Out of stone
Proposals are viewed by a jury, who is this jury ?
Who are the people sending their proposal to ?
Who choses which people have input?
We feel that we are not the ones to decide because we are not the ones actually envolved.
We are questioning who has the right or responsibility to make proposals on this specific situation ?
We had different ideas and we were able to agree on one, which was the assignment.
We feel there is value to researching and proposing an option. People can appropriate the ideas we came up with.
Withdrawing is also a statment, it is political, it is a responsibility. We don't want to give "our" or "the" word/action to anybody.
We wish they get the chance to take it and be heard.
Proposal 
Cecil Rhodes extracted resources, wealth, and labor from South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Zambia among others. Famously, diamonds.
Our proposal involves breaking up the statue into pieces, and displaying these pieces in the public area below where his statue stood. We would be thus extracting stones from his statue, just as he extracted resources and wealth from other nations. The alteration of the statue would parallel the actions he took, providing a visual representation of the history. It would also reduce the magnanimity and glorification inherent in a statue, by reducing the statue to its constituent material of stone, which is an important natural resource regardless of the form it takes.
People would be able to take the stones and do as they wish with them, in the same way that Cecil took these things freely from others. As the stones are taken away and spread by people, perhaps the history and trauma of his legacy may spread and dissipate, remembered but perhaps allowing society to move on.
Options for presentation of the stones:
1. A stone box with an open top, filled with the stones.
2. A square hole dug into the ground, with the rocks placed inside, mimicking the mining of diamonds.
3. A pile of the rocks placed directly on the pavement.
