Louise Ferreira
Louise Ferreira

We can no longer deny that #RhodesMustFall

A good seven or eight years ago, when I was an undergraduate at the University of Cape Town, students arrived on campus one morning to find that the statue of Cecil John Rhodes had been defaced with red spray paint.

The message read, “Fuck your dream of empire”.

I don’t really recall what my reaction was at the time. I probably thought it was wrong to vandalise university property. But I was what might sneeringly be called a “white liberal”: a mostly open-minded, well-intentioned kid who was nevertheless ignorant of political nuance. I thought the statue should be preserved as part of the university’s history.

Nearly a decade later, I believe that Rhodes must fall.

I am no longer comfortable with my alma mater honouring someone who was a colonialist and an imperialist, and proud to be one. Rhodes wrote in his will that the British are “the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings … ”.

He was instrumental to the Jameson Raid (which led to his resignation as prime minister), one of the contributing factors that led to the South African War (Anglo-Boer War).

As with any controversy, there are arguments against the removal of the statue. I will try to address a few of them here.

Gallo

Gallo

‘Removing the statue will be erasing history’
There is an important distinction between acknowledging historical facts and glorifying the legacy of an oppressor. In a statement issued by UCT Vice-Chancellor Max Price, he explains that it is the “particular location and setting of the Rhodes statue that is the problem”: “It is because the brooding presence of Cecil John Rhodes is located in pride of place, at the focal point of the campus, that it acquires the connotations of founder, hero, patron, role model, and embodiment of UCT’s heritage.”

No statue of Hendrik Verwoerd would remain in such a prominent position on any campus. It is for the same reason that streets are renamed; not because history must be erased but because naming a street after someone denotes honour.

‘It’s just a symbol’
This is a remarkably disingenuous argument. Symbols are considered symbols precisely because they carry meaning. With the advent of democracy we changed the national flag because the old one was a symbol of apartheid South Africa, not because Parliament’s interior decorator decided it was time to spruce things up. When Afrikaans singer Steve Hofmeyr performed “Die Stem” last year, the people who defended his right to do so were largely the same ones who didn’t want Julius Malema singing “Dubul’ iBhunu”.

‘He donated land and money to the university’
How wonderful that educational opportunities could come from this man’s avarice, and that women are now also able to benefit. It is fitting that his legacy could be turned around to help educate thousands of students.

‘Morality was different then’
This argument surprised me: The idea that historical figures should not be judged because their actions were acceptable by the standards of their time. The first problem here is that all manner of sins — like slavery — can be justified by this logic. The second is that even in his own time, Rhodes was not universally liked or admired.

On his death in 1902, The Guardian published a scathing obituary of Rhodes: “[The] spectacle of anarchy, ruin and hatred that filled South Africa at the time of his death offers a tragic warning to the practitioners of narrowly materialistic statecraft. … [The] judgement of history will, we fear, be that he did more than any Englishman of his time to lower the reputation and to impair the strength and compromise the future of the Empire.”

‘We should focus on forgiveness/reconciliation/engagement’
This argument is embodied in a statement by the DA, which says that UCT students “should emulate Mandela’s values”. Invoking the name of Mandela in this way dismisses legitimate anger, makes yet another assumption about “what Madiba would have done” (“Mandela did not support the tearing down of monuments”) and quashes debate by insisting that there is only one right approach. Respecting Madiba’s legacy should include the effective use of anger — although I agree that human faeces should not be involved.

Rhodes is not the only problematic symbol on campus. Jameson Hall, after all, is named after one Leander Starr of the Jameson Raid. Even the student nickname, Ikeys, began as an anti-Semitic slur (used by students at Stellenbosch University). The fact that it is mainly the statue evoking students’ ire shows exactly how much antipathy exists towards Rhodes.

Let us respect the changing of the tide, and remove the old man.

Tags: , , ,

  • Aesthetics of power and questioning what a ‘good’ university is
  • News media should decolonise
  • #FeesMustFall is unravelling SA’s founding pact
  • The princess waitress and the dark forces
    • Stuart Lewis

      YES! Well said.

    • Pan Jandrum

      So, Louisa, what are your thoughts on Shaka Airport and his mega-statue in Durban?

    • divvie

      Don’t you just love the scholarly, thoughtful, academically dignified method of showing disapproval of the statue?

