Saturday 26th July 2025
Blog Page 1103

Rewind: Radiohead’s ‘Street Spirit (Fade Out)’

Bex Watson
-
0
Rewind: Radiohead’s ‘Street Spirit (Fade Out)’

On this very day in 1995, Radiohead released their ninth single: ‘Street Spirit (Fade Out)’, which in March was to feature in their second studio album The Bends. ‘Street Spirit (Fade Out)’ is, ultimately, a really fucking good song.

Through my misfortune of existing only as a nearly fully developed foetus at the point of its release, I’ve only ever known ‘Street Spirit’ within the context of The Bends. The song literally fades out the album, all within a meta-structure as Yorke sings “fade out.” There is something infinitely hopeless about ‘Street Spirit,’ something irreconcilably melancholic. The guitar swells with the melancholy which Yorke piercingly narrates. The lyrics are fragmented, presenting frames of misery rather than a story arc. We are facing melancholy in its purest and irreparable form.

Yorke describes ‘Street Spirit’ as “drain[ing]” and “shak[ing]” him each time he plays it. ‘Street Spirit’ is not pretty, it’s not optimistic. It narrates the unintelligible ineffable feeling that everyone on occasion is struck by – that one day we will disappear, and cease to have any significance. If we ever had any to begin with. We remain oblivious to so much that one day we will have to “swallow whole” – one day we will face all the tragedy and pain that we are desensitised and oblivious to. Much like Yorke suppresses the emotion that ‘Street Spirit’ connotes in order to be able to perform without “cracking”, this is the way in which we conceivably exist. There is no lift in the song, arpeggios build up, play through, and fade out once more. There is no glimmer or release.

Yorke was disturbed at the live reaction to ‘Street Spirit,’ unnerved by the cheers and smiles of the audience. It is certainly not a song that makes you smile, but in artistically depicting something that feels so unpennable, Radiohead have created something hauntingly astute. It doesn’t misfire in its indulgence, it is far from the tepid whinery that ‘sad songs’ are often connected to. There is something mesmerising in melancholia when illustrated well. And Radiohead have done exactly that.

Huey Morgan: it’s all for the fans

Ellen Peirson-Hagger
-
0
Huey Morgan: it’s all for the fans

I talk to Huey Morgan in mid-December. He is at home in Somerset; his wife has just gone to pick up his sons from school; and he tells me he’s looking forward to Christmas. It’s almost hard to imagine that this chatty down-to-earth bloke is soon to embark on a world tour as part of the Fun Lovin’ Criminals, as the band celebrates the 20th anniversary of their ground-breaking debut Come Find Yourself with tours and re-issues galore.

Morgan is excited about the tour (which comes to Oxford’s O2 Academy on 11th February), but from the outset it is clear that he sees it not as a business venture, but as a “thank you” to fans who have been there since the release of the self-produced rock/hip-hop/ jazz/funk record that came out of urban New York in 1996. He thinks an anniversary tour is “kinda cool” and “humbling in a real way”, enforcing the idea that it was thousands of fans who grouped together to ask the band for a re-issue.

It is clear that Morgan feels he owes so much to the audiences he has played to over the years, though he’d rather say that he plays “for” the fans, saying “the audience are the most important part of the equation – we play for them, not ‘at’ them or ‘to’ them – it’s been the same for 20 years.”

And much has changed since 1996. The original line-up included Huey Morgan on vocals and guitar, multi-instrumentalist Brian Leiser on bass and keys amongst other things, and Steve Borgovini on drums. This time around, the Come Find Yourself 20th anniversary tour – which includes dates up and down the country and in Europe – will see current Fun Lovin’ Criminal Frank Benbini take to the kit instead of Borgovini.

The album was bold at the time of release; Morgan does not shy away from basking in this glory, telling me how it changed people’s perspectives, with that kaleidoscope mishmash of genres, the punk-rock aggression and politicised lyrics reverberating around an urban population. Reading about Morgan, every writer seems keen to make the point that he really is a Fun Lovin’ Criminal, infamously having had the choice to serve time in prison or join the US Marines after thieving and drug-related crimes in his youth. Of course he chose the Marines. Another article describes his nonchalance at lighting a cigarette in a London bar during an interview in 2012. Morgan is evidently a bold character.

But this was not an expected success. As he is keen to reiterate, at the time they were just young guys who had big ideas they wanted to put onto a record. This brute youth is evident on the album. Even 20 years on, the ferocity of Come Find Yourself’s sound will be at the forefront of the gigs, as Morgan tells me the songs will be played in full, in order, before an interval, and a second half of the “other songs everyone will want to hear” – which sounds like any fan’s dream. And, as Morgan says himself, “10 million people can’t be wrong”

Oxford Students to protest proposed housing cuts

Freddie Hopkinson
-
0
Oxford Students to protest proposed housing cuts

A C+ Investigations survey has found that over 85 per cent of Oxford students polled oppose proposed cuts to housing support services by Oxfordshire County Council. The cuts could represent as much as 65 per cent of the budget, and will be discussed by the council on January 26th. Various Oxford based groups plan on holding a protest outside the County Hall on that day.

