h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Probably a little bit of a hysterically put question but I've had an interesting email from my old Alma Mater - that is Oriel College Oxford this morning that has me thinking.

Their favourite son when I was there and ever before (at least since 1900ish anyway) was one Cecil Rhodes who was 19th century british colonialist - Rhodesia was named after him, founder of de Beers diamond company etc. A known white/anglo saxon supremacist.

I always felt a little uncomfortable that they seemed to celebrate such a man as they did and they are now getting increasingly called up on this. To the extent that they have released this statement.
http://www.oriel.ox.ac.uk/content/statement-oriel-college-about-issues-raised-rhodes-must-fall-oxford-petition

I wonder about all this a little bit to be honest. Rhodes' estate still funds many Rhodes scholars, who in my time (early 90s) were often (if not all...) people from abroad and of non-white background. Something that he would likely be spinning in his grave at. That's good enough for me.

Looking back at historical figure with our own current world views is a bit of a mistake I think. Whilst Rhodes is a fairly odious character, I rather seriously doubt he was out of step with other contemporaries - there are worse example of colonialists from the British past- the Duke of Wellington's brother for one. Winston Churchill himself had some rather interesting views on India and fought in a famous colonial (massacre) battle in Sudan...

Or am I wrong, should we expunge such figures from memorials and where do we stop?

We have a statue of Richard the Lionheart outside parliament. It doesn't take much digging into his history to find that he was a genocidal maniac and what with the current climate in the middle east - do we really want a statue of a crusader outside our seat of government?

Interestingly (five stars for my observational powers) - despite studying there for four years I never even noticed that the Rhodes building in Oriel had a statue of him until now.

No! My reasoning is -
Its all very well feeling embarrassed/guilty about our forebears but they should not be forgotten.

Every civilization (or ethnic group) throughout history has had its ruthless genocidal maniac and its bound to happen as the sin of ruthless despotism is not confined to race.

Its a matter of time Caligula has become more a figure of ridicule now despite his crimes. Homo Sapiens "allegedly" wiped out the Neanderthal who knows the truth of that?

Institutions are not exempt the damage done in the name of religion has been equally reprehensible and ongoing for from the beginning of history, some would argue its still going on now.

If we forget we are condemned to commit the crimes again and again. No never expunge any record of our past or we are doomed to repeat the crimes of the past.

I couldn't have put it better myself, Bob.

I'm not too thrilled about Napoleon, and yet the Napoleonic Code helped loosen the restrictions under which Jews had been living for many centuries.

Napoleon's legacy is very complex, very much not the evil dictator/conqueror he is painted as by the victor's propaganda ever since.

I think every generation and every society makes a kind of collective decision about who they want to revere with statues. Many Russians, for instance, genuinely adored Stalin and saw him as the country's saviour during the "Great Patriotic War" (which, at least to some extent, he probably was - along with a lot of other nastier things, of course). Another generation said "hold on, is this the type of man we want to hold up as a hero?" They decided he wasn't, and tore down the statues. It is a process that happens all through history, all over the world.

I don't think it's about expunging from memory - that would be removing him from historical records, airbrushing photographs, the whole 1984 bit - it's just a change in fashions with regard to who society thinks we should idolise.

I'm not sure we should idolize *anyone.* Certainly not most of the people we see on celeb magazines at the supermarket checkout counter . how many times are they going to announce that Jen Aniston is pregnant, only to have nothing happen. She should be the mother of eight by now, given how many times the magazines have trumpeted the news that she was "expecting." The evil Kardashians are always in some kind of crisis, but nothing ever changes. They always return tn the magazine covers the next issue as if no crisis can ever affect them.