For example, if we find conclusive, incontrovertible, scientific, and robust historical evidence that the builder of the Taj Mahal was a racist (or nationalist), then this would be enough grounds for erasing the symbol of oppression from the face of the earth. In this way, we will not be constantly reminded; however, it is unclear how we would erase all images of the Taj Mahal that exists in electronic form.
This is a very important question. To me such document are to be kept for the future generations should learn from. I academic discourse we might need both the positives and the negatives to learn from. My take
Kwabena Darko Akuamoah These days, in the U.S. , there is a big push to erase such buildings and monuments.
It is really not a healthy move considering the place for research and development in the future..
I think such monuments should be kept for the sake of history. But it is disturbing when streets are named now after notorious fascists and racists!
Lidia Sciama
Imagine there is a poor village in a remote part of the country, and a rich businessman proposes to give $2 million to the village to spend as they wish, if they rename a street as Donald Trump Avenue. Currently, it has a name of a nationalist hero from 300 years ago.
What advice would you give to the leader of that village?
Of course, in the event that the monument is to extol the person of the dictator or his work, such as the "Valle de los Caidos" of the dictator Franco in Spain.
Josu Riezu What is the protocol that we use to decide? A national referendum? A regional one? Provincial? Local? Please explain the mechanism of the decision making process.
No way! The monument is a witness to what was considered as possible and though able at the time. Going the other direction would make you close to stalinism constant reappraisal of reality (with the incessant changes in pictures portraits to take into account the disgrace of such or such leader). The monument is offensive to some? Toughen up my friend, tolerance (and suffering for one's convictions) has always being a big virtue of this modern world and something to cultivate.
The protocol would be similar to the one that included in the German penal code the prohibition of III Reich symbols.
Art it self can't be racist, it doesn't matter who built it. The only thing that matters is what does it mean, and what does it signify . Your question is much related to history. We all know that history is written by the victors , how do we ensure it justice? How do we make sure we are not making criminals heroes? I guess we can never know. Art is like the illegal son of mass murderer, we can't just kill the boy because his father was unholy man.
Josu Riezu Fair enough. Now we have a standard, the German penal code against Third Reich Symbols. It may be controversial but okay as a basis for discussion.
So before destroying such monuments and symbol, we should follow a legitimate political process to put into law something equivalent to the German penal code. The problem arises when individuals and groups feel that they can simply run around and destroy such symbols WITHOUT the framework of a relevant penal code.
Muhammad Qadoum Great provocative statement. Hmm. I guess this shifts the criterion to whether the monument is art or not. So presumably the Taj Mahal would be protected if there is a general consensus that it is art. But a mere statue to a historical figure may not necessarily qualify as art.
I tend to believe that there is art everywhere, and whether a figure qualifies as art or not? Is only a matter of perspective. I would rather define art as whatever you look at and just go like wow. With that definition Taj mahl certainly qualifies as art.
Joseph Tham Strongly agree, an individual or a group, based only on their own opinions, can not make those decisions.
Yes i strongly agree, anything that can spurs anarchy or that can instigate violence within a sovereign state should not be tolerated or allowed
As the act of destroying a statue or any other object on public display is a one time event. Even if there is a discussion prior to the destruction, it will be shortlived in the modern newsworld. I think it is more "instructive" leaving the object in place and having a discussion about what it - or the person it represents - stands for. It is one thing to rethink the present by reevaluating aspects of the past, its another thing and would be naiv to think by rewriting those past aspects or making them disapear, the negative aspects of the past would also disapear in the present or future. As @Daniela Sorea indicated above: one can only learn from something one can percieve.
Daniela Sorea Urs Luescher It is not about copying the Roman "damnatio memoriae", the history books already reflect the life and miracles of the dictators and genocides (all men, curious, no?), It is about eliminating from our streets everything that glorifies them. The treatment given to Nazism is an example, and the evolution of Nazism is another example. If there were a Hitler tomb, it would be a place of pilgrimage for the new Nazis, just as the dictator Franco's tomb is -today- a place of pilgrimage for the Spanish Extreme Right.
