Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 28th, 2016, 08:13 AM   #21

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 22,203
Blog Entries: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Shark View Post
Which Victor Emmanuel? I presume the third.
No, this is more curious: it's a statue of Vittorio Emanuele [Victor Emmanuel] II [Second].

But it was anyway a monarchic symbol and for the leftist Republicans it had to be hidden as well ...
AlpinLuke is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 28th, 2016, 08:50 AM   #22
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 8,545

I don't think that those who destroy the monuments of an oppressive regime can be blamed, be they the subjects of that regime or the conquerors of that regime, provided they do it immediately upon the fall of the regime, in the emotion of the moment. But to go back later, even a decade later, after the emotion of the moment has dissipated and to destroy the monuments with cold political or ideological calculation is nothing but historical vandalism.
constantine is offline  
Old August 28th, 2016, 08:54 AM   #23

notgivenaway's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: UK
Posts: 5,365

it depends. there are many artefacts that survive from millennia ago. i think in some cases, it provided people with links to the past, so there was some prohibition against it. Like the Kings of Wessex, once they became Christian, didn't demolish Stonehenge. Nor did the Caliphates demolish the Pyramids once they captured Egypt.
notgivenaway is offline  
Old August 28th, 2016, 09:15 AM   #24

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 22,203
Blog Entries: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by notgivenaway View Post
it depends. there are many artefacts that survive from millennia ago. i think in some cases, it provided people with links to the past, so there was some prohibition against it. Like the Kings of Wessex, once they became Christian, didn't demolish Stonehenge. Nor did the Caliphates demolish the Pyramids once they captured Egypt.
Arabs renounced to demolish similar enormous monuments: they were too big! But they used stones taken from the pyramids to build mosques and palaces [it was al-Nasir al-Hasan to do the most evident work].

But some Muslims tried also to erase engraved images of Egyptian deities [again, they were too many ...]. It's still possible to see the result of their efforts.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old August 28th, 2016, 09:18 AM   #25
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,558

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
Going to say never. Trying to destroy monuments is practically an attempt to destroy history. What you can do is move it to another place or put it in a museum.
I agree.

Further, it seems that vivid monuments to mans ability to create evil is something that we should be reminded of. (with qualifications after constantine's point below)

For example, I say keep the Nazi concentration camps so that future generations can see the physical remains that remind us of how inhumane people can be.

Last edited by Cepheus; August 28th, 2016 at 09:25 AM.
Cepheus is offline  
Old August 28th, 2016, 09:24 AM   #26
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,558

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
I don't think that those who destroy the monuments of an oppressive regime can be blamed, be they the subjects of that regime or the conquerors of that regime, provided they do it immediately upon the fall of the regime, in the emotion of the moment. But to go back later, even a decade later, after the emotion of the moment has dissipated and to destroy the monuments with cold political or ideological calculation is nothing but historical vandalism.
This is a good point.

For example, statues of Saddam Hussein or the statues and artifacts of the communist regime.

I generally agree with this. These items can be moved.

The idea is to keep some of these items for history, but, there comes a point where it is unreasonable to keep and maintain these artifacts.
Cepheus is offline  
Old August 28th, 2016, 09:55 AM   #27
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 638

Never, except war memorials and statues of named individuals. War memorials generally are pointless eyesores which mean nothing and have no real artistic merit, and statues of people are just vanity projects. Especially the ridiculous trend of neo-classical statues, especially those made in the postwar period: ancient Greek and Roman statues were brightly painted likenesses of human beings, not awful tar monsters like the statue of Churchill outside Westminster. I think seeing the lifeless, guano-covered statues of rich merchants and ecclesiastical figures which abound in British cities is what put me off the Victorian period. It was the period when the power of rich people to immortalise themselves and their friends as towering giants stalking our streets was extended beyond Pharoahs and emperors, and became simply a general statement of the superiority of the upper class. No longer were statues of heroes and philosphers, but of slave traders and privateers and other assorted imperialists.
Copperknickers is offline  
Old August 28th, 2016, 11:21 AM   #28

Space Shark's Avatar
Praetorian Prefect
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Redneck Country, AKA Texas
Posts: 3,474
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
No, this is more curious: it's a statue of Vittorio Emanuele [Victor Emmanuel] II [Second].

But it was anyway a monarchic symbol and for the leftist Republicans it had to be hidden as well ...
Interesting. I would have thought the second Victor Emmanuel was regarded as a national unifying figure, kind of like a Grant or Lincoln.
Space Shark is offline  
Old August 28th, 2016, 12:27 PM   #29

Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar
General Without Peer
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,740
Blog Entries: 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cepheus View Post
I agree.

Further, it seems that vivid monuments to mans ability to create evil is something that we should be reminded of. (with qualifications after constantine's point below)

For example, I say keep the Nazi concentration camps so that future generations can see the physical remains that remind us of how inhumane people can be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cepheus View Post
This is a good point.

For example, statues of Saddam Hussein or the statues and artifacts of the communist regime.

I generally agree with this. These items can be moved.

The idea is to keep some of these items for history, but, there comes a point where it is unreasonable to keep and maintain these artifacts.
At the end of the day it really just is a monument. If people are that bothered by it then they need to rethink their priorities in life.
If you tear down a monument it is almost the same as revisionism, trying to rewrite or erase the past and pretend it didn't happen. News flash for everyone, reality does not function this way.
Lord Oda Nobunaga is offline  
Old August 28th, 2016, 02:47 PM   #30

Fox's Avatar
Fox
散木
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Korea
Posts: 3,692

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
At the end of the day it really just is a monument. If people are that bothered by it then they need to rethink their priorities in life.
This could just as easily be phrased in the inverse: "At the end of the day it really is just a monument. If one is bothered by people choosing to eliminate the monuments in their viscinity, then one needs to rethink their priorities in life."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
If you tear down a monument it is almost the same as revisionism, trying to rewrite or erase the past and pretend it didn't happen. News flash for everyone, reality does not function this way.
One can eliminate a monument without intending to "rewrite or erase the past." I read about some Southerners wanting to take down Confederate monuments, for example. Is this because yhey want to pretend that the Confederate Rebellion never occurred? No, it is simply because they do not wish to honor those they find loathsome by continuing to maintain monuments to them; they will continue to learn about the Civil War in history class.

Last edited by Fox; August 28th, 2016 at 03:56 PM. Reason: typo correction
Fox is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
destroy, justified, monuments



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Worst historical monuments in your country KGB European History 73 May 16th, 2015 01:02 AM
Monuments Men HistorySleuth316 History in Films and on Television 8 December 25th, 2014 09:58 AM
PHARAOH Monuments dandabiel General History 0 December 15th, 2011 03:37 PM
Monuments of the Seven Brothers...Strabo Richard Stanbery Ancient History 5 January 29th, 2011 02:58 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.