Tomb of Cecil Rhodes under threat as Zimbabwean politician demands Rhodes be exhumed

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338791/Zimbabwe-official-demands-bones-British-pioneer-Cecil-Rhodes-exhumed.html


Bones of Cecil Rhodes are an insult to our ancestors: Zimbabwe official demands remains are exhumed and sent back to Britain


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/15/article-1338791-0C7E4613000005DC-394_306x423.jpg



A Zimbabwean politician has demanded the body of Cecil Rhodes is exhumed and sent back to Britain as it is an insult to the country's citizens. Rhodesia, founded by and named for Rhodes, became the Republic of Zimbabwe in 1980. Bulawayo governor Cain Mathema said it was offensive that the Oxford-educated former mining magnate was still buried on Zimbabwean soil three decades after the country was granted independence from Britain. Rhodes was laid to rest in 1902 in territory then belonging to the young country of Rhodesia which he had founded just seven years earlier in his own name.

But Mr Mathema, a member of president Robert Mugabe's ruling Zanu-PF party, said Zimbabweans should feel insulted by the presence of the tycoon's grave in their soil. In comments reported by the country's Sunday News, he said: 'I wonder why 30 years after independence Rhodes' grave is still found on the country's traditional shrine of worship. 'It's an insult to our ancestors and maybe that is the reason why our ancestors at Njelele, where we pray for rain, are no longer giving us enough rain.

'My call is not directed against Britain or whites, but against symbols that persecuted our people and took away our freedom and wealth. 'For I believe that physical freedom goes hand-in-hand with psychological freedom. We need to celebrate our own heroes and heroines. 'We do not get inspiration from the likes of Rhodes, so why should we visit their graves and their statues?'


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/15/article-1338791-0C7E554F000005DC-592_634x818.jpg




Rhodes, who was born in Bishop's Stortford in Hertfordshire, became one of Britain's most successful colonialists after being sent to southern Africa in the late nineteenth century when he suffered bad health as a teenager. Within four decades he had established political control of Britain's Cape Colony, expanded the territory north to found Rhodesia and taken ownership of the world's richest diamond mining company De Beers. His expansionist plans were fired by a dream of securing a British corridor of power stretching from Cape Town to Cairo.

But his short life was blighted by bad health and he was buried amid great fanfare after his death of heart failure aged just 49. Following his demise Rhodes' remains were transported by train from Cape Town to Bulawayo and laid to rest in the Matopo Hills south of the city, his favourite spot in the vast empire he had helped secure for Britain in southern Africa.

I'm sick of Great Britain being treated like dirt when we have given most to the modern world more so than any other country, this crackpot talks about drought - has it not occured to him and his Zanu-PF scum that their people are dying thanks to the purge of the white farmer which kept Africa fed and made Rhodesia the breadbasket of Africa?

If he wants to return the bones then so be it, a shame for Rhodes who loved Africa and is one of Britains greatest men;- but perhaps Mr Mathema would also like to remove the countless beautiful bridges the British built, rip up our vast train lines, destroy whats left of the sewerage system we built, knock down the fantastic buildings the remaining schools and universities are housed in which we the British built - and ontop of that, he could return our foreign aid that we've been giving to this vile regime for the past few decades (would you believe we still give Mugabe foreign aid!?)

Or why not just go back to before the British arrived in Africa and formed Rhodesia, so what I mean by that is to dismantle Zimbabwe completely and return to tribes in the jungle and on the savanna having nothing to show for it - something which it appears many in Zanu-PF and other tinpot African regimes seem intent on doing. Cecil Rhodes died a hero after establishing successful British colonies and providing food and employment for the poorest parts of the world.. Robert Mugabe on the other hand will die a man who has destroyed what was one of the most successful countries in the world thus condeming his people to a life of misery.

What chance does Africa stand with these people running it?

Thoughts?

[Conservative,]

If he sends them back he should be knocking all the buildings, schools & water supplies down we made for them, and refuse to take the food/clean water that we give to them.

