WE were there exhibit cancelled at SOAS

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by claymore16uk, Jan 14, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. FOr the last 9 years the ministry of defence has been runnning an exhibition we were there http://www.wewerethere.defencedynamics.mod.uk/wewerethere_old/index.html

    Acknowledging and celebrating the work of colonial troops in the service of her Majesty's armed forces.

    After a heated debate on tuesday night at soas where it was alleged that colonial soldiers were conscripted and used as human shields (two fact i was personally ignorant of). It was also said that because they had served the colonial Government they were 'race traitors'.

    After the meeting where the Student union voted overwhelmingly to condemn the exhibition a number of students broke in to the exhibition and proceeded to barricade themselves inside.

    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=696517819#/group.php?gid=54433747441&ref=mf

    The university has now agrered to take down the exhibition and instead are having a week of protests and speakers come in to talk about the crisis in Gaza.

    As a student of SOAS I apologise for the conduct of my Union unreservedly
     
  2. That's ok, no sweat.
     
  3. Not your fault.

    Thankyou for bringing it to the ARRSE forum.

    Let them enjoy their freedoms. Maybe the next exhibition could be about its cost ?
     
  4. Don't get upset. It's to be expected of students anywhere and anytime that they protest about what their fathers and grandfathers did. When the staff at the Imperial War Museum go on strike because Churchill's black Muslim ancestry isn't being celebrated I'll worry.

    ps: this is all that your link does:
    [​IMG]
     
  5. Only suprising thing about this for me is that the event has lasted this long. Why is it that a college based on studying Africa and Asia attracts such a contingent of students who try their hardest to recreate a stereotypical 1960's student campus? The weed smoking bongo players and Hare Krishna types always gave me a wry smile as I trudged through on my way to the OTC.

    Unfortunately this is all too familiar to the fun and games we had a couple blocks north of you at UCL, with our resident stoners banning the OTC from freshers fayre.

    Best thing to do? Go along and give a level-headed counter argument. That'll mess their cosy little world view right up. Good luck
     
  6. It's very odd that a Uni with origins like SOAS's has such a hotbed of radicalism (for radicalism read tendency to avoid soap and pay taxes).
     
  7. sorry about the link not quite sure what happened there and also thanks for the kind words.
     
  8. Your link was actually quite welcome. The only real surprise, as Animus says, is that you all aren't dressed in grass skirts and eating missionary kidneys. Mmmmmm.
     
  9. Andy_S

    Andy_S LE Book Reviewer

    Dammit, I did my masters at SOAS, and loved it. But student politics - please.

    So history is unimportant, racial ideology more so? This sounds more like facism than liberalism.

    If academics (I use the term loosely with reference to these knackers) wish to make a point, why not do it with reasoned debate rather than a ban? To hell with them.

    Let's move on. Next....book burnings?
     
  10. This is disgusting, intellectual freedom and historical truth repressed in favour of ideology by an academic institution, maybe actual real facts don't fit with the post-modern anti-colonialist narrative they've invented for themself...
     
  11. And this is why after getting out and working for a number of years before deciding to go to university I'm at one where the Guild of Students is completely non-political, they even voted to disaffiliate from the NUS a while back.
     
  12. Re-interpreting history is fine, but when it's approved of by an insitiution (even a students union) it condones an 'official' definitive version of the facts, that's usually over simplified and partisan to the popularist whim of the day. That surely runs against any thread of intellectual debate and study. It's not just their history, how dare they decide it for everyone.
     
  13. "As I write these last words, my thoughts return to you who were my comrades, the stubborn and indomitable peasants of Nepal. Once more I hear the laughter with which you greeted every hardship. Once more I see you in your bivouacs or about your fires, on forced march or in the trenches, now shivering with wet and cold, now scorched by a pitiless and burning sun. Uncomplaining you endure hunger and thirst and wounds; and at the last your unwavering lines disappear into the smoke and wrath of battle. Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you."

    This was written by the second principal (I think) of SOAS, Sir Ralph Turner. Perhaps it would be wise for the students to look to their own institution's past.

    Glad to say I have declined SOAS on my UCAS.
     
  14. As HH says, it's a very odd thing to do - the members of the SU who've voted to do this are so right on that they failed to spot that SOAS was set up to train people how to run the colonies properly....

    So they're perpetuating the heritage of colonialism in their choice of university.

    And I'm sure they hate the fact that Enoch Powell was an alumnus (he learned Urdu there)

    IIRC, SOAS SU changed the rules so that it could have a general meeting to elect an honorary president every year (they did it, if memory serves, to show how pleased they were that a pro-IRA, newt-loving socialist was Mayor of London at the time). Is that right, Claymore?

    Only ask, because it occurred to me that perhaps the perfectly sensible majority of the SU members could utilisesuch a voting process to ensure that their next Hon President is a chap by the name of Tul Bahadur Pun?

    (Perhaps don't mention that he's a Gurkha VC winner on the nomination papers though)
     
  15. Yes, colonial soldiers were conscripted in both world wars (albeit quite late on). Plenty of dominion troops were also, as well as thousands of British subjects. Problem? Human shields? Utter crap! Most African and West Indian troops were non-combatants, and the Indian Army was so well manned by volunteers as to make conscription a moot point. For 99.9% crown service was an honourable undertaking. But these 'students' don't want to listen no matter how loud the music is, so what's the point?