    • Too Black

      Well said… It even surprises me that the same people who continuously say that black people dwell in the past are the ones that want to preserve the past… If we are to all move forward then we should not all cling into the past.

    • Gazzumped

      What I really find incredible about this whole episode is how people describe Cecil Rhodes as a colonialist, imperialist, racist etc. Yes, he was those things BUT in the context of the time when he lived, he was highly regarded and well thought of to be building the Empire and annexing lands for Queen and country. To put historical figures and their actions and attitudes into today’s context is extremely foolish. We don’t go around annexing countries and people now, nor is there a guillotine in the Place de la Concorde. People have evolved and will continue to do so. History will look critically at OUR norms and attitudes. Rhodes is not alive now. Were he to be, he would find his attitudes unacceptable in today’s climate. Leave his statue be!

    • Raymond

      what are we going to do about the crimes against humanity committed against black people by Shaka ? Remove his statues also ?

    • RSA.MommaCyndi

      Seven out of eleven articles are on the Rhodes statue, so it is obviously of major significance to all people who don’t live in Gauteng. To be honest, it is beyond me why the statue is there. The apartheid government had no love for Rhodes either. Other than the continued financial support, I can’t think of how the statue has survived.

    • mabruno

      Taking into consideration historical context of course does not justify slavery, as Mrs Ferreira naively writes. However, the fact that George Washington for example was a slave owner doesn’t mean we should remove his face from the one-dollar bill or tear down the Washington Memorial in the US capital. As I said before, as a British imperialist, Rhodes was no more guilty or innocent than his counterparts in colonial Australia, India or Canada. In fact, contrary again to Mrs Ferreira’s interpretation, a Rhodes statue standing on the land he bequeathed to the people of Cape Town is completely different from having for example a Verwoerd statue at the same site.

    • http://www.voodoohealingspells.com Prophet Joshua

      we also need a new name for south africa, for south africa is not a name maybe it should be called bafana bafana

    • Musa Baloyi

      Would it be news to you if I told you black men were not considered “civilised” in his time?

    • Dr Who

      Much ado over a statue. It belongs to an era which although cannot be forgotten must be put in proper context. Why has it taken so long to remove? Best it be re-located elsewhere on campus where it doesn’t enjoy pride of place.

    • Stu

      You said it. The Nationalist government had plenty of reason to remove anything related to Rhodes, but they didn’t. So?

    • dandan.boshoff

      The world has changed and history is no longer written by the victors. It is very comfortable looking at someone elses mistake in hindsight, especially hidsight of over a century ago.

      The saying ‘out of sight, out of mind’ means that, to an extent, we are intentionally erasing history in a soft way.

      I will propose that the spark that gave existence to the University of the Cape Town is directly attributable to Cecil Rhodes. Without whom it is likely that a university would have eventually existed but in significantly less splendour, reduced quality, and a much later opening date.

      For some the statue represents fear and hatred, for others it is a mild discomfort. Those that carry love and respect for their fellows give no power to an inert object.

      The statue represents our past, not us today. We must not put it aside and risk repeating the mistakes of the past.

    • Mark Ryan Schulz

      Even the Boers let Rhodes stand, despite a large section of their population wanting to dynamite his memorial site. At least they understood the power of reconcilliation, after having been through the Boer war and a bitter ‘independence struggle.’

      My great-great-great grandfather was a ‘stam-ouer’ for what that’s worth these days. His son in law,my great-great grandfather was dragged from his farm by the British and made to stand for hours in the hot Orange Free State sun to be interrogated on the mere suspicion that he was friendly to the Afrikaners. He was actually a German national serving as a missionary at the time. While he was sweating it out, the British were busy killing his cattle for a nice lamb dinner for the soldiers stationed at the camp. Later they released him, but retained the use of a church he had helped build, with his own hands, as a stable for their officiers’ horses. On the other side of the family, not related at the time, a man was running a trading post in the Transvaal. The British army ransacked it and took what would, today, be worth tens of thousands of rands worth of booze and proceeded to get drunk on it after the fall of that country.

      Now, all this etherial nonsense of ‘Rhodes’ hurting people is just that, nonsense. People always want someone to blame for their problems apart from themselves. Should I blame Stalin for chasing a large part of my family out of Pommerania after world war 2, preventing their return there for me being stuck in SA with no German passport and under the thumb of the ANC? Should I blame Hitler because he started the war that led to that? Should I blame Chairman Mao or Kim Il Sung or Stalin for the fact that a relative of mine was shot point-blank in the head by a Chinese officer during the Korean war?

