29 January 2016

Cecil Rhodes' Statue - Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall - Why then should Cecil Rhodes fall?

You may be aware from reports in the news media recently that a group of student “activists” at The University of Oxford are demanding the removal of the bronze statue of Cecil John Rhodes from is place above the entrance to Oriel College.  Their reason given is that Cecil Rhodes was a racist and a land grabbing cheat.  Students at the University of Cape Town have already succeeded in having Rhodes’ statue removed from that campus, where it has been a landmark for eighty years and was erected in recognition of Rhodes’ donation of the land that the university is situated on.

Well, so what, you may say.  Why then do we not remove the statue of Queen Victoria from in front of Buckingham Palace?  She was, after all, Rhodes’ sovereign and benefactor.  It was in her name that he orchestrated the subjugation of what was then Matabeleland to the British flag, re-naming it Rhodesia.  It was her government that approved Rhodes’ actions.  He advocated to the British Government that the African populations of Southern Africa be governed as a “subject race!”  This was not refuted or objected to by the British government in Whitehall.  Doesn’t that make them equally culpable?

Wikipedia tells us that:  His (Rhodes’) associate Charles Rudd, together with Francis Thompson and Rochfort Maguire, assured Lobengula that no more than ten white men would mine in Matabeleland. This limitation was left out of the document, known as the Rudd Concession, which Lobengula signed. Furthermore, it stated that the mining companies could do anything necessary to their operations. When Lobengula discovered later the true effects of the concession, he tried to renounce it, but the British Government ignored him.

Armed with the Rudd Concession, in 1889 Rhodes obtained a charter from the British Government for his British South Africa Company (BSAC) to rule, police, and make new treaties and concessions from the Limpopo River to the great lakes of Central Africa. He obtained further concessions and treaties north of the Zambezi, such as those in Barotseland (the Lochner Concession with King Lewanika in 1890, which was similar to the Rudd Concession); and in the Lake Mweru area (Alfred Sharpe's 1890 Kazembe concession). Rhodes also sent Sharpe to get a concession over mineral-rich Katanga, but met his match in ruthlessness: when Sharpe was rebuffed by its ruler Msiri, King Leopold II of Belgium obtained a concession over Msiri's dead body for his Congo Free State.

Rhodes also wanted Bechuanaland Protectorate (now Botswana) incorporated in the BSAC charter. But three Tswana kings, including Khama III, travelled to Britain and won over British public opinion for it to remain governed by the British Colonial Office in London. Rhodes commented: "It is humiliating to be utterly beaten by these niggers."

Sure, Rhodes was a racist.  Sure he was a greedy, avaricious usurper of land and entire countries rightfully belonging to black indigenous peoples.  His business ethics were questionable to say the least and in my opinion, he was homosexual or “gay.”  Nevertheless and despite his shortcomings as a humanitarian and fair trader, he is written in stone as part of the history of Southern Africa, the British Empire and the industrial might of today’s Republic of South Africa.  He cannot be “erased” and he should be remembered for his deeds and actions good and bad, just like Ozymandias.

 In my view, these so called “activists” are not the un-educated juveniles that they are described as in the press.  One is the recipient of a Rhodes scholarship!  They are clever, cunning idealists who are doing everything that they can think of to gain attention and notoriety and favour amongst their peers and the ruling ANC party in South Africa.  In this way, on their return to their homeland (if they ever return) they may have some advantage in political circles and be rewarded for their dedication to the cause by fast tracked political appointments.

Oxford University has today announced that, after much debate and due consideration, it will not be removing the statue of Cecil Rhodes.  In my view, the governors of Oxford University should never have given the demand credence and should never have afforded the demands of the “activists” a debate or consideration in the first place.

A more apt response would have been something along the lines of that proposed by British columnist James Delingpole, in a scalding piece reproduced below with acknowledgement, titled “Mud Huts v Western Civilisation”…  

James Delingpole stated that Oriel College at Oxford University should have responded to these demands as follows:


“Dear students,

Cecil Rhodes’s generous bequest has contributed greatly to the comfort and wellbeing of many generations of Oxford students – a good many of them, dare we say it, better, brighter and more deserving than you.