The proposed measure could reduce Housing Related Support by £1.5m from 2017, on top of a 38 per cent cut in 2014. Oxford Homeless Pathways, a major provider of Housing Related Support in Oxford, has indicated that the cuts would lead to the closure of O’Hanlon House in Luther Street and Simon House in Paradise Street. In general, Housing Related Support funds services which help people to remain in their homes when problems arise. It also provides accommodation-based services such as hostel beds and specialist support for people taking their first steps out of homelessness.  

Lesley Dewhurst, Chief Executive of Oxford Homeless Pathways, claimed that the proposed cuts would hit the most vulnerable hardest, telling Cherwell, “The people who use these services are among the most vulnerable people in our society – those with severe and enduring mental health problems, addiction issues, physical health problems, young and old. Any loss of preventative and resettlement support, or beds and specialist support in hostels, will have disastrous effects.”
 
Clare Ellis, who recently moved out of homelessness with the help of Oxford Homeless Pathways’ provision, said, “I can’t imagine how my family would have survived without the support of the homeless organisations. If these cuts go ahead, our prisons, streets and hospitals will be pushed to breaking point. What does this say about our humanity?”
 
The C+ Investigations team has found that issues of the humanity of the cuts have inspired a number of students to join the protests planned for Tuesday. In particular, the Chair of OUSU’s On Your Doorstep campaign, Jacob Vivian, has expressed to Cherwell about his concern about the direction of the potential spending decisions. Jacob asked, “Whatever good, financially-plausible, and ‘sensible’ reasons there are for making cuts, should we sit back while the disenfranchised in our society, the homeless, have their lifelines taken away from them?”

Amidst growing unease about the County Council cuts, Labour City Councillor Mike Rowley has stated, “We’re now in a situation where the rough sleeper count, a snapshot of how many people are sleeping in the open on a particular night, has gone up by 50 per cent in a year, from 26 to 39. I’m deeply concerned that the Government’s various benefit and funding cuts are increasing the problem, while leaving local Councils without the resources we need to deal with it.”

Speaking out against criticism, County Council spokesman Chris Birdsall noted that cutting the Housing Related Support budget was one option out of over 90 covering all areas of funding. He added, “It is not a final decision. It is not yet even a proposal – it’s an option. Housing Related Support is not a legal requirement for the county council. Providing social care for those with assessed care needs is a legal requirement. Our focus has to be on providing services that we are legally obliged to provide.”

As debate continues, C+ has investigated the voluntary services to a degree dependent on Oxford University student participation, which may witness the effects of these planned changes on the homeless population.

On the same day as the measures are due to be discussed, On Your Doorstep will be taking part in a protest outside the County Hall at 1pm. On the event’s Facebook page, it says, “This will be a PEACEFUL rally. We want to come together not to cause trouble, but to stand together as a united front and to impress upon the County Council that endless budget cuts in Oxfordshire are unreasonable and are putting vital services and vulnerable people at risk.”

A petition is being promoted online.

Clickbait: The 10 people you meet in lectures

Cameron Finlay
-
0
Clickbait: The 10 people you meet in lectures

Everyone knows the lecture theatre holds a merry cast of characters, but have you ever taken the time to make a detailed list? Here is just a small glimpse at some people you may have run into in your 9ams.

1: The Keen Bean

No matter what time you walk into the lecture theatre, they’re always there before you. Usually sitting in the front row, and if not in the front row, then in a puddle of their own tears in the second row. When the lecturer walks in, their heads whip round like something from the Exorcist with a rictus grin across their face. Maintaining not-creepy-at-all eye-contact with the lecturer for almost the entire duration of the lecture, they’re ready to learn and have fun while they do it. Dear Keen Bean, we admire your enthusiasm, we wonder where it came from, and we beg that you tone it down a bit. You’re making the rest of us look even worse than we feel during a 9am.

2: The Obsessive Note-Taker.

As the lecturer drones on, you can hear a low hum to your left somewhere. Has a bee buzzed into the theatre? Is a visiting student humming ‘Star Spangled Banner’ again? Not quite. What you can hear is the sound of layers and layers of graphite being eroded away by friction or the whirr of a ball-point pen as the obsessive note-taker threatens to break their own wrist as they attempt to copy down everything in the lecture word for word. After an hour of non-stop writing, they unhook their mangled hand from their choice of writing implement and breathe a sigh of accomplishment. You can see the pain in their eyes, they’re nearly crying, but they love it. Dear Obsessive Note-Taker, you’re a freakish masochist but we keep you around because we obviously didn’t pick up a pen during the hour at all.

3: The One lusting after a hot lecturer.

You can hear them panting from 5 rows away. They haven’t stopped writing in their notebook and you’re pretty sure that rather than a transcript of the lecture, it’s an erotic short story entailing just what would happen between the Lecturer-Lover and the hot professor in a one-on-one tutorial. Their eyes are fixed on the podium, but they’ve glazed over and you know that they’re mentally undressing the lecturer as you hastily try and work out exactly what the lecture itself is about. It’s actually quite uncomfortable sitting near them. The theatre is filled with pheromones and there’s no escape until after an hour. Dear Lecturer-Lover, you have virtually no redeeming qualities and you make us all uncomfortable. Enough said.

4. The One lusting after a lecturer who is NOT hot.

Possibly worse than the previous offender. No one understands what is going on in your head. The lecture is clearly past 50, getting close to severely overweight, and no matter how ‘interesting’ their bone structure is, they’ll never be attractive. Are you attracted to power? Is that it? If so, I can point out several more suitable candidates such as Barack Obama, Angela Merkel. Maybe even Boris Johnson. But the person giving a lecture about the history of Jane Austen is not powerful or attractive. You’re clearly a bit deluded and you make us all uncomfortable. Stop what you’re doing at once. We will give you real, human currency.

5. The One who doesn’t sleep. 

They trudge in. They grunt at someone they recognize. They sit down at the back. They take out their notebook, fashion a small pillow out of it and lay down their heads for the rest of the lecture. Oh how we envy you. If only you knew how tired the rest of us are, but the rest of us are too easily manipulated by social conventions and fear of being intellectually sub-par. You look so at peace, wrapped so deeply in your hoodie that you don’t seem to be aware of the presence of evil in our world, but you’re only postponing the inevitable. Dear Mr. Sleeper, we’re all deeply jealous of you and we wish we had your confidence. The only thing of yours we don’t want is that bed-head. Yikes!

6. The Couple. 

They are practically one person. They’re holding hands on the way in. They’re holding hands on the way out. Hell, they’re probably holding hands all the way through the lecture. They’re always whispering to each other, giggling with each other, and nuzzling each other. You’re pretty sure you’ve seen them kiss in the middle of the lecture hall once. At some point during the hour, one of them will lean their head on the shoulder of the other. God, that looks nice. We wish we all had that. But chances are, we’re probably sitting next to the next person on the list. Dear Couple, you irritate us because you seem so perfect. Please stop at once. We can only take so much at this hour of the morning.

7. The Ill Person.

What did the lecturer just say? It’s getting hard to tell. Most of his sentences now are punctuated by a spell of staccato coughs and sneezes and he never talked very loudly before Ill Person became ill anyway. In the middle of an important fact, they’ll hawk a gobbet of mucus back into their diseased throats. They’ll wipe their rapidly running noses on the back of their sleeve with blissful abandon while you try to keep your breakfast down. If we’re sitting next to you, we know it’s only a matter of time before you infect us. Like the spread of a zombie plague, in a matter of days the whole lecture theatre will be filled with a tumbling crowd of Ill People. Dear Ill Person, we wish you’d stayed at home. Now all of us are at risk, doomed to become the social pariah that you are. Thanks a lot.

8. The One that you’re lusting after. 

You definitely haven’t been waiting outside the lecture theatre for half an hour and going in just after they went in to make sure that you get a seat next to them. It was just a coincidence that you arrived unusually early and had the thought to go in just as they arrived. Meaningless noise spews from the mouth of the lecturer as you  strain your body so that they only see you from the one angle where your head doesn’t look like an egg with a face drawn on it. You correct your posture every few minutes. You keep pushing your hair around on your head to make sure it looks nice. You sigh every so often just to let them know that you’re not fully content in life and that you’d be happier with a casual lover. Except they never notice. Never. And you’re not sure how much longer it’ll be before you throw yourself at their feet crying and whispering ‘Love me’ into their perfect ears. We’ve all been there.

9. The One who doesn’t wash.

At first, you recognized them by their features. Now, you recognize them by their pungent and unpleasant odour. When you first smelt them from along the row, you thought they must have had a bad night and not had time to shower when they woke up. But on the umpteenth time, you start to become suspicious. As you look fearfully at them and vow only to breathe through your mouth for the rest of your life, you wonder whether you should bring it up or let them live in blissful ignorance. Not everyone can smell as great as you do, y’know.

10. The One who spoke to you once and now thinks that you’re friends.

Perhaps they asked you the time once. Or maybe they just wanted to look at the handout. Whatever serendipitous occasion first introduced you to them, the end result is always the same. They won’t bloody leave you alone. They always make a beeline for you in the theatre, excited at the prospect of making friends from other colleges. By contrast, you couldn’t care less about them. You’d sell them to Satan for a Tesco meal deal. But for some unnerving reason, they think that they have a special bond with you and you just don’t know what you did to deserve them. I’d try and say something reassuring, but really you’re stuck with them for life. Sorry. Have fun with that.

RMF win Union debate by slim margin

Daniel Kodsi
-
0
RMF win Union debate by slim margin

On Tuesday evening, the Oxford Union held a debate on what President Stuart Webber deemed that “most topical of questions, both within Oxford and without”: must Rhodes fall?

The seven speakers gathered were split in two divided halves. On one side were Rhodes Must Fall (RMF) member and Rhodes scholar Ntokozo Qwabe, President of the Oxford University Africa Society Yasmin Kumi, RMF member and MSc candidate in African Studies Athinangamson Esther Nkopo,and Rhodes Professor of Imperial History at King’s College London Richard Drayton.

On the other side, against RMF, sat Former Professor of Race Relations at the University of Oxford African Studies Centre William Beinart, Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at Christ Church Professor Nigel Biggar, and a social justice activist, who has previously argued with Qwabe, Sophia Cannon.

Qwabe gave his opening statement first, his introduction by Webber greeted by applause and cheers. Qwabe centered his argument not on the statue of Cecil Rhodes at Oriel that has become synonymous with the RMF movement, but on that which it represented. 

He argued that we must pay attention not to the “polarised statue debate presented as [RMF’s] only demand” but to the patterns of black, minority and ethnic (BME) exclusion and the way Oxford itself is exclusive. He brought in the statistic that Oxford has only one full-time black professor and deemed it “deplorable” that only 24 black British students were accepted to Oxford as undergraduates.

Kumi focused more on the statue itself, saying she believed in the necessity it fell and that it was “evident that a leader like Rhodes does not deserve” to be raised on a pedestal. She compared Rhodes to Hitler, arguing that they were similar because of the nature of their racist ideology.

Esther Nkomo furthered Qwabe and Kumi’s points, adding that “statues reflect the way societies view themselves”. She said that removing the statue was about “how the university wants to imagine itself and about how empire affects those across the globe”.

Drayton played to his credentials as a historian, saying that Rhodes was considered violent and disreputable even in his own time. He said that “Oxford remains color-coded white” and that removing the statue was so that Oxford and Britain could “begin to free the future”.

Speakers on the other side of the debate largely reflected on how the statue was a tool that had been used to successful effect by the RMF movement to provoke discussion and debate. 

Beinart said that the RMF movement had displayed “acumen in choosing the statue as its symbol” and that Oxford must consider what comes of accepting donations for its image.

Biggar challenged the idea that Rhodes was comparable to Hitler, said that Rhodes was not racist, for instance on the grounds that he supported black voting rights, and said that if the statue of Rhodes must fall, so must those of Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln, a comment which received a couple claps.  

Cannon for her part added that British statues were welded to their history whether they liked it or not, and that this could not be ignored. Rhodes must not fall, she concluded.

Webber introduced the question and answer session by asking the RMF side about Cherwell’s survey, pointing out that 54% of Oxford students thought Rhodes should stand. In response, Esther Nkomo highlighted the fact that majorities are relative. 

Foreshadowing recurrent debate on historical accuracy, Drayton took a temporary silence to attack what he called Biggar’s “appalling grasp of history” and said that arguments made by the opposition were “perverse”. 

Another theme that emerged from the RMF side was that action spoke louder than words or justification could and Rhodes’ actions had been deleterious, so contextualisation could not be used as a defense. 

On the other hand, Biggar and Cannon repeatedly made use of the argument that getting rid of statues was a slippery slope. Biggar said that if we required perfection of our heroes, we would have none left.  

A key debate was on Oxford’s, and Britain’s, inclusivity or lack thereof. Both sides were united in saying that Oxford must become more diverse and more welcoming of minorities, especially South Americans. 

But while the RMF representatives said that Oxford could not become a neutral space if the symbol of Rhodes continued to stand, their opponents said the leverage of the statue was pivotal in furthering the diversity cause. 

Another question was that of historical erasure. Cannon argued, “If you erase history, you erase its bright lights and dark halls”. But Ntoko and Drayton argued the other way around, saying the statue and Rhodes’ money were actually the erasers. 

Ntoko and Drayton were also quick to react when Rhodes scholars were accused of hypocrisy for accepting Rhodes’ money. Drayton made use of proverb in his response saying, “Steal from a thief and God smiles.”

The vote at the end was 245 to 212 on the side that Rhodes’ statue must fall

The clearly divided audience led one man who Cherwell’s correspondents talked to for an exclusive OxPop episode of CherwellTV afterwards to say “perhaps the best solution is leave half of it up and take the other half down”.

The sanctimonious West

Daniel Kodsi
-
0
The sanctimonious West

It has become a weary trope to say that the only development really born of the Arab spring is that of the Islamic State: government founded on brutal, quasi-religious authoritarianism whose power derives from a cooption and rehabilitation of God in the image of violence.

So does The Economist claim in its January 9 analysis of what it now calls the Arab winter and which others have grown fond of calling the Islamist winter. “In ghastly irony,” the Islamic State is “the only truly new model of government,” the publication writes, as if government founded on religious-based oppression were in anyway new. It is a necessity of the monotheistic conception of God that He is endowed with absolute authority, and from there, no matter the society, it can only be a matter of time before someone turns that authority to nefarious end.

