3 ms·

Rhodes Must Fall: The Legacy of Cecil Rhodes in the University of Oxford

13 points by rawgabbit 2y ago

rawgabbit 2y ago
>The gold-rich northern territories of Mashonaland and Matabeleland similarly attracted the interest of European settlers. Sceptical of their intentions, the ruler of Matabele, King Lobengula, regularly turned away those who approached him for mining concessions. While he doubted the intention of the miners, King Lobengula trusted missionaries. In 1888, Rhodes and Rudd exploited this situation, convincing the king to sign a treaty of friendship essentially granting the businessmen exclusive mineral rights through John Moffat, a trusted missionary. The treaty, named the Rudd Concession in recognition of Rudd’s role in the agreement, gave the men carte blanche to pursue the economical exploitation of Matabeleland. With the treaty in hand, Rhodes approached the British government for a charter granting a new company, named the British South African Company, the green light not only to mine but also to occupy Matabele and Mashonaland on behalf of and with the consent of the British crown. The government granted the charter in October 1889. With no northern limit, Rhodes hoped to use the gold fields of Mashonaland to fund the settlement of other areas of central Africa such as Nyasaland (present-day Malawi), and to facilitate his ambition of building a railway linking the colonies from Cape to Cairo. Rhodes was not particularly popular among members of the British establishment; but political figures viewed his extension of empire as too successful to challenge.14 Through the British South African Company, Rhodes intended to use private means to exercise imperial expansion. In June 1890, Rhodes and the British South African Company deployed a group of around five hundred white settlers, known as the Pioneer Column, to seize Matabeleland and Mashonaland. The column marched from the southern region of Bechuanaland north into Matabeleland and then onto Mashonaland, where they established a fort named after the British prime minister, Robert Salisbury. The company increased their efforts to colonise the region one year later, when colonialist Harry Johnson took over the administration of Nyasaland as commissioner of the British government and an employee of the British South African Company. The company named the territory Rhodesia in tribute to Rhodes, and ruled it into the early 1920s, when the imperial British government assumed control, until the area became modern Zimbabwe.
roenxi 2y ago
There is an interesting argument for tearing down all statues of powerful people. There are precious few examples where someone powerful is worth idolising - titles like "the Great" are often short for "the Great Number of Needless Deaths". Any king stands, necessarily, in opposition to a fully democratic process. And I think it goes well beyond the English speaking nations that most people got their land by their ancestors invading and conquering some other people. I'd be on board with this if we stick to statues of people who made scientific or philosophical contributions. People who gave their lives to governing or deciding who owns what land should get at most grateful obelisks. Their contributions, good or bad, aren't that worthy in the long run and it is usually ugly work papered over by a veneer of motivated reasoning and nationalism.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  Most great men were not good men, not even by the standards of their day.
  - tbrownaw 2y ago
    So, what direction does the causation point?
- labster 2y ago
  Shall we destroy or take down Michelangelo’s David, then? A statue of a king who waged religious wars against the natives of Palestine, conquering Zion to make his capital city. Seems like a cause du jour, right? The problem with iconoclasm is when to stop. The article deals with this as well — people want the Cecil Rhodes statue gone, but not renaming the building or the scholarship. But the argument for tearing all of something down ends in a bonfire of the vanities, followed by some years of sheepish disavowal of the fire.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > Shall we destroy or take down Michelangelo’s David, then? A statue of a king who waged religious wars against the natives of Palestine, conquering Zion to make his capital city. Seems like a cause du jour, right? Yes. For the reasons you outline.
ein0p 2y ago
A lot of the US East Coast rich and famous have some extremely foul smelling skeletons in their closets: https://www.wbur.org/news/2017/07/31/opium-boston-history https://www.wbur.org/news/2017/07/31/opium-boston-history Something they don’t teach us in school.
qp11 2y ago
They are still doing what Rhodes did today. Its just done differently - Give a loan to the poor African country in dollars. Expect the loan to be repaid in dollars. Where is the poor African country going to get dollars? Here is the (simplified) road map- 1. "Educate" bright Africans on Wall St. 2. Send them over to tell the "uneducated" how to generate dollars by selling national assets - land, mining rights, oil fields, ports, spectrum, bank savings, pension funds, insurance funds etc etc back to Wall St approved firms in the West. 3. Teach them how to use the loans to buy goods and services from Wall St approved firms in the West, instead of building up local manufacturing or agricultural capacity. Goal being dependency not independence. 4. Provide free "training" for local military/intelligence. Make them dependent on Western MIL complex for everything. When locals start organizing and resisting - use them to topple and protect masters assets. 5. Buy and use media to repaint the whole story 6. Use Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class to trap as many important locals in "golden cage" lifestyles so their brains rot focusing on leisure/endless consumption/luxury/celebs/sports/entertainment. This cycle is not sustainable naturally. And keeps breaking down in various ways. The hope is with each iteration more people recognize how to break out of it faster and create better alternatives.

