|
U-Know! Forum » Ban, or discuss? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic View: Flat | Threaded |
sanshee 1080 posts |
Dec 19, 2015, 11:10
|
||
|
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/18/oxford-university-students-cecli-rhodes There was this statement. **Oriel said the college “does not share Cecil Rhodes’s values or condone his racist views or actions”** Well I do believe that most of the planet does not share Cecil Rhodes's values or condone his actions, not just Oriel. IMO we should not air brush history, especially the unpleasant parts, in fact they ought to remain as a reminder of how damned rotten things once were, pricking us into making sure we never do that again. Infact are these students so incensed that they would stop studying in a place I think he helped to fund in the first place? I doubt it. They have every right to consider this man for what he was, but to me their actions reek of something a bot cowardly and a little bit two faced. Would students these days rather be pampered, cosseted, protected? Isn't fierce debate the very thing you sign up for?
|
|||
Sin Agog 2253 posts |
Dec 19, 2015, 11:27
|
||
By most accounts there is a risk at ancient institutions like that of some of the values passed-down being equally atavistic. Oxbridge unis aren't all beacons of light attracting all seekers of wisdom and new horizons etc. Like one of the people in the Up series said, there's a clear 'conveyor belt of power' in which rich kids, from the youngest of ages, know very well they will attend such and such uni before most children are of an age to even know what a university is. So with all that in mind, it seems pretty cool that this newest batch of students are adamant that they don't want to be associated with an imperialist, racist figurehead. It's not necessarily whitewashing history wanting to get rid of this material commemoration of a right wanker. I mean, I know what you mean about it being dangerous hiding the scars, but why should their grandchildren and great-grandchildren have to suffer the stigma of bad decisions they never even made? Basically most of them are saying racism and anti-immigrant rhetoric is bad, which, considering the current cultural climate, is a 'tude to be respected wherever you find it.
|
|||
|
sanshee 1080 posts |
Edited Dec 19, 2015, 12:11
Dec 19, 2015, 11:53
|
||
|
Irony is the Rhodes scholarship ended up allowing *overseas students* (i.e *foreigners*) studying there in the first place. People off all colours and creeds I am sure he considered less than human. I am sure Rhodes did not see that coming, so nice bit of unintended consequences there. However, they will still be 'rich' as you say. As we know the world is ruled by white + rich or any other ethnic background + rich more than is it is merely by *white*. So until the students of Oriel care to become angry about that then maybe they'd have something to get their teeth into. I do not see the desire for it though. And future generations of students ought to be made to face up to that one. EDIT: There are plenty who say this generation ought to apologize or make amends or at least accept guilt for past colonial ventures, even though we weren't there. None of us choose to be born but students at Oxford choose to indulge in an elitist educational institution in part informed by that very thing. Why should they be 'off the hook' in that respect?
|
|||
|
Sin Agog 2253 posts |
Edited Dec 19, 2015, 13:33
Dec 19, 2015, 13:21
|
||
|
sanshee wrote: Irony is the Rhodes scholarship ended up allowing *overseas students* (i.e *foreigners*) studying there in the first place. People off all colours and creeds I am sure he considered less than human. I am sure Rhodes did not see that coming, so nice bit of unintended consequences there. However, they will still be 'rich' as you say. As we know the world is ruled by white + rich or any other ethnic background + rich more than is it is merely by *white*. So until the students of Oriel care to become angry about that then maybe they'd have something to get their teeth into. I do not see the desire for it though. And future generations of students ought to be made to face up to that one. EDIT: There are plenty who say this generation ought to apologize or make amends or at least accept guilt for past colonial ventures, even though we weren't there. None of us choose to be born but students at Oxford choose to indulge in an elitist educational institution in part informed by that very thing. Why should they be 'off the hook' in that respect? To be honest, I've seen selfish credos and fear of the Other sew themselves into the fabric of this country so much over the last ten years that whenever anyone evinces some kind of vaguely right-on kind of beliefs, even if it's in the Liberal out of sight out of mind mould, I find it hard to hate 'em. Especially when it comes from rich youngsters who you might expect much worse from. OK, say I am born into privilege through no fault of my own, which by its very nature tends to foster conservative values (because they actually have something to conserve), that makes it all the more pleasantly surprising when I defy the pattern (at least in this one regard). I agree something should be done to buck the current elite dynamic- I'd recommend scrapping private and grammar schools altogether like in Finland, where the rich want comprehensive schools to be better because their children are going to have to attend them- but I'm not sure what any concerned students themselves can do, other than not go there. In the '60s when all these New Waves started cropping up, most of 'em came about because the children of a generation which slaughtered itself did not want to be suffocated by the resulting stench any longer. I can relate, and Shirley saying I'm gonna smash your old idols, dad, is as good a way of sticking it to your elders as any. I fear that it's all too easy for awed open-minds seeing ol' stone Rhodesy, reading the panegyric plaque, and thinking, "What a guy!". Wanting to raze your parents' misbegotten legacy to the ground has always been an extremely healthy instinct. I do think however that this is part of the millenial generation of new adults' tendency to want to eradicate whole swathes of old thinking and language- especially with regards to "heteronormative ideals" and whatnot. Dunno if that's a good thing. Probably, for the most part. There will be no more Bernard Mannings in this new world order. No casual sexism and racism within polite conversation. You will say someone is from Ghana, not "Africa", and you will call a transgendered women "her" without batting an eye. Cecil Rhodes statues must be gotten rid of, and no discourse on the subject is allowed. Our language and culture has been co-opted by the new Liberals, and while it can be disconcerting for the older generation left behind, especially the militant this is how it is, now deal with it nature of what we're allowed to say to each other, I think it's mostly a sign of progress. I do wonder if blocking off whole avenues of discussion could be harmful, but that's probably just the fear of change talking in me. Things like this inspire me.