Whether one vies history from the simple perspective of social memory, the victor's memoir, or some other, it serves some purpose for future generations - negative or positive. Destroying works of art (I believe Taj mahl is one) simply because of who/what they are associated with, does not seem to do a lot of good to the academia and the larger society.
Josu Riezu The examples you provide are relatively easy ones to agree with your point of view. Granted, the risk that memorial structures become ralling points is there but, even without such structures groups can rally. Look, for example, at neonazis in germany and elsewhere, who use the combination of 1 and 8 as a symbol. And it is a societies duty to confront such groups and for that those groups need to be visible. Even before Charlotsville there where neonazis in the US - just not so much on public display.
Furthermore, and I think that is the more widespread case there are monuments of people who transcended the limitations of their time in one aspect but conformed to other aspects. Like - and I wager Joseph Tham who started this thread refers to such - George Washington, Jefferson et al who could draw up a declaration of independence and be a voice for the individuum and even at times spoke out against slavery, while at the same time owning slaves. Those people were children of their time and as such steeped in their periods believe and value system.
The fact that they managed to transcend their Echo Chamber (to borrow the term from C. Thi Nguyen's paper on Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers) and create sociatal circumstances which allowed future generations to develop modern perceptions about, for example slavery is the act that is commemorated by a monument. To tear down those monuments implies that our present value system is perfect and was developped by us without the effort of previous generations. I think, however imperfect those efforts might seem to us now, without those efforts and the ensuing discussions - stimulated by the inherent contradictions a persons life inevitably consists of - we would not be holding our modern convictions. There is no certainty to believe that we would oppose slavery, would we have been born in to a slave holding society.
Of curse not. Luke IT or not, is part of the historia. To destroy remains of history that remind us events and periods which sen now "incorrect" does not Fox anithing. Erase history is what tiranies do.
Excuse me. In my prevoius answer the self-corrector put "Luke" forma "Like" and "historia " for "history"
People are looking at the splinters in other peoples’ eyes and ignoring the logs of wood in their own.
Please people in glass houses should not throw stones, or even pebbles.
Let she who is sinless throw the first stone; if not, have a conscience, PLEASE walk away.
Be afraid on judgement day.
Urs Luescher Certainly, people are not black or white, we are of an infinite range of gray and even the most abject of dictators did positive things, yes. And in a slave culture the normal thing would be to see slavery as something natural, yes. And not only the monuments to the dictators are used by their followers, but they also use their own means of dissemination and hidden symbology, yes.
My opinion: it is not about hiding the facts, history is in charge of recording them, but the monuments that glorify the murderers continue to hurt their victims or the heirs of the victims in history. A current example is the monument to the dictator Francisco Franco, the so-called "Valle de los caídos", which offends millions of Spaniards. It is the symbol that Franco's heritage is still alive.
How many centuries must pass before its meaning is forgotten? Too many.
Josu Riezu But doesn't the feeling of offence serve as a thorn in society and as such has the function to keep the society alert? As you agreed that extremist elements do not need grand memorials as objects to rally around, I pressume you can agree that even a policy of dismanteling the monuments does not make the extremist elements disapear. But they and their ideas (and the dangers stemmng from those ideas) do become visible and by that society as a whole can stay vigilant and engage them in open debate. Removing the signs carries the danger of lulling the civil society into a false sense of security.
Urs Luescher The feeling of offense can be something subjective, but the monument is an offense in itself.
If we do not fight against the symbols we know, how will we fight against the hidden ones? The mere existence of monuments justifies and perpetuates the work of those who made them.
If the only function of a monument is to glorify a murderous leader, it must be destroyed, while the statue is standing, it will be offending the victims or their memory.
Dear all,
What would a compromise solution look like? Imagine we tried to do a binding arbitration with a third party.
Josu Riezu I beg to differ. The monument justifies nothing - the original intent of its construction might have done that, but as the perception of the actions the monument harks back to changed over time, so can the perceptions of the monument change. This requires a vigilant society that is open to discurs. Removing the monument only closes the interfaces between, what are now fringe ideas and their proponents, and civil society - it does not remove the ideas and the proponents. They will only retreat into their own echo chambers and radicalise even further. Civil society must be strong enough to take on those ideas and not ignore them.
