Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Rhodes must fall Watch

    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    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.
    What do you even mean by this?

    You literally say that we need to get rid of the statue to move forward before saying that we have already moved forward.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    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.
    No, its not changing history, but it is attempting to hide the bits we disagree with, rather than attempting to have an intellectual discussion about them.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Y'know why Germany doesn't try to deny Hitler existed? Because they're not too stupid to see that you should learn from the past, so that it doesn't happen again.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    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.
    Exactly.


    Only Europeans allow people to pull such BS on them.
    Offline

    16
    Rhodes is by no means someone that should be celebrated but I think the decision to keep or remove the statue is solely Oxfords.

    And honestly I think it's best we have reminders like this. It's like trying to erase colonialism from history.
    It's like how we are constantly reminded about hitler and how mein kampf is still for sale. Doesn't mean we celebrate him.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Good to see the alumni reacting in a sensible manner.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feel Tha Bern)
    Only Europeans allow people to pull such BS on them.
    :confused:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-32236922

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35726878
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's not really BS though in their case; Black Africans and African Americans cannot be expected to like a figure who oppressed them, obviously.

    Also when I say Europeans, this includes European-Americans.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MildredMalone)
    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.
    Ssssh! You can't say that it goes against the simplistic narrative de nos jours.

    If you asked Europeans after the fall of Rome in the West what they thought of the Roman Empire you would have heard nothing but contempt.

    From our perspective, today, Rome is one of the cornerstones of our entire culture and civilisation.

    In two thousand years I suspect the British Empire will have had a similar legacy in Africa, India, the Far East. We are too close to its fall to have proper perspective.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Des_Lumières)
    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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    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).
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Des_Lumières)
    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).
    So you want to cleanse the country of any historical references you happen to disagree with, but only ones that people who you perceive to be less intelligent would understand? How patronising.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Des_Lumières)
    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?
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    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
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    Listed status doesn't mean a building can't be changed - it just means more scrutiny for planning permission.
    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
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    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.
    Iconoclasm does not necessarily refer to the physical destruction of the object but also to its context.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.