“How can the hosts complain that ministers and personalities called indigenous South Africans “natives”, and less than a minute later, they do the same?
Another example from the Rhodes series is the egg-shell walking over Rhodes’ “maladjusted” sexuality. In the case of Oscar Wilde is accepted. Then it appears to be that calling Rhodes a racist is fine, but it’s somewhat of a problem saying he was a gay man, “because there is no written proof”. Having in mind that being gay was legally punished, what is the problem to say “we don’t have scientific or written proof that Cecil Rhodes was a gay person, but there’s fee doubts either”?
On the other hand, there is huge leniency (and theatricalisation) to the indigenous’ leaders recreation of actions.”
Arfues via Apple Podcasts ·
Spain ·
07/24/24