Cecil Rhodes, Oxford, and victimhood

[prendrelemick]

Restricted to wood! That is a fine idea, it punctures the conceit of the age and reminds great men of their temporary significance. Gaze upon my works and despair.

But back to the original question Lokasenna posed. Victimhood is the Zeitgeist of today, the statue of Rhodes is just another focus point for it.

[prendrelemick]

"The trouble with statues are that they are set in stone,"
There was a place and period in ancient Greece where memorials were restricted to wood. That custom has much to commend it.

(non sequitur) Anyone who has a knowledge of history could probably stand in any city between Cape Town and Kampala and say of Rhodes, with some justification, "si monumentum requiris, circumspice."

Thanks for reposting my grammatical error Wifflingpin !

[Lokasenna]

But back to the original question Lokasenna posed. Victimhood is the Zeitgeist of today, the statue of Rhodes is just another focus point for it.

Brendan O'Neill coined the phrase 'Stepford Students' - they look, sound and smell like students, but Mrs Whitehouse looks out through their eyes. Rather than engaging with ideas, coming to things with an open mind and being willing to engage in strenuous debate, they wish only to ban any opinion or view that does not agree with their own.

It concerns me because I've seen it myself over the course of my student life from undergraduate to PhD student. As an undergrad, I remember having an almighty public row with a fellow student because I did not agree with her campaign to no-platform a certain political party. I don't agree with the views of that party, indeed I find them utterly reprehensible, but I believed there was no justification in banning them from campus. In fact, I thought it would give them more publicity than simply letting them turn up and damn themselves out of their own mouths. For this, I was accused of having extremist sympathies and of being a variety of other nasty things - but, I'm pleased to say, most of the other students near by rallied around and supported my position as for being sensible. Nowadays, I have no doubt that the tables would have been turned - I would be villified for threatening the 'safe space' of all present, and of encouraging extremists by being willing to let them speak.

This worries me, because these people are notionally the intellectuals and leaders of tomorrow. It comes to a sad state when university students cannot even bear to be in the presence of any view that does not 100% agree with their narrow view of the world. A world in which Germanie Greer, of all people, is no-platformed by the Women's Officer of the student union of a major UK university, is almost Kafkaesque.

[prendrelemick]

I strongly agree. In fact I think it is unreasonable to hold a position on anything until you've listened to the contrary view. I believe this so strongly I often find myself playing Devils advocate and arguing against what I really think. It drives Mrs P mad

[Emil Miller]

A world in which Germanie Greer, of all people, is no-platformed by the Women's Officer of the student union of a major UK university, is almost Kafkaesque.

A case of the biter being bitten.

[Babyguile]

Let's leave the defacing of history to ISIS.

[Poetaster]

There's a lot of this sort of thing about - it's connected to a much wider campaign for promoting social justice over individual rights. It's very troubling.

[Lokasenna]

Oxford have now declared that they are keeping the statue - allegedly after many furious donors threatened to write Oriel College out of their wills, potentially costing the institution tens of millions of pounds. I applaud the decision, even if the sentiment seems a little mercenary.

However, the fight goes on: a new group of students are 'feeling excluded' by the existence of a statue of the Empress Victoria at Royal Holloway - http://thetab.com/uk/rhul/2016/02/01...campaign=pages

[qimissung]

It is important to be able to listen to the other side of the argument, to let it exist, to give it the credence of being listened to, instead of shut off. I hesitate to mention this, but obviously I'm going too, we have a concern in the states where certain people have said that sports teams with the names of Indian tribes are now considered racist, and they should change them. Most are doing so, and I think that's fine. But I kind of think it's a similar problem. Wouldn't it just be better to just help Indian tribes with their myriad problems (beyond the casinos that have become so wildly popular in recent years)? It's not putting up a statue, I realize, but isn't it still part of the problem of paying more attention to the concerns and actions of the dominant culture? Isn't it still a matter of paying attention to the wrong thing and not doing the right thing?

Where is the looking forward to the future? Why not just work to end the divisions that still enable these people to be marginalized-here and in the former British colonies, and well, all around the world?

[Whifflingpin]

If a team is named "Lions" or "Eagles" or "Trojans" that is because lions, eagles, and Trojans have qualities that the team claims or aspires to share. If a team is called "Mohawks" or "Cherokees" that too is a homage to those nations. No team would name itself after anything that it despised or looked down on - (well, not in the U.S. anyway; it would be typical English humour for a team of city gents to call itself The Dustmen and vice versa.)

[Ecurb]

"Lions" and "Eagles" are not humans, and "Trojans", "Spartans" and "Vikings" aren't around any more. Nonetheless, many Native Tribes do not object to sports teams named "Sioux" or "Braves", although it would be natural to think, "Hey! We're still here, unlike the Trojans! Quit using our tribal names as if we're extinct, or animals!". A team like the Washington "Redskins" is another matter, since "Redskin" was derogatory. When I was in college near Cleveland, my friends and I fantasized about buying the Cleveland "Indians" baseball team, and changing the name to the Cleveland "Negroes". I wonder how that would have gone over? (We could have used a ruder epithet starting with "N", which would have been equivalent to "Redskins".)

[Lokasenna]

My main concern with such campaigns is that they risk infantilizing their supposed victims. The implication is that people are only a product of their ancestors, and that the things that happened to those ancestors - even if hundreds of years ago - is the defining characteristic of these people. It also, in my opinion, forces all such people into the role of victim, which is not a healthy world outlook. While the Rhodes statue brouhaha was going on, a parody petition appeared demanding the immediate removal of Hardrian's Wall, given that it is a symbol of the imperialist Roman oppression of the native britons.

Of course, that's a parody. But if I were to raise such an issue in, say, a modern UK university, I'm sure that some of the more extreme (and therefore most vocal) crusaders would tell me to 'check my privilege' - which is to say that I, as a white male, cannot have experienced discrimination, and consequently have no right to have an opinion on it. Which is, of course, a form of racism/sexism in itself - yet another factor of such campaigns that reduces a certain section of society to the level of perpetual victim.

I'm all for having a discussion about things - but it seems to me that the intention of a lot of campus-related campaigns is to crush discussion as swiftly and forcefully as possible.

[Ecurb]

In the U.S. there was a tradition of "Indian themed" scouting. "Tribes" named after Indians would paddle around in canoes and go on hikes. As racism goes, this is benign. It was actually meant (as Wiffling points out) to honor Native Tribes. Still, it also served to infantilize them, because the scouts playing at being Indians were young children.

Perhaps the extent to which racist symbols of the past should be expunged depends on their current symbolic meaning. Cecil Rhodes statue is probably not a symbol of ongoing racism and imperialism. What about (again here in the States) the Confederate Flag, which was flown at the South Carolina Capitol Building until last year? Is that benign,too? Of course plenty of white, racist yahoos drive around in pick-up trucks sporting the Confederate flag, and their right to do so is protected by the principle of free speech. But if The University of South Carolina decided to run Confederate flags up all of its flag poles, wouldn't it be reasonable for the the students to protest?

I'll agree that a statue of Cecil Rhodes is not as offensive as the Confederate flag, but some of the principles remain the same. There is a point at which "discussion" becomes mere "fighting words", designed to offend and deserving of a punch in the nose. Where that point lies is a difficult question, and often a personal one.

[kev67]

I had heard there were some complaints about th Washington Redskins name, but Redskins does not seem that derogatory to me. What would that team rename themselves as? They could hardly rename themselves as Washington Native Americans. If they had to rename themselves, they might decide it was safer not to refer to Native Americans at all.

[Ecurb]

I don't think "Redskins" is as mean-spirited as "Nig***", but it's still mildly derogatory, like "Wogs" might be in England. Besides, perhaps native tribes don't want to be turned into mascots for sports teams. I grew up in Chicago, where the major teams are The Cubs, The Bears, the Bulls, and the Blackhawks. I mean, perhaps Blackhawk Indians don't appreciate being compared to Bulls or Cubs.

(Obviously, it's a relatively minor issue.)