Set in stone?
News that an Oxford college intends to keep on display its statue of Cecil Rhodes reignited the debate over effigies of controversial figures. ANNA WHITELOCK charted Twitter’s response
Citing financial and logistical concerns, the University of Oxford’s Oriel College announced in May that it is reversing its earlier decision to remove a statue of controversial 19th-century alumnus Cecil Rhodes, which will instead stay in place alongside material contextualising his legacy.
Conservative MP and historian Chris Skidmore (@CSkidmoreUK) was among those who tweeted in support of Oriel’s volte-face, writing: “Good. Rhodes must stay. Retain and explain. Make Rhodes part of an enhanced curriculum on the reality of empire. But don’t pretend the statue never existed. The responsibility of the present is to preserve our past for the future.” Peter Mandler (@PeterMandler1) swiftly rejected such an interpretation. “Most people who want to take such statues down don’t want to ‘pretend they never existed’ but, to the contrary, to re-present them not in an honorific but in an educational setting,” he wrote. “Tell more history, not less. I don’t think it’s entirely honest to suggest otherwise.”
Historian and Guardian columnist Simukai Chigudu (@SimuChigudu) argued forcefully that this was more than just about a statue and that: “In the context of a worldwide movement against race hate, Oriel
College’s position is cynical and makes no sense.” For
Julia Blatchford (@Julia Blatchford) what made no sense was what she saw as “the breathtaking hypocrisy of wanting to write him [Rhodes] out of history whilst still hanging on to his money”.
Barrie Hunter (@barriephunter) wrote that “the fundamental questions are whose heritage and how we retain that heritage. The difference between acknowledgement and celebration needs to be clear.” Meanwhile, Peter Storey (@PeterRStorey) asked provocatively: “At Trinity [College] in Cambridge, Henry VIII stands above the Great Gate – a man far greedier and with less care for human life than Rhodes. Should his statue go? Or is there a cut-off period? Are 16th-century tyrants more acceptable than 19th?”
Faruq (@Faruq10101) argued that “This conflation of a statue with history is disingenuous. A statue is an idol, and in Britain, typically a show of power. If anything… aligning statues with history maligns historians.” John Carins (@john_carins) summed up the opposing view: “Rhodes is an important historical figure and his statue should remain. These statues belong to us all; it’s our heritage; it’s not for a minority set of leftwing, Oxford wokeists to decide its future.”
And with the news that some University of Oxford lecturers are refusing to give tutorials at Oriel due to the decision to retain the statue, this debate looks set to run and run.
Anna Whitelock is professor of the history of monarchy and head of the history department at Royal Holloway University of London