This doesn’t necessarily mean we approve of everything Rhodes did in his lifetime – but then we don’t have to. Cecil Rhodes died over a century ago.

Oxford, let us remind you, is the world’s second oldest extant university. Scholars have been studying here since at least the 11th century. We’ve played a major part in the invention of Western civilisation, from the 12th century intellectual renaissance through the Enlightenment and beyond. Our alumni include William of Ockham, Roger Bacon, William Tyndale, John Donne, Sir Walter Raleigh, Erasmus, Sir Christopher Wren, William Penn, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Samuel Johnson, Robert Hooke, William Morris, Oscar Wilde, Emily Davison, Cardinal Newman. We’re a big deal. And most of the people privileged to come and study here are conscious of what a big deal we are. Oxford is their alma mater – their dear mother – and they respect and revere her accordingly.

But let’s be brutally honest here. The contribution of the Bantu tribes to modern civilisation has been as near as damn it to zilch.

You’ll probably say that’s “racist”. But it’s what we here at Oxford prefer to call “true.” Perhaps the rules are different at other universities. In fact, we know things are different at other universities. We’ve watched with horror at what has been happening across the pond from the University of Missouri to the University of Virginia and even to reverend institutions like Harvard and Yale: the “safe spaces”; the #blacklivesmatter; the creeping cultural relativism; the stifling political correctness; what Allan Bloom rightly called “the closing of the American mind”. At Oxford however, we will always prefer facts and free, open debate to petty grievance-mongering, identity politics and empty sloganeering. The day we cease to do so is the day we lose the right to call ourselves the world’s greatest university.

Of course, you are perfectly within your rights to squander your time at Oxford on silly, vexatious, single-issue political campaigns. (Though it does make us wonder how stringent the vetting procedure is these days for Rhodes scholarships and even more so, for Mandela Rhodes scholarships) We are well used to seeing undergraduates – or, in your case – postgraduates, making idiots of themselves. Just don’t expect us to indulge your idiocy, let alone genuflect before it. You may be black – “BME” as the grisly modern terminology has it – but we are colourblind. We have been educating gifted undergraduates from our former colonies, our Empire, our Commonwealth and beyond for many generations. We do not discriminate over sex, race, colour or creed. We do, however, discriminate according to intellect.

That means, inter alia, that when our undergrads or postgrads come up with fatuous ideas, we don’t pat them on the back, give them a red rosette and say: “Ooh, you’re black and you come from South Africa. What a clever chap you are!”2 No. We prefer to see the quality of those ideas tested in the crucible of public debate. That’s another key part of the Oxford intellectual tradition you see: you can argue any damn thing you like but you need to be able to justify it with facts and logic – otherwise your idea is worthless.

This ludicrous notion you have that a bronze statue of Cecil Rhodes should be removed from Oriel College, because it’s symbolic of “institutional racism” and “white slavery”. Well even if it is – which we dispute – so bloody what? Any undergraduate so feeble-minded that they can’t pass a bronze statue without having their “safe space” violated really doesn’t deserve to be here. And besides, if we were to remove Rhodes’s statue on the premise that his life wasn’t blemish-free, where would we stop? As one of our alumni Dan Hannan has pointed out, Oriel’s other benefactors include two kings so awful – Edward II and Charles I – that their subjects had them killed. The college opposite – Christ Church – was built by a murderous, thieving bully who bumped off two of his wives. Thomas Jefferson kept slaves: does that invalidate the US Constitution? Winston Churchill had unenlightened views about Muslims and India: was he then the wrong man to lead Britain in the war?”

Actually, we’ll go further than that. Your Rhodes Must Fall campaign is not merely fatuous but ugly, vandalistic and dangerous. We agree with Oxford historian RW Johnson that what you are trying to do here is no different from what ISIS and the Al-Qaeda have been doing to artefacts in places like Mali and Syria. You are murdering history.