It's a shame as it's part of their history. I doubt Germany are exceptionally proud of Hitler but they haven't given his bones back to Austria (as far as I'm aware?) But if he wants to - so be it...their loss.

And with Mugabe in charge - Zimbabwe will crash and burn.

[GommeInc]

Awww, poor little babies. This is pretty petty of them, seeing as we no doubt made the country what it is today. I support removing everything we built there and see how long it takes them to recover. It's all well and good that they've got independence, but biting the hand that fed them, and still feeds them to this day, is wrong.

[Swastika]

If it wasn't for us they'd *Removed* and running around in tribes killing one another.
I'd love to see them give back our railway lining, sewage systems, schools & universities and much more that we did for that country.
An absolute shame that we even bothered, stuff like this makes my piss boil.


Edited by Catzsy (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not make inappropriate remarks

[Eoin247]

Ok seems the previous posters have only learnt one side of history it seems.

In case many of you have forgotten when britain colonised places it was for Britains benefit not the coutries they colonise and to deny this is being plain ignorant.

Millions of slaves were taken out of Africa over the colonial years, their resources were plundered and used for Britains benefit only, not the countries they came from. During these years blacks were dreated as little more than dirt.

Now for some quotes :D


If he sends them back he should be knocking all the buildings, schools & water supplies down we made for them, and refuse to take the food/clean water that we give to them.

It's a shame as it's part of their history. I doubt Germany are exceptionally proud of Hitler but they haven't given his bones back to Austria (as far as I'm aware?) But if he wants to - so be it...their loss.

Not a lot their allready very little current structure came from colonial britain.

Hitlers body was never found by the way. ;)


Awww, poor little babies. This is pretty petty of them, seeing as we no doubt made the country what it is today. I support removing everything we built there and see how long it takes them to recover. It's all well and good that they've got independence, but biting the hand that fed them, and still feeds them to this day, is wrong.

You sure did make it what it is today... is that something to be proud of really?


If it wasn't for us *Removed* and running around in tribes killing one another.
I'd love to see them give back our railway lining, sewage systems, schools & universities and much more that we did for that country.
An absolute shame that we even bothered, stuff like this makes my piss boil.

Erm, you do realise that pretty much all that stuff was made for the white settlers? Your ancestors bothered so you could profit.


Just a question to all previous and later posters:

Do you honestly think Britain and other colonial countries went into Africa,Asia,Oceania and America with even the slightest intention of improving the peoples lives there?

I know im going to get lots of hate since this is a majority British forum but i had to make my point heard.

[Oleh]

Yes we did it for OUR benefit not theirs so if they want to return the body of a leading member in that colonisation due to it being offensive.. Then they shall proceed to return EVERYTHING they currently utilise in their day to day commute as it was for OUR benefit not THEIRS.

"you sure did make it what it is today... is that something to be proud of really?"

Yes as it helped form a thriving country.. Apart from leadership problems and all that, its still a thousand times more advanced than what it would be without us.

So Basically.. you just agreed that it should all be given back by saying it was built for us not them ;)

[Inseriousity.]

A Labour councillor round my area said while the Labour government were in power that we should sterlize all mothers who recieve benefits and sponge off the state (I'm sure she'd have some supporters actually!) Doesn't mean we're actually going to do it.

Probably going to be the same in this case too.

[Eoin247]

Yes we did it for OUR benefit not theirs so if they want to return the body of a leading member in that colonisation due to it being offensive.. Then they shall proceed to return EVERYTHING they currently utilise in their day to day commute as it was for OUR benefit not THEIRS.

"you sure did make it what it is today... is that something to be proud of really?"

Yes as it helped form a thriving country.. Apart from leadership problems and all that, its still a thousand times more advanced than what it would be without us.

So Basically.. you just agreed that it should all be given back by saying it was built for us not them ;)

So will you in return proceed to give africa back all the slaves and resources you took?

It's not exactly a thriving country with or without its leadership problems by the way.

A thousand times more advanced? Very unlikely, Africa and other continents were crippled from proper advancements by colonial rule, consider the advancements they could have made if all their wealth wasn't exported out.

