This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jan/14/finding-the-right-place-for-rhodes
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| Finally finding the right place for Cecil Rhodes | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Cecil Rhodes’ Oxford statue daily draws new and irrelevant arguments to its orbit. Chris Patten’s intervention blinds observers with the glare of its misdirection (Nelson Mandela’s “generosity of spirit” towards Rhodes) while attempting a total eclipse of objectors (Patten tells protesters: back free speech or leave Oxford, 14 January). The proposition that Rhodes Must Fall does not demonstrate a failure to participate in an open society or a denial of free speech, just as it has nothing to do with denials of history or the failure to accommodate difficult realities. Removing the statue would not erase historical facts, it merely ceases to celebrate the unpalatable actions of an individual. | Cecil Rhodes’ Oxford statue daily draws new and irrelevant arguments to its orbit. Chris Patten’s intervention blinds observers with the glare of its misdirection (Nelson Mandela’s “generosity of spirit” towards Rhodes) while attempting a total eclipse of objectors (Patten tells protesters: back free speech or leave Oxford, 14 January). The proposition that Rhodes Must Fall does not demonstrate a failure to participate in an open society or a denial of free speech, just as it has nothing to do with denials of history or the failure to accommodate difficult realities. Removing the statue would not erase historical facts, it merely ceases to celebrate the unpalatable actions of an individual. |
| This is an issue of iconography, not history. Monuments have no more right to immortality than the individuals they commemorate; to insist that they do is to consider them sacred. Whether Rhodes should continue to cast a shadow over an Oxford college ought not to be decided on the basis of whether his posthumous philanthropy has redemptive power, or the fact that the judgement of a modern “icon” can be co-opted in his support. And there is no contradiction in removing statues while retaining whatever beneficial bequests remain (scholarships, buildings, etc). It is possible to wrest benefits from the wretched actions of the past, while recognising that the author of those actions is not fit for public veneration.Paul McGilchristLondon Metropolitan University | This is an issue of iconography, not history. Monuments have no more right to immortality than the individuals they commemorate; to insist that they do is to consider them sacred. Whether Rhodes should continue to cast a shadow over an Oxford college ought not to be decided on the basis of whether his posthumous philanthropy has redemptive power, or the fact that the judgement of a modern “icon” can be co-opted in his support. And there is no contradiction in removing statues while retaining whatever beneficial bequests remain (scholarships, buildings, etc). It is possible to wrest benefits from the wretched actions of the past, while recognising that the author of those actions is not fit for public veneration.Paul McGilchristLondon Metropolitan University |
| • Of course black students should continue to benefit from Rhodes scholarships without qualms: it’s the blood of their ancestors who paid for them (Rhodes scholars say grant ‘does not buy our silence’, 13 January). I ask, however, Ntokozo Qwabe and the Rhodes Must Fall campaign to keep the (rather dull) statue of Cecil Rhodes – with this alteration. I am a sculptor, and I should like to place the symbolic sculpture of a (bleeding?) black heart on the pediment above him, and link it for ever to the man who exploited them. Every person who enters Oriel College would see this, and remember.Deborah van der BeekChippenham, Wiltshire | • Of course black students should continue to benefit from Rhodes scholarships without qualms: it’s the blood of their ancestors who paid for them (Rhodes scholars say grant ‘does not buy our silence’, 13 January). I ask, however, Ntokozo Qwabe and the Rhodes Must Fall campaign to keep the (rather dull) statue of Cecil Rhodes – with this alteration. I am a sculptor, and I should like to place the symbolic sculpture of a (bleeding?) black heart on the pediment above him, and link it for ever to the man who exploited them. Every person who enters Oriel College would see this, and remember.Deborah van der BeekChippenham, Wiltshire |
| • The debate about whether the Oxford statue of Cecil Rhodes should be moved to some sort of museum of historical undesirables seems to have missed an obvious solution: that the whole of central Oxford and Cambridge should simply be reconfigured as giant museums. It would become easier to contextualise Rhodes within both the long line of robber barons and tycoons who have endowed the two universities, and Oxford’s particularly close links with empire. And the social benefits would be immense. The public would gain proper access to the beautiful buildings and gardens of the currently rather tourist-unfriendly colleges. The self-perpetuating Oxbridge elite – which the protesting students have elected to join – would lose its sway over the UK. Denied the opportunity to provide golden tickets to that elite, the public schools would probably go out of business. And talented students and funding would be distributed more evenly across the rest of Britain’s excellent higher education system. Makes sense to me.Prof Philip MurphyDirector, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London | • The debate about whether the Oxford statue of Cecil Rhodes should be moved to some sort of museum of historical undesirables seems to have missed an obvious solution: that the whole of central Oxford and Cambridge should simply be reconfigured as giant museums. It would become easier to contextualise Rhodes within both the long line of robber barons and tycoons who have endowed the two universities, and Oxford’s particularly close links with empire. And the social benefits would be immense. The public would gain proper access to the beautiful buildings and gardens of the currently rather tourist-unfriendly colleges. The self-perpetuating Oxbridge elite – which the protesting students have elected to join – would lose its sway over the UK. Denied the opportunity to provide golden tickets to that elite, the public schools would probably go out of business. And talented students and funding would be distributed more evenly across the rest of Britain’s excellent higher education system. Makes sense to me.Prof Philip MurphyDirector, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London |
| • Apartheid was introduced more than 40 years after Cecil Rhodes’ death. Neither he nor anyone else in the British ruling establishment favoured it. It was the creation of the National party Afrikaner government of 1948 and led to the expulsion of South Africa from the Commonwealth. Which is not to say that Rhodes is an admirable figure, and I don’t.David HarrisLondon | • Apartheid was introduced more than 40 years after Cecil Rhodes’ death. Neither he nor anyone else in the British ruling establishment favoured it. It was the creation of the National party Afrikaner government of 1948 and led to the expulsion of South Africa from the Commonwealth. Which is not to say that Rhodes is an admirable figure, and I don’t.David HarrisLondon |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |