Rhodes must fall

They are taking some time in a safe space.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Like who?

I dare you to find a single historical character that is flawless by our modern standards.

No one is flawless! Gees, how could anybody hold those standards. But some people are less guilty of massacre than others...

I 'dare you' to claim that Bertrand Russell was more guilty of evil deed than Cecil Rhodes!

Lol, yes I was just otherwise occupied. 'Worth victorians', of the top of my head, might include: Russell, Moore, Dickens, Fox Talbot, Young Simpson, Nightingale, Pankhurst (at a pinch, although she was born near the turn of the century I think), Darwin was of course active, and the Brontë sisters (just, I think they died around middle of the century).

Florence Nightingale. Isn't she the one who had a reputation for being good but actually cause more people to die though carelessness, negligence and insanitary conditions than she would have died had she not been there? I think she is.

None of these, of course, endowed the college and directly enabled the Rhodes scholarship.

Rhodes is not guilty of massacre.

His actions led to as good as. It wasn't really war - it was colonisation - and civilian natives often had fire opened on them. All stemming from Rhodes' interventions. Immoral.

Well, through a trade less honest than that of a philosopher.

He bought diamond mines and vineyards while they were in depression (and diseased in the latter case), gambling that they would come good, I believe. His later colonialist activities came after he was rich.

Gee, do some research.

Why? I really don't care that much if I have misremembered something. It is a long time since I read about him.

That, of course, is an unfortunate side effect of your campaign: people who barely knew he had ever existed, or who can't remember much about him, or who think he was a total **** are all up in arms against it.

Pro or against?

If you didn't know Rhodes is the dude who colonised Zimbabwe and parts of SA, hence its pre-independence name of the state of Rhodesia. mass genocide followed by the introduction of western infrastructure (the usual slavery story) . He also started the Rhodes scholaship for students in Oxford so they built a statue of him at one of the colleges of which students are campaigning to have it taken down on the basis of racial glorification

I'm totally pro without question

Not at all - you've misread me. The word 'cleanse' doesn't capture what I was referring to: to sensitively remove the monument to a very despicably distinguished individual.

In terms of what I happen to disagree with - many people died at the hands of Rhodes so it is quite a serious disagreement that many people share.

You clearly haven't come across the word 'lay person' much before - originally it meant a non-religious person as opposed a religious person however today it can be used to distinguish any one who is less knowledgeable on a subject. I used it in reference to architecture to express the idea that certain buildings might not necessarily be symbols of colonialism for some individuals. It's really a matter of working knowledge rather than intelligence.

You're trying to turn this into a debate about semantics now, which is a shame; my point stands. You essentially want to create a veneer of an alternative history that only "knowledgeable" people will be able to see through. Why would you want that, it's undemocratic if nothing else, but surely you are either for or against? Why adopt some weird half-way house?

I'm not - I just objected to being told I wanted to 'cleanse' history, or whatever it was, owing to all the connotations of 'cleanse'. Then someone misunderstood the meaning of the term 'lay-person' - there you go.

Don't see where you're coming from with the veneer thing - no, I just suggest putting the statue in a museum.

I am for putting the statue in a museum. If everyone at the university where able to vote on it then would be democratic.

Again, I'm not affiliated with the organised campaign.
Good day

Oxford University is not a democracy. But even if it were it would make no difference, because the statue is owned by Oriel College.

It is there on a college building built thanks to a bequest by Cecil Rhodes and they have decided to keep it in gratitude to the generosity of their benefactor and old boy.

And there is an end to it. Your opinion, and the opinion of those who don't like the statue is irrelevant. It is a private matter, the decision has been taken.

Deal with it.

I'm 100% certain that if Rhodes lived to this day, he wouldn't have expected the level of integration between races in society. Is it fair to say that the scholarship put in place to uphold and better a white Britain ?

Please do your research. His money is available to Anyone from the former British Empire. That means black, white, what ever you can get it if you are eligible. So no, this doesn't just help the majority white Britain.

How is student welfare at risk from a bloody statue? Those idiots probably wouldn't even know who he is if they didn't look around for things to be offended by.

Ditto to you - try something more useful than defending Rhodes - why don't you go out and be another one and then one day someone might make a statue of you ?

I dare you to find a single historical character that is flawless by our modern standards.

Oxford University is not a democracy.

Well yes it's a the college's decision but it would be naive to claim that all bodies operate irrespective of the rest of society. It would be psychopathic to always operate with no regard for one's surrounding community! Hence, the matter is worth consideration and discussion.

Jesus Christ.