You all know Cecil Rhodes, right? He was a British Imperialist (living from 1853-1902) who founded the De Beers diamond mining and trading company. Just this morning, I came upon a post comparing him to Adolf Hitler, and claiming that Cecil Rhodes killed at least 60 million Africans. It has been shared 99 times. Here is the post:
https://plus.google.com/+TonyJefferson/posts/CZ6HW3AxDo6
Unlike many, I decided to do some research on it. That is my nature. I don't accept things without evidence given, and even when no evidence is provided, I search for evidence. If after looking, no evidence is forthcoming, then I discount the claim unless compelling evidence does surface. After my research on this topic (taking up about an hour of my day and 28 open tabs on my browser...but still an enjoyable time because this is what I like to do), I found that my initial skepticism was well justified and that this comparison is incorrect. Adolph Hitler and Cecil Rhodes cannot be compared at all.
Firstly, Hitler had a plan to eradicate more than 6 million Jews in his lifetime (and in fact in just half a decade). Of course, more than 12 million people died in death camps, including prisoners of war, Gypsies/Roma, the mentally handicapped, minorities, and regular Poles, Ukranians, Russians, etc. (And this doesn't include people killed in actual warfare.) But let's stick to the 6 million figure.
Cecil Rhodes was an imperialist, and he was into the diamond industry. However, he never had any sort of plan to eliminate people. If anyone did, it was Leopold II of Belgium, who was in charge of a sickening system of death and exploitation under his rule in the Congo "Free" State. Cecil does not appear to have been anything like that.
The claim is that Cecil Rhodes killed 60 million Africans. Let's check out this claim. Cecil Rhodes died in 1902. In the year 1900, the population of the entire continent of Africa was 120 million (only double this 60-million figure). From 1850 to 1950, the population of Africa rose from 95 million to 198 million. It seems that 120 million is pretty smack dab in the middle of those figures. Thus, I do not see any gap where 60 million people (or half of the African population at that time) disappeared.
http://www.thuto.org/ubh/ub/h202/wpop1.htm
Furthermore, British lands in Africa in 1900 were substantial, but did not make up anywhere near half of the area or half of the population (especially excluding Egypt, which was not into diamond production anyway). What we have left is part of the modern South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Kenya, the Gold Coast, and Sierra Leone.
http://homepage.smc.edu/morris_pete/files/guardianmap-africa1900.jpg
Below are the figures for each at or near the 1900 census.
Cape Colony: 2.5 million
Bechuanaland: 0.1 million
Southern Rhodesia: 0.6 million
Northern Rhodesia: 0.8 million
British East Africa: 4.0 million
Gold Coast: 1.0+ million
Sierra Leone: 1.5 million
In total, in these British colonies and protectorates, there lived approximately 11 million people during the time of Cecil Rhodes. The post is claiming that 60 million Africans were murdered in cold blood under Cecil Rhodes. I do not see it. And definitely, the population of these territories before his time was not 71 million (as would have been necessary to have killed 60 million people in such a short time). We just looked at the pretty regular (in fact exponential, and much greater than before) population rise from 1850-1950, with a more than doubling of the entire population of Africa over that time period. So I am left wondering, where is the evidence for this genocide.
Now, having proven Cecil Rhodes to be innocent (at least of a charge as grave as that...I am not claiming his innocence for everything), let's move on to the more likely (yet unmentioned) claim that the culture of Cecil Rhodes and his love of diamonds led to the diamond industry of today, and in the more than eleven decades since his passing, the industry has led to 60 million African deaths.
