It would be extremely easy to paint this story in pantomime terms. Rumours are confirmed that the university would lose a £100 million donation if the statue were to fall, and simultaneously Oriel confirms that removal of the statue is no longer an option. They have stated, of course, that this is solely due to unrelated ‘overwhelming’ opposition to the idea, but it’s clear how else this could be seen: mysterious rich white donors pressure university from the shadows, peppy student activists raise a whirlwind that ends up being no more than a load of vainly expended hot air.
Something may well smell rotten here, and not just Rhodes’ character. It is essential that we remain sceptical and do not mindlessly believe every statement that we are presented with, but nonetheless a black and white approach to this question is only going to be a disservice to the university and to Oriel’s Governing Body. More importantly, though, it would be both misleading and counterproductive.
As imposing and dystopian as the term ‘Governing Body’ frankly does sound, and as unrepresentative as our University administration is – remember that Oxford has one, that is one full time black don – the college and university have a complex set of responsibilities, and it would be naive to ignore the importance of funding, even if Oxford does have the fastest growing endowment of any university in Europe.
Oriel’s declared plan was to hold a six month ‘structured listening exercise’ to decide on the fate of the statue, something that does make the sudden change rather surprising, if not suspect. This exercise has now been downgraded to a space for discussion of other questions concerning it, primarily contextualisation and how this could be done. ‘Contextualisation’ of course means nothing more or less than what it says on the tin, the act of providing additional information or context to visual elements. It might seem unexciting and rather like a non-action, but in fact goes to the heart of the debate.
What really stirs up members of the RMF movement, and what should stir us all up, is our collective failure to recognise the atrocities committed under and for the furthering of the British Empire (and colonialism more widely). To put it brutally, Churchill – was implicated in colonial policies of subjugation, famously claiming he had not become the King’s “First Minister to preside over the liquidation of the Empire.” But today, for good or ill, these aspects of his political career are simply not part of our everyday picture of Churchill. Whatever your political views, that is simply unacceptable (though do feel free to reject the example; there are plenty more). Equally unacceptable, however, would be to see him as nothing more than that: we have to engage with all aspects of our history.
Contextualisation, then, is not necessarily a cop-out. Done well, it can have a transformative power and achieve something along the lines of what both Vice-Chancellor Louise Richardson and Mary Beard have called for: a world where the statue of Rhodes is a memorial to every aspect of our history rather than only to the benefits gained by white people, and where that façade does not exclude BME students and applicants but reassures them that this university is aware of and pointedly inquisitive about its past.
If Oriel is to achieve anything close to this, they must be painstakingly transparent about their proceedings. Colonial history is as complex and misleading as this sort of thing can get, and contextualisation of the statue would sit at a highly charged point of interaction between these complex histories and the current national and international state of racial injustice. Racism is simply not dead, even in the UK, and so it is essential that this transparency work together with a simple and honest humility.
But what are Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford to do? They are taking time to regroup and strategise, sensibly, and their options are extremely open. Their focus on that lump of sandstone has been enormously successful at provoking debate, and they would do well to celebrate that victory. There is naturally the option of some guerilla vandalism and a shift into some 1968-style radical methods, but this would of course be rather dangerous, from both an ethical and a pragmatic perspective. Further campaigning about the statue is unlikely to lead anywhere, at least in the foreseeable future, but there is no reason why they should not embrace the hard work of OUSU’s Campaign for Racial Awareness and Equality and reshape into something new, maintaining their commendable mindfulness of the legacy – or perhaps continuing presence – of colonialism.