And no basicaly i didn't read again what i said.

[GommeInc]

You sure did make it what it is today... is that something to be proud of really?
Depends how you view the situation. They're more socially advanced, understand medicine, language, education and so forth. Britain may have colonised for its own benefit, you're forgetting that the country they have colonised has learnt new things that may also benefit it. Education, changes in the social side of the country, medicine, technology, all of which were left when Britain left and the country became independent. Saying Britain is evil is a one-sided argument, when the clearly modernised country has only got this far because of the colonialisation. We, afterall, left them with transport, buildings and other such structures, we didn't remove them because we had enough of the country or that they demanded independence. It is biting the hand that fed them.

You make a decent argument, but you're seeing the whole situation from only one side. The modern day Zimbabwe is like it is today with the chances that happened when Britain took over. Besides, it's not like we were violent, judging by the history of the country and Cecil Rhodes.

[Eoin247]

The comments before mine were so one sided that i felt i had to make my point from the other.

True Britain has given it some modern things and ideas, however the ratio to what was taken rather than given isn't very comparable.

And hey i aint just putting down Britain. Spain,Portugal,Denmark,Germany etc, weren't any better. It was how things were back then.

[Jordy]

The comments before mine were so one sided that i felt i had to make my point from the other.

True Britain has given it some modern things and ideas, however the ratio to what was taken rather than given isn't very comparable.

And hey i aint just putting down Britain. Spain,Portugal,Denmark,Germany etc, weren't any better. It was how things were back then.So taking a few diamonds isn't comparable to taking the country from tribal to a country fully integrated with the rest of the world with a modern infrastructure and housing the most successful farms in Africa. Just a few decades ago there was Zimbabwean fruit in our supermarkets.

[Oleh]

So will you in return proceed to give africa back all the slaves and resources you took?

if it were possible and in my current mindset.. gladly

It's not exactly a thriving country with or without its leadership problems by the way.

It is in comparison to what it was

A thousand times more advanced? Very unlikely, Africa and other continents were crippled from proper advancements by colonial rule, consider the advancements they could have made if all their wealth wasn't exported out.

Well seeing as they would still have facepaint, bows and arrows and be eating each other by now..



See......

[GommeInc]

According to a few websites, the Matabeles (the tribe which inhabited the area when Rhodes turned up), were a tribe that split from the Zulus to find their own land. It's turning into a pot-kettle-black moment really, the Matabeles caused friction between the Zulus and another tribe, and invaded another. According to Wiki, which may or may not be false, Cecil Rhodes and the Matabeles agreed to share the territory, and Cecil agreed to give them £100 a month plus weaponry. The British South Africa company created its own laws due to pressure from other European settlers (to protect the lands from other countries attempting to set up shop there). So in a way, the British were protecting the lands so it would of been inevitable that the lands would of been colonised anyway, and judging from history, the British treated the tribes better than what any other country would of attempted to if they ahd the chance.

[Swastika]

Erm, you do realise that pretty much all that stuff was made for the white settlers? Your ancestors bothered so you could profit.

Why does that make any difference at all? We let them have it all, we could have easily destroyed everything when Zimbabwe wanted independence.

[Catzsy]

Another news paper article making a 'mountain out of a molehill'. One politician makes a demand. He is entitled to his opinion as anybody else but that is not necessarily the view of the majority.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Do you honestly think Britain and other colonial countries went into Africa,Asia,Oceania and America with even the slightest intention of improving the peoples lives there?

Er well no, we firstly did it to make money and open up markets to sell our advanced goods on - then we started improving the lives of the people there, bringing sewerage systems, irrigation and farming techniques, education and so forth along with us which did not exist beforehand in Africa and in most parts of Asia with a few exceptions.


Millions of slaves were taken out of Africa over the colonial years, their resources were plundered and used for Britains benefit only, not the countries they came from. During these years blacks were dreated as little more than dirt.

I think you'll find that compared to the likes of the French Empire and the Belgian Empire, Britain put back a lot of what it gained to the Empire hence why if you go to former British colonies you will find more British-era development than the likes of former French colonies, who mainly only built small outposts and developed very little of their Empire.

As for slavery, wasn't Britain first to abolish slavery?


A thousand times more advanced? Very unlikely, Africa and other continents were crippled from proper advancements by colonial rule, consider the advancements they could have made if all their wealth wasn't exported out.

So they'd been there far longer than the Europeans have inhabited Europe.. and achieved what exactly? there is no indication that Africa was about to suddenly develop before Britain and so forth came there and 'looted' - despite, again, the fact that we put a lot of what we needed back in in the form of education, buildings, bridges, railways, roads and general technology.


Another news paper article making a 'mountain out of a molehill'. One politician makes a demand. He is entitled to his opinion as anybody else but that is not necessarily the view of the majority.

Oh another newspaper attack, you people will not be happy until I start reporting from the Guardian/the BBC which will not be happening anytime soon. But going onto the dig you've had at the story reported; maybe the paper is reporting a story that is important to British history while the BBC and the television media ignore it, too busy with reporting 'Tory Cuts' as opposed to 'Labour waste' and thats not mentioning the continous dribble that comes from the BBC about global warming.

You know, a different story for a change rather than dribble?

[Eoin247]

if it were possible and in my current mindset.. gladly



What? Actualy it is possible to a certain but you see if you were even to give to that extent back. Britain would go bankrupt!



It is in comparison to what it was


You can say that to an extent about every single country in the world today.


Well seeing as they would still have facepaint, bows and arrows and be eating each other by now..


So who exactly came in and took the bows and arrows away from your ancestors? See what i mean?


Why does that make any difference at all? We let them have it all, we could have easily destroyed everything when Zimbabwe wanted independence.

Why would you have destroyed it? It would have made Britain look like the "bad guys" and cost you a heck of a lot of money/diplomatic problems. Leaving the stuff there was again to your benefit.

In all fairness Zimbabwes people have every reason not to this guy buried there. heres a quote from a website about Zimbabwes history http://www.zimembassy.se/history.html


As a British colony, Rhodesia was characterized by:

1. A massive land grab exercise, which drove thousands of Africans, often at gunpoint, from 50% of the country into reservations, now called communal lands. Land was taken without compensation to the owner and given to Rhodesias soldiers, or later to veterans of the two world wars of the 20th century, or to any white settler, but not to black persons. This racial land division was consolidated by the Land Apportionment Act of 1930 and the Land Tenure Act of 1969, which prohibited blacks to own land in white areas.

2. The exclusion of Africans from the political process. Africans were denied the right to vote or stand for parliament, or to hold high office in the army, police or public service.
3. Africans were excluded from the best schools, residential areas, and other amenities, which were reserved for whites only. Rhodesia was a mirror image of the apartheid policy, which then prevailed in South Africa.


If a man treated your dad as dirt and was then was buried in your houses' back garden, would you want his grave to be there? In your home? You would probably want to destroy his remains never mind exhume them back to his own home.


So taking a few diamonds isn't comparable to taking the country from tribal to a country fully integrated with the rest of the world with a modern infrastructure and housing the most successful farms in Africa. Just a few decades ago there was Zimbabwean fruit in our supermarkets.

My freind a lot more was taken than "A few diamonds". What horribly misguided person/text told you all that was taken were "a few diamonds".

"A country fully integrated with the rest of the world with modern infrastructure and housing"

I think you need to take a journey to Zimbabwe, come back and tell me if you still believe this.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What? Actualy it is possible to a certain but you see if you were even to give to that extent back. Britain would go bankrupt!

The diamonds we have do not keep Britain wealthy, they are irrelvent to wealth. I would also ask, concerning diamonds - considering it was the British who made it possible to mine and that the African tribes did not even know how or where these diamonds existsed - even if they had done so, what could they do with them(?) as diamonds are dirty great rocks when you dig them up in the first place.


You can say that to an extent about every single country in the world today.

