While true, his views on race, imperialism and how much black lives mattered were not middle of the road even in his own time. He came under frequent criticism for his attitudes to Africans. E.g.:
Henry Labouchere, one of Rhodes’ fiercest critics (and an raging anti-semite to boot) wrote “Brown Man’s Burden” in response to Kipling’s poem and it shows quite a different take on Imperialism:
Rhodes morals were **not **those of his contemporaries. Many would have agreed that “Whites” were to superior to "Blacks, sure - but very few murdered them wholesale to steal their land.
Anyhow, I think this has been highly educational for all involved:
Why did Rhodes get a statue put up? Because he was extremely rich.
Why is the statue staying up? Because the people who want it to stay up are extremely rich.
You might have thought this was a debate about free speech, safe spaces, contemporary vs current morality or the value and meaning of historic art. It was none of those things. Any ancillary questions which have been raised on those issues remain unsettled. It was a competition to see who had the most money, pure and simple. That this reflects badly on Oriel, who have pretensions towards being part of the Academy, is less important than the money.
Put the statue in a museum. Problem solved. Public memorials should be for honoring people our society wants to honor. If who we want to honor changes, we can change the memorials without forgetting history.
Yeah. I think it’s important that we don’t pretend Oriel never took shitload of cash from a mass-murdering racist without so much as blinking, but there’s also no need to give a mass-murdering racist pride of place in the institution just because he gave it a shitload of cash.
That said, the problem has been solved by the simple expedient of counting the money. But your suggestion is good too.
America was build on the efforts of mass murdering rascists, who took other peoples land and called it Manifest Destiny.
Pretty much whenever the Native American interests clashed with the interests of money, money won out.
Silly labels can be widely placed with 20/20 hindsight. Clearly enough people did not find Rhodes far enough beyond the civilized pale as to rule out putting up statues to him at the time. I don’t give a shit about the money but I am against removing historical statues due to modern revisionist politics - as always probably with some exceptions. I’m ultimately pragmatic…
Nitpick: you’ve got the wrong Roosevelt on Rushmore.
More substantially I agree with Malden Capell. The key point is why he is being honored. If you made a list of the accomplishments that put FDR in the history books, It would be his leadership of the US during WW2 and the depression. His treatment of the Japanese Americans, while tragic, would be a side note. If Roosevelt hadn’t interred the Japanese Americans his fame would not be affected a single bit. By putting a monument to him up on the Mall (not Rushmore) , we are honoring his primary accomplishments which are still viewed favorably, even if he has some acts that stains his character. Similarly with the examples of Washington, Shakespeare, Churchill and Gandhi. The criticism against them is secondary to their main contribution to history.
With Rhodes, his primary contribution to history was his exploitation of South Africa. Without that part of his legacy he would be a nobody. Therefor it is difficult to honor him without in effect honoring his primary accomplishments which are not worthy of honor.
The idea that not keeping statues of morally questionable people on public display is some kind of historical cleansing, is being echoed right now in Georgia (the U.S. one, for you furriners).
*"Benton said there are two sides to that story as well. The Klan “was not so much a racist thing but a vigilante thing to keep law and order,” he said.
“It made a lot of people straighten up,” he said. “I’m not saying what they did was right. It’s just the way things were.”"*
I think in their own countries, Africans should be able to remove or put up whatever statue they want. If we’re talking about Oxford in England, they can call the statue a part of history and leave it up.
And just for fun, I also think that Confederate statues in the US should all be removed from public lands, even if the local state or county wants them up. And both of these opinions are not contradictory to each other
I think that in their own country, English people should be able to remove put up whatever statue they want. Has someone proposed that the decision be made by Africans? I must have missed that.
At least one of the leaders of the movement among the student body is an African student. But he’s attending Oxford, so I think he has as much say as anyone.
