#everydayquiz #Guardian
The Guardian
When Cecil Rhodes died in March 1902, this newspaper’s verdictफ़ैसला was damning घातक. “The judgment फ़ैसला of history will, we fear, be that he did more than any Englishman of his time to lower the reputation and to impairख़राब कर देना the strength and compromise the future of the Empire,” said an editorial.
The Guardian’s contemporary समकालीन criticism is useful evidence in the context of today’s row about Oxford University’s continuing Rhodes connections. It is a reminder, albeitहालांकि expressed in the political language of the time, that it did not require a century to pass after the age of Rhodes before a liberalआजाद critique आलोचनात्मक लेख of the great imperialistसाम्राज्यवादी was possible. Through शुरू से अंत तक the 1890s, the Manchester Guardian denounced दोषी ठहराना Rhodes for attempting to engineer “the tainted बिगड़ा हुआ war” against the Boers which began in 1899. In 1901, it urged that “The Commonwealthप्रजातन्त्र राज्य of the future in South Africa oughtउचित होना to include the mass of the nativeमूल निवासी and coloured people, and legislation should lead to this result.”
Such language falls short by modern आधुनिक standards मापदंड. But it is important proof that Rhodes and what he stood for could be, and was, trenchantlyप्रभावशाली ढंग से opposed in his own time, not just in ours. So, by the same token इशारा, there was nothing inevitable जो टल न सके about Oxford’s, or Oriel College’s, embrace ग्रहण करना of parts of Rhodes’s massive £6m bequests वसीयत (worth nearly £700m in today’s prices) which are the subject of the current Rhodes Must Fall campaign – even accepting that the money has been put to good educational use. In short, there was a choice to make, and Oxford and Oriel made theirs. It has long been a controversial विवादात्मक one, not least during the period of anti-colonial struggles and especially after majority rule was finally achieved in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Now it is so again.
Today Oriel is under pressure from British-based supporters of the anti-Rhodes campaign in southern Africa. Last week, the college, where Rhodes studied, decided to remove a commemorative स्मारक plaqueफलक and to consider removing a prominent महत्वपूर्ण statue of Rhodes. The controversyविवाद shows no sign of diminishingह्रासमान. Almost inevitably निस्सन्देह, the Rhodes Trust, which runs the prestigious गौरवपूर्ण international Rhodes scholarships at Oxford, has been dragged बाहर निकालना into the argument. It cannot be long before other UK universities are called on to review their own imperialistसाम्राज्यवादी connections too, for this is a widespread phenomenon, not confined to Oxford.
There is no simple overarchingअति महत्वपूर्ण answer to these challenges. But the right place to start is to acknowledgeआभार प्रकट करना not deny the imperial legacy. What that means in practice is complex पेचीदा, but it is something we rarely debate, let alone act on, properly; we would be a stronger society if we did. The contrast between Germany’s tradition of facing its past and Britain’s frequent evasions भागना is, for example, very striking. Even Robert Mugabe has insistedजोर डालना that Rhodes’s grave in Zimbabwe should remain, as part of that country’s history.
Oriel College is right to be uneasyबेचैनी about the Rhodes connection. That is why moving the statue from its current position to a museum could be a sensible solution, ensuringआश्वस्त करना that its meanings are still visible and thought about. The Rhodes Trust was also right when it decided in 2003, along with the Nelson Mandela Foundation, to fund Mandela Rhodes scholarships in South Africa for postgraduates and new generation leaders, as well as to engage with the “Redress ठीक कर देना Rhodes” movement among Rhodes scholars.
This is not to say the only solution is simply to purgeनिकाल देना every trace of the past as though it never existed. That is the fanatic कट्टरपंथी ’s way – and it has disturbing echoesप्रतिध्वनि. No one would dream of erectingबनाना a statue of Rhodes today. That is why Oriel’s dilemma is a more nuancedसूक्ष्म भेद युक्त issue than, say, the positive desire of some in the American South to fly the Confederate साथ में काम करनेवाला flag, which can only be opposed. The Rhodes statue speaks to our complex inheritance विरासत and our need to address it better. It underscores रेखांकित करना the many ways in which the empire is part of the formation of modern Britain. It is better to have the issue out in the open than to pretend ढोंग करना it is mere एकमात्र posturingदिखावा about symbols.
No comments:
Post a Comment