Tearing down historical statues the European edition

[Stelio Kontos]

Put them in museums? I mean, why should they be around this day and age? Would you put up a statue of Hitler because he was a great conqueror and waged war?

Because not every leader in history has been equivalent to Hitler. Vlad Tepes impaled thousands, but most of his victims were invading soldiers. Leonidas came from a slave-holding society (well, all states were slave-holding societies at that point), but died fighting an invading force.

Can a leader not be commemorated if he committed anything that was a sin by 20th/21st century moral standards?

- - - Updated - - -

If the local people want it gone, its all fair game.

Then I hope this Cultural Revolution 2.0 stays in the West.

[Easo]

Museums have value, statues of genociders do not.

Russia loves it's Stalin statues, though...

[Stelio Kontos]

Russia loves it's Stalin statues, though...

Capitalist propaganda. Stalinist was a loving hero of the people. The people who disappeared under his rule all died of happiness.

[DKjaigen]

Put them in museums? I mean, why should they be around this day and age? Would you put up a statue of Hitler because he was a great conqueror and waged war?

That you do not understand this is the reason why the left wing is digging its own grave.

[Elegiac]

What about statues to Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Vlad Tepes, Leonidas or any other great conqueror/warlord? I can see this issue existing the US with confederate statuary, but in the Old World this could grow out of hand quickly. Where does the line get drawn on this? Are cultures that are gone now safe? What about Mongols, Greeks, Romanians who are still around? Do they need to tear down statues of kings/emperors/generals who killed or harmed anyone?

Dunno do they glorify a continuing system of oppression and erasure? If so, maybe they should be taken down.

[Ivanstone]

Where does the line get drawn on this?

The Confederate statues exist for only one reason: Perpetuation of White Supremacy.

Pick any old statue. Was it erected to harm modern people in some way? If yes, tear it down. If no, have some context.

George Washington was a slave owner but he did a few good things in his life. The latter warrants a few statues.
Robert E Lee was also a slave owner and was also a traitor and a virulent racist. Furthermore, he was not charged with any crimes in the name of re-unification but did little to earn that privilege. He deserves no statues at all and only scorn.
General James Longstreet was also a traitor but after the war he joined the Republican party, endorsed General Grant's presidency and led a mixed-race militia against a white supremacist uprising. Naturally, he's been pilloried by Lost Cause enthusiasts for decades. Does he deserve a statue?

Jon Stewart in a recent interview pointed out something about the historical argument. Are you commemorating history or committing hagiography? You'll often find its the latter.

[Yadryonych]

Well if europesns are fine with being cucked and having their history erased who are we to lecture them. Maybe such atrocities will hopefully awaken some patriotic groups from slumber, who knows

[Machismo]

Well if europesns are fine with being cucked and having their history erased who are we to lecture them. Maybe such atrocities will hopefully awaken some patriotic groups from slumber, who knows

We get it,y ou were outraged that they tore down images of Hitler and Stalin.

[Felya]

Well if europesns are fine with being cucked and having their history erased who are we to lecture them. Maybe such atrocities will hopefully awaken some patriotic groups from slumber, who knows

Sounds like a man speaking from experience...




http://anigaribyan.com/blog/2014/9/2...an-empire-ussr

- - - Updated - - -

We get it,y ou were outraged that they tore down images of Hitler and Stalin.

Lenin and Stalin to be exact...

[Yadryonych]

We get it,y ou were outraged that they tore down images of Hitler and Stalin.

Nope I wasn't around when it happened

- - - Updated - - -

Sounds like a man speaking from experience...

Precisely. Taking down statues of former leaders is always a vae victis move. Seeing europeans falling victims to the invaders is a bit upsetting but at the end of the day whether to fight back or to succumb is up to them

[Elegiac]

Seeing europeans falling victims to the invaders

Nope, no racism here.

[Yadryonych]

Nope, no racism here.

Oh my, you must be seeing one of your own numerous strawmen because I dont remember raising race topic

[jonnysensible]

Oh my, you must be seeing one of your own numerous strawmen because I dont remember raising race topic

what does falling victim to invaders mean then?

[Mayhem]

Because not every leader in history has been equivalent to Hitler. Vlad Tepes impaled thousands, but most of his victims were invading soldiers. Leonidas came from a slave-holding society (well, all states were slave-holding societies at that point), but died fighting an invading force.

Can a leader not be commemorated if he committed anything that was a sin by 20th/21st century moral standards?

Yeah, history is written by the victors, and a glorification of war is maybe not the best use for statues this day and age. There are people that helped current society way more without ever getting mentioned and without having to murder.

- - - Updated - - -

That you do not understand this is the reason why the left wing is digging its own grave.

What a great example of knowledge and explanation, thank you very much for this well-worded input.

[Dezerte]

I think the whole business of glorifying people can go a bit too far. Statues fall into this group, and while I don't think they should be destroyed they should be moved out of the public sphere to better reflect modern society.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

Because not every leader in history has been equivalent to Hitler. Vlad Tepes impaled thousands, but most of his victims were invading soldiers. Leonidas came from a slave-holding society (well, all states were slave-holding societies at that point), but died fighting an invading force.

Can a leader not be commemorated if he committed anything that was a sin by 20th/21st century moral standards?

- - - Updated - - -



Then I hope this Cultural Revolution 2.0 stays in the West.

I fear even the representations of Jesus and Buddha will end up in trouble if we follow that metric.

Given the general trend to remove potentially offensive/not enough representative images, one can wonder if we're not set for yet another round of iconoclasm.

[downnola]

I think the difference between statues of Churchill and Stalin is that one person was honored with a statue despite his flaws and the other was honored because of his flaws. The same can be said about the difference between the U.S. statues of Jefferson/Lincoln vs the confederates.

[Yriel]

Man it sure is a shame they took down all the statues in Germany I'm really curious about this "Adolph Hitler" and can't for the life of me figure out what his deal was. If only there were some monuments semi-glorifying him so we could unravel the mystery of "World War Two". Ah well. /s

There never were any Hitler Statues in Germany, not even during the Nazi Period.

[Yadryonych]

what does falling victim to invaders mean then?

I wonder what you are seeing there?

[Machismo]

Nope I wasn't around when it happened

- - - Updated - - -



Precisely. Taking down statues of former leaders is always a vae victis move. Seeing europeans falling victims to the invaders is a bit upsetting but at the end of the day whether to fight back or to succumb is up to them

So, were you outraged tat your glorious Motherland did such a tragic thing?

Well, the dog whistling is a bit on the nose, but that's what one would expect from someone like you.