Even then, this claim seems unsubstantiated and hard to believe. The current population of South Africa is 53 million...and this represents a peak in its all-time population. Even as recently as the year 1960, the population was only 18 million. Of course, South Africa is not the only diamond producing area, but it is one of the places most affected by Cecil Rhodes. Still, I can not see 60 million people ever, even over the course of a century, being miners in the diamond industry in Africa. No doubt there was and is abuse in mines in various countries, but I wonder if Cecil has sole responsibility for a South Africa under apartheid. Cecil Rhodes was racist and helped to take rights away from blacks in South Africa:
"Although Africans represented a minority of voters and did not vote as a block, Rhodes passed two laws simultaneously which caused large numbers of them to be struck off the electoral role. One, the Glen Grey Act, limited the amount of land Africans could hold; the other tripled the property qualification for the vote. Many Africans now had insufficient property to qualify and would find it almost impossible to get back on the list because of the legal limit on the amount of land they could hold."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/apartheid-made-in-britain-richard-dowden-explains-how-churchill-rhodes-and-smuts-caused-black-south-africans-to-lose-their-rights-1370856.html
However, full-blown apartheid in South Africa did not become law until 1948. Also, while "blood diamonds" of today might be bought up by De Beers (which has more recently tried to stop bad publicity by changing their methods), the mining itself is overseen by warlords and their lackeys instead of established companies like De Beers.
In conclusion, I believe the comparison of Cecil Rhodes to Adolf Hitler to be wrong.
https://plus.google.com/+TonyJefferson/posts/CZ6HW3AxDo6
Unlike many, I decided to do some research on it. That is my nature. I don't accept things without evidence given, and even when no evidence is provided, I search for evidence. If after looking, no evidence is forthcoming, then I discount the claim unless compelling evidence does surface. After my research on this topic (taking up about an hour of my day and 28 open tabs on my browser...but still an enjoyable time because this is what I like to do), I found that my initial skepticism was well justified and that this comparison is incorrect. Adolph Hitler and Cecil Rhodes cannot be compared at all.
Firstly, Hitler had a plan to eradicate more than 6 million Jews in his lifetime (and in fact in just half a decade). Of course, more than 12 million people died in death camps, including prisoners of war, Gypsies/Roma, the mentally handicapped, minorities, and regular Poles, Ukranians, Russians, etc. (And this doesn't include people killed in actual warfare.) But let's stick to the 6 million figure.
Cecil Rhodes was an imperialist, and he was into the diamond industry. However, he never had any sort of plan to eliminate people. If anyone did, it was Leopold II of Belgium, who was in charge of a sickening system of death and exploitation under his rule in the Congo "Free" State. Cecil does not appear to have been anything like that.
The claim is that Cecil Rhodes killed 60 million Africans. Let's check out this claim. Cecil Rhodes died in 1902. In the year 1900, the population of the entire continent of Africa was 120 million (only double this 60-million figure). From 1850 to 1950, the population of Africa rose from 95 million to 198 million. It seems that 120 million is pretty smack dab in the middle of those figures. Thus, I do not see any gap where 60 million people (or half of the African population at that time) disappeared.
http://www.thuto.org/ubh/ub/h202/wpop1.htm
Furthermore, British lands in Africa in 1900 were substantial, but did not make up anywhere near half of the area or half of the population (especially excluding Egypt, which was not into diamond production anyway). What we have left is part of the modern South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Kenya, the Gold Coast, and Sierra Leone.
http://homepage.smc.edu/morris_pete/files/guardianmap-africa1900.jpg
Below are the figures for each at or near the 1900 census.
Cape Colony: 2.5 million
Bechuanaland: 0.1 million
Southern Rhodesia: 0.6 million
Northern Rhodesia: 0.8 million
British East Africa: 4.0 million
Gold Coast: 1.0+ million
Sierra Leone: 1.5 million
In total, in these British colonies and protectorates, there lived approximately 11 million people during the time of Cecil Rhodes. The post is claiming that 60 million Africans were murdered in cold blood under Cecil Rhodes. I do not see it. And definitely, the population of these territories before his time was not 71 million (as would have been necessary to have killed 60 million people in such a short time). We just looked at the pretty regular (in fact exponential, and much greater than before) population rise from 1850-1950, with a more than doubling of the entire population of Africa over that time period. So I am left wondering, where is the evidence for this genocide.
