Jump to content
Sublime

Russians to try to rewrite history on Sov Afghan War

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, General Jack Ripper said:

I'm sure there are plenty of statues of Lenin around, but no matter how much I dislike Communism, I'm not running around trying to tear them all down.

It's easy to tear something down -- it's building something better that's tough.

800px_COLOURBOX27805429.jpg

This dude wasn't a nice guy. Would humanity benefit from all the artwork made of him destroyed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess we are still going down this road.  Okay let’s ask this then. How about if it were a statue of Hitler?

All statues are not equal, all locations for said statues are not equal. It is a very subjective discussion that has to be in context for it to be worthwhile. A general discussion of whether or not a statue should or should not stand has to be predicated on something real. 

The erection of statues post civil war was not about historical relevance but political intent.  If we were talking a stature for the surrender at Appomattox I doubt there would be much debate. 

The point of the civil war statues is looking at WHEN they were built tells us more about them than what the statue itself is.  Of the some 1500 civil war monuments most were built from 1890 to 1930. From a historians perspective then, the fact that they are civil war statues is less important than historically what is going on from 1890 to 1930.  That is the point of the debate. 

So you have a couple things going on here that are relevant. 

1 monuments cost money. They don’t produce a return so it was unlikely that these statues would go up until there was an econonmic resurgence in the south 

2 civil war veterans are starting to die off and it is natural for folks to want to remember an event that had the greatest impact on their lives

3 Jim Crow - need I say more?

those 3 options mean different things to different portions of our society and reflect on our priorities. White folks have a view of those statues and the civil war conflict. Black folks have a view of those statues and Jim Crow. They are both to some degree true. Our ability to appreciate the difference in those views and show some empathy for alternative perspectives is one thing. Being manipulated by particular views that have their own political agenda is a whole other issue. Those weren’t historical society members marching with tiki torches in Charlottesville.  At the same time those tiki toting morons do not speak generally for folks interested in civil war history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sburke said:

Our ability to appreciate the difference in those views and show some empathy for alternative perspectives is one thing. Being manipulated by particular views that have their own political agenda is a whole other issue. Those weren’t historical society members marching with tiki torches in Charlottesville.  At the same time those tiki toting morons do not speak generally for folks interested in civil war history. 

Well said.

Another excellent example that has garnered some press here in Canada - statues of Sir John A MacDonald. One of our founding fathers and first Prime Minster. Not a perfect person but he did force a rail way across the country and unite it. If it wasn't for his efforts the US might have 60 ish states. But on the minus side he was a drunkard and not a very nice person who held some very prejudiced views of indigenous people and kicked of the Residential School system that did unspeakable harm. There are groups that want to see significant changes made to his statues. Including some that likely want them all removed and others that want to forget (and deny) things like the Residential School system. The smart path to navigate is to look at the intent or the effect that these statues have *now*. Trying to rewrite history is a bad idea but having to look at monuments built by an oppressive force for the purpose of reminding you of said oppression is not the same as preserving history.

The city hall in Victoria moved a statue of him from outside the front door of city hall. Many of the residents of that city have an indigenous backgrounds and felt it was in appropriate that they had to walk past his statue to be heard at city hall. Contrast that with the park with his name and a statue in his home down, Kingston, where they have no plans to make any changes. Despite some small number of people who do want to. Anyone who doesn't want to think about him can visit one of many parks but you can't not go to city hall. The truth is most people don't want to rewrite history they just want people to not feel the boot of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SBURKE, thanks you saved me a lot of typing.  😊   We get to make specific choices about who we honor & for what.  That doesn't mean we have to destroy every statue every made.  That doesn't mean that just because some folks don't like someone that we do this.  It's a specific choice for a specific case.  And Robert E Lee is only honored for doing the wrong thing.  I admire Lee greatly as a military leader.  I admire Rommel and many other German generals.  But their only claim to fame is fighting rather well for a cause that was downright wrong and being complicit in that wrong cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a question of time.  Not sure how our societies arrive at the definition, but a "decent" amount of time has to pass b4 one can make (say) movies about certain topics.  It's probably the same for statues or memorials.  As much as folks may not want to hear or think about it, in a couple hundred years there probably will be statues of Hitler.  My family was wiped out by the Nazis.  However, revisionism is a very common phenomenon in human history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sburke said:

Okay let’s ask this then. How about if it were a statue of Hitler?