Let there be no expectation that this column posit any sort of thesis about what should be done to help fix the wildfires that have consumed the region since 2011. I cannot do so, nor do I think it is my place to try. It is my view, rather, that Western observers and journalists are incapable of understanding the forces that have come to dictate state action in the Middle East given that they do not obtain in the Western world.

The paradigm from which the West operates is so fundamentally different from the reality of the Middle East that all of our criticisms and suggestions are of precious little more help than an especially loud thunderclap. And our actions themselves are positively destructive. Let us not forget what The Economist deemed “America’s spectacularly inept occupation of Iraq”. Not inept: ruinous. Iraq Body Count (IBC) estimates up to 171,000 documented civilian deaths following my country’s 2003 mission to liberate and democratise. And IBC only reports Iraqi civilian lives lost, an account that leaves out the West’s intervention and our subsequent exit served to destabilise power relations in the region. A destabilisation, which, among other impacts, has led to roughly 250,000 deaths in Syria alone.

So when The New York Times Editorial Board sanctimoniously writes, “What is needed, and has long been needed, is an immediate end to the [Syrian] civil war,” one is forced to wonder how the editors of the paper of record are so “spectacularly inept” at not saying stupid shit. I allude, of course, to Obama’s explicit foreign policy of not “doing stupid shit,” which at the very least has for America the advantage of making it harder to blame us when things again go awry.

Obama’s might be the only cogent foreign policy that is coherent with my thesis. To really grasp how little the West understands the Middle East, let us look at its interactions with Israel, a country whose values are the same as its own: life, liberty, equality, justice and rationality. But Israel has on it a constraint, one that holds across the region: it exists under constant threat.

When Ben Franklin made his comment in Poor Richard’s Almanack about the inviolability of liberty in a true democracy, he was professing a truth in political philosophy. Truth in political practice is different. The state, democratic or not, ablest to defend against internal and external threats and thereby ensure its survival, is not the moral but the strong one. Hence why Israelis are willing to sacrifice some of their values and elect bullies like Netanyahu and far-right parties into office. They perceive their state as being under siege.

And when other democracies, ostensibly with the objective of convincing Israel to reclaim its morality, pile on with constant opprobrium, to the point where they seem to criticise more than support, the siege is only worsened and the sentiment of isolation further entrenched. Which is not to say we should not engage in criticism of Israel if doing so is what strikes us as right – but when we do, we must recognise that first, we do so for ourselves and second, we have so little conception of real fear that we spent trillions as the result of one terrorist attack.

One can generalise from Israel. The rest of the Middle East faces the same dual external threat Israel does: coercive and moralising force from the West along with a deep, underlying schism pitting religious denomination against religious denomination. Hence, state leaders in the Middle East recognised that in order to maximise the strength they could exert in external protection, they had to suppress internal threat, which they accomplished by means of military or religion. There was, if not peace, then at least some form of equilibrium.

Act I     Scene 1

Enter BUSH and BLAIR

An alternative perspective from South Africa

George Lewin-Smith
-
0
An alternative perspective from South Africa

While in South Africa this Christmas, I opened the local newspaper and news from Oxford was on page three. The Cape News had published an article on the success of the Rhodes Must Fall campaign at Oxford University. The article reported that a motion to take down Cecil Rhodes’ memorial statue displayed outside Oriel College was under construction. This surprised me: why was Oriel giving in to the student protesters and what did such a concession really mean? I started to ask the local people around me what they thought of Rhodes and his legacy, and to consider their reaction to the campaign. I was inspired to write this article based upon the responses I received.

South African people celebrate Rhodes for his contributions to the country’s economy and appear able to overlook the negative aspects of his person, i.e. the violence and racism he was a proponent of, as a feature of his time. The inhabitants of Cape Town remember Rhodes for: contributing the vision for and funds to construct the beautiful University of Cape Town; founding a diamond and gold business; and campaigning for the protection of huge areas of gardens and forest. Rhodes granted a generous legacy to the people of Cape Town in his will, as well as money for the famous Rhodes Scholarships and new buildings in Oxford, which we are all familiar with.

Distilled down, Rhodes is considered by local people in South Africa to have been a brilliant businessman, a generous philanthropist and a great builder of infrastructure. Contrary to what you might expect the epitaph of “British imperialist” was not once bestowed on Rhodes by those I spoke to. It is arguable that the memory of the Dutch Boers, as holders of power in the country, has been treated more cruelly by South African history than the memory of the British colonialists. I was struck that David, who worked on the hotel concierge desk, praised the British for their history of investing in and creating opportunities in South Africa, while juxtaposing this with how the Boers pillaged the wealth in South Africa for personal gain.

It is now common, with hindsight, to discard and discredit the achievements of British imperialism and instead focus on and judge the negative aspects of British colonial history by the standards of our modern, democratic society. However we were certainly not the only, nor necessarily the most culpable, Western colonial power to invade South Africa. The Boers relied on rifles and slave labour to exploit the territories they occupied – do the Dutch remember their colonial contributions with as much shame as is the current trend in Britain?

