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

[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?