The Prince Of Darkness To Be U S...
News1 min ago
Oxford University Criticised For Having Too Many 'dead White Males' On Its Walls.
39 Answers
/// Two years ago, they demanded Oriel College tear down a statue of the 19th Century imperialist Cecil Rhodes over claims it was offensive to ethnic minority students. ///
And now this:
/// But they said the 20 new portraits would be added to the collection so that more women, people from ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians and people with disabilities could be included. ///
Is the continuing quest at addressing more and more diversity issues, is it now getting all too silly?
And now this:
/// But they said the 20 new portraits would be added to the collection so that more women, people from ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians and people with disabilities could be included. ///
Is the continuing quest at addressing more and more diversity issues, is it now getting all too silly?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think this is going too far.
If a portrait is added because the subject is worthy of remembrance, than that is fine, that's the idea - but to include someone simply because of race, sexuality or disability is to demean the individual and reduce them to a PC stereotype, which surely flies in the face of their remembered achievements.
If a portrait is added because the subject is worthy of remembrance, than that is fine, that's the idea - but to include someone simply because of race, sexuality or disability is to demean the individual and reduce them to a PC stereotype, which surely flies in the face of their remembered achievements.
I'm all for artwork, and I'm all for people of note being remembered, and if these pictures combine the two then that's great.
But as I have said - adding pictures because of something the person has no control over - ethnicity, disability, orientation, whatever - is simply ticking PC boxes, and demeaning the individual, and the pictures of those around them.
But as I have said - adding pictures because of something the person has no control over - ethnicity, disability, orientation, whatever - is simply ticking PC boxes, and demeaning the individual, and the pictures of those around them.
But they said the 20 new portraits would be added to the collection so that more women, people from ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians and people with disabilities could be included
Disgusting ... what about morbidly obese people, what about bald people, what about ginger people, what about deaf or blind people, what about dwarfs ... sorry little persons.
They have not gone far enough imo.
Disgusting ... what about morbidly obese people, what about bald people, what about ginger people, what about deaf or blind people, what about dwarfs ... sorry little persons.
They have not gone far enough imo.
Well, it's Oxford, what else would you expect?
I'd always assumed that the main point of people moaning about this is that it shouldn't matter who are up on the walls, in which case it's always odd that any attempt to add diversity to the paintings is met with cries of anguish.
And another thing -- a fair number of the portraits are anyway of people whose main claim to fame is that they (a) went to the college and/or (b) gave a lot of money to it at some point. I doubt most people will have heard of most of the men in the portraits at King's, for example (or any other college for that matter). There was one of Walsingham, chief spy to Elizabeth 1st, and another of Robert Walpole, but most of the others I'd never heard of. Old provosts but that was about it.
So what I'm saying is that it's not obvious to me why you'd think that the portraits that are already there deserve to stay there enough for it to be so outrageous to suggest adding new ones that reflect the more modern diversity of the college.
Having said that, I think the problem is that reflecting heritage is often confused with celebrating it. That there are so many dead white men on the walls is because that's just how things were back then. I'm not sure it should be seen as offensive, but it shouldn't be so important to people to keep things that way either.
I'd always assumed that the main point of people moaning about this is that it shouldn't matter who are up on the walls, in which case it's always odd that any attempt to add diversity to the paintings is met with cries of anguish.
And another thing -- a fair number of the portraits are anyway of people whose main claim to fame is that they (a) went to the college and/or (b) gave a lot of money to it at some point. I doubt most people will have heard of most of the men in the portraits at King's, for example (or any other college for that matter). There was one of Walsingham, chief spy to Elizabeth 1st, and another of Robert Walpole, but most of the others I'd never heard of. Old provosts but that was about it.
So what I'm saying is that it's not obvious to me why you'd think that the portraits that are already there deserve to stay there enough for it to be so outrageous to suggest adding new ones that reflect the more modern diversity of the college.
Having said that, I think the problem is that reflecting heritage is often confused with celebrating it. That there are so many dead white men on the walls is because that's just how things were back then. I'm not sure it should be seen as offensive, but it shouldn't be so important to people to keep things that way either.
That there are so many dead white men on the walls is because that's just how things were back then.
Exactly. Just add a woman (gay or not) or an ethnic or someone with a disability to the walls (assuming they don't just stick someone like Ainsley Harriott or Warwick Davis on the wall for the sake of meeting their new criteria) and shut up about people from the past.
Exactly. Just add a woman (gay or not) or an ethnic or someone with a disability to the walls (assuming they don't just stick someone like Ainsley Harriott or Warwick Davis on the wall for the sake of meeting their new criteria) and shut up about people from the past.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.