Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FDR (talk | contribs) at 03:59, 11 October 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Imperialist"

♥ born in 1856...

Is "imperialist" really an occupation? That'd like saying "Bill Gates is an American capitalist." I'm taking this part out because I don't think the Misplaced Pages, aspiring to be a reliable source of factual information, should be in the business of making up its own labels and attaching them to historical figures. Moreover, this sentence is also redundant, because the fact that he took part in the extension of Britain's empire in Africa is already effectively and factually conveyed by the following sentences. --

The link between Rhodes sexual orientation and Mugabe's anti-gay campaign is NOT dubious as Altaar has pointed out.

--

Perhaps it would be more appropriate added to the Mugabe article? Valisk 16:15, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a small edit war developing, maybe this is the time to ask the question: Why is the last paragraph there at all? The history of Rhodesia after Rhodes' death belongs in the Rhodesia article, doesn't it? DJ Clayworth 16:21, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's a good point. On reflection, I think you're right. (Good example here of what talk pages are for. ;) - Hephaestos|§ 16:27, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Cecil Rhodes was one of the most evil Europeans in all of African history, cynically using the rather naive missionary visions of men like David Livingstone to justify the brutal exploitation of Africans in his de Beer mines, attacking neighboring nations European and African alike, and laying apartheid's foundations for economic ends. The only bright spot on his record, ironically, was his devotion to his alma mater, Oxford, for which he created the Rhodes scholarship (expressly restricting it to men only; how the modern Rhodes scholarship evaded this stipulation is a mystery to me). South Africa today remains scarred from his blissfully short, yet banefully enduring iron grip on South African politics. Wherever he is now, I hope he's doing less harm than he did in his previous life.

Davus

P.S. He's also apparently the fifty-fifth greatest South African, although according to South African voters he was neither the greatest bigot (Hendrik Verwoerd, the "Architect of Apartheid," placed 19th) nor infamous cheat (Hansie Cronje, infamous for taking bribes in international cricket matches, placed 11th). Go figure.

DAS

Wow, how NPOV of you.

Ches -- I would also say Davus' opinions are neutral. I'm more inclined to label Rhodes a perpetrator of genocide. Rhodes was responsible for such noble endeavours as removing diamond claims from non-white hands and transfering them into his own through legislation. He was a real gem. The quote I heard about that list of Greatest South Africans was: "It goes to show who has a phone in South Africa." Perhaps the most ironic part of Rhodes' inclusion on that list is that he didn't migrate to South Africa until he was an adult.

==

I cannot believe people use anacronistic ideas to call Cecil Rhodes "evil;" its people like that who should not be on the Misplaced Pages. This is not a moral endeavor, it is a purely objective reference tool. Historians tell, they do not judge - that is for modern day policy makers and moralists. This is not a pan-African forum, so please leave out your personal agenda.

"Purely objective"? While any reference can, and probably should, try to be "objective" and have a completely NPOV, this is simply not possible. The fact that historians bother to pay attention to the "bad" things perpetrated by figures of yesteryear is because of judgment drawn. Admittedly, the threshold for making such judgments should be set pretty high (e.g. proof that Cecil Rhodes knowingly exploited black workers or regarded them as sub-human) ... and it would probably be best to avoid using words like "evil" which have questionable relevance even today.

--

I, for one, think this article conveys the information in a very proper manner as is. My only suggestion would be to add more details on Rhodes' life. Clearly, more happened with him than is written here.

Do it for mummy

Removed incorrect statement that Rhodes's railway locomotives burnt mummies - that was the Egyptian Railway Authority, three thousand miles north. Also revised "Zimbabwe" section, renaming it as "Rhodesia" and generally tidied up a couple of sections.Humansdorpie 11:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

archaeohistory

Instead of arguing how evil he was, you guys need to fix this article. It completely omits the arguably greatest archaeohistorical destruction of SubSaharan Africa -- the archaelogical destruction of Greater Zimbabwe by Rhodes, Bent, and Hall, trying to prove their idiotic racist fantasies that whites must have secretly built all the walls, monuments and buildings in Africa, because they "knew" that Africans were genetically incapable of planning, thinking, or building... Although comically tragic, it is of historic importance to archaeohistory of East African and Bantu studies.

Vandalism or erroneous deletion?

The Politics paragraph is left hanging in the middle of the first sentence Epeeist smudge 04:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It was vandalism. Restored now. --Ezeu 04:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I am not familiar with how to cite things on Misplaced Pages. So I will say here on the talk that the sources for the Princess Radziwill section that I contributed are Cecil Rhodes and the Princess by Brian Roberts and Rhodes:The Race for Africa by Antony Thomas. FDR MyTalk May 23 2:12 AM 2006 (UTC)

My source for my statement about Rhodes supporting Parnell and Irish Home Rule is Rhodes: The Race for Africa by Antony Thomas. FDR May 25 8:34 AM 2006 (UTC)

My source for my statement about Rhodes being a Freemason is also Antony Thomas' Rhodes: The Race for Africa. FDR May 25 8:44 AM 2006 (UTC)

I've added citations at the ends of the three paragraphs you mention. I've also looked up the ISBN numbers for the books, in case anybody wants to search for them. dewet|✉ 13:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

Well, well - the usual motley collection of implied ifs, buts, suggestions, and other ephemeral cant. This entire section is POV, unsourced and largely irrelevant. Deletion will soon follow unless compelling reasons not to may be presented. Eddie.willers 03:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is unsourced. I do not see how it is POV or irrelevant. Generally speaking, a famous person's non-heterosexual orientation is considered a notable piece of information on Misplaced Pages. To ignore the very widespread rumor would be POV, as we would be failing to mention an aspect of the man that many people assume is true. Savatar 00:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Response to Savatar. You admit that the section is unsourced - that alone qualifies it for justifiable deletion wrt Wiki standards.

