|
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.
|
