The UCT - Cecil John Rhodes Statue Thread

[Rusty0]

Its distorted by the current context.

We need the perspective of time to understand history.

So like if no one cared about CJR his statue would eventually rust in to oblivion, the fact that someone has to tare it down means something.

So you say leave it there, just have it burn continuously.

 

[Sherbang]

Yeah, like the current curriculum where the Great Trek never even happened. Nobody in this country is going to agree on historical perspective and as distinct cultural groupings we should separate to each preserve his own identity.

The great trek can still be taught in the current curriculum. It's just not given as much prominence as before as it's now taught along side the history of the indigenous people (history that was conveniently left out before)

 

[etienne_marais]

The great trek can still be taught in the current curriculum. It's just not given as much prominence as before as it's now taught along side the history of the indigenous people (history that was conveniently left out before)

The history of the indigenous people was not left out, we learned about it.

 

[Sherbang]

Worried about it being distorted further. Revisions of previous distortions are good, further distortions are bad.

Are you being difficult because you're bored again?

No, I just don't trust "history" as taught, never have. There is no other history than revisionist history.
I don't understand people who get upset that history is being distorted, when actually it's always been distorted and always will be

As tom robbins puts it:

Hardly a pure science, history is closer to animal husbandry than it is to mathematics in that it involves selective breeding. The principal difference between the husbandryman and the historian is that the former breeds sheep or cows or such and the latter breeds (assumed) facts. The husbandryman uses his skills to enrich the future, the historian uses his to enrich the past. Both are usually up to their ankles in bull****.

― Tom Robbins, Another Roadside Attraction

 

[Seriously]

The great trek can still be taught in the current curriculum. It's just not given as much prominence as before as it's now taught along side the history of the indigenous people (history that was conveniently left out before)

The history of the indigenous people was not left out, we learned about it.

It means their side of the fairy tale like making clear Shaka was a hero and not a murdering despot!

 

[Nerfherder]

So you say leave it there, just have it burn continuously.

I'm actually not that opposed to moving it. I just don't want it to be because of the poo throwers.

We need to understand why we are doing this, their reasons are false

 

[Nerfherder]

The history of the indigenous people was not left out, we learned about it.

And it must be included, history is not about exclusion

 

[Albereth]

The great trek can still be taught in the current curriculum. It's just not given as much prominence as before as it's now taught along side the history of the indigenous people (history that was conveniently left out before)

I don't think that the indigenous people get much coverage. Basically they are a novelty. Didn't contribute to civilisation advancement in any meaningful way.

 

[Fazda]

But the history of this country has always been distorted and illegitimate.
So you're worried about distorting a history that is already distorted?

As a history teacher for 36 years, I take offence at what you are saying!

I taught both indigenous and white history after THOROUGHLY researching it, and attempted to be as unbiased as possible.

 

[Solarion]

This is my point - if you want to dig into the actions of any one of these people now sitting as statues, you will find some dirt somewhere that is going to get up someone's nose.

This type of thing really disturbs me, as it is a very clear indication of the mood of the people who will ultimately hold positions of power. They want to rid this country of any memories of the past and if that involves destroying anything or anyone who gets in their way, then so be it!

Zim 2.0 ?

 

[etienne_marais]

It means their side of the fairy tale like making clear Shaka was a hero and not a murdering despot!

Funny thing is I grant the various groupings their own interpretation and perspective, I just don't want to be forced into theirs. Again, after more than 10 generations and many battles, struggles and endurances I don't see myself as some type of visitor to the country who needs to suck up to the 'natives' and deliver patronage in a sense of guilt (unlike the recent immigrants and their liberal offspring who came here with a sense of self-righteousness).

 

[Space_Chief]

No, I just don't trust "history" as taught, never have. There is no other history than revisionist history.
I don't understand people who get upset that history is being distorted, when actually it's always been distorted and always will be

As tom robbins puts it:


― Tom Robbins, Another Roadside Attraction

Can we trust Robbins really said that and did he really mean what he said? Should we not evaluate it differently? I don't think I trust the original source on this one.