The difference being that China, the Indian suibcontinent (to an extent) and the western world had achieved something, Africa on the other hand along with the North and South Americas and Austrialia had achieved nothing.


So who exactly came in and took the bows and arrows away from your ancestors? See what i mean?

Well our ancestors actually put the bows and arrows down, stopped killing one another and made something out of the very little that they had - something which Africa still finds an impossibility to do.


Why would you have destroyed it? It would have made Britain look like the "bad guys" and cost you a heck of a lot of money/diplomatic problems. Leaving the stuff there was again to your benefit.

Well one would like to say 'lets leave it there so Zimbabwe can prosper' but as we've seen with most African countries and especially Zimbabwe, they've gone and done the opposite. For being 'oppressed' and so very proud of themselves, they certainly take the mick as they still rely on the bridges we built, the railways we built and thats not to mention the vast sums of foreign aid we send there every year.

Proud, but not too proud to still accept our money.


In all fairness Zimbabwes people have every reason not to this guy buried there. heres a quote from a website about Zimbabwes history http://www.zimembassy.se/history.html

Zimbabwe as a country would not exist if it were not for Cecil Rhodes, so I fail to see exactly what he has done wrong - except bring about the formation of a once-developed sovereign state (also, see GommeInc's post for more information on how Rhodes and the British actually protected many from other aggressors).


If a man treated your dad as dirt and was then was buried in your houses' back garden, would you want his grave to be there? In your home? You would probably want to destroy his remains never mind exhume them back to his own home.

Well that depends on what else that man did - and in the case of Rhodes, a lot of good.


My freind a lot more was taken than "A few diamonds". What horribly misguided person/text told you all that was taken were "a few diamonds".

Mainly diamonds as raw materials along with raw materials that we required, most of these needed British workmanship to 'take' anyway as beforehand there was nothing to take. The 'diamonds' were dirty big great rocks resting in the ground and the savanna was just that, dried up land that wasn't capable of growing anything - to which the British built irrigation systems and trained farmers to work the land and make something of nothing.


I think you need to take a journey to Zimbabwe, come back and tell me if you still believe this.

Which is what Rhodesia was before it became Zimbabwe and became independent, Rhodesia was known under British rule as the 'breadbasket of Africa' and helped feed most of the African continent - it actually exported food.

[GommeInc]

Oh another newspaper attack, you people will not be happy until I start reporting from the Guardian/the BBC which will not be happening anytime soon. But going onto the dig you've had at the story reported; maybe the paper is reporting a story that is important to British history while the BBC and the television media ignore it, too busy with reporting 'Tory Cuts' as opposed to 'Labour waste' and thats not mentioning the continous dribble that comes from the BBC about global warming.

You know, a different story for a change rather than dribble?
A good point none the less. The article you posted is about one individual's opinion of Cecil Rhodes, it doesn't infer what others think, particularly the majority of those living in Zimbabwe. It is, however, a pretty silly opinion (the politician's opinion, not Catzsy's), as it seems completely one sided and lacks any substance and it forgets that what we left behind has benefited Zimbabwe, and that the resources we took would probably never have been utilised. Not forgetting, the people whom we colonised alongside with were a tribe that had no heritage there anyway.

Also, to back up your claim that Rhodesia was the "breadbasket of Africa":

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/12/how-to-kill-a-country/2845/

An interesting read for you eoin247 :) It underlines that when the white settlers left, the unskilled black farmers actually made the country decline economically and in time it became an importer of food, rather than an exporter of food to neighbouring states and countries of Africa, under the the white farmers. We were useful in Africa, as we fed the hungry nations surrounding Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. It also underlines that Mugabe is potentially the one to blame for the economic downturn of Zimbabwe.

[Catzsy]

Er well no, we firstly did it to make money and open up markets to sell our advanced goods on - then we started improving the lives of the people there, bringing sewerage systems, irrigation and farming techniques, education and so forth along with us which did not exist beforehand in Africa and in most parts of Asia with a few exceptions.




