Of all the worldβs beneficent politically incorrect figures, perhaps none is more politically incorrect than Cecil Rhodes, the short-lived diamond magnate and apostle of British Imperialism who gave his name to a once-functioning country in South Africa and what is perhaps the worldβs most famous international scholarship. Rhodes, who died at forty-eight in 1902, ranks even higher on the Global Index of Political Incorrectitude than Rudyard Kipling, the great scribe of empire, partly because his stupendous wealth helped lift untold thousands out of savage miseryβa founding dictum of political correctness is that βNo Good Deed Shall Go Unpunishedββand partly because his confidence in the mission of British Imperialism had an unacceptable racial component. In his will, Rhodes affirmed his conviction that Anglo-Saxons were βthe first race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race.β Try that out on members of the βBlack Lives Matterβ movement at your local college campus.
Weβve always regarded the PC attack on British Imperialismβand by extension, on Cecil Rhodesβas slightly preposterous. The philosopher George Santayana got it exactly right, we think, when, reflecting on British exploits around the world, he noted that βNever since the heroic days of Greece has the world had such a sweet, just, boyish master. It will be a black day for the human race when scientific blackguards, conspirators, churls, and fanatics manage to supplant him.β The behavior of Sir Charles Napier in India provides a good example of what Santayana had in mind. Napier was approached one day by some native Hindus who were unhappy about the British proscription of suttee, the custom of burning widows alive on the funeral pyre of their husbands. This little ceremony, they explained, was woven deep into their culture. It had the sanction of longstanding custom. Napier responded (we paraphrase), βOK, burning widows is your custom. Splendid. Prepare the sacrificial pyre. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. You follow your custom, and we shall follow ours.β Thus was the barbaric practice of suttee all but eradicated.
When the subject of the moral character of British imperialism comes up, we generally think of this edifying historical episode. We also recall a famous sketch from Monty Pythonβs Life of Brian. Angry political activists are meeting to plot against the Romans. They curse their oppressors for pillaging their property for generations. βAnd what have they ever given us in return?β asks the character played by John Cleese. Harumphs all around until a timid voice from the throng ventures βThe aqueduct?β βWell, OK,β Cleese allows. But besides the aqueducts? βSanitation,β responds another voice. βAnd the roads,β pipes up another. βIrrigation.β βMedicine.β βEducation.β βAnd the wine.β βAnd the public baths.β βAnd itβs safe to walk in the streets at night.β βAlright,β cries a disgruntled John Cleese, βbut apart from sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?β
We thought of this cheery skit recently when the figure of Cecil Rhodes once again entered the news. A young South African man called Ntokozo Qwabe, who reminds us a bit of Evelyn Waughβs Emperor Seth from Black Mischief, is attending Oxford University courtesy of a scholarship funded by Rhodes. The scholarship covers all Qwabeβs university fees and round-trip airfare from Africa, and allows him a personal stipend of Β£13,658. But that hasnβt stopped him from leading a campaign against the legacy of Rhodes. Qwabe is co-founder of a group called βRhodes Must Fall,β whose signature demand is the removal of a statue of the great philanthropist from a building at Oriel College. βIβm no beneficiary of Rhodes,β Qwabe insisted. βIβm a beneficiary of the resources and labour of my people which Rhodes pillaged and slaved. . . . All that he looted must absolutely be returned immediately.β
Qwabe exudes what we might call an equal-opportunity animus. According to him, Cecil Rhodes was a βracist, genocidal maniac.β In the aftermath of the slaughter in Paris last yearβan incident of Islamic terrorism that left some 130 deadβQwabe took to Facebook to announce βI do NOT stand with France. Not while it continues to terrorise and bomb Afrika [sic] & the Middle East for its imperial interests. We will not end terrorism by choosing the terrorist our subjective sensibilities and popular propaganda normalise.β
Apparently innocent of Godwinβs law, a corollary of which states that spurious comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis entail that one automatically loses the argument, Qwabe can barely turn around without mentioning Nazis. Not only was Cecil Rhodes βas bad as Hitler,β but according to him the Tricolore is a βviolent symbolβ that should be removed from universities: βI would agree with that in the same way that the presence of a Nazi flag would have to be fought against.β
At least some of the responses to Qwabeβs histrionic performance have been salutary. One upstanding member of the public suggested to him: βGive back your scholarship and remove the chip off your shoulder.β Another observed: βYour hypocrisy is breathtaking. . . . If you object so much to this nationβs lack of political correctness, the answer is in your hands. I wasnβt lucky enough to go to university and I take your narrow-minded attitude as a slap in the face to the freedoms we fought world wars to keep.β True, all true. But that didnβt stop students at the Oxford Union from voting 245 to 212 to remove the statue of Rhodes as part of a wider movement of βdecolonization.β Arguing against the motion, Professor Nigel Biggar noted that if the statue of Rhodes were removed, then statues of Winston Churchill would be next on the list of proscribed figures. βIf Rhodes must fall,β he said,
so must Churchill, whose views on empire and race were similar. And so probably must Abraham Lincoln. While Lincoln liberated African-American slaves, he doubted they could be integrated into white society and favoured their separate developmentβtheir apartheidβin an African colony. If we insist on our heroes being pure, then we arenβt going to have any. Last year the shine on Mahatma Gandhiβs halo came off, when we learned of his view that Indians were culturally superior to black Africans. Should this blot out all his remarkable achievements? I think not.