I was surprised that in South Africa, a country which is now so sensitive to racial inequality due to the terrible memory of apartheid, people do not talk about the fact Rhodes was racist. This facet of his memory is simply condemned as part of South African history, which was inevitably a product of social construction, as opposed to a unique flaw in Rhodes. Indeed, it is easy to forget, in the fog of campaign fervour, to ground debate in historical context and contemporary social opinions. Judging Rhodes by our 21st century standards merely highlights why and how far society has advanced whilst accepting and understanding the reality of history requires an open mind and unobstructed access to facts: a duo which campaigners tend to neglect.

Considered rationally, the positive responses of South Africans to my questions about Rhodes are unsurprising. However, they surprised me as an individual who had only been encouraged to damn him by the reporting of the Oxford student press. Like him or not, Rhodes, along with his contemporary and adversary Paul Kurger, was a central figure in the development and creation of what became the Union of South Africa in 1910.

Just because we no longer endorse the attitudes of the past does not mean that the accurate and realistic historical record remaining in the form of works of art and architecture should be photoshopped to make the past more palatable to the present. No modern, educated person agrees with Rhodes’ 19th century values. He was a violent supremacist, abhorrent racist and diamond racketeer. But his statue in Oriel College is a fitting memorial to thank Rhodes for the £200,000 (in current valuation, £44million) he left to the college in his will. If Oriel is to take such a statue down, will they not take down the buildings which his endowment built? The removal of the statue would create a slippery slope and should not be a watershed in how individuals are remembered by history.

We often forget what a privilege hindsight is. Just because modern thinking does not condone the use of slaves for building the pyramids, nor the policies of the pharaohs who ordered their construction, does not mean that a wonder of the world should be torn down. Just because we no longer practice bigotry and execution does not mean the portrait of Henry VIII in the dining hall of Christ Church should be removed. Historical figures who we are now so quick to criticise, cannot be forgotten and instead should be recognised for their positive and negative contributions to history, and importantly should be remembered in the context of the time they were alive. History can teach to avoid repetition of the mistakes of our forebears. How can we do this if their mistakes are whitewashed?

I worry that the removal of Rhodes’ statue in Oriel College could have future implications for philanthropy. If Rhodes, who benevolently left part of his fortune to educate future generations, is being vociferously hounded over a hundred years after his death for behaviour that was an aspect of life how he knew it, how will the campaigners of the future denounce today’s donors? Will Bill Gates or Warren Buffet also receive the same treatment in years to come for conduct our generation deems acceptable, but with the privilege of hindsight, is not?

To conclude, removing the statue of Rhodes in Oriel College does not mean that the injustice of the past he occupied will disappear too, in fact, it would do little to help those currently suffering at the hands of the issues in discussion. Concentrating the campaign to the damning of one individual, who was a lone figure rather than the embodiment of institutional racism, is not going to affect the problem nor account for the society that Rhodes is being forced to represent. Selectively redacting historical records jeopardises our ability to fully understand the legacy of the past and its continuing impact on the present. Removing the Rhodes statue would merely set a dangerous precedent for artefacts of historical significance around the world.

Pipe Dreams: Between a Rack and a hard place

Miles Chandler
-
0
Pipe Dreams: Between a Rack and a hard place

You can tell everything you need to know about someone by watching them extract a cycle from a crowded bike shed. The temptation is to barge and kick. Crack a few spokes here and there. Fling that fixie across the sea of handlebars. Hump your Giant out from the racks with abandon. But then a sinking sensation hits: you realise your beloved bike ain’t exempt from such cruelty. If a generally sweet and kind person such as yourself morphs into a velo-vandal when shuffling past a few dodgily locked BMXs, you don’t want to know how the average punter treats your sleek ride.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%12655%%[/mm-hide-text]

Wondering whether your new belle or beau is risk-averse or a mad fucker? Facebook can yield some clues, but is easily manipulated. No, what you need to do is find out where they park their bike. Right at the back of the shed, out of the way of any shenanigans? Spouse material. They’ll sacrifice their convenience for your comfort. This guy or gal won’t forget little Milly at the pub. They can change a lightbulb. Ideal.

Bike jauntily balanced against the front rack, in the firing line? A bit sketchy, but marvellous fun. They might have a shocker sometimes, but that’s the payoff when you live the fast life. He’ll throw you a surprise cocktail party (forgetting your essay is due in 12 hours’ time). She’ll whisk you off for a romantic weekend in Rome (make sure you check the passports are in date). But don’t fret, they always land on their feet.

The one you really have to watch out for is the mid-racker. This specimen is sometimes dreary, often a whinger, and always utterly mediocre. Not bold enough to make a grab for the supremely convenient front rack, yet too lazy to bother with the secluded rear reaches. They’re the sort to complain about your personal hygiene and then slobber all over your toothbrush. They’ll remember your birthday but not the fact that an M&S voucher is a symbol of undying indifference. They will produce tiresome offspring.

