes, but if these students protests ARE truly based on the injustice and oppression of South African people, then surely Mandela should be high on their 'Statue Removal' hit list?

Finally - it is over 20 years since the abhorrent regime of Apartheid ended in South Africa, so I would be interested in anyone posting a factual account of just how much that country has progressed and evolved, and how life for ORDINARY South Africans has improved since that day.

How are the ANC doing?

He most certainly was and as that is the topic currently up for discussion I choose to maintain my focus on that. If you wish to begin a thread in which to question Nelson Mandelas ethics go ahead, I don't feel the two are comparable personally.
That said it has been suggested that without Rhodes there would have been no apartheid, therefore ANC would never have come to be.

[RichardG]

A statue says nothing, we have other things that are even more easily accessible that tell of our past... they're called books ;)

Yes I'm aware of the existence of books but I believe the number of people who seek out and read a history book on a specialist topic like this is probably small in comparison to the number of people who would visit a city like Oxford on a day out and stop to spend a minute reading the information board next to a statue. :) It's a little bit of extra knowledge for people who otherwise would never have heard about him, I don't think that's a bad thing.

[Kizzy]

Yes I'm aware of the existence of books but I believe the number of people who seek out and read a history book on a specialist topic like this is probably small in comparison to the number of people who would visit a city like Oxford on a day out and stop to spend a minute reading the information board next to a statue. :) It's a little bit of extra knowledge for people who otherwise would never have heard about him, I don't think that's a bad thing.

C J Rhodes: White supremacist.

No, can't see Oxford going for that Richard :laugh:

[Sticks]

So when Iraq was liberated, should they have kept all those statues of Saddam Hussain instead of destroying them?

Was that not "re-writing history" ?

[arista]

So when Iraq was liberated, should they have kept all those statues of Saddam Hussain instead of destroying them?

Was that not "re-writing history" ?


Do not be Silly

Although USA Carpet bombed them.

It was the Iraqi Public that Removed his statues.



Also Sticks are you aware that a Isis Destroyed
statue is being built in London
near Nelson.

The 3-D molded frame
from the original photo before
Evil Isis blew it up.(Ref ITV1 London News)


Rhodes is Staying at that College

[kirklancaster]

So when Iraq was liberated, should they have kept all those statues of Saddam Hussain instead of destroying them?

Was that not "re-writing history" ?

A totally different argument Sticks.

The statues of Saddam Hussein were erected by himself or at his behest as a dictator and as Arista quite rightly says, it was the Iraqi people themselves who tore down these statues once liberated from the tyrants grip.

Oxford University erected the statue of Rhodes in recognition of the hundreds of millions of pounds by which they benefitted from the Foundation he created in his will to provide free education to underprivileged students from America, Germany AND the colonies.

They did not erect the statue in any kind of misplaced veneration that Rhodes was an imperialist.

It is NOT the people of Britain who wish to tear down Rhodes statue, it is a very small minority of hypocritical political agitators, the leader of which - cheeky arrogant bastard that he is - is studying at Oxford on the very free scholarship afforded to him by Rhodes will.

This IS NOT Palmyra and ISIS are not in control of the UK - yet.

[Kizzy]

I'm a person of Britain... I say they are right to suggest that he isn't what Oxford should be proud of appearing as representative of their colleges.
He has the right to say how he feels.

[arista]

I'm a person of Britain... I say they are right to suggest that he isn't what Oxford should be proud of appearing as representative of their colleges.
He has the right to say how he feels.


I agree


Thats why Ch4HD News Jon Snow and other days Paxman
will be the best you can find.


That Young Black Student
sat there right next to a Mature Black Lady
and gave his Mantra
and Lost.


Feel The Force

[kirklancaster]

He most certainly was and as that is the topic currently up for discussion I choose to maintain my focus on that. If you wish to begin a thread in which to question Nelson Mandelas ethics go ahead, I don't feel the two are comparable personally.
That said it has been suggested that without Rhodes there would have been no apartheid, therefore ANC would never have come to be.

It has also been suggested that without Rhodes - and others like him - South Africans would still be living in mudbrick and rammed earth houses, without sanitation, and in primitive conditions.

