BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 04:03 AM

Can't recall, Mr Bridge, having particularly addressed myself to "statues" at all, defensively of otherwise. Not quite sure what you mean here. Can't follow your leap of thought to Mussolini & the trains either. Don't know if others can follow your somewhat anfractuous thought processes; but your post leaves me far more confused than enlightened.

Still, don't trouble to explain; I am sure it will make no ultimate difference sub specie æternitate.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Mr Red
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 03:05 AM

Trump don't need no statue, he has a bigger memorial



Trump Towers.

And Palin put the alas! in Alaska...............

Gawd help us!

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 11:01 PM

I am slightly surprised that Mr Myer is so ready to defend statues of racist oppressors. It seems a bit like the well known apologia that Mussolini made the trains run on time.

I suggest however that he has his thoughts on sub-Saharan Africa are not fully informed. Without getting into the argument whether "sub-Saharan" is a misnomer when applied to South Africa, a material part of the political difficulties seen to have been suffered in post-colonial Africa is rooted, I submit, in the arrogant white colonial practice of sweeping tribes and cultural groupings (even when hostile to each other) together into administrative regions. Nigeria is a prime example, and the Biafran war was one consequence. The demand for Yorubaland may turn out to be another.

The difficult question would seem to be whether democracy is an alien weed to plant in the soils of African cultures. I know members of the Afrikan diaspora who would argue that it is, and that democracy is alien to African tribal cultures (and traditional African belief systems.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: GUEST,Bob Hitchcock
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 08:51 PM

Well, having been born and raised until age 10 in Bishops Stortford (hometown of Cecil Rhodes) I would like to say that I think he was a real bastard. That said, removing statues of people we don't like would mean that no statue would exist anywhere. Let them stand but remember what they did and judge for yourself.

Here in the US we have statues of some great people and some not so great depending on which side of the political spectrum you happen to be on. Far be it from me to tell anyone how they should think, but I don't think we are going to see a statue of George Bush, Sarah Palin or Donald Trump anytime soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 01:54 PM

"SA apartheid,"
Damn - always thought this was imposed on Africa by the Dutch settlers - I stand corrected!!!
Idi Amin - now there's a character to conjure with, rising star of the Kings Rifles until he went Awol
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 01:51 PM

Looks as if Rhodes might have done the USA some good.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 01:24 PM

"It would appear Jom that minutes later you have answered your own question"
Don't see that - Rhodes is a historical figure in need of re-assesing, Assad comes with his credentials on display and the only way he or his wife would offer a scholarship wuld be ro respectabilise what he is doing now.
"I should have thought my views had been made clear. It is clearly desirable in theory; but pragmatically does not seem to have been a resounding success when practised in sub-Saharan Africa"
White man's burden eh?
We destroyed the cultures of these countries and replaced them with Western religions, cultures and values, rather than attempting to persuade them to stand on their own feet and develop according to their own needs rather than those of the Empire.
Despite your (was it you?) description of my roseate picture of pre-colonial days, I am well aware of the problems of'the olf ways' but replacing it with a dependency on Mother England, enslaving its people and milking it dry of its resources doesn't seem an alternative to me.
You mention Apartheid - interesting to see the Janus stance that Britain took on that particular regime.
You don't have to travel as far as "sub-Saharan Africa," - the same arguments were being used in relation to Ireland up to and after partial independence, and look at thee bloody shambles we left there - we're still suffering from the effects of it.
The Empire was always predatory and seldom if ever altruistic in nature.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 01:23 PM

Cecil Rhodes was blatantly honest, the quotes are of interest.
" Why should we not form a secret society with but one object, the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for making the Anglo Saxon race but one Empire
try substituting it like this
Why should we not form a secret society with but one object, the furtherance of Global Capitalism and the bringing of the whole world under Global Capitalist rule, for the furtherance of the Capitalists, for making the rest of the world into a passive consumer society.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 12:40 PM

"If she had set up a education trust for British scholars on the condition that it be called 'Bashar al-Assad Scholarship' and have a statue erected to him, would it be right to accept it, or if it had happened twenty odd years ago, would it be right to leave the statue where it was"

It would appear Jom that minutes later you have answered your own question

" in today's world of having to buy an education you accept it from where you can."

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 12:14 PM

Not quite sure what you are after, Jim, asking for my views on 'national self-determination'. If you mean ceding self-rule to colonised countries, I should have thought my views had been made clear. It is clearly desirable in theory; but pragmatically does not seem to have been a resounding success when practised in sub-Saharan Africa, having resulted in, on the one hand, SA apartheid, & on the other Idi Amin, Congo/Zaire civil wars, &c. I have told of what I heard from acquaintance in Sierra Leone where I lived & worked for a while, about 30 years after its independence.
What other 'views', concerning whom or what part of the world, would you like?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 12:14 PM

"It was more about the hypocrisy of objecting to a statue and demanding that it be removed by those perfectly willing to accept financial support from the trust set up and named after the same man as the statue is supposed to commemorate."
Not hypocritical in any way - in today's world of having to buy an education you accept it from where you can.
If the scholarship was to promote Rhodes' imperialism, it might bee grounds for refusing it.
As it is, these people, at long last appear to be questioning Bitains' past - who knows, maybe its the year of hypocritical jingoism we've just left behind us.
AS I understand it, recipients of the scholarship were never asked to swear an oath of allegiance to Rhodes or Imperialism - nothing hypocritical about continuing to take the grant and question the origins of its source - needs must for most of us in today's world.
Tou're beginning to sound like the soupers I once told you about (and which you disputed) who went around during the faming offering to feed children whose families agreed to change their religion - dear, departed days.
Your "Imperialist leanings" with your glorification of Imperial bloodbaths, goes before you - don't think there's too much question of it, do you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 09:09 AM

"Terrytoon continues to bang on about The Rhodes Scholars in defence of Empire"

Really Jom? Pray tell how my only other post to this thread could in any way be construed as being "in defence of Empire" It was more about the hypocrisy of objecting to a statue and demanding that it be removed by those perfectly willing to accept financial support from the trust set up and named after the same man as the statue is supposed to commemorate.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 08:42 AM

I was reading Kipling before you were born, young Mr F,

You may indeed have read him, EmGee, but its patently obviously didn't comprehend what you were reading - and still don't.

And how, exactly, do you know when I was born?

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 08:37 AM

"as it appears probable that the Belgians were"
All empires were - name one that wasn't,
"if that's the right word"
That's the one.
"I simply cite my own experience "
You told me it didn't count for a hill of beans in the grand order of things.
Would be nice to get your views on national self-determination though.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 08:25 AM

I have no particular 'view of empire'. Like most human states, empires established by those who are not merely exploitative [as it appears probable that the Belgians were], but at least up to a point in philanthropic hope of benefiting the imperialised [if that's the right word], will have their pros & cons. (I don't think we should be the society that we are had it not have been for the various conquests -- Celtic, Roman, Jutish, Norman... -- to which these islands have been subjected, whatever might be held to have been their primary motivations). I simply cite my own experience -- who, speaking personally, can do more? -- to demonstrate that the state of being so imperialised is not always resented, and can also sometimes be positively welcomed. Such feelings will not, naturally, be unanimously held among the populace in this situation; but what view ever is?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 07:48 AM

" I know it will be no use telling Jim or some others around here that I had not a single African colleague who did not regret of the fairly recent era of British colonial government,"
A few things here Mike.
Not long ago, when we were discussing the integrating of Muslims into Britain, you pointed out, quite rightly, that basing my opinions of such matters on my 20-odd years of personal experience alone, of knowing Muslims, (had I been doing so, which I was not) was misleading.
Here, you seem to want us to accept your view of Empire on a couple of conversations with a handful of unidentified Sierra Leonians over tiffin.
Can't have it both ways Mike.
Sierra Leon was a colony of Britain from 1800 to 1961 (interestingly, it didn't abolish slavery until 1928)
Given the length of time it was under our rule, Britain has to take some responsibility for what happened when we left - you do not mop up the mess of over a century and a half in five minutes.
The British Empire had a reputation for leaving the former colonies in a 'safe pair of hands' - not necessarily safe for the Colonials, but to ascertain that they didn't stray too far off the beaten path and remained firm allies and profitable trading partners to 'Mother England'.         
Many of the sweat-labour-produced goods that fill British shops come from the former colonies.
I'm not a nationalist; if anything, I find national borders a hindrance to international friendship and co-operation, but I've learned close-up that a ruled or partitioned country will continue to be the cause of death and dissention.
Every nation has a right to self-determination, to make its own mistakes and to realise its own identity without Emperors and kings in palaces in other countries.
Terrytoon continues to bang on about The Rhodes Scholars in defence of Empire - just as he did over the 1914-18 bloodbath.
President Assad of Syria has a n English wife.
If she had set up a education trust for British scholars on the condition that it be called 'Bashar al-Assad Scholarship' and have a statue erected to him, would it be right to accept it, or if it had happened twenty odd years ago, would it be right to leave the statue where it was - (knowing Terry's and other Empire Loyalists' attitude to arms and chemical sales to Syria, I'm making this a rhetorical question, not addressed to anyone in particular).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 06:12 AM

That's Pope John XXIII, ten Pope Johns after the one I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 06:06 AM

Rhodes Scholars are not the only dissenters, not by a country mile. You'll have to ask them about their principles, not us. On the whole, I'm not for knocking statues down. A statue is by no means an automatic object of veneration, designed to deprave and corrupt. Sometimes, as I walk round London or my favourite places in Spain or Italy I don't even bother to find out who the statues are of most of the time. However, this particular one may be a different case. You have to walk past the thing towering over you every time you walk into the college, which could be construed as slightly bashing students round the head with a compulsory morsel of shameful history. For seven years I taught in a Catholic school in East London that had a fifteen-foot high crucifix, replete with every gory multicoloured detail of Christ's alleged murder, planted in the ground outside the main entrance. Even though I was still a Catholic in those days, I regarded this ugly monstrosity as highly inappropriate as a daily first school experience for eleven-year-olds, but hey. Why not put Cecil in a side room with a note explaining his place in history, so that sighting him becomes a bit more voluntary?

I watched a documentary on Spain last night which, among other things, featured a section on the Valley Of The Fallen in the Guadarrama Valley outside Madrid. It's essentially a monument to Franco's victory in the Civil War, commissioned by the man himself. It was largely constructed by Republican prisoners. It covers five square miles, contains a basilica that was consecrated by Pope John XIII (for Christ's sake!), a Benedictine monastery and is capped by a 500-foot stone cross, the tallest in the world, which can be seen from 20 miles away. The site is the burial place for thousands who were killed in the Civil War. Only one person who didn't die that way is buried there, guess who, mass murderer Francisco Franco himself. What would you do with it? It's been massively controversial in Spain for decades. Most Spanish people now see what a bad man El Caudillo truly was, yet here is his enduring monument, one of the biggest things in Spain. Nowt to do with this Brit, but if I were a Spaniard I'd be campaigning to have the site levelled, basilica and all, and turned into a shrine and country park dedicated to Franco's hundreds of thousands of victims, during the war and after.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 04:41 AM

"'Rhodes Scholars' in Oxford University have caused controversy by saying that a statue of Cecil Rhodes, who founded the scholarship, should be taken down, that celebrating a racist is not a good thing."

I wonder if their outrage extends to them renouncing their scholarships and returning home? If the statue is removed will the same Rhodes Scholars press for the abandonment of the funding from The Rhodes Trust which I daresay will find other causes to sponsor and support.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 04:15 AM

Whoops!
It is not black. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 04:10 AM

The statue is black.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 04:06 AM

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

British comedienne (and graduated from Gonville and Caius College at Cambridge University) Holly Walsh pointed out that "mocking something with comedy is a far more effective tactic" and she added, "why not black the face of the statue". Oh, go on, laugh - it was funny even if you are po-faced.
And it would stand as a testimony to the current mores & attitudes. Clever and humorous, unless you are po-faced.

The subject is a couple of clear examples of how history is won by the victors. Might is right. And is the issued that clear cut? A man acquires wealth on the back of the downtrodden and over many years give back even to the decendants of those downtrodden. & that is not a pyrrhic victory neither!

And weren't Bill Clinton and Kris Kristofferson Rhodes scholars? Just saying to muddy the waters further. It ain't a black and white issue!

on wiki it says: Kristofferson has stated that he was greatly influenced by the poet William Blake while at Oxford, who had proclaimed that if one has a God-given creative talent then one should use it or else reap sorrow and despair. eerily apt here.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: GUEST,R Sole
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 03:04 AM

Saying you were reading Kipling before someone was born and therefore have a better understanding is possibly one of the more arrogant statements on this thread. The counter of course being that those of us "young 'uns" reading him have better memory recall and a more enlightened world view with which to bounce Kipling off.

Rhodes was everything we can aim at him, and possibly more as the man was revered by many so some bits must have been swept under the carpet during his lifetime. (Like Haig or Jimmy Saville.)

But his statue, if it is a reminder of an imperial past, stands with all the other reminders such as most of Westminster buildings. Oh, and those older buildings we stare at in wonder and amazement? Think sugar and slavery.

It would be hypocritical to tear down his statue. Just because we are fed images of despot statues being ceremoniously toppled during revolutions overseas, we don't need to adopt an attitude of monkey see, monkey do.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 02:29 AM

I suppose Mr. "Sobieski" means that Muslims worship Mohammed, which is not the case.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 12:11 AM

I was reading Kipling before you were born, young Mr F, & with more understanding than you'll ever bring to his work. Do not try to patronise me, if you please, my good young man.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: GUEST,Jan Sobieski
Date: 18 Jan 16 - 06:36 PM

A considerable number of the people who live in former British colonies worship a seventh century warlord who was not only a slave owner, a misogynist and a pedophile but also a murderer who boasted of the number of opponents he beheaded. No doubt there are many of these worshippers among those who are calling for the removal of the Rhodes statue. Ain't hypocrisy wonderful?

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jan 16 - 05:44 PM

For EmGee, our very own latter-day Kipling:


Take up the White Man's burden, Send forth the best ye breed
Go bind your sons to exile, to serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden, The savage wars of peace—
Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard—
The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:—
"Why brought he us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden, Ye dare not stop to less—
Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper, By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples Shall weigh your gods and you.


See This Also

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Jan 16 - 09:54 AM

Things got worse in SL not long after, as is known, with a civil war in which unspeakable atrocities, which I push to the back of my mind because unbearable to contemplate even as I write of them here, were committed. I believe something of the same to have happened in the former Rhodesias; which were, to hear Jim tell it, hotbeds of "death, suffering and misery" caused by the wicked colonising exploiters, whereas presumably they had previously been, and have now once again become, earthly paradises of happy innocent peoples all living together in heavenly harmony.

Now why, I ask myself, do I somehow beg leave to doubt such an idealised conception of pre-&-post-colonial sub-Saharan Africa? Must be my typical unregenerate Eurocentric itch to persecute people, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Jan 16 - 09:23 AM

I have actually worked for two months, March-April 1991, in an African university in a former British colony: Fourah Bay College, Freetown, aka the University of Sierra Leone, where I had the status of British Council Visiting Lecturer. I know it will be no use telling Jim or some others around here that I had not a single African colleague who did not regret of the fairly recent era of British colonial government, which had been succeeded by presidents who indulged in such exploits as tearing up the rails of the railway system, left intact on withdrawal by the colonial exploiters and persecutors, selling them for scrap, and keeping the money for themselves, meanwhile leaving the metalled roads to degenerate into dangerous-to-drive dust tracks which were nevertheless the only way to get anywhere; because I can recognise someone whom it is useless to inform of such things as do not fit in with his entrenched & unshakeable "my minds made up, please do not confuse me with facts" attitude.

But that does not alter what actually happened. You may believe me or not as your tastes and preconceptions may dictate; but that happens to be how it was.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jan 16 - 08:21 AM

"Colosseum in Rome"
Which id an archeological monument
The barbarity of the games and what the Roman Empire stood for is well documented and common knowledge - the British Empire and it's predators are not.
Empire left the world with a legacy of mass poverty, near slave conditions for many millions, a refugee crisis, countries that were left deliberately undeveloped and divided to serve the needs of Empire.... all to be yet addressed or even acknowledged.
One of the latest exposed hangovers is this mornings announcement that the world's wealthiest 1% have as much as the rest of the world combined - but it would be "jealousy" to mention that fact, wouldn't it?
"Take it that the same "Rhodes Scholars" have no problem taking the money and opportunities afforded them from The Rhodes Trust"
That a handful of students benefit from the crumbs from the Rhodes' estate legacy doesn't alter one iota where Rhodes' wealth came from and the death, suffering and misery caused accumulating it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jan 16 - 03:35 AM

"'Rhodes Scholars' in Oxford University have caused controversy by saying that a statue of Cecil Rhodes, who founded the scholarship, should be taken down, that celebrating a racist is not a good thing."

Take it that the same "Rhodes Scholars" have no problem taking the money and opportunities afforded them from The Rhodes Trust? Still take down the statue and shut the Trust down, I dare say it will find some other cause to fund, which would be a pity as over the years it has done a great deal of good.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Jan 16 - 12:44 AM

Cannot valuable lessons be drawn from such. Would you regard the Auschwitz Museum as a "monument to evil"? If not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Jan 16 - 12:43 AM

Define "monuments"
Define "evil"
Define "good thing"

Would it be a 'good thing' to 'destroy' the Colosseum in Rome which, according to wiki entry, was "used for gladiatorial contests and public spectacles such as mock sea battles, animal hunts, executions...", Richard?

Just asking.

Happy New Year.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the network
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 08:21 PM

The removal of monuments to evil must be a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 07:30 PM

Anyway, Paul, you spurred me on to investigate. The truth is that Garry Trudeau is on an extended sabbatical to work on Alpha House. You big fibber, Paul!

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 07:23 PM

Had a bad evening, Paul? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 07:20 PM

Because the Guardian's broke, A. Rusbridger having squandered all his inheritance on a crazy non- standard printing press, and having before and afterwards alienated three quarters of his buying public by supporting a squalid corrupt minority-of-minorities political clique.

Cecil Rhodes? Keep the statue if you must; eliminate the attitudes and consign his memory to the hell it deserves.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 07:11 PM

For some strange reason we've been getting only "Doonesbury classics" in the Guardian for a couple of years. Are you getting up-to-date stuff, and if so why aren't we?

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: ChanteyLass
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 06:47 PM

Ah. Perhaps the inspiration for today's Do ones bury comic strip.
http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com/strip

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 11:27 AM

I merely speak of my own come-froms, Stu. Plenty of those shitty little terraced houses are still there to remind us of the shameless exploitation of millions of ordinary people as our noble leaders exploited all those native chappies in the great days of Empire. Last I heard, Shoreditch was getting gentrified... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Stu
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 11:18 AM

The empire's dead and gone, and good riddance. One thing that should not be tolerated is the sort of revisionist claptrap that seems all the rage these days as 'Empire' is more and more frequently conflated with 'England'.

Accepting the role of all the home nations in the empire is the best way of making peace with the unpalatable actions of those in charge at the time. Rhodes should stay precisely where he is because of his unpleasant views, so everyone who glances up at him on their way to class might consider how to avoid being in the least bit like him. Erasing him from memory dooms us to forget, and there are still plenty of apologists for empire out there.


"the squalor and abuse suffered by millions in Northern towns during her reign"

Northern victimhood - yawn. Members of my family lived in the rookery of St Giles and the slums of Shoreditch, some dying in the workhouse there (it still stands). They were forcibly removed during the 1890's to Tottenham where my great-grandmother was born a couple of years later; I remember her well. No part of these islands have escaped the oppression of the empire on those least able to fight it; namely the poor. Our ancestors fought the battles of the rich, suffered in their factories and served on them hand and foot, tending their animals stables better than most houses of the time and in the posh dining rooms of the elite across these islands.

Incedently, a Bangladeshi friend of mine thought that the empire was for more of force for good then evil on the sub-continent. He cites the fact education was brought to his area of the country, the legal and administrative systems founded and these are still held as cherished institutions by him and his countryfolk. So there's two sides to every story.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 10:53 AM

Some parallels Here

and

Here

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 10:46 AM

"For a start, it would deprive pigeons of a good place to shit on."
Never thought of that.
I think it's not so much a question of statues as coming to terms with Britain's, or any Empire's Imperial past (yet to happen anywhere)
Much of the trouble in the world today, immigration, buying sweated good from repressive countries, arms sales..... relates directly back to Empire days.
The continued glorification of one of the great plunderers of Empire doesn't seem to be a good way of coming to terms with our past - for us or for those we continue to exploit.
Maybe the Irish had the right idea in the sixties   
The solution ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 10:30 AM

I stand with Mark Twain on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: GUEST,Bystander
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 09:43 AM

I would not condone the removal of any statue. For a start, it would deprive pigeons of a good place to shit on.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 08:33 AM

Ah yes, I think I have a photo of me shaking hands with Wolfe Tone. I also rather liked Patrick Kavanagh sitting on his bench. Then there's me and Kemal Ataturk in Kyrenia in Northern Cyprus. :-). I don't show all of them to everybody...

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 08:26 AM

It's a tough one, is this. There are statues of Churchill everywhere, yet his blunders were responsible for thousands of our military deaths in WW1. A statue of that joke on horseback, General Redvers Buller, has stood for over a hundred years just up from where my father-in-law lived in Exeter. Why, I've supped many a pint in the beer garden of the Bullers Arms in my local village, right under his portrait on the pub sign. I wouldn't exactly say that I'm enamoured of monuments to Victoria, come to think of it, when I consider the squalor and abuse suffered by millions in Northern towns during her reign. And what about all those ugly crucifixes, depicting the brutal murder of a man who may not even have existed? Where do you draw the line? The way I see it is this. It's a free country and I can walk the streets cheerfully ignoring all this stuff, or, alternatively, putting two fingers up to Winston if I feel like it. But is it different when you're forced to be up close and personal with a known charlatan such as Rhodes every time you walk into college, regardless of your colour or creed? I'm not so sure about that. A good solution would be to put the statue somewhere else. In a museum maybe. Museums can be quite good places to keep uncomfortable reminders of a shameful past. Incidentally, I don't feel the same way about statues or other depictions of megalomaniacs who put them up themselves. I'd have no compunction in ripping them down.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 08:22 AM

The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam has started renaming works of art in its vast collection whose titles could be considered inappropriate by a modern audience. Ain't political correctness wonderful?

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 08:13 AM

I didn't say we venerated statues, I said these were "venerating statues" - in other words, statues originally made in veneration.

What do people reckon the purpose of statues is? In Dublin, we have Burke and Hare - no, sorry, the statesman Burke and the poet Goldsmith - in front of Trinity College, and various people inside with plaques describing the good they did in their lives; we have Daniel O'Connell and Wolfe Tone and Father Mathew (on the bench in front of whose statue I once photographed a terribly drunk or drugged poor woman), and Parnell… in St Stephen's Green we have Markievicz and Emmet and Davis; in front of Liberty Hall we have Connolly… In general, the statues in most cities are raised in praise of those portrayed. Astonishingly, Dublin has no statues of the Seven Signatories, but then the statues of recent years have tended to be "sculptures" rather than "statues", with light-hearted themes - an abstract tree outside the Central Bank, a frankly vulgar Molly Malone at the tourist office, a glorious but (temporarily, I hope) removed sculpture on the pavement at O'Connell Bridge's junction with Burgh Quay of leaves, footprints, pawprints and bird tracks.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 07:21 AM

"Jim -- What point are you trying to make"
Sorry Mike - misunderstood - not long got up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: GUEST,R Sole
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 06:10 AM

Perhaps if we judged all statues and other ways of commemorating people against today's standards, we'd rename the whole world, including the months of the year, judging by the antics of certain Romans..

I notice some of the indignation towards the Rhodes statue is coming from African governments and clergy that persecute gays, see women as second class and allow genital mutilation of children.

Yet apparently we are callous for not ripping down his statue.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 06:07 AM

Try asking the people of Naples, where his memory is still hated for his time as self-appointed governor there, what should happen to Nelson's Column.

Jim -- What point are you trying to make by repeating back to me [twice!] the point that I have just made to you?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Kampervan
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 06:00 AM

I don't think that we 'venerate' any statues. I look at them and see the person and reflect on what I know about them. Some I admire and some I certainly do not.

I just don't think that we should destroy any statues/relics/books/street names.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 05:56 AM

But a) were the accepted standards so different then?

And b) if we are to allow ourselves to retain venerating statues of people who would nowadays be thought of as criminal, justified by the fact that the standards of their time were different, then how can we justify destroying statues of people from a place whose ideals, standards and norms are different from those we hold?

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 05:53 AM

"It was erected long ago"
It was - it is now being considered whether it should be taken down
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Kampervan
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 05:52 AM

'He also limited it to males' Yes, but this took place many years before women got the vote or were allowed to graduate. So again he was 'of his time' and could be forgiven this.

Look, I'm starting to come across as an apologist for Rhodes, I'm not. I'm just saying that these issues are never black or white and if you resort to taking actions such as removing statues then where do you stop?

Should Penny Lane in Liverpool be re-named because James Penny was a slave trader? I would say not.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 05:49 AM

Sorry -- don't know why that posted prematurely. To continue

...is the question being considered. Not the same issue at all.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 05:47 AM

"erecting statues to someone who laid Africa open to worldwide exploitation and the mass destruction of their culture is not the way to do that."
.,,.
No-one is proposing to 'erect' a statue at this time of day, though, Jim. It was erected long ago. Wheteher it should be suffered to remain is the q

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Leadfingers
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 05:45 AM

I do NOT understand the practice of putting todays standards on people and events of a century or more ago !

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 05:40 AM

He also limited it to males; according to the LRB, when Rhodes wrote "race" in that case, he wasn't talking about what he referred to routinely as "niggers", but about Dutch students.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Kampervan
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 05:33 AM

What then should happen to the £100,000 that he left to the college or the money that funds the Rhodes scholarship each year?

He is also on record as saying 'that no student shall be qualified or disqualified for election to a scholarship on acco0unt of his race or religious opinions'.

I am not saying that Rhodes was an exclusively 'good man' but neither was he exclusively bad. He was of his time. His failings should be recognised, there should be no whitewash; but the removal of visible evidence is a slippery slope to denial.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 05:11 AM

Isn't this what America did in Iraq, pulling down statues of Saddam, as the London Review of Books points out.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 05:10 AM

"We cannot rewrite history or pretend that it didn't happen."
But we can expose it for what it was and erecting statues to someone who laid Africa open to worldwide exploitation and the mass destruction of their culture is not the way to do that.
I wonder how many people would object to the fact that statues of Stalin were removed in the former Soviet Union when his crimes were exposed, because he was "part of history" - all hand up now!!
Maybe we should encourage Italy to erect statues to Mussolini because he made the trains run on time!!
He was certainly very much part of Italian history (won't even bother to mention that nice Mr Hilter!!)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Kampervan
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 04:39 AM

The statue should stay. If we begin a revisionist review of every statue in the country judged according to the accepted wisdom of our time then we will lose a lot of statues.

Is this not what ISIS is doing in Iraq?

And does it end there? Should we examine the literature that exists and destroy that which promotes values that we now generally agree is contrary to current thinking.

I think not.

These things should be retained but recognised for what they are, relics of a different time when values were different and, probably, wrong.

We cannot rewrite history or pretend that it didn't happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 04:23 AM

If the Americans can name their capital city after a slave owner I think that Oxford can cope with a statue of Rhodes.

Subject: BS: Cecil Rhodes controversy
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 01:37 AM

'Rhodes Scholars' in Oxford University have caused controversy by saying that a statue of Cecil Rhodes, who founded the scholarship, should be taken down, that celebrating a racist is not a good thing.

Some quotes from Rhodes:

Why should we not form a secret society with but one object, the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for making the Anglo Saxon race but one Empire?


==
We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labor that is available from the natives of the colonies. The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories.

==
In every Colonial legislature the Society should attempt to have its members prepared at all times to vote or speak and advocate the closer union of England and the colonies, to crush all disloyalty and every movement for the severance of our Empire.

==

and what Mark Twain said about him:

I admire him, I frankly confess it; and when his time comes I shall buy a piece of the rope for a keepsake.