[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?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

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]

Originally Posted by Livia

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]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes - another great post Richard.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

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]

Originally Posted by RichardG

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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" ?

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]

Originally Posted by 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" ?

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]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

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]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

Superbly put Ammi.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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