Joseph Tham a compromise solution could be to remove the monuments which comemorate people whos actions affected people who are still alive today. As I can see that there is a direct connection between the offence felt by the victims and the meaning behind the monument. But if the monument dates back to a time where it is safe to assume that none of the victims is still alive it should become an object of debate - not a debate about the monument but about the actions and norms and values it stands for - and for that it needs to exists. So the monument becomes both, a trigger for debate about the past and a reminder to be alert, to check the presence in the light of the past. History books will not be enoght for that.
Joseph Tham That the victims are alive is not the key. While in Spain is celebrated, even today, the "Day of Hispanidad" to celebrate the aggrandizement of Spain after the discovery of America, the Spanish monuments to the American genocide, continue bothering their heirs 500 years later.
It only occurs to me to think about the pyramids of Egypt that, after almost 5 millennia, no longer seem to offend anyone. Behind the White Tal Mahal there seems to be a love story, perhaps it is enough for a pardon, but we can not ask the opinion of the architects to whom, it is said, was blinded and cut his hands after finishing the work.
Urs Luescher Should the people suffer the vision of an offensive monument waiting for its meaning to be forgotten? I can not agree, first the people, then the art.
How long does it take for a statue of Muammar Gaddafi to stop being seen by his people as that of a dictator? The pain that caused his simple vision caused that all were demolished after his fall.
If a statue is not demolished it means that its author is still "alive", as it happens with Franco's monuments in Spain. Hitler and Mussolini died, Franco did not.
Josu Riezu The meaning should not be forgotten - that is exactly the point. While history never repeats itself exactly, it does have an ability to come up with some striking similarities. To prevent that, even the negative sides of a countries past need to be visible (Auschwitz is a museum today because of that) - only then can present developments be reflected in light of past aberrations.
Furthermore I think there is a dangerous element in claiming to suffer 500 years later from atrocities one set of people (i.e. the spanish) committed against another (i.e indigenous people from south America). If you allow for the transgenerational suffering then it is only logical to demand transgenerational responsibilty. And this is only a small step away from assigning collectiv responsibility with the ensuing justification for collective punishment.
As for the monuments to Franco. It is the job of the present day civil society to out-debate todays fans of that time. And if the society had decided to destroy monuments to Franco right after Francos dead then that would have been a different debate, because that generation bears the scars and the memories of Francos time. But obviously those monuments were not destroyed, and that serves as an indication that Francos ideas still had / have some traction within spanish society. Now the monuments serve as the trigger to confront those ideas and point out the consequences they had. And from what I gather this is actually happening. It would not happen without a trigger and Francos ideas would still be around - but unchallenged by civil society and fester.
Governments should focus on human wellbeing. They should focus on positive and healthy things. Racism would consequently evaporate. No need to destroy anything.
Urs Luescher Auschwitz has never been a monument of glorification of Nazism, it is not comparable.
Spain has ceased its Sud American massacre some centuries ago, but 500 years later it continues to celebrate the discovery that marked its beginning and this is inevitable that this will continue to offend the inhabitants of those territories. If the celebration bothers, the monument will not bother perpetually?
Franco's case is not a different debate but it is the example of the origin of the debate. When the monument stops affecting the citizens? If spanish society does not achieve the monuments removed, it is because Franco's power structures have not disappeared and little by little they become an atavistic power that perpetuates the influence of the dictator and the power of his heirs. That is why it is indispensable that all the symbols of exaltation disappear.
Aryan Shahabian Pablo Baisotti If that is what it says, how can it be justified that the tomb of Rudolf Hess has been dismantled and its remains thrown into the sea, barely 24 years after being buried? Should it have been left as a memory?
Why was it impossible to avoid the pilgrimages of the neo-Nazis to the grave, despite the prohibitions? Why in the year 2018 in the city of Los Angeles was the statue of Christopher Columbus removed?
Answer: because they were symbols of atrocities that continue in the memory of at least part of the people, offending them, and the only thing that can end with that is to remove them from everyone's sight, if not from their destruction.
Pablo Baisotti As I see that it lacks information, I recommend two citations "Very brief report of the destruction of the Indies" by the priest "Fray Bartolomé de las Casas" who estimated in year 1552 that the massacres in the territories he had traveled died between 12 and 15 million of people.
Or if you prefer something more modern, Earth system of the European arrival and Great Dying in the Americas after 1492. A. Koch et al. / Quaternary Science Reviews 207 (2019) 13e36 where it is estimated at 55 million the number of indigenous people killed in the wake of the Discovery of America, in an extraordinary multidisciplinary study.
When the Spanish king -forced by Bartolome de Las Casas- issued laws of protection for the Indians: 1º did not take any pains to enforce them, 2º the great slaughter had already been fulfilled, 3º the "Black Legend" was invented to discredit the reports of Bartolomé de Las Casas, who, yes, was a great defender of the Indians. 4th the Indians continued dying of slavery and misery.
Fortunately, there is a lot of scientific information for those who want to look at it, and not continue to justify one of the greatest genocides in history, behind a "Black Legend".
It is terrible that there are still people who justify the indefensible, it is the inheritance of the Conquerors perpetuated in the consciences through their symbols.
May we focus on the present. How do we move forward? What does a compromise policy look like?
Pablo Baisotti You make many very weak evaluations, I advise you to read at least the quote that I have put above.
Many Indians died sick, it is true, a third of the average population (not 97% as you say), but would they have died if they had not been enslaved in miserable, poorly nourished and unhygienic living conditions? Did they die of illness or misery?
How did Pizarro get 168 men and 37 horses to beat the 30,000 Inca warriors of Atahualpa? I do not know, but they did.
The first conquerors left no one alive after their passage, fearful of being attacked by the rearguard and immediately after the first conquerors thousands of adventurers with few scruples followed them.
In the American case, I consider Bartolomé de Las Casas, an eyewitness, and his official correspondence with the Spanish king more reliable than Ernesto Sabato, who was awarded precisely by those who deny the genocide.
Justifying the crimes of others makes us accomplices.
Joseph Tham Dear Tham, can we focus on the present?
The problem is that this is the present, you can not turn the page of history while the feelings of grievance in the people remain alive, this same conversation is the prove.
In Spain there is the "Fundación Civilización Hispánica", dedicated specifically to whitewashing the history of Spain on the Internet, Wikipedia, search engines, etc., with special mention to the Black Legend ... 500 years later.
The monuments are still alive centuries after the honorees have died, therefore, if the sole function of the monument is the glorification of the character, it must be destroyed or at least removed from the public way and confined in a museum.
Pablo Baisotti Ok, could you suggest something to read that would make me change my mind? Please, do not recommend me to any of the winners of the Cervantes Institute, nor to Dobyns.
For my part, I suggest you, since you like Ernesto Sabate, that you also read Eduardo Galeano. You are welcome.
Why do you change my words ?, where have I written destroy to forget?
Forget, never.
I have always talked about monuments that glorify someone, person or movement, the concentration camps were not made to glorify anyone, the ESMA was not a monument either, its destiny as museums seems perfect to me.
I have no interest in your bibliography, with what I have read here I have a sufficient sample, but I do have interest in knowing on what basis what you defend, I think you have forgotten half of the story, that of the losers.
I am, completely, against historical monuments destruction. It is, in fact, an old practice, since Ancient Egypt and Ancient Rome (with the application of damnatio memoriae), A subject I have addressed at length in my doctoral thesis. There are also contemporary damnatio memoriae, as has happened in Germany, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and in Eastern Europe, or in Spain. Almost always take place political upheavals, these destructions happen (for example, I thought a sorry spectacle, the overthrow Sadam Hussein statues, during the invasion of Iraq). I agree with Urs Luescher: "So the monument becomes both, a trigger for debate about the past and a reminder to be alert, to check the presence in the light of the past. History books will not be enoght for that. "
Pablo Baisotti Thank you very much Pablo for the correction, sometimes between the French, English, Spanish, Catalan or Euskera I miss some error. It's already fixed, thanks again.
