Discours entre un général et un contrebandier

Abdou: So, shall we start with Cecil Rhodes’ statue at Oxford? It’s quite a heated topic, especially with the “Rhodes Must Fall” movement.

Amar: Yes, this movement began in South Africa in 2015. Students at the University of Cape Town demanded the removal of Rhodes’ statue because they saw it as a symbol of colonial oppression and racism. After many protests, the statue was finally taken down.

Abdou: Exactly. But at Oxford, where the movement also gained momentum, things didn’t go the same way. Despite pressure from activists and students, the university decided to keep the statue on the Oriel College building and added an explanatory plaque instead. They said it was to preserve historical debate.

Amar: Yes, and this shows two very different approaches: in South Africa, removing the statue was a symbolic break from the colonial past. At Oxford, they chose a more conservative approach, though some argue it was because they didn’t want to lose donations from wealthy individuals influenced by Rhodes’ legacy.

Abdou: That’s true. And it raises an interesting point: the role of money in these debates. Cecil Rhodes funded prestigious scholarships that still benefit international students today. Some say it’s hypocritical to criticize his legacy while continuing to accept the funds from his estate.

Amar: That’s a fair point. But others argue that acknowledging Rhodes’ financial contributions shouldn’t prevent people from criticizing his actions or questioning the symbols that glorify him. You can use the money for good while also being honest about its problematic origins.

Abdou: Yes, and this brings us back to the bigger question: should we erase or contextualize controversial symbols of the past? Some believe that all statues of problematic figures should be removed to avoid honoring those connected to slavery or colonialism. Others think that doing so is a dangerous way of rewriting history.

Amar: Maybe instead of destroying these statues, we could relocate them to museums. In a museum, they could be displayed with explanations of their historical context. That way, we preserve history without celebrating these figures in public spaces.

Abdou: That’s a good idea, and it would also avoid polarizing public debates. But some people feel that even in museums, these statues could still be seen as a form of recognition or legitimacy.

Amar: That’s true. But if we follow that logic, we’d have to remove almost all statues of controversial historical figures. For example, many statues of Napoleon or even Winston Churchill are also criticized for similar reasons. Churchill has been accused of racism and making decisions that led to famines, yet many still see him as a hero of World War II.

Abdou: That’s a good parallel. Maybe the solution isn’t to destroy everything but to better educate people. Adding plaques or organizing exhibitions could help people understand the complexities of these historical figures.

Amar: I agree, but that raises another question: who gets to decide what’s written on these plaques? Sometimes the explanations can be biased or downplay negative aspects.

Abdou: That’s a valid point. Perhaps the process should involve historians as well as representatives from the communities affected by these figures’ actions. For example, in Rhodes’ case, representatives from African countries could have contributed to writing the plaque.

Amar: Yes, involving these communities could bring a more balanced perspective. And it could also lead to other initiatives, like building new statues or monuments to honor figures who fought against injustice, such as Nelson Mandela or indigenous leaders.

Abdou: Exactly! That would help balance public spaces. Instead of focusing only on controversial symbols of the past, we could also celebrate figures who inspired positive change.

Amar: So, to summarize, we could say that keeping Rhodes’ statue at Oxford is understandable from a historical perspective, but it should have been moved to a museum to avoid dominating a public space. And we could propose creating more monuments that celebrate diversity and the fight against oppression.

Abdou: Honestly, this topic feels personal to me. My family has roots in a country that was colonized, and I’ve heard stories from my grandparents about the impact of colonialism. It’s hard for me to look at statues like Rhodes’ and not think about the suffering they represent. Seeing those figures honored in public spaces feels like a dismissal of those experiences.

Amar: I completely understand. My family history isn’t directly tied to colonialism, but I grew up in a system that often glorified these figures without acknowledging the harm they caused. It wasn’t until university that I realized how much of the story was left out. These symbols can definitely be harmful, especially if they’re not properly contextualized.

Abdou: Yeah, it’s frustrating when people say removing statues is “erasing history.” For me, it’s not about erasing—it’s about deciding what we choose to honor in public spaces. Why

...