I think you'll find that compared to the likes of the French Empire and the Belgian Empire, Britain put back a lot of what it gained to the Empire hence why if you go to former British colonies you will find more British-era development than the likes of former French colonies, who mainly only built small outposts and developed very little of their Empire.

As for slavery, wasn't Britain first to abolish slavery?



So they'd been there far longer than the Europeans have inhabited Europe.. and achieved what exactly? there is no indication that Africa was about to suddenly develop before Britain and so forth came there and 'looted' - despite, again, the fact that we put a lot of what we needed back in in the form of education, buildings, bridges, railways, roads and general technology.



Oh another newspaper attack, you people will not be happy until I start reporting from the Guardian/the BBC which will not be happening anytime soon. But going onto the dig you've had at the story reported; maybe the paper is reporting a story that is important to British history while the BBC and the television media ignore it, too busy with reporting 'Tory Cuts' as opposed to 'Labour waste' and thats not mentioning the continous dribble that comes from the BBC about global warming.

You know, a different story for a change rather than dribble?

How is a person who bought land in South Africa, founding the South African Trading company
purely to exploit the people and their resources important to our history? I think I would rather forget. I agree on your stories being dribble though as about as important to a modern britain as a toilet that doesn't flush. :P

[Eoin247]

The diamonds we have do not keep Britain wealthy, they are irrelvent to wealth. I would also ask, concerning diamonds - considering it was the British who made it possible to mine and that the African tribes did not even know how or where these diamonds existsed - even if they had done so, what could they do with them(?) as diamonds are dirty great rocks when you dig them up in the first place.

I was talking about giving back the equvilant of everything taken over the years, since it was suggested that any buldings/infrastructure made over the years should be taken away.


The difference being that China, the Indian suibcontinent (to an extent) and the western world had achieved something, Africa on the other hand along with the North and South Americas and Austrialia had achieved nothing.

Slightly different than what i was talking about, I was just saying every country in the world today has improved to some degree from old times, wheter that's a big difference or not.


Well our ancestors actually put the bows and arrows down, stopped killing one another and made something out of the very little that they had - something which Africa still finds an impossibility to do.


So you know for a fact they wouldn't have changed themselves without Britain then?


Well one would like to say 'lets leave it there so Zimbabwe can prosper' but as we've seen with most African countries and especially Zimbabwe, they've gone and done the opposite. For being 'oppressed' and so very proud of themselves, they certainly take the mick as they still rely on the bridges we built, the railways we built and thats not to mention the vast sums of foreign aid we send there every year.

Proud, but not too proud to still accept our money.

Ok sure, but as i said it would have been actualy an inconvenience for Britain to take away the things so you can't say it was done out of charity.


Zimbabwe as a country would not exist if it were not for Cecil Rhodes, so I fail to see exactly what he has done wrong - except bring about the formation of a once-developed sovereign state (also, see GommeInc's post for more information on how Rhodes and the British actually protected many from other aggressors).

Well that depends on what else that man did - and in the case of Rhodes, a lot of good.


What has he done wrong? Did you even read the quote from that website? People were there before rhodesia and used the land. He drove them out, and the people were treated as second class citizens for many many years.


Mainly diamonds as raw materials along with raw materials that we required, most of these needed British workmanship to 'take' anyway as beforehand there was nothing to take. The 'diamonds' were dirty big great rocks resting in the ground and the savanna was just that, dried up land that wasn't capable of growing anything - to which the British built irrigation systems and trained farmers to work the land and make something of nothing.

As well as that many lives, livlihoods and other raw materials.


Which is what Rhodesia was before it became Zimbabwe and became independent, Rhodesia was known under British rule as the 'breadbasket of Africa' and helped feed most of the African continent - it actually exported food.


I think you'll find the wealth from this didn't exactly go to the African natives.

You are all saying how prosperous this country was. Extremely little of the wealth i'm pretty sure went to the native african population.

[Wig44.]

So will you in return proceed to give africa back all the slaves and resources you took?

It's not exactly a thriving country with or without its leadership problems by the way.

A thousand times more advanced? Very unlikely, Africa and other continents were crippled from proper advancements by colonial rule, consider the advancements they could have made if all their wealth wasn't exported out.