      You know, people should just get on with their lives and get over the past, and I don’t say that glibly, but as a person whose family has suffered as the direct result of the actions of powerful men, including Rhodes. Throwing your crap around, or tearing down an old statue isn’t going to change a damn thing.

    • Philip Machanick

      Mark Twain summarized it well: “I admire him, I frankly confess it; and when his time comes I shall buy a piece of the rope for a keepsake.”

    • Philip Machanick

      Part of his notion of fair play and decency was increasing the qualifications for the franchise to keep black voters out. His idea of a “loafer” was someone who didn’t want to work for a pittance on the mines…

      Also look up the Glen Grey Act of 1994. This was the start of the land dispossession that culminated in the 1913 Land Act, paving the way for full-blown apartheid.

      There is one good thing about keeping Rhodes in the public eye: the mythology of the good he did can be unmasked. He was a self-serving wealth accumulator who set the scene for extremely uneven development of South Africa in which the majority were denied access to education of a reasonable standard, the economy was distorted to create an artificial pool of cheap labour for the mines and race-based economics and hence politics became the norm.

      The one big positive about him was he left a lot of money to education. That a lot more people could emulate. For the rest, seeing him as some sort of hero requires rewriting a lot of history.

    • Gazzo

      One argument that Louisa does not address is whether or not it’s right for a certain group to dictate terms to the rest of the university. A Quick perusal of the ‘Have your say’ boards erected at the base of the statue reveals that:

      1. Contrary to what seems to be the dominant narrative in the media, a large proportion of UCT students do NOT favour removal of the statue

      2. Support for the statue’s retention is not restricted to white students

      3. The stance taken by UCTs SRC (demanding removal of the statue and refusal to participate in discussions of the issue, without engaging in any consultation with the student body) has angered many students, who feel disenfranchised

      4. There are several comments suggesting that ‘RhodesMustFall’ movement are not interested in engaging with others, nor of participating in any sort of democratic process to decide the fate of the statue, which is a cause of resentment.

      5. There is, unfortunately, a fair amount of vile racist abuse on both sides

      Clearly there’s a need for robust debate on this issue. Unfortunately the leaders of RhodesMustFall don’t seem to want one (all they are interested in discussing is a date when the statue will be removed).

    • Nicholas

      Lets be clear he was annexing land for himself, he did not have a mandate to take Zimbabwe and Zambia, he simply did it as it suited him and then had it ratified. He is classic example of greed and megalomania that dominates the word today taking resources into the hands of the few. Keep the statue in some arbitrary place where no one sees it

    • Peter

      Yeah, he only murdered a mere 2 million people, but that really doesnt matter does it, as it was done for his ZULU cause !Its in history he did it?

    • Peter Townshend

      It seems strange that we all have a different yardstick of what is acceptable. Of what we accept as tolerant behaviour and who we should place on a plinth and why. I am sure that all of you who are supporting the existence of the statue, due to the man’s stature of the time and his historical relevance, would not for a second offer the same argument to a statue of Hitler, or Stalin, or any other leader whose crimes YOU see as too morally degenerate to warrant glorification. The statue has lost its relevance, its meaning, and the man himself has lost his stature, and rightly so. It is time for the megalomaniac to be removed – not form history – but from any place that places him a position where anyone can look up to him with pride.

    • RSA.MommaCyndi

      Bless my tribe, they are a practical people. Rhodes is a very dead skelem but his money isn’t. Never look a gift horse in the mouth. If he is giving scholarships, a slab of cold stone is the least of our worries. We also don’t like change or hiding history.

    • unhedged lib

      Now replace the word “Cecil Rhodes” with Churches and you have the exact same argument. Churches in South Africa and indeed the rest of Africa were at the forefront of Colonialism. Whether they be Dutch reformed, Anglican, Catholic, Calvinist, methodist, all could not be separated from Afrikaner and British politics and all agreed on the need to dominate the “savage”, “heathen” native.Churches were even used as tool to propagate the apartheid regime.They sought to fool,trick and force natives to accept their god in order to make them docile. Should we burn down churches since they are symbols of colonialism and oppression? Or has the social good thats been done over the years, emiliorate the image of the churches? if yes to the latter then why not levy the same logic to Cecil?

