Oxford students remove portrait of the queen as she represents colonialism

[NutellaEllaElla]

The Times share token

I am neither pro, nor anti monarchy and have no wish to become like Thailand where insult to the monarch is a punishable offence. Also, if they had chosen to take down the portrait because they were redecorating and it's a bit stuffy to have a portrait of the queen then fair enough. But this political statement....isn't it a bit rude? To the country? I mean, it's not as if Oxford is a bastion of equality so they're in a glass house throwing those stones.
I'm a bit bemused by it all, anyone else?

They were attacking the Queen for colonialism. The Queen sits at the heart of our culture

One single student made a PRIVATE comment during a PRIVATE meeting (the minutes of which were later leaked to the press) where he expressed a personal opinion that the Queen represented colonialism.

One of the fundamental tenets of British Culture is a belief in democracy and free speech.

I could easily say *hamstersarse insistence that people not be allowed to privately express negative opinions about the Queen is an attack on traditional British values and I believe that hamstersarse is a traitor to British culture."

I just can't take this seriously.

None of those students went to the open day, saw the painting and decided it wasn't for them. It didn't fit with their idea of a modern education system and world.

No, they happily accepted their offer, started their course and it suddenly became an issue. It's not independent thinking. It's herd mentality.

Decolonisation did not happen because of the Queen. That's a classic case of correlation does not equal causation. If the empire had still been going strong during her reign, I'm sure she would have happily presided over it, just like all the monarchs in the previous 350 years. But it was already clear by 1952 that decolonisation was happening.

A lot of people feel that the British establishment including the monarchy have not acknowledged at all their role in colonial crimes and how they personally benefited. You can still see 'trophies' of British punitive expeditions in colonial Africa hanging in Windsor Castle, just to give one example of how completely they do not care about these issues. So it's not as simple as 'the Queen didn't personally colonise anybody'.

Oh come on. Now we're at "if you're not super keen on all the artwork on the walls you should just turn down one of the best educations in the world"?

Would potential students even be shown private rooms that only members of a specific student group can use?

I'd love to read the full minutes which Gudio Fawkes selectively quoted from. In my experience college group meetings usually discuss many subjects. It's quite possible this was a 5-minute totally calm "oh we're not mad keen on that picture, should we take it down?" conversation during a meeting in which many different subjects were discussed.

Important to bear in mind who Guido Fawkes is and the fact he makes a lot of money from weaponising his self-declared role as "conscript in the Culture Wars."

Me: a big declaration and public statements that they took it down because the Queen “represents colonialism”

@ohrainyday. But that simply did not happen. No-one from the student group has spoken to the press. There have been no "big declarations" or "public statements."

Read the article. The Statement was in the Minutes of the student group meeting published on the Guido Fawkes website. Publishing anything on the World Wide Web is in actual fact a big, public declaration. The days of “press releases” ended with the last century.

@dreamingbohemian

Decolonisation did not happen because of the Queen. That's a classic case of correlation does not equal causation. If the empire had still been going strong during her reign, I'm sure she would have happily presided over it, just like all the monarchs in the previous 350 years. But it was already clear by 1952 that decolonisation was happening.

A lot of people feel that the British establishment including the monarchy have not acknowledged at all their role in colonial crimes and how they personally benefited. You can still see 'trophies' of British punitive expeditions in colonial Africa hanging in Windsor Castle, just to give one example of how completely they do not care about these issues. So it's not as simple as 'the Queen didn't personally colonise anybody'.

It was “going strong”, because only 8 countries had left the empire when she took the throne.

So that’s 8 countries gaining independence between 1776 and 1952, or only 1 country per monarch and taking 22yrs per country....dont forget also that during this period these 8 monarchs were adding countries faster than they were losing them....

Then Elizabeth II takes over in 1952 and not only does she not add any new countries/colonies, she oversees 57 countries gaining independence between 1952 and 1986....all done by her...

@dreamingbohemian
A lot of people feel that the British establishment including the monarchy have not acknowledged at all their role in colonial crimes and how they personally benefited. You can still see 'trophies' of British punitive expeditions in colonial Africa hanging in Windsor Castle, just to give one example of how completely they do not care about these issues

They acknowledged it. It was British who forced the rest of Europe, and the Americas to stop the slave trade. They even went so far as to do a naval blockade of Africa with a West Africa Squadron of the Royal Navy to stop all the other Europeans abs American countries slave ships they could catch and free any enslaved Africans they could find.

If they didn’t care, then they wouldn’t have done this for 100yrs at their own expense.

@PlanDeRaccordement

Me: a big declaration and public statements that they took it down because the Queen “represents colonialism”

@ohrainyday. But that simply did not happen. No-one from the student group has spoken to the press. There have been no "big declarations" or "public statements."