 

[Roelie]

The great trek can still be taught in the current curriculum. It's just not given as much prominence as before as it's now taught along side the history of the indigenous people (history that was conveniently left out before)

What makes you say it was left out?
When I was at school several decades ago we had to learn the history of the indiginious tribes and the Voortrekker history, and not only in context of the white history. We also learnt a lot of European history. I can't recall if we learnt much of Asian, Chinese, Japanese and American history, except where it intersected with European history.
And then we also wondered why we had to learn this cr@p, and nowdays I willingly read lots of books about the world's history.

 

[Space_Chief]

What makes you say it was left out?
When I was at school several decades ago we had to learn the history of the indiginious tribes and the Voortrekker history, and not only in context of the white history. We also learnt a lot of European history. I can't recall if we learnt much of Asian, Chinese, Japanese and American history, except where it intersected with European history.
And then we also wondered why we had to learn this cr@p, and nowdays I willingly read lots of books about the world's history.

The European history you learned was mostly the history of Great Britain with a little bit of continental history which was also biased heavily toward Western Europe - especially the Anglo-Saxon/Germanic nations. There just is too much to learn otherwise. Just Japanese history is so rich and long that it would take the entire history HS curriculum to half cover. So focus is on what's pertinent to the locals. Armenian history was not taught in SA, neither was Mongolian or Korean. Most is Afrikaaner and UK history.

 

[Sherbang]

The history of the indigenous people was not left out, we learned about it.

Really? Yet so many people on myBB are unaware of the great and varied African Empires that existed on this continent,
but everyone knows about victorian england.

Were you taught about the military genius of Shaka and the great social innovations he pioneered?

Can you tell me all about King Zwide or Sobhuza?

Were you taught about the complex causes of mfecane, or just that Shaka was a horrible man.

Were you taught about the Ndwandwe and their influence in Zululand?

How about Mzilikazi, chief of the Khumalo? Was that part of your syllabus?

Do you even know, without looking it up on google, who the founder of the Zulu nation was?

We all know about the 'great trek' and the great dutch heroes though don't we?

 

[Rusty0]

I'm actually not that opposed to moving it. I just don't want it to be because of the poo throwers.

We need to understand why we are doing this, their reasons are false

And when white people were doing it in the 70s?


I dont think the reasoning is false. Its completely justified in my opinion.

 

[Sherbang]

I don't think that the indigenous people get much coverage. Basically they are a novelty. Didn't contribute to civilisation advancement in any meaningful way.

Thanks for proving my point

 

[Sherbang]

Can we trust Robbins really said that and did he really mean what he said? Should we not evaluate it differently? I don't think I trust the original source on this one.

http://books.google.co.za/books?id=sE5bAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=husbandry

 

[thestaggy]

The great trek can still be taught in the current curriculum. It's just not given as much prominence as before as it's now taught along side the history of the indigenous people (history that was conveniently left out before)

I matriculated in 2003.

In Primary School I learnt about Shaka, the San, van Riebeeck, the Romans and ancient Egypt.

In High School we progressed to more in depth stuff; The Renaissance, the French Revolution, the Union of SA, Apartheid (focusing on the resistance side), the Mfecane, WW1 and 2, the Cold War.

On the whole I believe I received a rock-solid education in history as I learnt not only about the history of my country and the key players within it, but I also learnt how the world around me came to be.

You can't narrow history down to ''indigenous history'' when, whether you like it or not, South Africa's history is richer than that. ''Western history'' has most definitely influenced SA in a profound way.

 

[Sherbang]

As a history teacher for 36 years, I take offence at what you are saying!

I taught both indigenous and white history after THOROUGHLY researching it, and attempted to be as unbiased as possible.

So you can tell me, without looking it up on google, who the founder of the Zulu nation was?