      How about Fort Hare University? Fort Hare was a british fort established by settlers where wars between themselves and them xhosas were fought, why are you not up in arms complaining about the name of this institution? By your logic its a symbol of colonialism so it should be changed right?

      You are hypocritical, john rhodes is low hanging fruit for political agents to take advantage of for support. Its a playground for the EFF,ANC to gain support at strong institution. If that were not the case you would be protesting about the real reason there is no transformation in these institutions and that boils down to the education system. The majority of black kids fail hard subjects and go on to drop out and fall out of Masters and Phd programmes. Where is the pool of black , experienced academics and intellectuals that can lead such institutions? They are few and far inbetween. Having been a victim of discrimination in the corporate cape, i ask where are the policies that force institutions to train black folk into leadership positions and create a skills capacitation? they dont exist because your government wants to pretend that policies such as AA, are enough to solve the issue. Yet they don’t realise that nowhere in there world have state sponsored policies of discrimination worked, simply because they focus on equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunities.

    • John West

      “To put historical figures and their actions and attitudes into today’s context is extremely foolish.” The author addressed that very point, sir. Did you bother to read what was said? If you didn’t then, here goes again:

      ‘Morality was different then’
      This argument surprised me: The idea that historical figures should not be judged because their actions were acceptable by the standards of their time. The first problem here is that all manner of sins — like slavery — can be justified by this logic. The second is that even in his own time, Rhodes was not universally liked or admired.” It’s the last sentence that addresses your counterpoint.

      Then, too, there was considerable agitation going on in England at that time over another morally contentious issue, which was slavery! In fact, there is a HBCU in the state of Ohio named after the abolitionist William Wilberforce.

    • John West

      I wonder what your fallen ancestors would say of your “enlightenment,” assuming their suffering you have highlighted? Easier said than done?

    • Yvonne Horak

      Removing it is childish and achieves nothing as it does not and cannot remove the fact that he was part and parcel of the History of this Country and many others too. Will also not remove his failures, his achievements or that part of the History of this Country. .After all it is recorded all over the World. Many Countries world wide had demagogues and monsters in their history and many worse than Rhodes. They cannot change their history either. It is water under the bridge. Wiping out the past by removing statues is not going to change that history or remedy his legacy. Maybe it should serve as a reminder to this Country and its Citizens never to allow a demagogue and an exploiter to rule here again in the future.Do we have a
      more of his type currently involved in managing this Country? THAT is the question to be asked.THAT is what students should be involved in. Questions about their futures, the present, here and NOW and where this Country is heading to NOW!.

    • Yvonne Horak

      Will not solve or remove what he did at all by removing a dead piece of sculpture. The Afrikaners know that.Neither would removing Queen Victoria’s statue in Durban who put the Afrikaner women and children in Concentration Camps behind barbed wire with guards,burnt down their homes, destroyed their possessions and where thousands died of illness and starvation , will change those facts either. It serves as a reminder
      of what Concentration Camps were and her reign of invading Countries all over the World like India as well. The Afrikaners moved on and picked themselves up. Removing her statue could not wipe those facts away either living in the past does not bode well for the future.The Past cannot be changed ever ! BUT the future is what counts.

    • Mark Ryan Schulz

      They, being dead, have nothing to say. The choice of carrying on the cycle of violence and hatred has been passed on to me. I recall Deuteronomy 30:19, which states, “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,” – I choose the path of forgiveness and life.

    • David Robert Lewis

      Dear Student

      It has come to our attention that you may be a student at the University of Cape Town born after June 17, 1991. As you may be aware, the Population Registration Act enforcing apartheid race categories was abolished on this date.

      We thus have no way of identifying what your race description or racial identity may or may not be, and consequently are unable to determine, which students are black and which students are white. In fact, any persons occupying any one of the several other apartheid race categories resulting from the policy of scientific racism implemented by the regime, also cannot be identified, with any accuracy.

      We would thus appreciate if you could attend a special ‘race classification’ session at Bremner Building later today, where a board of designated “race agents” will be utilizing the latest pencil test technology to determine if you happen to fall into any one of the designated groups allowed to be offended by the Rhodes Statue, and to consequently hold an opinion on the subject.