Regarding the rest, I see that you are not able to provide any argument that supports your opinions, except your own opinions, it does not seem very scientific. The ESMA never served to honor any of the Argentine dictators. If I'm wrong, could you tell me which one? Misrepresenting my words will not make yours become true.
Thank you for the qualification of student, because I am an eternal student, ha ha. At the age of 62 I am still studying new things, this Monday I start a course "Interpretation of sedimentary landscapes", as a complement to those of Prehistory. And you, do you know everything? I see that yes.
I think Joseph Tham will be happy with these conversations, I think he will have some elements of judgment to solve the question he asked, although I am not sure that he has obtained the answer he expected.
My best regards.
Josu Riezu I think it has been a good discussion up to this point. We should continue to be polite and mutually respectful of opposing points of view.
Por favor, amigos y maestros.
This issue is very current in the U.S., with no easy answers. I hope that through dialogue we can get some ideas on how to move forward.
Dear colleagues,
nothing is more important than respecting each other.
Putting forward our argument is enough in a conversation between people who believe in mutual respect.
All the best
-Ramana
IS there any man-made monument (or national celebration) that does not offend at least some person or group?
Jay Klagge True. It would be difficult to please everyone. Perhaps the public versus private domain may be important for thinking about a way to move forward
Jay Klagge The question is, why does it offend someone? And if the offense is true - and probably unfair - should the monument prevail over minorities?
And it becomes a problem of majorities and minorities, not of justice, that disappears from the scene.
Joseph Tham In the public domain the anonymous citizen must be respected, in the privacy of the house everyone can worship the god, and his symbols, which please him.
Josu Riezu
Let’s take a practical example. Consider a leader X that you do not like. (No need to name).
The leader has been legitimately elected. People have accused the leader of being a nationalist, a sexist, a racist and a lot of other names.
A philanthropist offers to build a HUGE monument for this leader X on private land. Thus, no public funding is involved, and the project is on private land. To complicate matters, a world famous sculptor will be responsible so it could be viewed as art of the highest order.
What would be the objections to this proposal to build the monument?
Your example is too similar to Hitler, is not it?
What would happen if someone put a statue of Hitler, in the garden of his house but in view of the street?
While the dictator lives, who dares to touch something of what he has done? It does not matter if are public or private, nobody will move anything. To change something, the dictator must disappear. After the fall of Hitler, two thirds of the population thought that it was not necessary to withdraw their symbols, since they were satisfied with the death of the monster. But the pain that it caused in the memory of the other third of the population was enough to eliminate all the symbols, even the smallest ones.
As for art, let's look at the present. In the Nordico Stadmuseum Linz a work is exhibited that does not even represent Hitler, but it was a gift that Hitler made to the city and that he was in a public park until someone denounced that was a gift from Hitler. Automatically the same rule was applied to him as to the rest of the Nazi symbols, and only the doubt to recognize it or not, as a work of art, saved it from destruction by confining it in a museum.
More, the ARCA Statue Art Museum retired in 2017 a statue of Hitler for the protests of the people, shortly after its installation. It seems that the mere memory of that monster offends many citizens ..... and will continue to happen for many years.
First the people, then the "art".
Josu Riezu
To test our intuition on the matter, consider the following the proposals.
Please comment.
I will answer in 2 sections
1st History show all,
Positive things- to be learned
Negative things- to avoided
2nd Defining Racist (or nationalist) person / monument would be subjective. different people / government / political parties / international bodies will have different list to come up.
This would create rift better people & in society that would lead to Stress (imbalance of peace) & might even lead to internal / civil war or Riots, special if a diverse country
Joseph Tham
I doubt that Mahatma Gandhi or -especially- Mother Teresa had accepted a monument in his name, without a doubt Mother Teresa would have asked for the money to be shared among the poors. Why make a monument against the ethics of the honoree?
But the reality is different and there are many statues of both Ghandi and Mother Teresa, but ... what exactly do we celebrate of the honorees?
For example, Mother Teresa? Is not it surprising that a person devotes his whole life to giving it to others? Could it be that we are ashamed of our selfishness and erect statues that hide it?