I do not need to begin a new thread in which to 'question Mandela's ethics', this is Serious Debates and Mandela is highly relevant to this topic.

Up to now, despite this forum being called Serious Debates, your posts have not countered any of the arguments against this agitator - Rhodes will, Mandela, Shaka Zuklu etc - only ignored them because you have no legitimate counters, and just as one glance at any newspaper will confirm that your subversive black student has lost his argument in the real world, then likewise, even the most cursory of glances through this thread will confirm that you too have lost your argument in support of him on here.

A victory then for common sense and democracy.

[Ammi]

..well it just doesn't make for any logic to me, that so much money would be spent on tearing a piece of stone down, which changes nothing about the past..rather than be used to build something that would make a difference to a present and a future..whatever it's source, that scholarship funding still did the same thing for some and gave them something that they wouldn't have had otherwise...something good, something positive..maybe it's just the way I see things but if someone provided sanitation/clean water etc for a village and food and clothing and education etc...something they didn't have at all and that person's money had come from 'not great things' and they weren't great people etc...would it make any difference to the people in that village and what it brought to them..when people donate to charities etc, do we know how those donations came about and does it make any difference to those whose lives are changed for the better....'bad money' can still do good and positive things and surely it did ...

..anyways, I read that it was being considered and hadn't been refused outright so we'll see...

[kirklancaster]

..well it just doesn't make for any logic to me, that so much money would be spent on tearing a piece of stone down, which changes nothing about the past..rather than be used to build something that would make a difference to a present and a future..whatever it's source, that scholarship funding still did the same thing for some and gave them something that they wouldn't have had otherwise...something good, something positive..maybe it's just the way I see things but if someone provided sanitation/clean water etc for a village and food and clothing and education etc...something they didn't have at all and that person's money had come from 'not great things' and they weren't great people etc...would it make any difference to the people in that village and what it brought to them..when people donate to charities etc, do we know how those donations came about and does it make any difference to those whose lives are changed for the better....'bad money' can still do good and positive things and surely it did ...

..anyways, I read that it was being considered and hadn't been refused outright so we'll see...

:clap1::clap1::clap1: Superbly put Ammi.

[Kizzy]

It has also been suggested that without Rhodes - and others like him - South Africans would still be living in mudbrick and rammed earth houses, without sanitation, and in primitive conditions.

I do not need to begin a new thread in which to 'question Mandela's ethics', this is Serious Debates and Mandela is highly relevant to this topic.

Up to now, despite this forum being called Serious Debates, your posts have not countered any of the arguments against this agitator - Rhodes will, Mandela, Shaka Zuklu etc - only ignored them because you have no legitimate counters, and just as one glance at any newspaper will confirm that your subversive black student has lost his argument in the real world, then likewise, even the most cursory of glances through this thread will confirm that you too have lost your argument in support of him on here.

A victory then for common sense and democracy.

What the future held for a south Africa not tainted by colonialists and apartheid we'll never know.
My feeling on the inclusion of Mandela was that without Rhodes and his laws and segregation there would have been no Apartheid and therefore no ANC, therefor it is hard to envisage how one would impact without the others prior influence.

This is serious debates and news, this being news item I commented with my opinion, I don't have to feel I need to compete to share my view.

He had his say, good for him, whether you or I or the media agree he is entitled to state how he feels.

[Kizzy]

..well it just doesn't make for any logic to me, that so much money would be spent on tearing a piece of stone down, which changes nothing about the past..rather than be used to build something that would make a difference to a present and a future..whatever it's source, that scholarship funding still did the same thing for some and gave them something that they wouldn't have had otherwise...something good, something positive..maybe it's just the way I see things but if someone provided sanitation/clean water etc for a village and food and clothing and education etc...something they didn't have at all and that person's money had come from 'not great things' and they weren't great people etc...would it make any difference to the people in that village and what it brought to them..when people donate to charities etc, do we know how those donations came about and does it make any difference to those whose lives are changed for the better....'bad money' can still do good and positive things and surely it did ...

..anyways, I read that it was being considered and hadn't been refused outright so we'll see...

That is an oversimplification, in this instance we do know exactly where it came from and how.
This man exploited both people and resources, this is what is being considered, does the end justify the means?
If there is an expense to an ethical dilemma then that will have to be addressed if the situation is resolved to remove the image.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

Remove it, it is a celebration of evil.
"I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. " sigh...white people.

[kirklancaster]

I'm a person of Britain... I say they are right to suggest that he isn't what Oxford should be proud of appearing as representative of their colleges.
He has the right to say how he feels.

As I said; "It is a very small minority".

Yes, he has the right to say how he feels, and I have the right to say that he is a subversive, cheeky bastard of an ingrate.

Quite obviously, the powers that be at Oxford agree with me.

[kirklancaster]

Remove it, it is a celebration of evil.
"I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. " sigh...white people.

Don't you mean 'SOME' white people Cee Cee?

[kirklancaster]

That is an oversimplification, in this instance we do know exactly where it came from and how.
This man exploited both people and resources, this is what is being considered, does the end justify the means?
If there is an expense to an ethical dilemma then that will have to be addressed if the situation is resolved to remove the image.

The horrible 'Filthy Rich' monsters which are the entire Tory Party, the Land Grabbing Working Class exploiting Aristocracy, and a whole plethora of greedy exploitive Corporations who make huge profits from the merchandise produced by badly paid workers in 'Third World Sweatshops' - ALL pay taxes and have done since before you were born.

Give me one example of ANYONE in receipt of ANY type of benefit returning even PART of it due to a troubled conscience because of where some of the that benefit money originated from.

DITTO usage of NHS facilities, from Dentists to Hospitals.

DITTO a myriad other services and facilities we all take for granted in our daily lives.

I asked a similar question on the 'Open Door' immigration threads, for those advocating letting into this country all and sundry, to post if they were willing to, or indeed HAD already, let these 'desperate poor immigrants' live and sleep in their own homes, and the silence of response was deafening.

Similarly, I do not expect any type of affirmative response to this question either.

Which gives these 'protests' and views a hollow ring.

This country - like every other - is HISTORICALLY BUILT and CURRENTLY ENDURES upon the taxes of its citizens, and the wealth CREATED by its entrepeneurs, and that money -- no matter where it originates from, or how immorally it was historically made -- is inextricably steeped into the foundations, infrastructure, and superstructure of this country, and to 'protest' about aspects of it whilst gladly availing oneself of the whole, is just pure hypocritical B.S - in my opinion.

[Ninastar]

Don't you mean 'SOME' white people Cee Cee?

#equalityapparently

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

Don't you mean 'SOME' white people Cee Cee?

Not sure anymore. It's getting harder and harder to find white people that are truly for genuine equality. When push comes to shove a lot of white people are having trouble getting rid of their supremacy, superior complex.

[Kizzy]

The horrible 'Filthy Rich' monsters which are the entire Tory Party, the Land Grabbing Working Class exploiting Aristocracy, and a whole plethora of greedy exploitive Corporations who make huge profits from the merchandise produced by badly paid workers in 'Third World Sweatshops' - ALL pay taxes and have done since before you were born.

Give me one example of ANYONE in receipt of ANY type of benefit returning even PART of it due to a troubled conscience because of where some of the that benefit money originated from.

DITTO usage of NHS facilities, from Dentists to Hospitals.

DITTO a myriad other services and facilities we all take for granted in our daily lives.

I asked a similar question on the 'Open Door' immigration threads, for those advocating letting into this country all and sundry, to post if they were willing to, or indeed HAD already, let these 'desperate poor immigrants' live and sleep in their own homes, and the silence of response was deafening.

Similarly, I do not expect any type of affirmative response to this question either.

Which gives these 'protests' and views a hollow ring.

This country - like every other - is HISTORICALLY BUILT and CURRENTLY ENDURES upon the taxes of its citizens, and the wealth CREATED by its entrepeneurs, and that money -- no matter where it originates from, or how immorally it was historically made -- is inextricably steeped into the foundations, infrastructure, and superstructure of this country, and to 'protest' about aspects of it whilst gladly availing oneself of the whole, is just pure hypocritical B.S - in my opinion.

I'm having trouble deciphering this, how does it relate to my post you quoted?
Unless you mean everybody exploits everyone and that's it?