13 points by rawgabbit 2y ago

>The gold-rich northern territories of Mashonaland and Matabeleland similarly attracted the interest of European settlers. Sceptical of their intentions, the ruler of Matabele, King Lobengula, regularly turned away those who approached him for mining concessions. While he doubted the intention of the miners, King Lobengula trusted missionaries. In 1888, Rhodes and Rudd exploited this situation, convincing the king to sign a treaty of friendship essentially granting the businessmen exclusive mineral rights through John Moffat, a trusted missionary. The treaty, named the Rudd Concession in recognition of Rudd’s role in the agreement, gave the men carte blanche to pursue the economical exploitation of Matabeleland. With the treaty in hand, Rhodes approached the British government for a charter granting a new company, named the British South African Company, the green light not only to mine but also to occupy Matabele and Mashonaland on behalf of and with the consent of the British crown. The government granted the charter in October 1889. With no northern limit, Rhodes hoped to use the gold fields of Mashonaland to fund the settlement of other areas of central Africa such as Nyasaland (present-day Malawi), and to facilitate his ambition of building a railway linking the colonies from Cape to Cairo. Rhodes was not particularly popular among members of the British establishment; but political figures viewed his extension of empire as too successful to challenge.14 Through the British South African Company, Rhodes intended to use private means to exercise imperial expansion. In June 1890, Rhodes and the British South African Company deployed a group of around five hundred white settlers, known as the Pioneer Column, to seize Matabeleland and Mashonaland. The column marched from the southern region of Bechuanaland north into Matabeleland and then onto Mashonaland, where they established a fort named after the British prime minister, Robert Salisbury. The company increased their efforts to colonise the region one year later, when colonialist Harry Johnson took over the administration of Nyasaland as commissioner of the British government and an employee of the British South African Company. The company named the territory Rhodesia in tribute to Rhodes, and ruled it into the early 1920s, when the imperial British government assumed control, until the area became modern Zimbabwe.

roenxi 2y ago

There is an interesting argument for tearing down all statues of powerful people. There are precious few examples where someone powerful is worth idolising - titles like "the Great" are often short for "the Great Number of Needless Deaths". Any king stands, necessarily, in opposition to a fully democratic process. And I think it goes well beyond the English speaking nations that most people got their land by their ancestors invading and conquering some other people. I'd be on board with this if we stick to statues of people who made scientific or philosophical contributions. People who gave their lives to governing or deciding who owns what land should get at most grateful obelisks. Their contributions, good or bad, aren't that worthy in the long run and it is usually ugly work papered over by a veneer of motivated reasoning and nationalism.

readthenotes1 2y ago
Most great men were not good men, not even by the standards of their day.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  So, what direction does the causation point?
labster 2y ago
Shall we destroy or take down Michelangelo’s David, then? A statue of a king who waged religious wars against the natives of Palestine, conquering Zion to make his capital city. Seems like a cause du jour, right? The problem with iconoclasm is when to stop. The article deals with this as well — people want the Cecil Rhodes statue gone, but not renaming the building or the scholarship. But the argument for tearing all of something down ends in a bonfire of the vanities, followed by some years of sheepish disavowal of the fire.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > Shall we destroy or take down Michelangelo’s David, then? A statue of a king who waged religious wars against the natives of Palestine, conquering Zion to make his capital city. Seems like a cause du jour, right? Yes. For the reasons you outline.

ein0p 2y ago

A lot of the US East Coast rich and famous have some extremely foul smelling skeletons in their closets: https://www.wbur.org/news/2017/07/31/opium-boston-history https://www.wbur.org/news/2017/07/31/opium-boston-history Something they don’t teach us in school.

qp11 2y ago

They are still doing what Rhodes did today. Its just done differently - Give a loan to the poor African country in dollars. Expect the loan to be repaid in dollars. Where is the poor African country going to get dollars? Here is the (simplified) road map- 1. "Educate" bright Africans on Wall St. 2. Send them over to tell the "uneducated" how to generate dollars by selling national assets - land, mining rights, oil fields, ports, spectrum, bank savings, pension funds, insurance funds etc etc back to Wall St approved firms in the West. 3. Teach them how to use the loans to buy goods and services from Wall St approved firms in the West, instead of building up local manufacturing or agricultural capacity. Goal being dependency not independence. 4. Provide free "training" for local military/intelligence. Make them dependent on Western MIL complex for everything. When locals start organizing and resisting - use them to topple and protect masters assets. 5. Buy and use media to repaint the whole story 6. Use Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class to trap as many important locals in "golden cage" lifestyles so their brains rot focusing on leisure/endless consumption/luxury/celebs/sports/entertainment. This cycle is not sustainable naturally. And keeps breaking down in various ways. The hope is with each iteration more people recognize how to break out of it faster and create better alternatives.