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

Rhodes must fall Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Des_Lumières)
    I can't believe others have bothered to state the history is not black and white as that is such an iteration of the obvious! The point you make about heroes and villains is feeble - as given the topic in hand there will be statues of some and others not. The point for discussion here is whether Rhodes' character is just so offensive that it would cause the least harm to simply replace his statue with that of another eminent Victorian.
    Like who?

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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    They are taking some time in a safe space.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    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). There are obviously many more.

    Forgive me if any of these people were not in fact Victorians.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    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 deeds than Cecil Rhodes!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Des_Lumières)
    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!
    Rhodes is not guilty of massacre. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Des_Lumières)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    Not sure, I don't know a great deal about her life. If she is then you are teaching me something. As it is written higher up on this thread: he gave a lot of money because he had a lot of money. How did he get that money? Well, through a trade less honest than that of a philosopher.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Rhodes is not guilty of massacre. :rolleyes:
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Des_Lumières)
    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.
    Talk about back tracking.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Des_Lumières)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Des_Lumières)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    It's not my campaign, I'm not affiliated with it, although I have expressed the opinion on this thread that the statue ought to be relocated.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chellecharity)
    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
    Modernising a colony was a bad thing?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Des_Lumières)
    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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farchitect)
    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
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Des_Lumières)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    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.
    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.



    But then again, I suppose a major function of the university is to train future leaders...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chellecharity)
    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 ?
    (Original post by THE EPIC Panda)
    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.
    Just to add that the scholarship is not available to anyone from the UK.

    (Original post by Bazlehman)
    How about the Hitler scholarship or Adolf Hitler award for commitment to animal welfare? Hitler introduced animal welfare laws, and a lot of people were racist and were doing genocide type shenanigans back in the day, so I think they should keep giving out those little Hitler statuettes.
    Hitler didn't donate anything to Oxford. Rhodes was Oriel College's biggest donor ever.

    (Original post by MildredMalone)
    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.
    Indeed student welfare is at risk if Rhodes is to fall. The college would be forgoing more than £100 million.

    (Original post by Des_Lumières)
    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 ?
    The college has already lost millions because of this and at least £100 million is at stake. I'd say keeping the statue would be rather useful.

    (Original post by Josb)
    I dare you to find a single historical character that is flawless by our modern standards.
    Jesus Christ.

    (Original post by generallee)
    Oxford University is not a democracy.
    Actually Oxford is a democracy. The Congregation is its sovereign body, except that students, in this case, are just like tourists or foreigners on a visa to a country, are not in it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Des_Lumières)
    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.
    Interesting.

    So you are against RMF, then? Since polls say that both the student population and the wider society in the UK are against it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Jesus Christ.
    If he was a real person it is most likely he was a cold reader, charlatan and trickster and he was prone to bouts of physical violence against people going about their lawful business.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Break up or unrequited love?
    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.