      Yours sincerely,
      ‪#‎RhodesMustFall‬

    • Stewart Stiles

      How about the Ghandi statue in Pietermaritzburg – refer to Mohatma Ghandhi’s views on Black Africans – http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/sentletsediakanyo/2008/10/17/on-mahatma-gandhi-his-pathetic-racism-and-advancement-of-segregation-of-black-people/
      It is history guys – Shaka, Ghandi and Rhodes were all great men – their values were different as they lived in a different time. Look at them in the context of their time. By all means highlight their faults. Let’s move on. This is just totally divisive.

    • Observer

      As a matter of fact,he negotiated and signed concessions with those who claimed to be the rulers of the lands between the Zambezi and the Limpopo………themselves colonialists who were fleeing from King Shaka.The deals were lopsided but they were signed.

    • Roger Berk

      It would not be news to me: likely that was the prevailing mind set. We judge that mind set now by higher values. Just as future generations are going to judge what is going on in South Africa today more harshly than you think. But note well how Rhodes defined “civilised” in his motto. Is that not truly exceptional for his time? Surely that should be applauded and not condemned?
      I detect an absence of independent thought in this whole issue.

    • Roger Berk

      “Self-serving wealth accumulator” describes 99% of people on planet earth even today. Trying to keep labour costs as low as possible – by any kind of foul means – is still the norm today. The negatives about Rhodes are about par for the course for the prevailing morality of the 19th century. Really nothing new there. But the positives about the man are truly remarkable.
      I feel that this is a typical political football dredged up to rouse the masses. Part of the ANC onslaught to regain the one province that they do not control?
      On a scale of 1-10 of the most pressing problems in this country, this issue is probably at zero. I call for perspective. I call for independent thought. I call for the real struggle to begin in South Africa against the encroachment of totalitarianism. This country is balanced precariously on a knife edge, with powerful forces pushing hard to emulate the “workers paradise” of countries to the north where “rulers” are able to accumulate obscene wealth with the ardent support of the masses.
      Hey, just my opinion, but I reject mind control….

    • RSA.MommaCyndi

      It is obviously of monumental (pardon the pun) importance to someone. I honestly don’t understand how a lump of stone can be of so much importance. My only reason for wanting the damned thing to be gone is so that people can stop thinking about nothing but a hunk of stone and get back to thinking about things that will make a tangible difference. The amount of attention this stupid statue has gotten is almost a obscene as Rhodes was – oh the irony!

    • Roger Berk

      I love Twain’s wit! Of course this quote says volumes about the attitude of Americans to British colonialism, having emerged as a British colony, and says nothing at all about the character of Rhodes.
      One of my favourite Twain quotes: “To be good is noble. To tell others to be good is even nobler and much less trouble.”
      South Africa today would be a better place if more people were to understand that remark.

    • Musa Baloyi

      I sense a little bit of deception on your part.

      “Le Sueur states that Rhodes originally said: “Equal rights for all white men south of the Zambesi”, but when asked to verify his statement, “clarified” it, and it was the “clarified” wording which the press published.”

    • Terry Sham

      Lol …sure. What are you, nuts?

    • Roger Berk

      No deception intended on my part. I took the quote from the title page of a book published in Rhodesia around 1968. I wouldn’t know about Le Sueur. So are you saying that this correction now invalidates the published quote? I think that would be really stretching a point.

    • http://zcfoutkast.blogspot.com/ EFF Extraordinaire

      He’s a Zulu King, and his statue is in Zulu land. I see no problem there. Rhodes is a European, and racist. He has no place here.

    • Observer

      No.Google “The Rudd Concession”.Negotiated between Lobengula,Rudd,Thompson and Maguire in 1888.Lopsided,yes,but its there.And within 10 years the railway line had reached Harare.Unlike some diamond mining concessions given to the Chinese….no benefits to the people.