And no basicaly i didn't read again what i said.

Please enlighten me as to how we would give back any slaves? Are you suggesting we hunt down every single grave? Or do you mean uproot their descendants and deport them to Zimbabwe? I'm sure if you ask them whether they would want to be 'given back' you'd get a very short answer. Furthermore, your reasoning for us giving back any resources is based only on the fact that we are asking for our development to be removed, this was only suggested because they want Cecil Rhodes' remains exhumed and history to be forgotten. We, however, are willing to admit that the slavery was wrong and remember what happened.

The main reason it isn't thriving is because of its independance, a controversial but true statement unless you believe in coincidences.

The reason the British empire was so successful was because (like the Roman empire) we gave back to our colonies. You can say it wasn't for their benefit but ours, but in the end they did benefit. The reason we 'civilised' and educated our colonies was because it made us more powerful to have modern colonies, not to mention it made us wealthier. So what we did could be seen as good even if for the wrong reasons.

If you need proof of independance harming a country that wasn't ready to receive it then I suggest you open your front door.

[Eoin247]

Please enlighten me as to how we would give back any slaves? Are you suggesting we hunt down every single grave? Or do you mean uproot their descendants and deport them to Zimbabwe? I'm sure if you ask them whether they would want to be 'given back' you'd get a very short answer. Furthermore, your reasoning for us giving back any resources is based only on the fact that we are asking for our development to be removed, this was only suggested because they want Cecil Rhodes' remains exhumed and history to be forgotten. We, however, are willing to admit that the slavery was wrong and remember what happened.

The main reason it isn't thriving is because of its independance, a controversial but true statement unless you believe in coincidences.

The reason the British empire was so successful was because (like the Roman empire) we gave back to our colonies. You can say it wasn't for their benefit but ours, but in the end they did benefit. The reason we 'civilised' and educated our colonies was because it made us more powerful to have modern colonies, not to mention it made us wealthier. So what we did could be seen as good even if for the wrong reasons.

If you need proof of independance harming a country that wasn't ready to receive it then I suggest you open your front door.

The sheer ignorance of your final point amazes me. First of all, if you read my posts later on, i said the equivalent in money of what Britain took if you are asking that all the developement in the country itself should be given back.Of course i'm not saying decendants of slaves should be sent back if nobody wants them to be.

Secondly with your poing in regards to Ireland. Despite being left without any substantial industries after British rule, Ireland came around in the years after independance to become one of the most successful economies in the world right up to a few years back. Even now during this recession Ireland is far better off than it was during British rule. To say that we weren't ready for independance because of a recession nearly 100 years later,this just goes to show how weak your argument is as a whole.

Also correct me if i'm wrong but hasn't britain had the imf in a few times since ww2? This is irelands first.

Now next time you post a point, back it up....

To conclude what i've been saying in this thread. It's their country, if they don't want a foreigner buried there in their soil, let them.

[Wig44.]

The sheer ignorance of your final point amazes me. First of all, if you read my posts later on, i said the equivalent in money of what Britain took if you are asking that all the developement in the country itself should be given back.Of course i'm not saying decendants of slaves should be sent back if nobody wants them to be.

Secondly with your poing in regards to Ireland. Despite being left without any substantial industries after British rule, Ireland came around in the years after independance to become one of the most successful economies in the world right up to a few years back. Even now during this recession Ireland is far better off than it was during British rule. To say that we weren't ready for independance because of a recession nearly 100 years later,this just goes to show how weak your argument is as a whole.

Also correct me if i'm wrong but hasn't britain had the imf in a few times since ww2? This is irelands first.

Now next time you post a point, back it up....

To conclude what i've been saying in this thread. It's their country, if they don't want a foreigner buried there in their soil, let them.

I wonder why that is..

[Gibs960]

Even if Britain went to less rich countries for the wrong reasons, and made all these things there for the wrong reasons after all that country is still benefiting from them.

[Eoin247]

I wonder why that is..

Well then?