And of Gandhi? His first years? Its evolution? The liberation of India? I think Gandhi is celebrated for demonstrating the validity of the use of nonviolence and peaceful civil disobedience, as a means of achieving political objectives. And...can someone disagree with the denial of violence?
Although, if he had not achieved those goals, nobody would celebrate Gandhi, he would be one of those who remain in the path of utopias.
I think that each case is very different and must be analyzed individually. Trying to generalize a method would be inappropriate, although it would serve to classify each case based on a table of ratings.
And we are not strictly speaking about works of art...
Without any doubt - all monuments should be preserved. They are telling their stories and sending important messages. Those messages should be kept for the future.
All history -incluiding- historical monuemants should be protected as they reflect the cultures and ellused the histories black points.
Anastas Ivanov Ivanov Dijana Vučković Emre Pakdemirli
According to you, was incorrect to eliminate all the symbols that exalted Nazism?
I think the World Trade Center, or its wreckage should be converted into a museum to that the new generation does not forget the horrible acts caused by fanaticism or by Nazis in the case of concentration camps. To avoid that old mistakes can be done again in the future.
Monuments are important assets and should be preserved. It may be built by any one belong to any political party or religion.
In education, we need to develop critical historical literacy, and that couldn't been done without missing parts, such as missing monuments. It's not easy to accept that mankind had very bad and very evil elements in the past, but it's necessary to talk about it with the main goal - that such things should never again happen. As a teaching and learning source - we need all monuments (and museums, documents...) etc.
If somebody destroy historical monuments, there is a danger of doing this every 5 years, or how long the electoral cycle continues there. On the other hand, in our city there are monuments to both Lenin and Sverdlov, Kirov (communist lider of 20th-30th of last century) and Yeltsin (this is brand new). Only no one is in a hurry to restore the monument to Alexander II (Liberator)... Monuments to the writers Mamin-Sibiryak and Bazhov (although in his youth he fought for the Reds), as well as to Professor Popov, will probably survive under any authority.
Anastas Ivanov Ivanov
When was Auschwitz a monument to Hitler?
Uff, you are mixing things that can not be mixed! We are talking about monuments in honor of racists or oppressor nationalists. If you read the whole thread you will see that it has already been talked about. Auschwitz is perfect for a museum.
And about the monuments to Lenin, this name brings to my memory the horrible stories about "Chrezvycháinaya Komíssiya". It reminds me too much to the Spanish dictator Franco and the fact that Franco's heritage is alive. I do not know much about Russian reality, but perhaps Lenin is not totally dead , and there are many nostalgics of his legacy. If not, I do not understand a monument to Lenin.
Vadim S. Gorshkov
When a monument becomes a "Historical Monument"?
If a monument does not survive an election cycle, would it not be a monument to someone's egotism?
I agree, when a monument is really a "Monument" (Popov, Bazhov, etc.) it survives time and political parties.
We need to discuss how to determine who has “standing” with respect to a specific monument. Who has a say? If the monument is in Spain, how would a non-Spanish person have any input in the matter?
Joseph Tham
In Spain a chain of pizzerias called "The Mafia sits at the table" was created.
The Italian government protested and informed the Court of Justice of the European Union on the basis that the trademark was "contrary to good morals". The Court agreed with the Italian Government, basing the decision that "the aforementioned trademark may cause or offend not only the victims of said criminal organization and their families, but also any person who, in the territory of the Union, is before said mark and has thresholds of sensitivity and tolerance, reason why its nullity must be declared ".
In my birth town there is new monument to one person that was the leader of one ''group'' that had important role in the World War II in Yugoslavia. In my opinion, for which I have many arguments and historical data, that person wasn't the war hero - on contrary. But, from the other side, I need to accept that there are some people who don't think the same as I. As a teacher, I could use that situation as a controversial issue and discuss it with my students in order to help them to understand our past and our contemporary circumstances better. And that circumstances are very complicated throughout the whole XX century and even now. You have probably informed well about ''the case'' of ex-Yugoslavia.