I kid the mid-rackers: at times we have no choice but to brave the treacherous centre of a congested shed. The real villain of the piece is the snooty commuter. You see, you might not realise, but the bike rack is the new epicentre of class war. Carbon road machines that cost more than your tuition fees look down their aero handlebars at rusty mountain bikes with two working gears. Glinting Shimano gear mechanisms snigger at the tired steel frames and thinning tyres. The racing bikes stick together. You might think that parking your wheels next to a sexy Specialized or a custom Cannondale guarantees that a certain amount of care will be taken in the locality. The owner of such a wondrous machine wouldn’t tread on the toes (or knock the spokes) of a fellow velocipedist?

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%12656%%[/mm-hide-text]

Were the picture so rosy. If only Ferrari drivers dropped friendly winks to eccentrics in Morris Minors. If only the super-rich would distribute some of their fortuitous wealth among the rest of the world’s population. Whoops, got a bit political there, my apologies. In any case, don’t bother invading the racers’ spaces. You might return to find your bike slumped in a pool of oil, the recipient of a good hiding for daring to place its panniers in the vicinity of rack royalty.

Disaster is just an accident away in 2016

Akshay Bilolikar
-
0
Disaster is just an accident away in 2016

As we rapidly approach the end of the first month of 2016, many of the dangers that lie ahead for the democratic West and its values have become progressively clearer. Just days into the New Year, diplomatic ties between regional giants Saudi Arabia and Iran were abruptly ended, threatening to throw the Middle East into yet more disorder. The global economy too sputtered, as fears about China’s beleaguered economy led to a fall of seven per cent on global markets this month.  

This August, it will have been nine years since the first active phase of the 2007 financial crisis, and in many respects the world hasn’t quite returned to normalcy. Interest rates are still at a historic low and much of Europe remains buried in debt. We are far behind where we were when the last crash happened; some consider a new crash as highly likely, or even imminent, with even George Osborne joining the chorus to warn of the ‘cocktail of risks’ ahead.

The economy this year is ensnared by deep and troubling uncertainty. Osborne’s cocktail – slowed Chinese growth, recession in the BRICs, and excessively cheap oil and copper – are threats enough, but even more lurk behind the shadows. Just as in 2007, financial regulation is once again a key suspect, with politicians worried that the Financial Conduct Authority is at risk of ‘falling asleep at the wheel’ just as its predecessor, the Financial Services Authority, was accused of doing in the last crisis.

The major fear this time, however, is that another crash could prove lethal to global capitalist institutions. The last crash almost dealt a knockout blow, with the UK a mere two hours away from total economic collapse according to then-Chancellor Alistair Darling. Another crash, if as deeply painful and as widely felt as the last one, could exacerbate the economic pain felt after five years of austerity. With the Chancellor’s new ‘living wage,’ unemployment could shoot up and the crowning achievement of the last government, economic stability, left a relic of a more hopeful time.

The political ramifications are equally unpredictable. Whilst a few months earlier it would have been reasonable to assume a crash to be followed by a resurgence of interest in Corbynite socialism, there is plenty of evidence that such an event would only benefit the populist right. In the US, Donald Trump and Ron Paul have used fears of a crash as a vindication of their belief in even freer markets; the inevitable European complications of any crash could poison the referendum debate and give Nigel Farage yet another weapon to use against the European Union. Almost 43 years of co-operation with Europe to create the world’s largest single market could be thrown away for what have always been quite unclear rewards.

Against this dangerous backdrop, the situation in the Middle East shows no sign of improving. Though the Coalition’s air-strikes against Islamic State have reduced the so-called state’s territorial control, stability won’t return to the region without improved relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Political change in Saudi Arabia present a threat as well; as the world’s second largest oil producer, an uneasy transition threatens to play havoc with the region. The threat of terrorism, of which we were so brutally reminded in Paris, could also escalate as Islamic State loses more and more territory. New security threats will also emerge; from Islamists in north Africa to further Russian aggression in the Ukraine, the turbulence of the last few years will not fade away.

When 2016 comes to a close, the world may not be a darker place than it was as 2015 ended. Just as when 2014 ended, it is easy to find risks and dangers ahead. Our minds are adapted to do so with ease. Though there are risks, and they do pose a serious threat to our economic and political security, it is worth not overstating the dangers. For every gloomy prediction made about the last year, two predictions were missed about the wondrous opportunities and progress made by humanity. Rubella was eradicated from the Americas last year, Cuba and America re-established diplomatic relations and a much parroted hard landing in China looks set to be relatively soft. In December, the Paris Agreement committed all countries to reduce their carbon emissions for the first time ever. Even the years we find dark as we look back had their glimmers of hope.

In spite of all this, there is much cause for caution in the year to come. Ultimately, disaster is never far away, and 2016 could be its year. The threats to our security – from economic collapse to Middle Eastern crisis – have no reason in particular to be the threats that bring Britain and the West to its knees, but they equally demand our time and attention. Just over a hundred years ago, Britain became involved in a war stated to ‘end all wars.’ Unfortunately, the battle for peace and prosperity looks set to go on and on.     