It is POV precisely because it is unsourced - without citing a verifiable reference, any statement is merely opinion.

Finally, the sexuality of historical figures only has relevance if one is a neo-Gramscian, obsessed with promoting the view that homosexuality is natural and noteworthy by virtue of the 'fact' of the queerness of said historical figures - to say the least, this is a non-encylopaedic approach to the discussion of history. Eddie.willers 04:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

We do need a source, primarily because the matter is contested, (there are plently of unreferenced statements in the article that I'm sure you do not consider opinion). A reference referring to the rumor will not be hard to locate, since it is a near certainty that all of Rhodes biographers would have examined the matter and commented on it.

After several google searches, I am unable to find any "Gramscian" that would appear to be relevent to this discussion (the Italian Marxist guy???), however, I believe your statement above makes it quite clear which one of us has a POV agenda in this matter. Savatar 05:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of excellent sources of information about Rhodes's homosexual relationships, including John Finch, "Cecil Rhodes", Hutchinson 1976, and Robert I. Rotberg, "LEAD: THE FOUNDER Cecil Rhodes and the Pursuit of Power", Oxford University Press, 1988 --Kstern999 19:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a mistake and accidently pasted something that I had typed for something else into this article, I have corrected this, I am DEEPLY SORRY. FDR 8:39 25 September 2006

Sorry, I am not good at using computers and I accidentally made the sexual orientation text typed differently from how the rest of the article is typed while I was revising it, could someone change this back to normal. FDR MyTalk 1:06, October 4, 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I managed to fix the section on my own. FDR MyTalk 1:12, October 4, 2006 (UTC)

ideas section

sounds like the usual conspiracy theorist ramblings to me. if it's true, fine, but please give citations for what is alleged. if it's indeed someones fantasy going crazy, delete it. and i believe the "himmler also created the ss after the model of the jesuits"-sentence should be kicked, even IF true. it has nothing to do with rhodes....-- ExpImp 21:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph should be deleted until someone can provide some citations. I'm going to take out the reference to Germans (no link!: the royal family!), to the SS/Jesuits sentence as you say. Next editor: please be bolder!--Rob2000 12:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I found the following websites somewhat supporting the claims: utexas.edu uoregon.edu thenewamerican.com pbs.org. But i am unsure on how to reword the paragraph....-- ExpImp 18:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

found this: Encyclopedia of World Biography-- ExpImp 18:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I wrote part of that section, let me clarify what I was trying to do. I was trying to talk about the fact that Rhodes envisioned a secret society based on the Jesuits eventually bringing the entire world under British rule. I know that nothing ever came out of this. It was merely a childish immature scheme on Rhodes's part. And I know extreme right-wing people have tried to take Rhodes's statements out of context to support their conspiracy theories. I am not an Anglophobe or a right-wing extremist. The SS quote was inapropriate, I give you that and I apologize. And Rhodes's meeting with the Kaiser was irrelevant. But most what I wrote in the ideas section was valid. FDR MyTalk 23:15:57 October 9, 2006 I have revised the ideas section and improved it, I think that it is now acceptable and no longer needs to be tagged. FDR MyTalk 2:12:57 October 10, 2006

Thanks FDR for explaining and expanding on it. I think the para's not quite neutral yet though. It still needs to be adjusted to distinguish more clearly between fact and opinion/gossip eg "That is false... this is ridiculous". Eg compare some of the factual paras in this article and to the homosexuality (gossip/opinion) para - similar distinctions in tone could be made here. I think a major improvement would be changing the title: "ideas" is now misleading about this section, as it clearly does not represent all his ideas. Perhaps it should be something more like "Anglophone anti-Rhodes Societies"? After all, what is this para about? Perhaps deciding on a title would help to focus the content and give a direction to clear it up some more....--Rob2000 09:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC) I have changed the section to make it about the secret society that Rhodes envisioned that never came into existence and have removed the portions about his political and religious views and changed the title to Secret Society and Conspiracy Theories. I think the section has now been cleaned up enough. I make clear in the section that the conspiracy theories about Rhodes are false. FDR MyTalk 17:18:55 October 10,2006 I decided to delete the sexual orientation section completely because it really does not matter and I deleted the secret society section and placed what was said there in the section about Rhodes's will, which is an appropriate context for it. I also removed a trivial thing I had pointed out about Rhodes being mentioned once in passing in a science fiction novel by CS Lewis. FDR MyTalk 3:59:02 October 11, 2006