Read the article. The Statement was in the Minutes of the student group meeting published on the Guido Fawkes website. Publishing anything on the World Wide Web is in actual fact a big, public declaration. The days of “press releases” ended with the last century.

The Students didn't publish the minutes on the Guido Fawkes website.

Perhaps you should learn what the Guido Fawkes website actually is before commenting? Too much effort? Of course, why do any thinking when someone else can do it all for you and tell you who to be angry with, who to hate and who your enemies are.

It was “going strong”, because only 8 countries had left the empire when she took the throne.

8 countries had fought bloody, bitter wars of independence and finally managed to throw off the yoke of British colonialism. Please don't try to make out it was like someone deciding they don't want to go to the gym any more.

So that’s 8 countries gaining independence between 1776 and 1952, or only 1 country per monarch and taking 22yrs per country....dont forget also that during this period these 8 monarchs were adding countries faster than they were losing them....

The monarchs had very little power once you get beyond a certain point. Recent monarchs have had virtually no power to add or remove countries from the empire. And it took a lot more than 22 years per country. Ireland took 800 years to achieve partial independence.

Then Elizabeth II takes over in 1952 and not only does she not add any new countries/colonies, she oversees 57 countries gaining independence between 1952 and 1986....all done by her...

She had pretty much nothing to do with any of them leaving. She is a figurehead.

@OchonAgusOchonOh

Well you’ve taken my words out of context. I wasn’t acting like leaving British Empire was joining a gym. And the years are obviously the average produced by dividing number of countries into the century and three quarters from 1776 to 1952. It wasn’t a number generated by looking up each former colony and scoping how long they worked for independence.

Besides, you can’t have it both ways, that Elizabeth II is a rampant colonialist AND “had nothing to do with “ colonies as “a figurehead”

If she is just a figurehead, then she has fuck all to do with colonialism, so that still makes the Oxford student’s decision that she represents colonialism just as ignorant.

@strangeshapedpotato
Of course, why do any thinking when someone else can do it all for you and tell you who to be angry with, who to hate and who your enemies are.

What a strange comment, I don’t hate anyone or have any enemies. This is all twice removed from me being French-Chinese. I have the objective outsiders view.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@OchonAgusOchonOh

Well you’ve taken my words out of context. I wasn’t acting like leaving British Empire was joining a gym. And the years are obviously the average produced by dividing number of countries into the century and three quarters from 1776 to 1952. It wasn’t a number generated by looking up each former colony and scoping how long they worked for independence.

Besides, you can’t have it both ways, that Elizabeth II is a rampant colonialist AND “had nothing to do with “ colonies as “a figurehead”

If she is just a figurehead, then she has fuck all to do with colonialism, so that still makes the Oxford student’s decision that she represents colonialism just as ignorant.[/quote]
I wasn’t acting like leaving British Empire was joining a gym.

You may not have been suggesting it was like leaving a gym but your phrasing was very dismissive of the horrors endured by the victims of empire.

Besides, you can’t have it both ways, that Elizabeth II is a rampant colonialist AND “had nothing to do with “ colonies as “a figurehead”

I didn't say she was a rampant colonist. I said she had no power to add or remove countries from the empire by the time she got there. I also refuted your statement that she gave independence to the countries who left.

If she is just a figurehead, then she has fuck all to do with colonialism, so that still makes the Oxford student’s decision that she represents colonialism just as ignorant.

As a figurehead who represented the british empire, of course she had plenty to do with colonialism. She had no power, certainly, and did not directly engage in any of the horrors, but she supported it by her actions and inactions and her wealth was built on colonialism. She represented all that was done in the name of the empire, so no, their claim that she represents colonialism is not ignorant.

The Statement was in the Minutes of the student group meeting published on the Guido Fawkes website. Publishing anything on the World Wide Web is in actual fact a big, public declaration.

But the students who voted to remove the poster were not the ones who made the decision to email the minutes to the blog, and obviously it was the blog owner's own decision whether to publish the email he was sent or not.

One person decided to be extremely sneaky and leak a private document to a blogger.

Do you really not understand the difference between making a "BIG PUBLIC STATEMENT" and someone leaking your private comments to a extremist far right wing blogger with an agenda?

As I read it, it's their own common room to do as they please with. Given the choice, I wouldn't want a picture of the Queen hanging about in my chill out space, would you?

The days of “press releases” ended with the last century.

Obviously you don't work or have any involvement in the media/press.

Journalists and newspapers still get press releases literally every single day. I personally both receive and send out press releases via our PR department on a regular basis.

We need a bingo card for non-events like this.

Already ticked off ‘wokery’, ‘performative’ and ‘virtue-signalling’.