And who are you, anyway, to be lecturing Oxford University on how it should order its affairs? Your #rhodesmustfall campaign, we understand, originates in South Africa and was initiated by a black activist who told one of his lecturers “whites have to be killed”. One of you – Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh – is the privileged son of a rich politician and a member of a party whose slogan is “Kill the Boer; Kill the Farmer”; another of you, Ntokozo Qwabe, who is only in Oxford as a beneficiary of a Rhodes scholarship, has boasted about the need for “socially conscious black students” to “dominate white universities, and do so ruthlessly and decisively!”

Great. That’s just what Oxford University needs. Some cultural enrichment from the land of Winnie Mandela, burning tyre necklaces, an AIDS epidemic almost entirely the result of government indifference and ignorance, one of the world’s highest per capita murder rates, institutionalised corruption, tribal politics, anti-white racism and a collapsing economy. Please name which of the above items you think will enhance the lives of the 22,000 students studying here at Oxford.

And then please explain what it is that makes your attention grabbing campaign to remove a listed statue from an Oxford college more urgent, more deserving than the desire of probably at least 20,000 of those 22,000 students to enjoy their time here unencumbered by the irritation of spoilt, ungrateful little tossers on scholarships they clearly don’t merit using racial politics and cheap guilt-tripping to ruin the life and fabric of our beloved university.

Understand us and understand this clearly: you have everything to learn from us; we have nothing to learn from you.


Oriel College, Oxford


I can only say “Hear hear!”

Graham Serretta

London, January 29th 2016

23 January 2016

Then & Now.......Again

Then and now again…..

I posted the following on NelsonPhotoForums in 2006.  I am repeating it here in the hope that it may be interesting to those readers who have not seen it there.  Being England, not much has changed in the last ten years, so these scenes look pretty much the same as they did in 2004.  I really must get out more and do more….of this.

Then and Now

My Best Beloved and I have had great fun seeking out the locations depicted in old photographs that were taken in Hertfordshire many years ago, and photographing the same scene as it is today.  The local library or town archive is usually a good source of old photographs, and is the first place that I look.  Locating the town or village where the photograph was taken is usually not a problem, and finding the same street or place in the old photograph is both interesting and satisfying.  Reproducing the same scene may sound simple to do, but determining the same perspective, angle of view and precise spot as used in the original photograph can be challenging, especially when the original was taken from spot that is now in the middle of a busy street - the traffic was far less intimidating in times past.  Modern motor cars are an intrusion that spoil many scenes today, and are difficult to avoid unless one has the time and dedication to return to the scene many times hoping for a better view.  

Many old photographs were taken with medium or large format plate cameras and the angle of view and image magnification factor can be difficult to reproduce using modern 35mm equipment.  I guess that the ultimate challenge would be to reproduce the same scene today using the same format and equipment as was used to photograph the original, if this can be determined without an original negative or that information being available. From a print, one can only make deductions.  

Nevertheless, we do our best to show the scene as it is today.  We use Olympus OM1n and OM2n 35mm bodies with whichever prime Zuiko lens seems appropriate, from 28mm to 100mm.  The film is Fuji Superia 200 color negative, scanned on a Minolta Dimage 5400 film scanner and converted to monochrome in Photoshop using the channel mixer.  Because the original photographs were sometimes taken on orthochromatic film, the channel mixer gives the easiest method of reproducing similar tones, rather than just converting to grayscale.

Here are some of the shots that we have done so far.  Many of the original photographs date from the 1920s & 1950s - I wish that they had been taken earlier.  The older the original, the more interesting the comparison.

16 January 2016


I captured this image at the Raptor Conservation Society in Bedfordshire.  If I remember correctly, the lady's name was laura and there was a very strong bond between her and the bird.

The image was shot on film, Fuji Superia 200 in a Canon Eos 30e through a Canon 28-105mm
f3.5-4.5 USM lens.

Direct sunlight with a soft white reflector in the form of the page of a brochure held open at camera right.  The frame is cropped about 80%.  No other post processing.