Talk:Cecil Rhodes/Archive 2

message: * "Imperialist" - 16:15, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "he was dogged by ill health throughout his relatively short life. Rhodes died in 1902"
His "ill health" being what, exactly?Cause of death; what, exactly?Details, please (with cites). -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rotburg, R - The Founder concurs - aortic aneurysm.  Interestingly the book speculates (p676) that this might have arisen due to syphilis, though the most likely explanation is advanced arteriosclerosis, not helped by the large appetite for alcohol, tobacco, and food noted above.  This said, as the book notes, it does not really explain his earlier various 'heart attacks' in 1872, 1877, and the 1880s.  --Xdamrtalk 11:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: W T Stead 'The will of Cecil rhodes' , says p177, 'the result of the post mortem examination showed that with the exception of the aneurism of the heart, which caused an immense distension of that organ, he was in a perfectly healthy state. The heart trouble had been with him from his youth. when he attained manhood it abated somewhat, but after his fortieth year it returned and gradually increased until his death'.  The times obituary article said the illness recurred when he returned to England  to go to oxford, which is why he interrupted his studies to return to SA. Though the timing mentioned does not seem right. I'm not quite clear whether this just means classic heart disease which causes the heart to swell?Sandpiper (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Details of "ill health" and death, please

message: *“We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labor that is available from the natives of the colonies. The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories.”
:The wording in this quote disputed:
:1. It is contended  (I remember reading it, but can not relocate it!) that, at the time this quote was made, slavery was no longer "an issue" in Africa.
:2. The quoted text quotes "Bigelow & Peterson, 2002, p. 44" as the source. Page 44 of Bigelow & Peterson is about "1562: Conquistadores Destroy Native Libraries", and bears no relevance to Africa.
:3. Also quoted is: "The Art of the South African Insult" - Can anyone find a copy of pg.167 and tell us what it says?
==== 1. - It is contended ... ====
==== 2. - "Bigelow & Peterson, 2002, p. 44" ====
The quoted source (http://www.wce.wwu.edu/Resources/CEP/eJournal/v003n001/a025.shtml) says:
:Against his high-minded rhetoric, I juxtapose the comments of Leopold’s contemporary—the late 19th century British colonialist, co-founder of the De Beers diamond company, and eventual first prime minister of South Africa, Cecil Rhodes: “We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labour that is available from the natives of the colonies. The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories” (as cited in Bigelow & Peterson, 2002, p. 44). 
"Bigelow & Peterson" is: Bigelow, B. & Peterson, B. (Eds.). (2002). Rethinking globalization: Teaching for justice in an unjust world. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools Ltd.
Bigelow & Peterson's table of contents (http://www.rethinkingschools.org/publication/rg/RGTable.shtml#legacy) says:
*Burning Books and Destroying Peoples — 38 by Bob Peterson 
*1562: Conquistadores Destroy Native Libraries — 43 by Eduardo Galeano 
*The Coming of the Pink Cheeks — 45 by Chief Kabongo as told to Richard St. Barbe Baker 
*Song of Lawino: A Lament — 50 by Okot p'Bitek 
(I suspect "p. 44" is wrong - somewhere in pp45-49 seems more likely)
Anyway:
*http://urbandreams.ousd.k12.ca.us/lessonplans/core/11/silko/docs/TheComingofthePinkCheeks.doc The Coming of the Pink Cheeks, Chief Kabongo, a told to Richard St. Barbe’ Baker; reprinted from Richard St. Barbe’ Baker. Kabongo London: George Ronald, 1955, 107-26. Reprinted by permission of A. S. Barnes & Co. and George Ronald. - Interesting reading, but makes no mention of "Rhodes" or "slave".
*The post-colonial studies reader By Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, Helen Tiffin, pg547 gives another reference
It would seem that tracking down the sources of these quotes is "difficult"! Pdfpdf (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "cheap slave labour" quote 

message: The quoted source (http://www.wce.wwu.edu/Resources/CEP/eJournal/v003n001/a025.shtml) says:
:Against his high-minded rhetoric, I juxtapose the comments of Leopold’s contemporary—the late 19th century British colonialist, co-founder of the De Beers diamond company, and eventual first prime minister of South Africa, Cecil Rhodes: “We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labour that is available from the natives of the colonies. The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories” (as cited in Bigelow & Peterson, 2002, p. 44). 
"Bigelow & Peterson" is: Bigelow, B. & Peterson, B. (Eds.). (2002). Rethinking globalization: Teaching for justice in an unjust world. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools Ltd.
Bigelow & Peterson's table of contents (http://www.rethinkingschools.org/publication/rg/RGTable.shtml#legacy) says:
*Burning Books and Destroying Peoples — 38 by Bob Peterson 
*1562: Conquistadores Destroy Native Libraries — 43 by Eduardo Galeano 
*The Coming of the Pink Cheeks — 45 by Chief Kabongo as told to Richard St. Barbe Baker 
*Song of Lawino: A Lament — 50 by Okot p'Bitek 
(I suspect "p. 44" is wrong - somewhere in pp45-49 seems more likely)
Anyway:
*http://urbandreams.ousd.k12.ca.us/lessonplans/core/11/silko/docs/TheComingofthePinkCheeks.doc The Coming of the Pink Cheeks, Chief Kabongo, a told to Richard St. Barbe’ Baker; reprinted from Richard St. Barbe’ Baker. Kabongo London: George Ronald, 1955, 107-26. Reprinted by permission of A. S. Barnes & Co. and George Ronald. - Interesting reading, but makes no mention of "Rhodes" or "slave".
*The post-colonial studies reader By Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, Helen Tiffin, pg547 gives another reference
It would seem that tracking down the sources of these quotes is "difficult"! Pdfpdf (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2. - "Bigelow & Peterson, 2002, p. 44" 

message: Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  3. "The Art of the South African Insult" 

message: I support a move to Wikiquote. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice. However, it would be both more interesting and more useful to know WHY you support such a move. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the move to Wikiquote, and I can see that this was discussed earlier in this section, which have points that I agree with against keeping the quotes in here. I think "Overusing quotations" applies here; the quote section has quotes that have no context. Gary King (talk · scripts) 00:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with Gary King on all points. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes section

message: An individual named Fourie is mentioned in this secton as being the owner of Vooruitzigt, while he allowed the de Beer brothers to cultivate the farm.  This is not known to be historically correct, as the de Beer brothers could not have sold a farm they did not own.  The region was part of the British empire at the time, and as such, there was a record of the legal owner, and the De Beers mine is unlikely to have been named for them if they were not the owners.  Other reseach also states that the De Beer brothers could not control the flow of prospectors, so they sold the farm for what they thought was a very attractive profit.  According to British law related to minerals during this period, an individual could not establish multiple or large claims.  The law restricting this was changed in 1876, while the farm was sold to Dunell Ebden & Co[1] in 1871.  There is a wealth of information freely available.  I would appreciate either more detail or the removal of the name Fourie from the paragraph.  While Fourie was an Afrikaner who may have owned the farm befor the brothers De Beer, it is they who sold the farm to   I consider to article to be incomplete, and without more information about who actually owned the farm other than the De Beer brothers, this paragraph looses some credibility.  The part of South Africa where the farm is located is also extremely dry, and no crops are known to have been cultivated there.  What is known however, is that sheep farming was more viable, and that land was used for grazing.  
1. ^NYU Stern School of Business.  Case Number: MKT04-01,  December 2004
01:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the above sentiment. I have the impression from edits to other articles (e.g. Kimberley) that the name "Fourie" is rooted in some kind of POV dispute around the diamond fields being "stolen" from the Afrikaaners by the British.  In any event, it's unreferenced right now, so should probably go. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diamonds 

message: Did Rhodes know Afrikaans, I noticed in the Alfred Milner wikipedia article it says Milner knew it? I'm asking to see if that should be included in the article. --RJR3333 (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Afrikaans

message: Today, I heard somebody claim Rhodes was a Social Darwinist. Does that hold water? I always assumed that that would require a biological view of race, which I'm not sure is his definition of race. When he says "the English-speaking race", that obviously includes both people of Germanic and Celtic extraction. So, when he speaks of race, what he has in mind is probably the cultural character. Also, does he really propagate the spread of the "English-speaking race" in terms of "survival of the fittest"? As far as I understand he didn't mean to wipe the people who don't belong to the English-speaking world off the face of the earth to ensure the survival of his own race. Rather, it is the mission (according to Rhodes) of the "English-speaking race" to civilize the others, right? Who can clarify? ---217.191.39.244 (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right in your assessment, he was no social darwinist and didn't quantify the "English race" in terms of race, just culture. — Jon C.ॐ 14:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Darwinist? 

message: I have never seen a reference to yahoo answers in a wiki article before. Isn't this a bit unprofessional?
Mark Twain's sarcastic summation of Rhodes ("I admire him, I frankly confess it; and when his time comes I shall buy a piece of the rope for a keepsake"), from Chapter LXIX of Following the Equator, still often appears in collections of famous insults.[55] His account of how "Cecil Rhodes" made his first fortune by discovering, in Australia, in the belly of a shark, a newspaper that gave him advance knowledge of a great rise in wool prices, is completely fictional – Twain dates the event at 1870, when Rhodes was in South Africa – yet is occasionally accepted as true (see a posting on Yahoo Answers at http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080407061220AAi5ap3 (retrieved 22 May 2011)).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The paragraph probably does not even belong in the Popular culture section. I have removed it for now; someone else might want to re-add the topic to another section of the article if it is of real importance to the article. --NJR_ZA (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  in text yahoo citation? 

message: I was reading through this biography, and it seems very white-washed and cleaned-up compared to what I've learned about him. Maybe we should get more sources to help get a more diverse look at him and his record? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.178.121 (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  White-washing/Western bias? 

message: I was reading through this biography, and it seems very white-washed and cleaned-up compared to what I've learned about him. Maybe we should get more sources to help get a more diverse look at him and his record? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.178.121 (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about "we", but you are welcome to add new/additional information if it is supported by reliable sources. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  White-washing/Western bias? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cecil Rhodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110913230535/http://myfundi.co.za:80/e/History_of_South_Africa_Timeline_(1485-1975) to http://myfundi.co.za/e/History_of_South_Africa_Timeline_%281485-1975%29
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does anyone have citations on the misquotations? The books that are cited in the endnotes are examples of where the supposed misquotes were used, not any citations that definitively show that Rhodes did not say these things.SmallMossie (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misquotations 

message: I see this:
I would suggest to change the word to "critics" as it sounds like "detractors" are people whose mission in life has been to take people down, which is a kind of unfriendly characterization of people whose interest is moreso to revise understandings of history to be, some would say, more honest and factual. Or, it could be "commenters" or "historians" if such is the case... but "detractors"? It's loaded language. SageRad (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced "detractors" is so bad a word to use here, but I'm okay with "critics" as well, so I'll make the change. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps "critics" instead of "detractors" 

message: I wonder if the Paul Maylam quotation that currently closes the lede—"Paul Maylam identifies three perspectives: works that attempt to either venerate or debunk Rhodes, and 'the intermediate view, according to which Rhodes is not straightforwardly assessed as either hero or villain'"—is necessary or very informative? It seems to me that the same could be said of literally any historical figure. What could a historical perspective be if not a veneration, a denunciation or something in between? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, I definitely hear what you're saying here, but the point is to add a bit of balance after the prior quote from McFarlane in which it is said that the Rhodes historiography "may be divided into two broad categories: chauvinistic approval or utter vilification" (ie that people either say Rhodes was awful or are awful themselves). Rhodes is a very controversial figure and it would be regrettable in my view to end on that note, which is essentially negative either way. Alternatively we could just remove both comments, McFarlane's and Maylam's, from the lead and let the reader decide for himself. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Maylam 

