Be Excellent To Each Other

No, clearly not. This is an overwhelmingly white, middle-class forum. That doesn't mean that any discussion of the potential impact of disregarding history vs. celebrating history can't be had because none of us had any personal involvement.

I also don't think I'm arguing for the status quo here. I'd rather the statue were kept in place and significant effort were placed into educating people about the impact of colonial imperialism and his specific input than it were torn down and forgotten about within a year, which is exactly what would happen.

If that statue wasn't there today, absolutely not a single one of us would be having a conversation about Cecil Rhodes and why imperialist attitudes to other nations was a bad thing. It's always better to have the conversation.

This is what I mean. It's a point of academic intrigue to you, but a symbolism of the jingoistic and patriotic whitewashing of real suffering for those whose ancestors were affected, and they want it down! Can you not see that? At the very least pull it down and replace it with a memorial for the victims. You are right that he should not be forgotten, but he also should not be remembered with pride as he is today.


Maybe, maybe not. I was aware of Rhodes long before I even knew there was a statue of him at Oxford.

I think this is what I think

Of course you do - I used to think that way too!

Please try responding to my points which you have ignored. Or if you cannot, at least reflect on them perhaps. Your academic ponderings on the matter < real life people's family history of suffering.

I think it should be torn down, there's surely enough anachronistic bullshit there that one less statue of a massive racist is not going to make much difference.

I don't really buy the argument that it's made us have a worthwhile conversation about British imperialism either, the only conversation has been about the statue and whether to take it down. And by that same logic shouldn't we begin commissioning a 200ft bronze Jimmy Savile to go in Trafalgar square? It'll keep people talking about child abuse.

If there already was one I'd be arguing to keep it because it's a reminder that even celebrated entertainers can secretly be pretty unpleasant fuckers

Well said.

Despite the fact that all the people who'd sufffered child sex abuse would be reminded of their trauma every time they saw it?

Sometimes I don't understand your way of thinking at all.

Don't want to get too involved with this, but find myself in agreement with Cras and Mali on this. No-one is defending Rhodes' record but it's obviously a matter for an entirely different epoch of human history; if we start tearing down statues etc. as based on contemporary standards of NOW, then pretty soon none will be left standing, because you can guarantee someone will be pissed off/outraged about X or Y etc. Once initiated, it's an unstoppable slippery slope IMO, and I for one would like to see our architectural and landmark heritage maintained.

Markg's "let's erect a 200' statue of Jimmy Saville" example isn't valid because, of course, that would be unacceptable by contemporary (i.e. PRESENT DAY) standards now, in stark contract to Rhodes'.

That said, I entirely agree there should be a discussion and awareness of what Rhodes did and how it was wrong, and I'd have no objection to a "disclaimer" informative plaque or whatever to that end, as Cras suggested I think.

After years of it being front page news in every paper and on every website, they'll be traumatised by a statue?

Yes, I'd rather people remembered the bad points of our history, and of those that we once praised as heroes, especially those like Rhodes who did what they did with the full consent and approval of the social mores of the day. I believe we should display our shame openly, and it should feel awkward and uncomfortable, because that's how you make the best attempt at trying to ensure similar things don't happen again.

Statues are for people we celebrate, though. There are no statues of Bin Laden in the US with a plaque saying "got the fucker".

You can't dodge the fact you just used a logical fallacy by lampshading that you used a logical fallacy, chap.

Ah, the old slippery slope logical fallacy. No one is suggesting we burn churches or destroy Stonehenge - the black community just want a statue commemorating and celebrating a genocidal racist to be removed.

I can't believe this is the hill you are all choosing to die on.

There could have course have been statues of him from when he was their best buddy back in the 1980s and he was a big help fighting all them nasty Russians.

o/

: stack overflow :



(Sorry, Grim... did that one the other day)

I ain't dying anywhere man, tis only an opinion (which I admit could be bollocks but hey, no harm in just saying what you think? Ripping stuff down.... where does that end? Human standards/ethics is a constantly evolving arena; things that were perfectly acceptable a mere 20-30 years ago would literally get you locked up now, what's it going to be like in 200 or 300 years? It's all a bit book-burny for my taste, sorry)

You're saying this like we haven't teared down all things from history as we've gone on anyway. Where have all the Roman roads gone? I can't believe they've been tarmacked over! Etc.

