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

[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/...-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.