message: This article says that Rhodes made an early drafting of the Natives Land Act. I can see that quote is sourced to the Guardian , so far so good. But the Natives Land Act was passed into law in 1913 and Rhodes died in 1902. The statement doesn't really make any sense without further facts setting out exactly how and why this man can be connected to a law made 11 years after his death. We don't even know what Rhodes is supposed to have written to attribute his connection to the Natives Land Act, 1913.  So should we really take anything written in the Guardian to be true even if it is written by an activist?  There is WP page on the Natives Land Act, 1913 it doesn't mention Rhodes at all .    Hmcst1 (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:   Natives Land Act 

message: It would assist us if editors can show how the misquotations occurred. The citations provided do not distinguish whether or not the references refer to misquotations or whether the subject of the misquotation is debunked in the text. Thus the section isn't very useful to scholars at all.197.89.23.25 (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Misquotations

message: Does a section like this even belong in an encyclopedia entry about a person? Sure, verifiable quotes might be useful to biographers, but an encyclopedia entry is meant to convey information on the person and the effect they had on their contemporaries, rather than provide a list of trivia about them.SmallMossie (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations and Misquotations 

message: Why is Rhodes' sexuality not covered in this article?  He was homosexual and never had relations with any woman in his life.  His male lovers included Neville Pickering, Henry Latham Currey and, finally, Sir Leander Starr Jameson who was the trustee and residuary beneficiary of his will; Rhodes had a predilection for young athletic men with blond hair and blue eyes (not surprisingly given his views on Anglo-Saxon racial supremacy).   Why is this man not listed in the LGBT category?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.166.37 (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is it already discussed in the personal life section, you've not provided any references for your claims. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEXUALITY 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cecil Rhodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101009043413/http://www.cecilrhodes.co.za/ to http://www.cecilrhodes.co.za/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130701143531/http://www.rothschild.com/our_history/1880-1914/ to http://www.rothschild.com/our_history/1880-1914/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "After overseeing the formation of Rhodesia during the early 1890s" - this is nonsense. The Republic of Rhodesia existed from 1965 to April 1980. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps see Rhodesia (region). --Craig (t|c) 03:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhodesia Didn't Exist During Rhodes' Life 

message: The version when I made my comment contained the following paragraph in the lead:
Historian Richard A. McFarlane has called Rhodes "as integral a participant in southern African and British imperial history as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln are in their respective eras in United States history.  Most histories of South Africa covering the last decades of the nineteenth century are contributions to the historiography of Cecil Rhodes." According to McFarlane, the aforementioned historiography "may be divided into two broad categories: chauvinistic approval or utter vilification". Paul Maylam identifies three perspectives: works that attempt to either venerate or debunk Rhodes, and "the intermediate view, according to which Rhodes is not straightforwardly assessed as either hero or villain".
We really do need to say something in the lead along these lines, attesting to the controversy around him that is hardly new. And I do think we need to say that his dealings with black natives are part of the controversy. The point in all of this is that his political and business actions are what make him important; his supremacist views figure into this, but they are secondary. Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Going too far the other way

message: The article at present includes: "According to Mensing 1986, pp. 99–106, Rhodes was not a biological or maximal racist and despite his support for what became the basis for the apartheid system, he is best seen as a cultural or minimal racist." It does not make clear what is meant by these two terms. From further reading I think that:
* "biological or maximal racist" is closely related to Scientific racism,
* "cultural or minimal racist" is closely related to Cultural racism, 
so I have put those links in.
Also, the sentence is an almost exact quote from the reference, so I have shown that in the article. The reference goes to the front page of an article, which includes the words quoted. The rest of the article, including "pp. 99–106" does not seem to be easily accessible, but I have left that part in. FrankSier (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "biological or maximal racist" vs "cultural or minimal racist" 