This is all nonsense and you know it.

Do they? I've seen a couple of opinion pieces, but that's it. What if there are black people who think it should stay as a reminder to not let it happen again? Is it then a question of who has the most black people?

I can absolutely see the point of view of not wanting to celebrate an vile man, and not wanting to upset those who are direct decendents of those brutalised by his actions. But I very much sit on the side of not wanting to do a single thing that would push down awareness of the fact that we did those awful things. Cecil Rhodes was a product of Britain, and the views and desires of the British ruling classes at that time. Get rid of a statue of Rhodes and you're basically saying 'phew, we don't have to worry about that any more' - whereas the actual point is that Britain as an Imperialist power is the real issue, and I'm all for people actually spending time paying attention to that.

But this isn't what's happening. No one is saying keep the statue and raise awareness of how shitty the British Empire was.

You're making up arguments that suit your position that don't have any basis in what would actually happen. If they shoved a 'RACIST PRICK' sign up next to him, fair enough, but they won't. It'll stay as it is with the same triumphalistic plaque that's already there.

Except that seems to be exactly what their position is.

We'll have to see what happens. I don't hold out much hope, in all honesty.

"The financial implications were not the primary consideration." Sure, ok, whatever. And who exactly would be withholding £100m of gifts from a college because the statue would be taken down? Rhodes supporters?

Meh, a Roman road isn't a memorial, man - but in any case the only times these are tarmacked over or whatever is where physical needs dictate (and nothing else, certainly not that we're offended by the shit the Romans got up to, by our present standards, that we have to cover stuff up)

I know we're getting into silly territory now, but the Egyptians used to bury people alive, rip their eyes and tongues out, burn babies in sacrifice and whatever the shit else, but we don't tear down the pyramids - or even deface the images/writings that directly depict these things. (Ironically this *has* been done in the past, and now we deplore this utter vandalism, just as we do the Puritans of Cromwell doing the same in the UK etc. etc. You know, we should be big enough and clever enough, as a collective, to be able to handle and deal with this, without tearing stuff apart that can never be restored).

Hah! "Disclaimer plaque", almost word for word with what we've said here.
Perhaps they read Beex?

Yeah but the pyramids are really old and interesting. An ugly 100 year old statue of a racist is not really any loss in the same sense. I'm pretty sure that Madame Tussauds in Blackpool used to have a Gary Glitter waxwork, I don't think there was any great loss to the nation's heritage when it got melted and turned into Ant and Dec. Like I said earlier, it's a line drawing thing not a binary yes/no.

Rich old white dudes agree with other rich old white dudes. More at 11.

This wouldn't be so annoying if empire celebrators were seen in the same light as holocaust deniers, but they're not. 44% of people in this country think colonialism and the British Empire is something to be proud of.

And that's why I find the opposite approach so annoying. Getting rid of the statue does nothing to address that problem. Putting up signs saying "don't know who this guy is? Let's tell you why he's a fuckwit" do, in some small measure.

So we agree on sentiment but we disagree in methods of resolving this. Fair enough.

A better symbolic gesture would be to remove it entirely and replace with a memorial. I'm sure some old racist white dude statue collector would take it off their hands so Cavey's precious heritage is preserved.

Nah, sorry, either you agree with the principle of ripping down commemorative/memorial stuff relating to people/civilisations who did shitty things according to present-day standards, or you don't. You do, I don't (in the same way I don't believe in book burning either; we're all adults after all). Simples: it's a principle. Quibbling over whether it's "interesting" or not, and/or a mere 100-150 years old instead of 500 years or 2000 year old, is just muddying the waters. You don't get to pick and choose here, that's kinda the point about debates regarding basic principles.



Sorry, I have to ask, are you being deliberately stupid? I really don't think you can draw any comparisons between an entirely transient waxwork that's routinely and intentionally melted down after x months or years anyway, as housed within an indoor waxwork collection, as opposed to something vastly more significant and permanent as a century plus old stone statue or similar?

Sometimes I really think you post stuff like this just to argue for the sake of it. At least, I hope that's what you're doing?

Walked past the building just now. They've got this notice up on the window.
The joy of the High is that it's an education in architecture on one street. Personally, I find this building a bit dull and not adding much to the street. Will have to check my Pevsner when I get home for the expert view.