I'd leave it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_Monument_(Budapest)

^ I'd have left that up too.

Just because you build a statue of someone, doesn't mean it had to be a celebration. We can also have statues of things we want to avoid.
It's about public remembrance. Keeping some things in mind.

 

9 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

800px_COLOURBOX27805429.jpg

This dude wasn't a nice guy.

I'd say that's a matter of opinion.

It's that whole historical relativism thing I talked about. Caesar was not an unusual man for his time. Our modern sensibilities say one thing about Caesar, but if you study his life and actions by the standards that existed at the time he was alive he's hardly a saint, but he's not Satan either.

In a way, you have illustrated my point better than I could. Gaius Julius Caesar made a mark upon the world that history cannot erase. His accomplishments remain remarkable, even two thousand years later. His achievements are worthy of REMEMBRANCE. I'm not saying we should create some creepy religious cult based around worshipping the man, but I shudder to think the day someone may try to erase him from public knowledge for nothing more than their own sense of wounded vanity may not be too far away.

Edited by General Jack Ripper
I ended that last sentence with a preposition. Darnit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, General Jack Ripper said:

I'd leave it up.

Fine.  Okay how about this - a statue of Emrys ON your front lawn posing WITH a bunch of Assyrians!  How about THAT!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sburke said:

Fine.  Okay how about this - a statue of Emrys ON your front lawn posing WITH a bunch of Assyrians!  How about THAT!!

Well, so long as I can fit my lawn mower around it, and have a tarpaulin large enough to cover it when I have guests over... (purely for their sake of course)

I guess one needs vanity in the first place if it is to become wounded. I'm fairly certain I no longer possess the attribute.

 

Wait, the statue of Emry's is not nude, is it? How far are you going to take this?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am with @General Jack Ripper SLIM. On both counts.

But I'd put a statue of Emrys on the lawn so the neighborhood dogs would have a place to aim!

 

Mord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, sburke said:

Guess we are still going down this road.  Okay let’s ask this then. How about if it were a statue of Hitler?

All statues are not equal, all locations for said statues are not equal. It is a very subjective discussion that has to be in context for it to be worthwhile. A general discussion of whether or not a statue should or should not stand has to be predicated on something real. 

The erection of statues post civil war was not about historical relevance but political intent.  If we were talking a stature for the surrender at Appomattox I doubt there would be much debate. 

The point of the civil war statues is looking at WHEN they were built tells us more about them than what the statue itself is.  Of the some 1500 civil war monuments most were built from 1890 to 1930. From a historians perspective then, the fact that they are civil war statues is less important than historically what is going on from 1890 to 1930.  That is the point of the debate. 

So you have a couple things going on here that are relevant. 

1 monuments cost money. They don’t produce a return so it was unlikely that these statues would go up until there was an econonmic resurgence in the south 

2 civil war veterans are starting to die off and it is natural for folks to want to remember an event that had the greatest impact on their lives

3 Jim Crow - need I say more?

those 3 options mean different things to different portions of our society and reflect on our priorities. White folks have a view of those statues and the civil war conflict. Black folks have a view of those statues and Jim Crow. They are both to some degree true. Our ability to appreciate the difference in those views and show some empathy for alternative perspectives is one thing. Being manipulated by particular views that have their own political agenda is a whole other issue. Those weren’t historical society members marching with tiki torches in Charlottesville.  At the same time those tiki toting morons do not speak generally for folks interested in civil war history. 

Agree. Also when it comes to say blatant misinformation I dont think the statues should stay up - as is the case with the now gone Texas state house plaque declaring "it wasnt a rebellion" (oh? So johnny reb isnt a good name? Southerners always love rebel referebces but them say they werent)

"It wasnt about slavery" ( bull )

It was about "states rights" ( yeah. To have slaves and leave the nation when you dont get your way and attack the feds?)

Ok done. Sry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, General Jack Ripper said:

I'd leave it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_Monument_(Budapest)

^ I'd have left that up too.