    • Politics

      We don’t know what it means to
      live in a society that expects you to prove that you are intelligent or
      competent or honest just because of your skin colour. Despite this, we have the
      arrogance to think that we can decide whether black experiences and emotions
      are valid or not. There is some arrogance in thinking that as a white
      person, you should dictate how black people should voice and approach their
      struggles. Furthermore, I believe we should be overjoyed that there are
      now enough confident black students at a university to stand up, start a
      movement and have their say. Instead many, white people rolled their eyes at
      these “unruly students causing chaos when they should be studying”. “They must
      be thankful that they have the privilege to study at a university.” The fact
      that students as far away as Canada, The Netherlands, England and the United
      States have responded to something that is happening at a university in Cape
      Town should make us extremely proud. This is a historic moment! Surely these
      students are not the ones missing the plot? The fact that the debate has
      also encouraged so many comments that reflect an ignorance of the very real
      inequalities in this country, places a responsibility on all white people to
      engage each other further. This entails being brave enough to offend when
      necessary, but also wise enough to understand. The reality is that we
      are living in a society that is still figuring out how to carry and ultimately
      get rid of the burden that apartheid and colonialism has left us with. While
      some argue that we are all victims of apartheid, I think to use the term in
      such a way is dismissive of the horrific suffering and continued struggles of
      black people in South Africa. I don’t believe white people are victims of
      apartheid, but we are also products of it. Does this mean that we should
      be excused for our ignorance and arrogance? No! It does, however, help us
      understand how certain ideas are perpetuated through apartheid legacies that
      still permeate our societies and institutions. It points to the extreme
      complexity of our society that blurs the lines between good and evil. It
      reiterates our responsibility as white people to stop pretending that we are
      South Africa’s saving grace and to call each other out. We cannot sit back and
      wait for #RhodesMustFall or black students to do it…

      But most importantly, it highlights that more inclusive spaces –
      cities, businesses, universities, schools – for which #RhodesMustFall advocates,
      are essential: so that never again will our society be able to foster this kind
      of ignorance.

      Roné McFarlane is a 2014 scholar. She is currently pursuing an MSc
      in comparative and international education at the University of Oxford

    • Politics

      thanks EFF

    • Politics

      EXACTLY……… DEFEND RHODES…. WE DONT MIND REMOVING SHAKA….JUST KEEP ON DEFENDING RHODES.

    • Politics

      We don’t know what it means to
      live in a society that expects you to prove that you are intelligent or
      competent or honest just because of your skin colour. Despite this, we have the
      arrogance to think that we can decide whether black experiences and emotions
      are valid or not. There is some arrogance in thinking that as a white
      person, you should dictate how black people should voice and approach their
      struggles. Furthermore, I believe we should be overjoyed that there are
      now enough confident black students at a university to stand up, start a
      movement and have their say. Instead many, white people rolled their eyes at
      these “unruly students causing chaos when they should be studying”. “They must
      be thankful that they have the privilege to study at a university.” The fact
      that students as far away as Canada, The Netherlands, England and the United
      States have responded to something that is happening at a university in Cape
      Town should make us extremely proud. This is a historic moment! Surely these
      students are not the ones missing the plot? The fact that the debate has
      also encouraged so many comments that reflect an ignorance of the very real
      inequalities in this country, places a responsibility on all white people to
      engage each other further. This entails being brave enough to offend when
      necessary, but also wise enough to understand. The reality is that we
      are living in a society that is still figuring out how to carry and ultimately
      get rid of the burden that apartheid and colonialism has left us with.. While
      some argue that we are all victims of apartheid, I think to use the term in
      such a way is dismissive of the horrific suffering and continued struggles of
      black people in South Africa. I don’t believe white people are victims of
      apartheid, but we are also products of it. Does this mean that we should
      be excused for our ignorance and arrogance? No! It does, however, help us
      understand how certain ideas are perpetuated through apartheid legacies that
      still permeate our societies and institutions. It points to the extreme
      complexity of our society that blurs the lines between good and evil. It
      reiterates our responsibility as white people to stop pretending that we are
      South Africa’s saving grace and to call each other out. We cannot sit back and
      wait for #RhodesMustFall or black students to do it.

      But most importantly, it highlights that more inclusive spaces –
      cities, businesses, universities, schools – for which #RhodesMustFall advocates,
      are essential: so that never again will our society be able to foster this kind
      of ignorance.

      Roné McFarlane is a 2014 scholar. She is currently pursuing an MSc
      in comparative and international education at the University of Oxford

    • http://miguel-angel-plukkel.deviantart.com/gallery/ Miguel Angel Plukkel

      “Rhodes is not alive now. Were he to be, he would find his attitudes unacceptable in today’s climate.” Hence the statue, devoted to him, holds no longer any purpose in this time and place (nor social climate)!