Institutional Racism???

[Spunkynuts]

Probably should be in Speakers Corner but I don't have privileges to post there yet!

BBC News today reported that the campaign group 'Rhodes Must Fall' described the decision by Oxford's Oriel College to not remove the Cecil Rhodes statue at the entrance to be 'institutionally racist' - I don't believe it to be so, but am I wrong?

I fully accept that Cecil Rhodes was racist and built a fortune on the back of exploitation - he was not a very nice person who lived in times where large swathes of society held similar views. He left a sizeable donation to the college and they erected a statue in his honour - at the time thinking or caring nothing of how he made his money or behaved towards his fellow man. But should his statue be torn down 120 years later?

My own feelings are, as with any statue standing is they all need a plaque / information board that clarifies our modern understanding of the person - and how they behaved in life and how that behaviour is perceived today. Do we need to pull history down to promote diversity and equality?

For that matter is it necessary to cut historical TV programs that have content that would no longer be accepted today - surely a message at the start highlighting the content / potential to offend.

If we are to erase history - how do we learn from it?

 

[Tom_ed1987]

I'd agree that it's better the statue remain, along with an explanation of why the person is now seen as so divisive, if that is the case.
It's certainly not institutionally racist to not remove it lol.

 

[Caracus2k]

This topic has been done to death here and this thread will therefore be mostly pointless and probably be locked shortly.

As previously pointed out by myself there is massive hypocrisy in the way historical figures are judged based on their ethnicity and in Rhodes case you don't have to go to far from the area he was renowned for being involved in to find a clear example of this.

The Zulu's are (not always so well) remembered for their vicious warmongering and expansionist drive (launched under Shaka) through the south of the African continent which is known as the Mfecane 'The Crushing'

'The Zulu practice was to absorb only the women and young men of a clan or village. They killed the elderly and men of fighting age; the lucky ones escaped.'

It was of course this expansionistic, bloodthirsty warmongering that bought the Zulu's into conflict with another, at the time, colonialist force, The British Empire, around the time of the Battle of Rourke's drift .

Fast forward to today and we have the wonderful 'Rainbow nation' that is South Africa complete with legitimised open state racism against whites and we find a fairly recently re dedicated airport named in honour of the bloodthirsty murdering tyrant that was Shaka....

King Shaka International Airport so dedicated in 2010...........


An internet search for 'controversy king shaka zulu airport' on a popular internet search engine brings up a front page filled with stories concerned not with whether it was a good idea, in modern times, to name an international airport after a murdering, expansionistic warlord but instead a page filled with articles about how people were annoyed that a recently erected statue to said murdering tyrant didn't show him armed to the teeth with the very weapons used by his troops to kill what may have been 1 - 2 million of their fellow 'black' Africans


Of course the good old BBC described Shaka rather euphemistically as being a 'Warrior King' where as they describe a white man (who was arguably far less destructive in his time), Cecil Rhodes as being an 'imperialist'

 

[jsmoke]

But was he a racist or was he just hyper nationalist?

 

[Graetzbridge]

Leave it - it's history.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Move it somewhere more appropriate, like a museum.

 

[cheesyboy]

If we are to erase history - how do we learn from it?

We erase history by having the honour of statues in prestigious surrounds giving the impression that we celebrate awful people.

History is constantly evolving. Moving the statue somewhere less celebratory and giving context to both its original mounting and the reason for its later move is not erasure: It's enlightenment.

 

[jsmoke]

People can't work out or understand why so many white European's, mostly men, had so much self belief and authority, almost a sacred rite. The Zulus could be brutal and so could the British, hypocrisy is rife on all sides yet the white man always seemed to dominate, well they did over a certain time scale.

So why was that, where did this God like level of self belief come from and why was it mostly found in European countries especially Britain. That's the true question, not if Cecil Rhodes was a saint or sinner but why he had the power and authority to be able to do what he did.

That's a large historical study beginning at the start of civilisation. What made the British Empire so powerful and why they seemingly did the things they did without guilt or remorse.

A lot stems from Christianity and Evolution teachings but ultimately it all stems from a religious like faith based belief system.

 

[Feek]

Probably should be in Speakers Corner but I don't have privileges to post there yet!

Yes, it's an SC thread. Feel free to post it when you have access there.

This topic has been done to death here and this thread will therefore be mostly pointless and probably be locked shortly.

And yes, that's why it's being locked now.