Rhodes must fall

But it isn't exactly "changing history", it is leaving it in the past and moving forward.

Rhodes statue should fall, there is no reason for anybody to be reminded of his colonial legacy every morning. It's completely unnecessary, we live in a multicultural society and times have changed, and British Imperialism was left behind a long time ago. I think it will be very refreshing to see his statue gone.

But it isn't exactly "changing history", it is leaving it in the past and moving forward.

Rhodes statue should fall, there is no reason for anybody to be reminded of his colonial legacy every morning. It's completely unnecessary, we live in a multicultural society and times have changed, and British Imperialism was left behind a long time ago. I think it will be very refreshing to see his statue gone.

I take it that the Egyptian pyramids should also be torn down? They were even built by slaves, how oppressive!Also, the statue of liberty, after all, it was a gift from the French to annoy the British in relation to the colonial era rivalry between the two nations.

Only Europeans allow people to pull such BS on them.

Why is imperialism seen as a bad thing? Everywhere that's good in the world, is good because we have been there. Even in the middle east, the more tolerable places, like where women don't have to cover up etc., have strong historical links to us.

I agree with you, there's no just reason to have a statue of such a despicable individual! What is there to celebrate about his ruthless, cold-bloodedness - who cares if he gave money for scholarships - the guy had a lot of money! Besides, the scholarships were only there to educate people in his image (most of the Rhodes scholarship recipients went on to work for the CS, the gov., or the secret service)!! One couldn't argue that he was funding education for the wider benefit of people at time! There are far nobler individuals in history of whom we should be erecting statues. Statues of individuals like him can be packed away in the dark cellars of museums for later generations to discover the shameful relics of our previous insanities.

So would you tear down most of the buildings in central London which were built on the wealth of colonialism and still have symbols reflecting that history?

Well, obviously there are practical limits and there is remorse and there is denial. I would distinguish between erasing all traces of a frightful past and choosing not to artistically, monumentally pay homage to it. The function and influence of a statue is not identical to that of a building. And whilst i do agree with you that there are buildings in London that can be read as symbols of colonialism, I do not think they communicate the same attitude to past events as a statue does (to the layperson, anyway). It's worth considering that buildings are occupied and take on a lot of their character through this inhabitation. A building can be many different things over the centuries - take the Castle at Dublin - however a person lives and dies and then is defined by who they were (and one can obviously view them diversely).

Well, obviously there are practical limits and there is remorse and there is denial. I would distinguish between erasing all traces of a frightful past and choosing not to artistically, monumentally pay homage to it. The function and influence of a statue is not identical to that of a building. And whilst i do agree with you that there are buildings in London that can be read as symbols of colonialism, I do not think they communicate the same attitude to past events as a statue does (to the layperson, anyway). It's worth considering that buildings are occupied and take on a lot of their character through this inhabitation. A building can be many different things over the centuries - take the Castle at Dublin - however a person lives and dies and then is defined by who they were (and one can obviously view them diversely).

To destroy a statue is an attempt at "erasing all traces of a frightful past'. Where do we draw the line at what is considered artistic homage and destruction?

You do realise that no one is saying it should be destroyed. The campaign is asking for it to be moved from a building into a museum where it can be displayed in context.

It can't be removed, it is part of the listed building.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Listed status doesn't mean a building can't be changed - it just means more scrutiny for planning permission.

You do realise that no one is saying it should be destroyed. The campaign is asking for it to be moved from a building into a museum where it can be displayed in context.

You need good reason to change it especially when you want to take down the of key reasons it was listed. It wouldn't get permission for "some people don't like it".

Posted from TSR Mobile