#MustRhodesFall Live

Cherwell News Team
-
0
#MustRhodesFall Live

21:50 – And that’ll be all from us at Cherwell HQ as well – look out for the video and a summary article soon. Thanks for following with us this evening! 

21:48 – The Union provides a photo of the ending:

21:46 – RMF aren’t giving anything away about how they feel:

21:45 – According to Cherwell reporters, the debate is done – they’re heading to the bar, and we will stick around for a short time to capture the mood afterwards.

21:39 – Our counterparts in Cambridge haven’t got quite such a busy evening…

21:36 – In other news:

21:35 – Not that it’s helped her case…

21:32 – Canon doesn’t approve of Qwabe’s reasoning:

 

21:31 – And he concludes his defence with a flourish:

21:29 – For those who didn’t know, Lord Curzon was (amongst other things) a prominent Edwardian Conservative and Viceroy of India. Here’s Qwabe defending himself against his personal detractors:

21:27 – Still the questions come:

21:25 – More questions coming in now, here’s a response to one on the effects of the RMF debate:

21:24 – But RMF is not convinced by his earlier point on fabrication…

21:23 – Professor Biggar replies to the Hitler comparison (see quite a long way below):

21:21 – Ntokozo Qwabe doesn’t approve of Biggar’s remarks…

21:20 – But that doesn’t stop him making another bold claim:

21:19 – Professor Biggar, as he sums up his views, has an observation:

21:14 – Has Professor Beinhart (along with Indiana) found a solution?

21:13 – Indiana Jones gives his two cents…

21:10 – Another unequivocal statement from the floor:

21:09 – Our fellow tweeters at RMF choose their favoured quote:

21:07 – Qwabe, responding to another question, makes a more philosophical point:

 

21:03 – As the questions from the floor continue, one audience member says it how it is…

21:02 – Professor Biggar continues:

21:00 – Nigel Biggar returns to the floor, now talking about what the statue represents:

20:58 – In response to a question about whether the removal would limit free speech:

20:55 – Just to sum up so far, we’ve had around 10-15 mins of question and answer, during which time we’ve heard we need the statue to shout at it, and RMF are not ok with just contextualising the statue. Stay with us!

20:54 – Moving back to Qwabe

20:52 – 

20:51 – 

20:49 – 

20:47 – Things seem to be getting rather heated…

20:45 – I’m guessing we won’t find out about the survey, but in other news:

20:44 – 

20:43 – The moment of truth…

20:41 –  Lindsay Canon ends with clarity:

20:40 – Early contendor for our Metaphor of the Night prize:

20:39 – RMF aren’t impressed…

20:38 – 

20:37 – 

20:36 – Professor Biggar starts with a bang…

20:35 – Beinhart continues:

20:34 – 

20:33 – Now it’s Professor Beinart’s turn:

20:32 – 

20:31 – And another!

20:29 – 

20:28 – Our third speaker takes the floor:

20:27 – 

20:25 – Now Yasmin Kumi takes over:

20:24 – 

20:23 – 

20:21 – Ntokozo Qwabe begins:

20:20 – Cherwell’s Mark Barclay explains all:

20:19 – At last!

20:16 – A selection of tonight’s speakers:

20:13 – No news yet, but…

20:06 – Cherwell reporter to John Simpson: “Are you Lord Patten of Barnes?”

             John Simpson: “I’m not the chancellor, so far as I know…”

20:00 – The tweeters are ready:

19:58 – The chamber is full:

 
The Oxford Union
1 min · 

We have now reached capacity – we hope that everyone enjoys the event! Make sure to follow our Twitter feed for live updates throughout the evening @OxfordUnion â€ª#‎MustRhodesFall‬

19:55 – Near two Cherwell reporters…

19:45 – In case you’d forgotten:

19:36 – We’re ready to go!

19:33 – The latest from the Union:

 
The Oxford Union
Just now · 

There are still seats available but we are getting close to capacity – make sure to get here soon so you don’t miss out!

19:27 – In other news:

19:21 – The next best thing is here!

19:13 – In case you weren’t aware…

 The Oxford Union
 

Less than 2 hours to go! The queue is only just starting to form, and there are still at least 250 seats (a majority) available in the Chamber for those without tickets. If you do have a ticket, please make sure you have taken your seat by 7.30pm at the absolute latest, or your place will be given to someone else in the queue. Don’t miss the opportunity to have your say on this most significant of topics! â€ª#‎MustRhodesFall‬

 

 

Wish you were at tonight’s Must Rhodes Fall debate? Couldn’t get a ticket? Cramming an essay? Enjoy the Oxford Union debate online, on Twitter and from the comfort of your own home this evening. Event starts at 8pm.

To get involved in the debate yourself,  tweet us @Cherwell_Online or use the hashtag #MustRhodesFall and we’ll publish the best of the bunch on here.

1...1,1021,1031,104...2,516Page 1,103 of 2,516

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley