Cecil Rhodes, Oxford, and victimhood

I’ve been following the Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford debacle with morbid curiosity for a while now.

For those of you who are not aware of it, a group of students are lobbying Oriel College of Oxford University to remove a statue it has of Cecil Rhodes, the Victorian business magnate who played a very prominent role in the British Empire’s colonial expansion in Africa. Rhodes was an alumnus of Oriel, and bequeathed the enormous sum of £100,000 (more than £36,000,000 by today’s standards) to Oxford, part of which was used to fund the Rhodes scholarships, which have subsequently allowed thousands of people from all over the world to attend Oxford University. Indeed, the main orchestrator of the Rhodes Must Fall campaign has been accused of hypocrisy, because he himself has a scholarship funded by Rhodes’s money. It should be noted that Rhodes himself expressly stated that consideration for one of his scholarships should not depend in any way on the colour of one’s skin.

The flip-side of the argument, though, is that some students are claiming that having to see his statue on a daily basis is highly offensive, even traumatic, to them, and that it typifies the institutionalised racism that still underpins the Western world. They claim that the presence of Rhodes’s statue makes victims of non-Caucasian students.

So what is going on here? Is there a genuine point to be made about inherited damage from previous generations? Or is the cult of victimhood being used as an excuse to censor history? And why Rhodes in particular? Few would disagree with the fact that Rhodes was a great man, which is a very different thing from being a good man – but is he the worst that history has to offer? Should memorials to other controversial figures be removed as well?

Any thoughts? (I also found this piece to sum up many of my feelings about the issues: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...ust-fall/17762)

Difficult to respond to this post without discussing politics.

I was hoping more for a discussion of the concept of victimhood, particularly with regard to the idea of inherited cultural tensions and the extent to which memorialising can be problematic. To what extent are we shaped by our past, and to what extent should we celebrate our past if it conflicts with the past experiences of other people? Just how sacred are our sacred cows?

I hope that won't stray into the realms of contemporary politics, but I leave it to the mods to decide if the discussion crosses any lines that shouldn't be crossed. I think discussion historical politics is allowed? If I'm wrong, I'm sorry!

I saw this news item in our paper the other day. I have no idea about the politics behind it if any, and I thought it was perfectly idiotic of the Oxford authorities to take it seriously. What are they planning to do - get rid of the statue but continue to use the 'tainted' money? And that guy who has a Rhodes scholarship - why doesn't he give up the scholarship instead, as a form of protest? In India we are surrounded by the relics and legacies of our colonial past. I studied in a school founded by Sir Henry Lawrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Montgomery_Lawrence , and it would've been a fine thing if we had gone about picketing for the removal of his statue because he was a 'colonist' instead of appreciating the fact that we now had a nice school to study in.

I can understand why the statues of Stalin in Russia were gleefully razed to the ground. And I can understand why the countries that were once called Rhodesia now have different names, but to protest against a statue of Rhodes while continuing to take his scholarship money seems unbelievably hypocritical to me.

As Cecil Rhodes is now quite an historical figure, and the statue has been there a long time already, I do not think it should be removed. Likewise, although I do not really like the statues of the Victorian generals in Trafalgar Square, I do not think they should be removed either. OTOH, I disapproved when a statue was erected of Bomber Harris in 1992. I do not think he should have been honoured that way, especially when the results of his decisions were still within living memory.

I must admit I felt irked by the leader of the Rhodes Must Fall campaign. I read that he argued that the French flag should be banned, I suppose for bad things the French did to people of African descent decades, if not centuries ago.

Personally I don't think anybody can be a victim of a statue. (except those scary ones on Dr Who.)

The symbolism is whatever you make it. Students from former colonies can look at the statue and celebrate it as a symbol of a past that has been swept away if they wish.

History should be reinterpreted for each age of course, but if we deny facts or discount the interpretations of a previous age, we are history deniers, and lose the lessons of history. I felt a bit uneasy when those Stalin statues were broken up for that reason. (Though that action is now history too.)

Trevor Phillips, a former Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, wrote a very interesting letter to The Times today, attacking the campaign as 'simultaneously witless, wrongheaded and reprehensible'. He made the point that no one has called for Auschwitz to be demolished - the continued existence of it does not celebrate it, of course, but to efface it from history runs the risk of allowing Auschwitz to be repeated in some new time and place.

As for the student running the campaign, he does come across as something of an unpleasant crank with a lot of axes to grind. But I'm more interested in the concept than in the individual.

That being said, if someone annouced that they wanted to put up a statue of Hitler there would be an outcry. But then there are plenty of statues of evil gits like Stalin and Lenin all over the world, including in some countries that were enemies of the USSR. So if the staute is already standing, and not merely a proposed one, does that make a difference?