Why does it have to be that way? Why are you struggling to understand that this is a nuanced debate and we're not dealing in absolutes?

And why is it that white men get to decide what does and doesn't stay against the wishes of the oppressed?

Oh come off it Myp. I fucking *abhor* racism, there's no-one more "anti" any form of racist propaganda (passive or otherwise, intended or not), but we're debating a point of principle here.

I've already said put an informative, qualifying plaque and any other appropriate information, and in that way I'd argue these things become far more powerful, symbolic and poignant than if they're just ripped out.

I've already said all these things, you know where I'm coming from on this, so y'know mentioning me in the same sentence as "rich WHITE dudes" (racial context)...? No need, man, especially since, as you know, I am myself from immigrant refugee stock and as I say, cannot stand shite like that.

Nuff said I think.

Please stop going on about "white men", Myp. I love you and I agree with you, but it's coming across as horrific "holier than thou" shit.

Sorry, but man, and I say that with a heavy heart Myp (not the bit about loving you obv ).
Shit, this is *us*, remember?

I am just as complicit in systemic and systematic racism as all other white people; I benefit from all the same privileges as other men. I am no better than anyone else in that respect. In fact I am embarrassed and ashamed by how much I have benefited. I do not think of myself as holier than anyone. However as society stands people are much more likely to listen to white men, so I feel it is important to amplify the voices of the oppressed. This is not me saying what I think should be done - it's me deferring to those who are affected by it.

And I know that your feelings will be hurt by having to acknowledge your privilege on this matter (mine certainly were when I realised what we were complicit in), but I still believe that fighting oppression is more important than saving white people's feelings. As much as I love and respect you all.

People think you're calling them racists, Myp, and that makes them sad.

Me, clicking into this thread

Feex.

Uhuh, if I ever do a "Cavey's Greatest Hits" compilation of posts, Doc's *so* got the "Illustrated By" gig.

Jesus, that's so far from what's irritating it's untrue. You really do sound like you're looking down on the poor ignorant unenlightened.

This caused me to look at your post count - you have way less posts than I thought you would.

Like, way less. Huh.

The thing is though, it's a statue, it can be moved and put into a museum (or private collection as someone else said) so it can be put in to context, and people can learn all about it.

It does sound like they are doing a half way house, talking away the celebratory plaque. Putting a new one up in it's place etc.

But I don't understand why they would lose out on donations and gifts if the statue is removed, unless it's his direct descendants or estate or what not, who uses the existence of a statue to decide if a gift is going to be made or not?

I never knew that all white men from history were bad people. This thread has taught me loads. I'm going to have to rethink everything I've ever thought about anything ever.

I do not think anyone here is being overtly racist or believes in white supremacy, but we all are inherently racist to some extent and can perform racist acts without intending to (me included!) So much of it is microaggressions and it is invisible to most of us because we have not experienced it as white people. We do not do it intentionally, but it still can have a huge impact on the oppressed.

Some good stuff here about invisible privilege: https://www.davidclements.me/2015/10/29 ... o-have-it/

Also please read the article I linked to which is written from a person of colour's perspective: http://mediadiversified.org/2016/01/29/ ... -that-bad/

By dismissing this and saying "ah but actually I think this is a better idea" you are invalidating their viewpoint, and that is the problem.

Well it's like I say mate, quantity not quality. (yes, I did mean it that way round)

Dunno; I've been around since 2004 at WoS (2002 on FF, that's 14 years now??) so I suppose people think I'm part of the furniture.

I've not read any of that because I'm about to leave the office, but does that mean they can't be wrong?

They could be, but that's not for us as white people to say. I would need to hear an opposing viewpoint from black people and I've not seen anything like that (just other articles that agree with this).

Then as I said previously - what's the point in having this discussion? If you won't accept that anyone who isn't directly descended from an oppressed South African is capable of having an opinion, what's the point? Note that I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm just saying is that if the only possible route of discussion is to point to an article from a black person and saying 'this is his opinion, therefore this is the only valid opinion' then why bother?
I want to hear arguments, I want discussion. i don't want this to be an echo chamber, from either side. We don't have someone on this forum ( I don't think) who comes from the environment created by the imperialist history of South Africa - so let's talk about it. Let's not pretend that we can't have a conversation because none of us are the guy that wrote the blog article you link to.