Just because you build a statue of someone, doesn't mean it had to be a celebration. We can also have statues of things we want to avoid.
It's about public remembrance. Keeping some things in mind.

 

I'd say that's a matter of opinion.

It's that whole historical relativism thing I talked about. Caesar was not an unusual man for his time. Our modern sensibilities say one thing about Caesar, but if you study his life and actions by the standards that existed at the time he was alive he's hardly a saint, but he's not Satan either.

In a way, you have illustrated my point better than I could. Gaius Julius Caesar made a mark upon the world that history cannot erase. His accomplishments remain remarkable, even two thousand years later. His achievements are worthy of REMEMBRANCE. I'm not saying we should create some creepy religious cult based around worshipping the man, but I shudder to think the day someone may try to erase him from public knowledge for nothing more than their own sense of wounded vanity may not be too far away.

im all for remembrance as long as its not rewriting history.  This goes for straight up erasing the past which is one way the extreme left would like and then you have other ways such as rewriting history the far right likes. ("Russia invaded to stop terrorists ok? They were right to be there."- Ronald Reagan spins in his grave -)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sublime said:

Agree. Also when it comes to say blatant misinformation I dont think the statues should stay up - as is the case with the now gone Texas state house plaque declaring "it wasnt a rebellion" (oh? So johnny reb isnt a good name? Southerners always love rebel referebces but them say they werent)

"It wasnt about slavery" ( bull )

It was about "states rights" ( yeah. To have slaves and leave the nation when you dont get your way and attack the feds?)

Ok done. Sry.

What amazes me is how often history gets taught in a simple linear fashion, (I.E. A+B=C) when in reality, history happened more like a quadratic equation.

Quadratic_formula.svg(Where X=The American Civil War, solve for C)

Simple cause and effect understanding of history is for children, which is why I generally refrain from discussing history with others. It seems to be the most common base of knowledge other people possess.

It's endlessly frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, General Jack Ripper said:

Well, at the rate you escalated that confrontation (from Hitler straight to Emrys PLUS Assyrians?!), I sought to preemptively de-escalate.

My apologies.

Well I do agree an escalation to Hitler was extreme, but an escalation to a nude Emrys...well that is something else entirely!  😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sublime said:

("Russia invaded to stop terrorists ok? They were right to be there."- Ronald Reagan spins in his grave -)

I'm still bewildered by that claim. Not only is it factually wrong -- the implication is invading countries on the pretext of "stopping" a decentralized organization of a small number of bad actors is okay. I do not see how it makes a difference if they invaded to "stop terrorists" or to prop up a client regime. It doesn't prove his point. I think the guy is saying this out of ignorance, rather than trying to re-write history. Which is sad, because the US (and the rest of us NATO folk) could have learned from what happened in the 80s.

I'm not entirely sure who this Jim Crow dude is, but I get it -- civil wars are touchy subjects. But yeah, there's a difference between moving a statue and destroying it. You can put a statue in a museum, so people can see it in a historical context. I'm just not a fan of statues being defaced, smashed or blown up. Artists worked on that, regardless of who it shows.

We had a situation in my city, where they removed a cigar from a Churchill statue -- 'cause it encouraged smoking, apperantly. That's just plain wrong! Churchill would send those sensationalists to Gallipoli, he would!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Crow isnt so much a person its a name for laws that alldealt with race and specifically for ways to harass and segregate blacks, supress their civil rights, make it difficult to vote, etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sublime,

Thanks for these, but I can't say I'm shocked, given what Putin has already done by prohibiting discussing Red Army failures during the GPW. That pic in the first article of what I believe are Spetsnaz in action is wonderful and educational. Just look at the weaponry those guys have--all the latest toys: titanium body armor, AK-74 with VOG-3M 30 mm grenade launcher and the real proof of the pudding, that tiny tactical radio. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2019 at 9:01 AM, DerKommissar said:

We had a situation in my city, where they removed a cigar from a Churchill statue -- 'cause it encouraged smoking, apperantly. That's just plain wrong! Churchill would send those sensationalists to Gallipoli, he would!

Okay now that is just morally wrong. Churchill with no cigar is like banning WC Fields because he drinks too much. Take to the barricades!!,

Edited by sburke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...