Now, having proven Cecil Rhodes to be innocent (at least of a charge as grave as that...I am not claiming his innocence for everything), let's move on to the more likely (yet unmentioned) claim that the culture of Cecil Rhodes and his love of diamonds led to the diamond industry of today, and in the more than eleven decades since his passing, the industry has led to 60 million African deaths.
Even then, this claim seems unsubstantiated and hard to believe. The current population of South Africa is 53 million...and this represents a peak in its all-time population. Even as recently as the year 1960, the population was only 18 million. Of course, South Africa is not the only diamond producing area, but it is one of the places most affected by Cecil Rhodes. Still, I can not see 60 million people ever, even over the course of a century, being miners in the diamond industry in Africa. No doubt there was and is abuse in mines in various countries, but I wonder if Cecil has sole responsibility for a South Africa under apartheid. Cecil Rhodes was racist and helped to take rights away from blacks in South Africa:
"Although Africans represented a minority of voters and did not vote as a block, Rhodes passed two laws simultaneously which caused large numbers of them to be struck off the electoral role. One, the Glen Grey Act, limited the amount of land Africans could hold; the other tripled the property qualification for the vote. Many Africans now had insufficient property to qualify and would find it almost impossible to get back on the list because of the legal limit on the amount of land they could hold."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/apartheid-made-in-britain-richard-dowden-explains-how-churchill-rhodes-and-smuts-caused-black-south-africans-to-lose-their-rights-1370856.html
However, full-blown apartheid in South Africa did not become law until 1948. Also, while "blood diamonds" of today might be bought up by De Beers (which has more recently tried to stop bad publicity by changing their methods), the mining itself is overseen by warlords and their lackeys instead of established companies like De Beers.
In conclusion, I believe the comparison of Cecil Rhodes to Adolf Hitler to be wrong.
Ok...So if you don't compare Rhodes to Hitler answer this Question..
ReplyDeleteHow many Africans were murdered by Rhodes?
To Unknown: I am not an expert in this man's life, and I suggest that you do research yourself, but I am not aware that he had a single African murdered. Definitions of "murder" vary, though. How many people did Woodrow Wilson (US president during WWI) murder? Is it every single person who was killed by a US soldier during WWI? Is the number zero, since he never murdered anyone himself and never advocated killing except in war and with the death penalty? Is it somewhere in-between? I would at least think it was crazy to say that the answer is "every person killed by an American soldier in WWI". Cecil Rhodes did not advocate the "extermination" of anyone. He promoted some battles against Boers (that is, white Dutch Africans) and had major mining operations conducted, which no doubt poor black Africans worked in and sometimes died in. If the owner of a mining company puts profits first and safety second, and a mining disaster occurs, did the owner murder people? Well, in a court, you could definitely sue him or even perhaps convict him of some crime. Is that the same as setting up death camps for the wholesale extermination of groups of people? I would say no. Most people are not all good or all bad. People have flaws and good points. But comparing people to Hitler is way too common and actually takes away from the horror of what Hitler actually did.
DeleteVery helpful suggestions that help in the optimizing website. Thank you for valuable suggestions.Slaughter 2: Prison Assault 1.0
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDecember 8, 2017 at 8:55 AM
ReplyDeleteLol,the bias is an obvious one.In order for you to argue a point,you need the left versus right.You say Hitler was responsible for approximated 12 million deaths,yet do a COMPLETE U-TURN when asked how many Rhodes was responsible for...all of a sudden we must argue semanticabdefinitions and trivialisms like what is murder...how is one responsible for such...yet when giving Hitler's figure,it spilled out as easily as vomit to an infant.You have not proven the number is less than Hitler "until" you give a figure associated with Rhodes.He has been behind the massacre of Africans,millions in the count,and just because your bias and favouritism does not allow for you to do "proper unbiased research",you think this pathetic attempt will pass for a won point...You haven't even proven your point yet,LMSO.