Ridiculous? Absurd? There are already calls to remove statues of Thomas Jefferson on several college campuses in the United States: really, Churchill and Lincoln cannot be far behind.
Writing in The Spectator, Douglas Murray castigated Qwabe, βthe insincere little demagogue,β noting that the βclaim that modern-day Oxford University is βracistβ is so obviously untrue that it can only have been claimed by people pressing for some blackmail advantage or higher cash offer.β Indeed. In the United States, all it takes is a few βstudents of colorβ to whine about βracismβ in order to prompt nervous administrators to start disgorging epic amounts of cash to soothe the made-up grievances of coddled minorities. Yaleβs President Peter Salovey, for example, promised $50 million for new programs, βcultural centers,β and professors to cater to skirling βstudents of colorβ who complained that the university had provided an insufficiently βsafe space.β
Brown University saw Yaleβs $50 million and raised it another $50 million, pledging to disburse more than $100 million to create what Christina Paxson, Brownβs president, called βa just and inclusive campus.β The response? Students occupied the presidentβs office, claiming that the $100 million βdiversity planβ doesnβt go far enough. βThe Diversity Action and Inclusion Plan,β the protestors wrote, βis illegitimate and insufficient. . . . [T]he administration has not acknowledged our countless and persistent demands to this institution. . . . We are tired of open dialogues and forums, and we will not be tokenized and exploited in these conversations any further,β etc., etc.
So far, the response in the United Kingdom has been more robust. Chris Patten, the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, responded to the demand that the statue of Rhodes be removed by observing that βEducation is not indoctrination. Our history is not a blank page on which we can write our own version of what it should have been according to our contemporary views and prejudices.β Patten went on to suggest that those who refuse to embrace freedom of thought and who want to censor both past and present should βthink about being educated elsewhereββwhich, as Douglas Murray wryly pointed out, βis Oxonian for something often said more curtly.β In a letter to The Telegraph, a group of British academics seconded the Chancellorβs robust common sense. βAn open and democratic society,β they wrote, βrequires people to have the courage to argue against ideas they disagree with or even find offensive. At the moment there is a real risk that students are not given opportunities to engage in such debate. A generation of students is being denied the opportunity to test their opinions against the views of those they donβt agree with.β
As we have had frequent occasion to note in these pages, this bit of homely wisdomβa liberal chestnut in the old and highest sense of βliberalββis under siege at Western universities. The publicβs response to these spectacles of intolerance is partly one of nervous bemusement, partly impatient contempt. Seldom, we suspect, is the depth and virulence of the intolerance really taken on board. The economist Larry Summers, a former president of Harvard University who was drummed out of that position by a coven of angry feminist and black students and faculty, recently noted the growing presence of βa kind of creeping totalitarianism in terms of what kind of ideas are acceptable and are debatable on college campuses. And I think thatβs hugely unfortunate. I think the answer to bad speech is different speech. The answer to bad speech is not shutting down speech.β
Reflecting on Summersβs observations, the commentator Glenn Reynolds usefully noted that the people shutting down free speech on campus are not βgood people overcome with well-meaning zeal. Theyβre awful people, who are engaging in bullying and totalitarianism. They should,β Reynolds advises, βbe treated accordingly. Note also that much of this is encouraged/enabled by administrators in βstudent lifeβ bureaucracies, and remember that those people donβt have tenure.β Good advice.