This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Statues... Books....
I've noticed some people contrast having statues of people who did bad as well as good two or three centuries ago, with having no statues of people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao who did far more bad than good, only two or three generations ago.
(To be fair Chairman Mao's regime did bring social and public-services improvements to China, but it was also every bit as ruthless and callous as the others'.)
Those three created gigantic death-tolls in pursuit of utterly inhumane dogma, with Stalin's and Mao's regimes each killing far more than Hitler's - a fact quietly ignored by some who do, rightly, condemn what became called the Nazis' "Holocaust".
Hitler expounded his theories in his [i]Mein Kampf[/i] (My Struggle'). Stalin ran a system based in principle on such books as [i]Das Kapital[/i], by the 19C by the political-theoretician Karl Marx - who rests in peace in a cemetery in London. Mao launched his dreadful "Cultural Revolution" pogrom on the back of his own ideas published in what became nicknamed his [i]Little Red Book[/i].
Meanwhile for ten centuries and more various countries or societies have been at each others' throats over ancient books with titles like [i]The Holy Bible [/i], [i]The Torah[/i] and [i]The Q'ran[/i]. Not only killing each other for following the "wrong" book, or for following any of them, or for following none of them, but even for following the same book but in the "wrong" way. If they don't support violence they just call each other idiots on sites like this.
'
So, statues now and books later?
Well, some of the more strident iconclasts might like that idea, mirrored by the amateur dictators among university students who block guest lecturers of supposedly "wrong" views.
You can read the political tracts[i]Das Kapital, Mein Kampf,[/i] and possibly still Chairman Mao's [i]Little Red Book[/i]. You can read the far older, religious works. It does NOT necessarily mean you will support any of their ideas, but at least you will understand them more deeply by knowing what their [i]authors [/i], not critics, really said.
Similarly, you might not agree with what some public figure believes, but unless you give that figure the courtesy of reading or listening to him or her, and knowing something of the context and background, how do you know what they believe? Or would you rather go by what their opponents want you to think are those views?
'
Destroying statues might gain the un-analytical some momentary self-satisfaction and even their picture in the papers, but that's all. Whilst it is right we should know and understand past wrongs without "celebrating" them, and certainly endeavour to not repeat them; iconoclasm generally is merely negative rather than positive.
Destroying books or barring lectures is far, far more dangerous and insidious. For it is only by knowing what people really had to say for themselves, and why, not what their critics tell you to think they said, that you can understand properly their roles in the very real and very fractious chains of events, agreements and divisions that are History.
'
I have not read five of the works I cited and cannot recall when I last read any of the Bible (though I sometimes hear extracts on the radio). I know their broad aims though, and my book choice is neither political nor religious. It is certainly not influenced by any other person's choice or diktat. Yet it is my right to read them even though I may disagree with them in their own ways - indeed my support for that choice ought suggest I am not about to become a raving Communist, neo-Nazi, para-Christian cultist or ISIS member.
Sadly, there are some even in our free societies that allow discussions like this, who think that wrong. Ones who would condemn at least the three political tracts for being written or adopted by despots and bigots, but also seem to think that knowing and understanding them shows axiomatic support.
Therefore, they say, you must not read the "wrong" books, must not attend the "wrong" speaker's lecture.
Who is the despot or bigot then?
I've noticed some people contrast having statues of people who did bad as well as good two or three centuries ago, with having no statues of people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao who did far more bad than good, only two or three generations ago.
(To be fair Chairman Mao's regime did bring social and public-services improvements to China, but it was also every bit as ruthless and callous as the others'.)
Those three created gigantic death-tolls in pursuit of utterly inhumane dogma, with Stalin's and Mao's regimes each killing far more than Hitler's - a fact quietly ignored by some who do, rightly, condemn what became called the Nazis' "Holocaust".
Hitler expounded his theories in his [i]Mein Kampf[/i] (My Struggle'). Stalin ran a system based in principle on such books as [i]Das Kapital[/i], by the 19C by the political-theoretician Karl Marx - who rests in peace in a cemetery in London. Mao launched his dreadful "Cultural Revolution" pogrom on the back of his own ideas published in what became nicknamed his [i]Little Red Book[/i].
Meanwhile for ten centuries and more various countries or societies have been at each others' throats over ancient books with titles like [i]The Holy Bible [/i], [i]The Torah[/i] and [i]The Q'ran[/i]. Not only killing each other for following the "wrong" book, or for following any of them, or for following none of them, but even for following the same book but in the "wrong" way. If they don't support violence they just call each other idiots on sites like this.
'
So, statues now and books later?
Well, some of the more strident iconclasts might like that idea, mirrored by the amateur dictators among university students who block guest lecturers of supposedly "wrong" views.