|
|||
|
sanshee 1080 posts |
Edited Dec 19, 2015, 13:40
Dec 19, 2015, 13:37
|
||
|
I wonder how many Jews would rather Auschwitz had been knocked down - a fair few maybe. And that would be legitimate. Just as keeping it there as a reminder is too. But 'keeping it' won out. Dow we keep it to gloat? Or do some visit it to gloat? I doubt it. Actually, the fact it is there acts as an uncomfortable reminder to those who try to deny the whole thing ever happened. And we do keep what's left of the colosseum, and buy jokey souvenirs and the like yet look at the horrors of its history. I doubt again many people are campaigning for the return of peasants being mauled to their deaths. Infact, in the instant that became unacceptable the building still remained, decaying only naturally. Aren't we though grateful we still have these pieces of history to look at? Does that mean we want to return to those times? No! Yet we are still drawn to observe their darkness, it is important for us to sort our selves out, emotionally. I feel that if we partake in a campaign of destroying wholesale that which upsets our sensibilities even though we are right to be upset, we are producing future generations of pampered 'cultured imbeciles' void of any real emotional turmoil, which is to quote a cliché 'character building'. And because of that, allows nastiness to foment, unchecked, our abilities to deal with it properly, neutered. There will always be someone out there waiting to do wrong. We have to be ready for it. Their intentions may seem noble to them, but I am afraid are incredibly wrong footed.
|
|||
|
Sin Agog 2253 posts |
Edited Dec 19, 2015, 14:15
Dec 19, 2015, 14:10
|
||
|
If we were talking about the Colosseum I might agree with you, but this is just one statue and a plaque we're talking about, which happens to be situated slap-bang in the middle of an active place of learning. I doubt ditching it will precede a policy of blowing shit up all over the place. Personally I think you could clear up the whole affair by putting another plaque underneath the current one saying, 'P.S HE WAS EVIL. YOURS SINCERELY, OXFORD'. EDIT: Seriously though, isn't there a similar corrective plaque underneath an equally outdated sexist plaque in the House of Commons? I really like the idea of this system. It can be like a reaaaaaaaally drawn-out message board conversation writ large.
|
|||
|
dhajjieboy 913 posts |
Dec 20, 2015, 00:32
|
||
Can't help but wonder how many grave stones of contemporaneous ancesters will also need knocking down too.....
|
|||
|
Sin Agog 2253 posts |
Dec 20, 2015, 00:40
|
||
Sixteen.
|
|||
|
carol27 747 posts |
Dec 20, 2015, 16:48
|
||
|
Sin Agog wrote: If we were talking about the Colosseum I might agree with you, but this is just one statue and a plaque we're talking about, which happens to be situated slap-bang in the middle of an active place of learning. I doubt ditching it will precede a policy of blowing shit up all over the place. Personally I think you could clear up the whole affair by putting another plaque underneath the current one saying, 'P.S HE WAS EVIL. YOURS SINCERELY, OXFORD'. EDIT: Seriously though, isn't there a similar corrective plaque underneath an equally outdated sexist plaque in the House of Commons? I really like the idea of this system. It can be like a reaaaaaaaally drawn-out message board conversation writ large. I agree put another plaque underneath explaining very succinctly what a twat he was. If we expunge history we have nothing to learn from. I'm pleasantly surprised that the students are getting active again. During the 80's/ 90's I was led to believe that they were all Tory voters; of course that is 15 years ago. Jesus!
|
| U-Know! Forum Index |