[Kyle]

Not sure anymore. It's getting harder and harder to find white people that are truly for genuine equality. When push comes to shove a lot of white people are having trouble getting rid of their supremacy, superior complex.

As opposed to your persecution complex I'd wager.

[kirklancaster]

I'm having trouble deciphering this, how does it relate to my post you quoted?
Unless you mean everybody exploits everyone and that's it?

I think it is patently clear to everyone else just what I mean in my post, and how it specifically relates to the post of yours which I quoted.

I am disappointed that you claim not to understand it therefore - especially as I deliberately wrote; "The horrible 'Filthy Rich' monsters which are the entire Tory Party" just so you could more easily identify yourself with the post.

[Cherie]

Not sure anymore. It's getting harder and harder to find white people that are truly for genuine equality. When push comes to shove a lot of white people are having trouble getting rid of their supremacy, superior complex.

Really how do you come to these conclusions, years of research?

[Cherie]

As opposed to your persecution complex I'd wager.

Indeed

[kirklancaster]

Indeed

I am 'mixed race' and grew up in a northern 'working class' relatively deprived area in an era when no other 'coloured' families were there, and neither then, nor as I matured, have I EVER encountered any form of racism or colour prejudice from anyone I have ever met -- and that includes most locations throughout the United Kingdom over decades.

I was treated so equally by my kind and decent 'white' neighbours and all the other people I encountered as a child, that I actually lost sight of the fact that I was coloured and sometimes looking in the mirror surprised me.

I do not claim that there are not now white 'racists' in the UK, but they are definitely in a small minority, and the same racism is equally as prevalent in a minority of black people and other races.

I will NEVER do Britain or the British people down, because it is their charity and decency which afforded my mother (and me) a life here.

There are worse people and worse countries.

[arista]

I am 'mixed race' and grew up in a northern 'working class' relatively deprived area in an era when no other 'coloured' families were there, and neither then, nor as I matured, have I EVER encountered any form of racism or colour prejudice from anyone I have ever met -- and that includes most locations throughout the United Kingdom over decades.

I was treated so equally by my kind and decent 'white' neighbours and all the other people I encountered as a child, that I actually lost sight of the fact that I was coloured and sometimes looking in the mirror surprised me.

I do not claim that there are not now white 'racists' in the UK, but they are definitely in a small minority, and the same racism is equally as prevalent in a minority of black people and other races.

I will NEVER do Britain or the British people down, because it is their charity and decency which afforded my mother (and me) a life here.

There are worse people and worse countries.


How Nice

[Kizzy]

I think it is patently clear to everyone else just what I mean in my post, and how it specifically relates to the post of yours which I quoted.

I am disappointed that you claim not to understand it therefore - especially as I deliberately wrote; "The horrible 'Filthy Rich' monsters which are the entire Tory Party" just so you could more easily identify yourself with the post.

It may be but it's not clear to me which is why I asked for clarification.

Do I identify myself as a filthy rich tory?


Cecil Rhodes wrote 'confessions of faith' here are a few quotes-

'I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence.'

'I contend that every acre added to our territory means in the future birth to some more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence.'

'Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.'

'Africa is still lying ready for us it is our duty to take it. It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race more of the best the most human, most honorable race the world possesses.'

'What has been the main cause of the success of the Romish Church? The fact that every enthusiast, call it if you like every madman finds employment in it. Let us form the same kind of society a Church for the extension of the British Empire. A society which should have its members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea.... For fear that death might cut me off before the time for attempting its development I leave all my worldly goods in trust... to try to form such a Society with such a object.'


The ethics of this man no matter how you spin it are more aligned with those of ISIS and other fundamentalist organisations than what we in modern Britain can identify with both socially and politically. It is in essence diametrically opposed to any kind of democratic ideology and or reasoning, there is no way of avoiding that fact.
This is what is being perpetrated in our 'great colleges' I firmly feel this thinking is alive and flourishing in the establishment.
I understand there are those who don't/won't/ can't see it, however that is my belief.
I don't feel this man could or should be representative of modern Britain, I find him, his beliefs and his legacy questionable.



http://www.pitt.edu/~syd/rhod.html

[Kizzy]

I am 'mixed race' and grew up in a northern 'working class' relatively deprived area in an era when no other 'coloured' families were there, and neither then, nor as I matured, have I EVER encountered any form of racism or colour prejudice from anyone I have ever met -- and that includes most locations throughout the United Kingdom over decades.