message: Let me state again that I'm not opposed to the content here.  This is a complaint from an English-language perspective.  The third paragraph has the topic being Rhodes's racism.  We don't need to be repetitious; we could hypothetically add "Rhodes was a racist" every other sentence but it'd just make the article look bad.  The lede should be the tightest written part of an article; it's supposed to be a succinct summary, and this is already covered somewhat by saying he's an imperialist (I guess non-racist imperialists did exist, but that's rare).  Besides, the full sentence is 
:An ardent believer in British imperialism, Rhodes and his British South Africa Company founded the southern African territory of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe and Zambia), which the company named after him in 1895. 
This is a logical sentence - he was an imperialist, and so he expanded the British Empire.  The thought follows.  The bit about white supremacy isn't as directly relevant here.  It'd be like saying "An ardent believer in British imperialism and the Scouting movement".  True, but not the main point of that sentence.  Anyway, this bit wasn't in the older and stable version (see this revision from May 2020).  
(Also, if you really feel that talking about Rhodes' racial beliefs is so important that it has to happen in the first paragraph of the lede rather than the third, then rather than make the above sentence meandering, I'd rather include just a new sentence on Rhodes's racism.)  SnowFire (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted back to an edit without the white supremacist label in the first sentence of lede after some minor disruption, and I'm unsure if there's a consensus here. If there isn't a consensus yet, for what it's worth, I don't agree with putting the specific "white supremacist" label in the first sentence, but letting his own racist views (in second sentence and beyond) speak for themselves. I personally find the white supremacist label apt, but it also conjures up a specific image in the modern day, not of an imperialist but of a separatist. Nanophosis (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that including a factual description of him in the lede must be somehow similar to "every other sentence", as if that were the only option, is inappropriate and not appreciated.  Rhodes was, factually, a believer in white supremacy: "If the whites maintain their position as the supreme race, the day may come when we shall be thankful that we have the natives with us in their proper position."(, p 109), etc. The purpose of the lead, especially the first paragraph, is to summarize why a topic is notable. I do not think anyone is going to get very far claiming that white supremacy is incidental to the history of South Africa, and there is nothing wrong with summarizing this in the first sentence. Since this is apparently an ongoing issue, it might be best to hold an RFC if this is really worth contesting. Grayfell (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede section 

message: The Rhodes Scholarship section seems to be worded as if it is no longer operating, as per the words "The scholarship enabled". Is this a typo? Words that were meant to indicate the scholarship was migrated to a new structure? Not really sure what this was trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.171.50 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "enabled" - no more Rhodes Scholars, or a typo? 

message: Encylopedia Britannica made this comment about Rhodes:  he "once defined his policy as 'equal rights for every white man south of the Zambezi' and later, under liberal pressure, amended 'white' to 'civilized'. But he probably regarded the possibility of native Africans becoming 'civilized' as so remote that the two expressions, in his mind, came to the same thing. [  https://www.britannica.com/biography/Cecil-Rhodes/Effects-of-the-Jameson-raid-on-Rhodess-career Encyclopaedia Britannica Effects Of The Jameson Raid On Rhodes’s Career]
Peter K Burian (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not make policy recommendations.  Note that the Ency Brit article states: "As the will forbade disqualification on grounds of race, many nonwhite students have benefited from the scholarships." Rjensen (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why some people say the statue of Rhodes MUST go  

message: The article currently has this line.
" In his last will and testament, Rhodes said of the English, "I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. I contend that every acre added to our territory means the birth of more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence." "
This is inaccurate, that quote is from his political musings written during his time at oxford, it was published along with his last will and testament, as part of the 'eludicatory notes', but was not actually part of his last (or first) will: he wrote it in ~1875....mebe as late as mid-77.
Many many websites make the same mistake (and edit the quote somewhat), I suspect they may be using wikip as a source...talking of which, the source is the currrent source. 31.51.219.224 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight Factual error