I'd like to propose a statue of people breaking up a statue of Stalin.

Each statue is as much a record of the attitudes of the time they were erected, as they are a tribute to the person. So Hitler has no chance and Bomber Harris had to wait 60 years.

Well now it depends. Remember the Americans on arrival in Baghdad pulled down a statue of Saddam. Dozens of statues to Stalin have been knocked down. There are a few in the Highlands I'd like to demolish. I guess it partly depends on the nature of the statue, why it was erected and where it is. It's no skin off my nose if the particular pile is reduced to a fine dust. I don't buy the comparison to the extermination camp. There are some angry folk and there are some defensive folk. And there are destructive folk. Maybe they can build a privy around it.

I have never understood why anyone, apart from students themselves, should take student opinions seriously. Being at the the early stages of life's learning curve, they obviously have an inexperienced view of the world.
If any of them are discountenanced by a statue, they should absent themselves from it by leaving the scene. Statues are an historic reminder of the past whether we agree with person depicted or not and, except in extreme situations, should remain intact.
One of my favourite statues is that of England's greatest parliamentarian, Oliver Cromwell, that occupies a prominent place in front of the parliament he had to close down by armed force in order that it was restored to its original purpose.

While I'm generally on the other side of the political spectrum as Emil, I must agree with him here in that I have little use for Leftist Extremism and the New Political Correctness that has reared its head on Universities and Colleges here as well. There have been any number of instances over the past year or so... for example, the NASA scientish shamed for wearing the hula-girl shirt or the Nobel Laureate shamed for a stupid off-the-cuff remark:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...rced-to-resign

http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2...nstead-rosetta

There are any number of articles on the "coddling" of students... protecting them from every possible imagined trauma or offence...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...n-mind/399356/

... to such a point that a number of comedians from very different backgrounds have publicly stated that student audiences are so sensitive that they can no longer tell the least off-color joke.

Personally, I share this guy's POV:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo

Obviously this guy didn't like the sculpture in question... but at least he had a sense of humor about it:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...66_634x337.jpg

Seems to me it's another example of weak people bullying others to acquire power, except now they pretend to be speaking out against bullying and injustice while committing both. To give one example, without being specific, we currently have one poster (Poster A) on this site who, despite actively professing no religious belief himself, flies into an offended rage against religiously-oriented Poster B with the latter's every post, claiming to be defending another religion from defamation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

While I'm generally on the other side of the political spectrum as Emil, I must agree with him here in that I have little use for Leftist Extremism and the New Political Correctness that has reared its head on Universities and Colleges here as well. There have been any number of instances over the past year or so... for example, the NASA scientish shamed for wearing the hula-girl shirt or the Nobel Laureate shamed for a stupid off-the-cuff remark:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...rced-to-resign

http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2...nstead-rosetta

There are any number of articles on the "coddling" of students... protecting them from every possible imagined trauma or offence...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...n-mind/399356/

... to such a point that a number of comedians from very different backgrounds have publicly stated that student audiences are so sensitive that they can no longer tell the least off-color joke.

Personally, I share this guy's POV:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo

Obviously this guy didn't like the sculpture in question... but at least he had a sense of humor about it:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...66_634x337.jpg

---

What if that raising the flag at Iwo Jima statue was Super Heroed ? I hope we could still laugh. The trouble with statues are that they are set in stone, as history moves on they can become a little embarrasing.

Pulling down lumps of stone also soon becomes history.

"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."

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

"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 !:blush2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

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.

Let's leave the defacing of history to ISIS.

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.

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

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?

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.)

"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".)

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.

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.

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.

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.)

Rhodes was pretty abhorrent in every aspect of his career and his character if you go by today's standards, and today's standards are the only ones we really have to go by. I'm no expert on the man but he only donated that money to Oxford scholarships in order to further his dream of an army of Anglo-Saxon supermen who would bring the twin gospel of Christianity and capitalism to the world's inferior benighted masses. His main legacy is not the Rhodes scholarship but the former nation of Rhodesia, a massive stretch of African territory which he conspired with top British statesmen and bankers to exploit of all its gold, to the extent of massacring any of its indigenous inhabitants who happened to take issue with that goal, and which subsequently took the South-African path of assuming a top-down racial hierarchy of white over black, exactly as Rhodes would have wanted.

That said... if I were a student at Oxford I wouldn't care about any darn statue. In fact it is good that history be represented, and as Rhodes is actually a historically significant figure in some respects I believe his statue belongs there.

Rhodes had two countries named after him: Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia, which is now Zambia.