I was treated so equally by my kind and decent 'white' neighbours and all the other people I encountered as a child, that I actually lost sight of the fact that I was coloured and sometimes looking in the mirror surprised me.

I do not claim that there are not now white 'racists' in the UK, but they are definitely in a small minority, and the same racism is equally as prevalent in a minority of black people and other races.

I will NEVER do Britain or the British people down, because it is their charity and decency which afforded my mother (and me) a life here.

There are worse people and worse countries.


Not sure how it's possible to confidently assess the true number, Look at the recent Letwin 30yr rule expose, this I would say was a perfect example of focus is on an attitudinal shift which I would say is tangible, it's simply kept covert but still there simmering within communities and institutions.

There may be prejudice, but the same racist attitudes as British born whites? I can't agree.

[kirklancaster]

Not sure how it's possible to confidently assess the true number, Look at the recent Letwin 30yr rule expose, this I would say was a perfect example of focus is on an attitudinal shift which I would say is tangible, it's simply kept covert but still there simmering within communities and institutions.

There may be prejudice, but the same racist attitudes as British born whites? I can't agree.

That's it then as usual - Debate/Discussion over if YOU can't agree.

No matter that your views are never substantiated by evidence or facts which are relevant to the topics under discussion, and no matter that you willingly accept articles from any source which aligns with your view and copy and paste them, whilst ignoring any articles or viewpoints with facts which debunk those copy-pasted articles.

I'll leave it at that then - 'British Born White' People are racist and no other races in Britain are, or if they are it is only so tidgy and squidgy that it pales in comparison. If you say so.

[kirklancaster]

How Nice

It was 'nice' Arista - despite the poverty. People were selfless not selfish, and helped each other. We kids could play in the streets, the long fields or the park with no fears. Why we could even point toy guns at people without being murdered.

[Kizzy]

That's it then as usual - Debate/Discussion over if YOU can't agree.

No matter that your views are never substantiated by evidence or facts which are relevant to the topics under discussion, and no matter that you willingly accept articles from any source which aligns with your view and copy and paste them, whilst ignoring any articles or viewpoints with facts which debunk those copy-pasted articles.

I'll leave it at that then - 'British Born White' People are racist and no other races in Britain are, or if they are it is only so tidgy and squidgy that it pales in comparison. If you say so.


How can it be over? I'm not the only person in the thread :/
That is not true, if you care to check all my references are from very reputable sources.
There is nothing here to debunk my view, no fact or source. Prejudice and racism are two different beasts.

[RichardG]

The college said after "careful consideration" it had decided the statue should remain but it would add "a clear historical context to explain why it is there".

The statement continued: "The college believes the recent debate has underlined that the continuing presence of these historical artefacts is an important reminder of the complexity of history and of the legacies of colonialism still felt today.

"By adding context, we can help draw attention to this history, do justice to the complexity of the debate, and be true to our educational mission."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-35435805

[Kizzy]

Nothing to do with the 100m in donations threatened then? No :/

[Livia]

Good. Everyone's offended at everything.

[Northern Monkey]

It is all a part of the newest trend on campuses to shut down free speech and even debate on anything that some students disagree with.It does'nt even have to be a majority anymore as the minority who do want to ban everything including guest speakers to universties will throw their toys out of the pram until they get what they want.There is even a thing now called "safe space" where if anyone is going to be offended by views put forward in a debate or even views held by one of the speakers,which will not even feature in the debate.Rather than just not attend they will claim that it infringes on their "safe space" and just ban it.This is a threat to free speech which should be encouraged in universities.
Trying to remove a historical statue just because some people don't like the person it portrays is all part of this new craze of students to try and wrap themselves up in big fluffy blankets instead trying to prepare themselves to face the big bad world when they leave education.Many students have become so fragile that they can't handle a debate which has an oposing viewpoint to their own.When they leave education they may lack the maturity and skills to enter the worlds of politics etc where debate is required.