[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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?