This is a controversial issue, but historical monuments are also historical documents, important in many aspects. As Anastas Ivanov Ivanov said, in the Esatern Block many governments have destroyed many monuments of Socialism. But there are other solutions: as the Memento Park (Szoborpark), Budapest; or Grüto Parkas, Druskininkai, Lithuania. They are not ideal solutions (would be necessayr higher investment), but it is preferable that simple destruction of historic heritage.
Thank you for posting a really interesting question that will stimulate some fascinating debate. I am following the answers. I agree with many of the responses above.
This is an excellent question because the very asking and responding is controversial. I understand how monuments can cause pain to some and joy to others. I do not think that I have the right to tell someone in another country to destroy art or history. My response is probably going to hurt a reader, But, I think that, tolerance for the opinions of others is a good thing. Or so I tell myself.
brigid
Anastas Ivanov Ivanov
You believe that the monuments for those three persons should not stand in any city in the world.
This is a very strong statement. Why should people ALL over the world accept your assessment?
Would you believe in reciprocity?
I am putting the cat in with the pigeons as my dad would say. Keeping the monuments show that they existed. Some people try to deny that the evil Nazi empire existed. I think of their statues as monuments to ego, evil and excrement.
brigid
Anastas Ivanov Ivanov
I agree with you, but the reality is that Franco, still today, has a huge monument, his tomb, the so-called "Valle de los Caídos", and the nostalgic movements of his heritage are growing day by day. Franco has not died completely.
Anastas Ivanov Ivanov
Unfortunately it is not just a problem of Spain, in the next europarliament will sit several Spanish parliamentarians very close to the ideas of Franco, at least it is a European problem.
And history can be repeated, as when Europe looked the other way when Hitler began his career and alarms began to sound.
Сохранение памятников является не только элементом культуры общества, но и частью политики.
Каждый памятник при создании и размещении выполняет определённую символическую роль и несёт в себе определённую идею. Поэтому как государство, так и общество рассматривают памятники как проводники определённой идеологии. Если эта идеология соответствует современным взглядам, памятники сохраняются, за ними ухаживают, их почитают. В противном случае их уничтожают именно как враждебную идеологию.
Мне кажется, что в этой ситуации наиболее целесообразным является не только сохранение памятников в музеях, даже если они несут негативную символику, но и проведение целенаправленно просветительской работы среди населения. Это даст возможность относиться к памятниками, прежде всего, как к элементам социальной культуры.
I agree completely with Anastas Ivanov Ivanov
The only way not to repeat history is to remember what happened and learn from it. Removing all the monuments does not mean hitler, franco and other tyrants did not exist. Do not glorify them, attach plaques that chronicle their evil deeds.
brigid
What we learn from history?
we learn important lessons . if we did not learn from our old mistakes we are going to do them over and over. so keep these monuments to remind us in our bad old days.
so I also agree with Anastas Ivanov Ivanov
Most of Lenin's statues have been toppled ( I think). A change of regime found them undesirable. How can people tolerate statues of Hitler for example (if they existed)? If anyone wanted them in own backyard for the sake of history just keep them there.
Joseph Tham
Simplifying my opinion, no person who has been convicted - by an international court - for crimes against humanity, war crimes or similar, even severe ecological, should have any public monument and should be removed to museums.
Anastas Ivanov Ivanov
The return of Nazism would be another debate, but I want to say that I am not so optimistic. Nazism was only one of the forms of razism and supremacism, particular of Hitler, as fascism was the form of Mussolini. Both disappeared. But the Franco regime did not disappear, in Spain there are dozens of great Francoist monuments and hundreds of small ones, as well as too many streets with the names of war criminals. And in the world other new ones are incubating, because the racism and supremacism is growing all over, Europe, Brazil, the United States ... it's only a matter of time that a new leader appears ... who will not look like Hitler or Mussolini or Franco, unlooked-for but as terrible as them.
I hope you are right.
The preservation of historic buildings is very important. There is no chance to renovate or to save a historic site once it's gone. This reality brings to light the importance of locating and saving buildings of historic significance―because once a piece of history is destroyed, it is lost forever Even Old buildings are reminders of a city’s culture and complexity which need to be preserve forever.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India