You can read the political tracts[i]Das Kapital, Mein Kampf,[/i] and possibly still Chairman Mao's [i]Little Red Book[/i]. You can read the far older, religious works. It does NOT necessarily mean you will support any of their ideas, but at least you will understand them more deeply by knowing what their [i]authors [/i], not critics, really said.
Similarly, you might not agree with what some public figure believes, but unless you give that figure the courtesy of reading or listening to him or her, and knowing something of the context and background, how do you know what they believe? Or would you rather go by what their opponents want you to think are those views?
'
Destroying statues might gain the un-analytical some momentary self-satisfaction and even their picture in the papers, but that's all. Whilst it is right we should know and understand past wrongs without "celebrating" them, and certainly endeavour to not repeat them; iconoclasm generally is merely negative rather than positive.
Destroying books or barring lectures is far, far more dangerous and insidious. For it is only by knowing what people really had to say for themselves, and why, not what their critics tell you to think they said, that you can understand properly their roles in the very real and very fractious chains of events, agreements and divisions that are History.
'
I have not read five of the works I cited and cannot recall when I last read any of the Bible (though I sometimes hear extracts on the radio). I know their broad aims though, and my book choice is neither political nor religious. It is certainly not influenced by any other person's choice or diktat. Yet it is my right to read them even though I may disagree with them in their own ways - indeed my support for that choice ought suggest I am not about to become a raving Communist, neo-Nazi, para-Christian cultist or ISIS member.
Sadly, there are some even in our free societies that allow discussions like this, who think that wrong. Ones who would condemn at least the three political tracts for being written or adopted by despots and bigots, but also seem to think that knowing and understanding them shows axiomatic support.
Therefore, they say, you must not read the "wrong" books, must not attend the "wrong" speaker's lecture.
Who is the despot or bigot then?
FlowersNButterflies · 61-69, F
Those statues are located mostly (not always) in the South where the horrifying systemic crimes occurred based on origin. The racists are rampant (see Southern Poverty Law Center). If something keeps hate alive, continues oppression, it needs to go. Hate and oppression should not be American values. Blacks built the South after Whites stole the country. I find racists despicable. @ArishMell
JollyRoger · 70-79, M
@ArishMell @ArishMell I can only admire what you have written and explained so well. I wonder how many contributors will actually read and try to understand what you mean. HISTORY is so important, perspective through the ages is so important. Without these 'touch-stone' people have no plan from which to build their future and; as it is often said: HISTORY repeats itself.... destroying STATUES is one of the markers toward that repetition.
Just think: When the Greeks and Romans had their hey-day, they had written works too... what happened to them? Well... they either were eaten by bookworms, lost in fires or tossed in fires. THE THINGS that we do have from their civilization are the STATUES and BUSTS that give us a concept of the countenance of Sophocles, of Aristotle, of Socrates, of Julius Caesar and even - of Caligula! Some were good people, some were bad, but they all lived and had an effect on the world.
[b]For those who don't know:[/b] There is a bust of Hitler and of Joseph Goebbels in the Schloss Artstetten in Melk Austria. The Schloss was used as Hitler's headquarters when he was in that area. Instead of destroying them, the curators simply turned them to face the wall - a respectful act of disrespect!!
Just think: When the Greeks and Romans had their hey-day, they had written works too... what happened to them? Well... they either were eaten by bookworms, lost in fires or tossed in fires. THE THINGS that we do have from their civilization are the STATUES and BUSTS that give us a concept of the countenance of Sophocles, of Aristotle, of Socrates, of Julius Caesar and even - of Caligula! Some were good people, some were bad, but they all lived and had an effect on the world.
[b]For those who don't know:[/b] There is a bust of Hitler and of Joseph Goebbels in the Schloss Artstetten in Melk Austria. The Schloss was used as Hitler's headquarters when he was in that area. Instead of destroying them, the curators simply turned them to face the wall - a respectful act of disrespect!!
revenant · F
@JollyRoger interesting ! I did not know that
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@JollyRoger Thank you JollyRoger, and I agree with Revenant's judgement on what you wrote.
I suppose the idea of simply moving statues that [i]appear[/i] suddenly to have been a target to museums is somewhat similar to turning the two Nazi leaders' effigies to face the wall, but I think instead the idea is not to half-hide them, but to display them with explanations of how they were and what they did.
In my own area is a recently-built monument that goes some way to addressing the balance. It is to Thomas Foxwell Buxton, an MP and leading campaigner in ending slavery.
I suppose the idea of simply moving statues that [i]appear[/i] suddenly to have been a target to museums is somewhat similar to turning the two Nazi leaders' effigies to face the wall, but I think instead the idea is not to half-hide them, but to display them with explanations of how they were and what they did.
In my own area is a recently-built monument that goes some way to addressing the balance. It is to Thomas Foxwell Buxton, an MP and leading campaigner in ending slavery.