The Student Room Group

Rhodes must fall campaign backfires.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by zimbo97
How was Churchill a dick? Yes he was a colonialist, but so was everyone else in Britain. He still supported India's right to be an independent country.

And you say 'I guess' he played a role in fighting fascism, making it sound like he played some menial role, whereas in actuality he resisted pressure to make a deal with Hitler and consequently Britain for the first 3 years of the war was the only major power fighting the Nazis.


No on your first point, exactly the opposite - he strongly opposed the Indian independence movement, he kept Gandhi in prison during WW2 and he spoke repeatedly against it during the years after the war.
Reply 81
Original post by Fullofsurprises
No on your first point, exactly the opposite - he strongly opposed the Indian independence movement, he kept Gandhi in prison during WW2 and he spoke repeatedly against it during the years after the war.


I remember reading a speech he gave in 1945 essentially saying Indian independence should happen in the near future but not right away as to do so would be against the best interests of India, which would have to be prepared for independence (perhaps alluding to the messy splitting up of Pakistan and India).

However I've looked it up a bit now and see that you're right, and that clearly he had deeply held beliefs about India being under the yoke of Britain for a very long time, which was an unpopular position even for the time.
Original post by zimbo97
I remember reading a speech he gave in 1945 essentially saying Indian independence should happen in the near future but not right away as to do so would be against the best interests of India, which would have to be prepared for independence (perhaps alluding to the messy splitting up of Pakistan and India).

However I've looked it up a bit now and see that you're right, and that clearly he had deeply held beliefs about India being under the yoke of Britain for a very long time, which was an unpopular position even for the time.


You're also right about that speech, I've just been searching for it online and can't immediately locate it. I think he got somewhat conciliatory about it once it was completely clear that it was going to happen and there was nothing he could do - that was under the Attlee government.
Robert Mugabe has caused far more problems than Mr Rhodes... i don't hear the uproar about him ?
Original post by the bear
Robert Mugabe has caused far more problems than Mr Rhodes... i don't hear the uproar about him ?


How does a privileged south African load himself with the trauma of his ancestors that suffered under !Mugabe without having said ancestors?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by the bear
Robert Mugabe has caused far more problems than Mr Rhodes... i don't hear the uproar about him ?


But he is taking back Africa from the evil white man.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by DiddyDec
But he is taking back Africa from the evil white man.

Posted from TSR Mobile


And giving it to his friends and relatives.
Original post by Good bloke
And giving it to his friends and relatives.


The main thing is he is giving it back to the black people... Although it is a very select bunch.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by the bear
Robert Mugabe has caused far more problems than Mr Rhodes... i don't hear the uproar about him ?


But there has been uproar none-the-less.

See the section on honours and revocations. The Edinburgh one caused a lot of fuss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#Honours_and_revocations
Original post by DiddyDec
. Although it is a very select bunch.


He's turning Zimbabwe into a banana republic, then?
Original post by nulli tertius
But there has been uproar none-the-less.

See the section on honours and revocations. The Edinburgh one caused a lot of fuss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#Honours_and_revocations


thank you for that. the Twitterati seem far less upset about this appalling tyrant than about Mr Rhodes.
Original post by Good bloke
He's turning Zimbabwe into a banana republic, then?


Prior to Mugabe becoming President it was a Banana republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan_Banana
Original post by the bear
thank you for that. the Twitterati seem far less upset about this appalling tyrant than about Mr Rhodes.


They can't be outraged because he is black. Fact.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by nulli tertius
Prior to Mugabe becoming President it was a Banana republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan_Banana


:toofunny:
Original post by DiddyDec
They can't be outraged because he is black. Fact.

Posted from TSR Mobile


ofc
Original post by DiddyDec
They can't be outraged because he is black. Fact.

Posted from TSR Mobile


But has he described the white farmers as a bunch or a swarm?
Original post by Good bloke
But has he described the white farmers as a bunch or a swarm?


He doesn't need to when he can have them killed.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by DiddyDec
He doesn't need to when he can have them killed.

Posted from TSR Mobile


That genuinely does dehumanise them, even more than calling them a bunch.
Original post by Good bloke
That genuinely does dehumanise them, even more than calling them a bunch.


Not really, they are still human. Just dead human.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by DiddyDec
Not really, they are still human. Just dead human.

Posted from TSR Mobile


An interesting philosophical point. At what point do they become a mere pile of chemicals? Presumably some time after the skeleton has decomposed?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending