Monuments: Preserve or Destroy

Should country preserve or destroy certain monuments like communist, nazi, or islamic?

Poland is destroying every monument built by Socialist Poland in the period 1945-1991, Ukraine is destroying every monument built in period of 1922-1991 and Christian Balkan states destroyed turkish mosques built in 1550-1850 era.

Should there be law protecting all monuments in the country?
Should constructions and objects created by occupator be destroyed, or preserved as part of history and culture?

For example, Greece preveserve Hellenic and Roman monuments from B.C., Syria preserve monuments from Assyrian/Babylonian/Persian cultures, Egypt preserve Pyramids and Sphinx.

By destroying Polish and Soviet monuments, does Poland and Ukraine want to delete part of their history?

------

I vote Preserve Monuments, because i believe no matter if it's bad or good it is part of your history and it can't be changed. That's why we left Kremlin's walls red and didn't paint them white like it was before 1936, neither changed red stars on top of Kremlin towers with golden imperial eagles like it was before 1917.

Napísal Skanderbeg, 19.04.2016 at 12:53

I vote Preserve Monuments, because i believe no matter if it's bad or good it is part of your history and it can't be changed.

EDIT: Monuments of historical values of course. In my country case we are not going to keep Dictator Trujillo's statues nor keep the "Trujillo city" name of our capital as they serve no purpose but to praise a dictator. We did keep the Obelisk though, because it does have historical value.

If any of the ex-Soviet countries wanted to demolish Stalin's statues I wouldn't object it.

Napísal Skanderbeg, 19.04.2016 at 12:53

Should country preserve or destroy certain monuments like communist, nazi, or islamic?

Poland is destroying every monument built by Socialist Poland in the period 1945-1991, Ukraine is destroying every monument built in period of 1922-1991 and Christian Balkan states destroyed turkish mosques built in 1550-1850 era.

Should there be law protecting all monuments in the country?
Should constructions and objects created by occupator be destroyed, or preserved as part of history and culture?

For example, Greece preveserve Hellenic and Roman monuments from B.C., Syria preserve monuments from Assyrian/Babylonian/Persian cultures, Egypt preserve Pyramids and Sphinx.

By destroying Polish and Soviet monuments, does Poland and Ukraine want to delete part of their history?

------

I vote Preserve Monuments, because i believe no matter if it's bad or good it is part of your history and it can't be changed. That's why we left Kremlin's walls red and didn't paint them white like it was before 1936, neither changed red stars on top of Kremlin towers with golden imperial eagles like it was before 1917.

I support the preservation of such monuments as long as they were built by the nation/state itself.
Therefore I can agree with the destruction of some monuments of foreign occupation such as Turkish Mosques unless they have a profound historical value.
However I disagree with your statements upon Greece and Egypt. The Pyramids and the Sphinx were NOT built by foreign occupants, the series of Egyptian Kingdoms and Empires that built them had their capital in Egypt, the ruler was Egypt, the official script and language was Egyptian. Same for the Hellenics of Greece.
As for Roman monuments in Greece and Babylonian/Persian/Assyrian monuments in Syria these should be preserved regardless. Considering how little we actually know of the earlier periods after the birth of Christ we should preserve any monument that can boast a history dating back to the 12th century or earlier, if they so were built by occupants or indigenous peoples.
And yes, the point is that the Poles and the Ukrainians want to destroy the part of their history that is stamped by Socialism, IE the USSR and Warsaw Pact era. Just like the de-Nazification campaigns in Germany that removed everything that had something to do with Hitlers regime and the nation 1933-1945. However since history can't be deleted, especially with the modern techniques of information gathering, there is absolutely no point in such actions. I'd definently not support the protection of a 1,000 Stalin/Lenin statues but at the very least in the larger cities they should remain as a reminder of what happened to the nation. Be it good or bad, every people of every nation deserve to know their history to the fullest extent possible.

So, I agreed and voted for preservation. The destruction of culture, especially that which still has much to teach us from the less documented eras of civilization, should be absolutely prohibited. In fact I'd even support a United Nations initiative to create an international law specifying the preservation of such artifacts as they are of educational and historical value.

However, for the same reason, in the case of the Kremlin I'd support a petition to erect an obelisk or other kind of monument in front of the Kremlin with a little bit of text about what happened to it and complement it with a painting of the original design.

My town (just as any other) have Statue of Lenin. Point is, as you both said, to destroy statues which glorify dictators right, but if people don't consider them dictators but leaders who did good for people, what then?

I do consider Lenin bad (Stalin was the good one) for Russia because he tried to destroy Russian tradition and culture, but i don't support removal of Lenin statue because it is history now, it's been there for 70 years and became part of Russian history.

I compared Egypt and Greece with Poland, i didn't say pyramides were built by foreign occupators. Socialist Poland was built and led by Poles, and now they destroy Polish monuments from Socialist era. That is my question.

The Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Rashtrapathi Bhavan (Presidential Home), India Gate were all built by invaders and conquerors in India. The first two by the Mughals, and the last two by the British. They are still famous national and international monuments of great importance.

I say preserve monuments

However, statues of people aren't monuments. Merely expressions of narcissism, ego and elitism. Any statues of Stalin, Hitler, hell even Obama or (quite likely xa) Trump are and will be fair game imo in regards to being destroyed.

Napísal Darth., 19.04.2016 at 14:02

The Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Rashtrapathi Bhavan (Presidential Home), India Gate were all built by invaders and conquerors in India. The first two by the Mughals, and the last two by the British. They are still famous national and international monuments of great importance.

I say preserve monuments

Red Fort?! Man, India was meant to be Communist! Military parades could be held infront Red Fort, while commissars and secretaries wave from the top of the red wall

Napísal Darth., 19.04.2016 at 14:02

However, statues of people aren't monuments. Merely expressions of narcissism, ego and elitism. Any statues of Stalin, Hitler, hell even Obama or (quite likely xa) Trump are and will be fair game imo in regards to being destroyed.

In my experience, statues of leaders are built/ordered by bureaucrats who maintain leader as figurehead or by pleasing the leader so he can grant and secure them good positions in society. Kings had nobility and knights in Feudalism, and today in Capitalism/Nazism/Communism we have Presidents and Premiers with bureaucrats and administrators.

Here's how Kremlin looked before USSR, similar to Gondor from Lord of the Rings isn't it:








how it would look like if returned to original state

Napísal Skanderbeg, 19.04.2016 at 14:12

Napísal Darth., 19.04.2016 at 14:02

The Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Rashtrapathi Bhavan (Presidential Home), India Gate were all built by invaders and conquerors in India. The first two by the Mughals, and the last two by the British. They are still famous national and international monuments of great importance.

I say preserve monuments

Red Fort?! Man, India was meant to be Communist! Military parades could be held infront Red Fort, while commissars and secretaries wave from the top of the red wall

Lol.
But the Red Fort was built in 1648, long before Communism

Here's something.
The Preamble to the Constitution of India
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.


A lady called Indira Gandhi managed to accumulate Dictatorial Powers (as close to it as you can get in a democracy anyways — she was later murdered by her own bodyguards) changed it to...

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:...
[snip]
...HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

---

No one has managed to get enough political goodwill or dared to commit political suicide by trying to change it back
xaxa
Course right now India is neither Capitalist nor Communist. (Non Aligned Movement)

Cituj:

Napísal Darth., 19.04.2016 at 14:02

However, statues of people aren't monuments. Merely expressions of narcissism, ego and elitism. Any statues of Stalin, Hitler, hell even Obama or (quite likely xa) Trump are and will be fair game imo in regards to being destroyed.

In my experience, statues of leaders are built/ordered by bureaucrats who maintain leader as figurehead or by pleasing the leader so he can grant and secure them good positions in society. Kings had nobility and knights in Feudalism, and today in Capitalism/Nazism/Communism we have Presidents and Premiers with bureaucrats and administrators.

Exactly. It's elitism, narcissism, and ego. A leader who didn't want a statue would order it destroyed himself, or order his 'minions' to not build any.
The minions are just bootlickers and paperpushers.

Napísal Skanderbeg, 19.04.2016 at 14:23

Here's how Kremlin looked before USSR, similar to Gondor from Lord of the Rings isn't it:








how it would look like if returned to original state

Well at least the stains on it aren't as visible nowadays XD

They must be preserved. Monuments are not just history, they're also art.

Napísal Skanderbeg, 19.04.2016 at 12:53

I vote Preserve Monuments, because i believe no matter if it's bad or good it is part of your history and it can't be changed. That's why we left Kremlin's walls red and didn't paint them white like it was before 1936, neither changed red stars on top of Kremlin towers with golden imperial eagles like it was before 1917.

Nothing else to add, fully agree.

Napísal Zephyrusu, 19.04.2016 at 15:02

They must be preserved. Monuments are not just history, they're also art.

Exactly, they're not just history or art, they're a crutial part of the people and a country.

Napísal Darth., 19.04.2016 at 14:02

However, statues of people aren't monuments. Merely expressions of narcissism, ego and elitism. Any statues of Stalin, Hitler, hell even Obama or (quite likely xa) Trump are and will be fair game imo in regards to being destroyed.

On my point of view, Statues of People are a different kind of monuments. On my point of view, statues are built by the State/Country to honour citizens of the past for their important, crutial services for their country, or their important role in some era or conflict of the past.

In England they have Statues honouring past Kings, and Winston Churchill for example. In Scotland they have statues of William Wallace, as a symbol of Scottish Freedom and in my country, Portugal, we have statues of Kings and important Navigators that not only enriched our country with Glory, but also took a major role in World History, having the Portuguese sailors discovered 2/3 of the World during the Descobrimentos era.

Napísal Al Fappino, 19.04.2016 at 15:10

Napísal Skanderbeg, 19.04.2016 at 12:53

I vote Preserve Monuments, because i believe no matter if it's bad or good it is part of your history and it can't be changed. That's why we left Kremlin's walls red and didn't paint them white like it was before 1936, neither changed red stars on top of Kremlin towers with golden imperial eagles like it was before 1917.

Nothing else to add, fully agree.

Napísal Zephyrusu, 19.04.2016 at 15:02

They must be preserved. Monuments are not just history, they're also art.

Exactly, they're not just history or art, they're a crutial part of the people and a country.

Napísal Darth., 19.04.2016 at 14:02

However, statues of people aren't monuments. Merely expressions of narcissism, ego and elitism. Any statues of Stalin, Hitler, hell even Obama or (quite likely xa) Trump are and will be fair game imo in regards to being destroyed.

On my point of view, Statues of People are a different kind of monuments. On my point of view, statues are built by the State/Country to honour citizens of the past for their important, crutial services for their country, or their important role in some era or conflict of the past.

In England they have Statues honouring past Kings, and Winston Churchill for example. In Scotland they have statues of William Wallace, as a symbol of Scottish Freedom and in my country, Portugal, we have statues of Kings and important Navigators that not only enriched our country with Glory, but also took a major role in World History, having the Portuguese sailors discovered 2/3 of the World during the Descobrimentos era.

That's significant historical figures (the navigators and stuff). I'm talking about statues built to extol the glory of the current leader *cough*Stalin*cough*
Of course, Winston Churchill while important for World War 2, was imo a bit of an arrogant ass. No statues for him!

Napísal Darth., 19.04.2016 at 15:22

Napísal Al Fappino, 19.04.2016 at 15:10

Napísal Skanderbeg, 19.04.2016 at 12:53

I vote Preserve Monuments, because i believe no matter if it's bad or good it is part of your history and it can't be changed. That's why we left Kremlin's walls red and didn't paint them white like it was before 1936, neither changed red stars on top of Kremlin towers with golden imperial eagles like it was before 1917.

Nothing else to add, fully agree.

Napísal Zephyrusu, 19.04.2016 at 15:02

They must be preserved. Monuments are not just history, they're also art.

Exactly, they're not just history or art, they're a crutial part of the people and a country.

Napísal Darth., 19.04.2016 at 14:02

However, statues of people aren't monuments. Merely expressions of narcissism, ego and elitism. Any statues of Stalin, Hitler, hell even Obama or (quite likely xa) Trump are and will be fair game imo in regards to being destroyed.

On my point of view, Statues of People are a different kind of monuments. On my point of view, statues are built by the State/Country to honour citizens of the past for their important, crutial services for their country, or their important role in some era or conflict of the past.

In England they have Statues honouring past Kings, and Winston Churchill for example. In Scotland they have statues of William Wallace, as a symbol of Scottish Freedom and in my country, Portugal, we have statues of Kings and important Navigators that not only enriched our country with Glory, but also took a major role in World History, having the Portuguese sailors discovered 2/3 of the World during the Descobrimentos era.

That's significant historical figures (the navigators and stuff). I'm talking about statues built to extol the glory of the current leader *cough*Stalin*cough*
Of course, Winston Churchill while important for World War 2, was imo a bit of an arrogant ass. No statues for him!

I do understand you hate Churchill because of the Indian Famines, but he deserves to be honoured, but current leaders statues are meh

The total eradication of all traces of the thousand year long prussian-german history in Prussia, pommerania and west silesia, was pretty shitty to say the least.

even in 1968 the Königsberg castle...



was destroyed to build this ugly piece of shit:



btw, friendly reminder for tito. this is solely the result of soviets and russians trying to claim land that they never owned as their own.

You mean just like how CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM pillaged, raped, buttfucked and destroyed every temple and place of worship of the old Greek gods and hundreds of ancient Greek monuments and art pieces?

No, preservation obviously. Offcourse when it comes to more recent contributions by invaders, i think referendums are the way to go, people must decide. Fuck me if i ever let a Hitler's statue or an Ottoman mosque in my city.

Napísal Al Fappino, 19.04.2016 at 15:54

I do understand you hate Churchill because of the Indian Famines, but he deserves to be honoured, but current leaders statues are meh

are you kidding right now? Churchil was one of the most corrupted, evil faggots our miserbale species ever gave birth to.

Napísal Khal.eesi, 19.04.2016 at 16:16

You mean just like how CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM pillaged, raped, buttfucked and destroyed every temple and place of worship of the old Greek gods and hundreds of ancient Greek monuments and art pieces?

No, preservation obviously. Offcourse when it comes to more recent contributions by invaders, i think referendums are the way to go, people must decide. Fuck me if i ever let a Hitler's statue or an Ottoman mosque in my city.

agree

Napísal Khal.eesi, 19.04.2016 at 16:20

Napísal Al Fappino, 19.04.2016 at 15:54

I do understand you hate Churchill because of the Indian Famines, but he deserves to be honoured, but current leaders statues are meh

are you kidding right now? Churchil was one of the most corrupted, evil faggots our miserbale species ever gave birth to.

Still saved Britain.

Napísal Al Fappino, 19.04.2016 at 16:21

Napísal Khal.eesi, 19.04.2016 at 16:20

Napísal Al Fappino, 19.04.2016 at 15:54

I do understand you hate Churchill because of the Indian Famines, but he deserves to be honoured, but current leaders statues are meh

are you kidding right now? Churchil was one of the most corrupted, evil faggots our miserbale species ever gave birth to.

Still saved Britain.

Because Britain is all that counts right? -.-
A bit like Americans nowadays. Their country is the only country that matters.
Britain was getting raped, would have continued getting raped and turned into German pets if not for Hitler being foolish enough to break the Non-Aggression Treaty with Russia, opening up a second front Germany could never hope to win.
The RAF-Royal Air Force was more the RAFR-Royal Air Force Remnants.

Also, Britain gave India independence not because of 'democracy' and 'equality' and all that, but because after World War 2 they were bankrupt and not in the mood for fighting another war, halfway around the world, against a country of 800 million people.

The British committed a hell of a lot of war crimes too. But history is written by the victors. Don't assume that Churchill and 'Glorious Brittannia' are victims.

Napísal Khal.eesi, 19.04.2016 at 16:20

Napísal Al Fappino, 19.04.2016 at 15:54

I do understand you hate Churchill because of the Indian Famines, but he deserves to be honoured, but current leaders statues are meh

are you kidding right now? Churchil was one of the most corrupted, evil faggots our miserbale species ever gave birth to.

Couldn't have put it better

Napísal Khal.eesi, 19.04.2016 at 16:20

are you kidding right now? Churchil was one of the most corrupted, evil faggots our miserbale species ever gave birth to.

Thank you! The amount of people who idolize Churchill is absurd, he was an awful leader

The only positive contribution he made to society was his thoughts and observations on islam

Napísal Al Fappino, 19.04.2016 at 16:21

Still saved Britain.

Churchill is the one responsible for the collapse of the British Empire

Napísal Tirpitz406, 19.04.2016 at 16:12

The total eradication of all traces of the thousand year long prussian-german history in Prussia, pommerania and west silesia, was pretty shitty to say the least.

even in 1968 the Königsberg castle...



was destroyed to build this ugly piece of shit:



btw, friendly reminder for tito. this is solely the result of soviets and russians trying to claim land that they never owned as their own.

It was wrong to destroy Konigsberg landmarks. They should've tried to repair after the war, not build appartments.

Personally i like Soviet architecture, like that building, partly because it looks futuristic for me, partly because it is great value today after fall of communism and USSR, it wouldn't be special if USSR was still alive.

Van Gog became famous long after his death.

Napísal Khal.eesi, 19.04.2016 at 16:16

Fuck me if i ever let a Hitler's statue or an Ottoman mosque in my city.

Mosques are art, they can fit nicely in modern european architecture. Remember that Arabs were leading in art, science and trade in the Medieval Age.


This is mosque in Chechnya capital, Russia

Napísal Skanderbeg, 19.04.2016 at 13:53

My town (just as any other) have Statue of Lenin.

Voždovac doesn't have statue of Lenin

Don't build monuments in first place.

Not all listed/mentioned above are monuments!

Napísal Columna Durruti, 19.04.2016 at 22:21

Don't build monuments in first place.

Not all listed/mentioned above are monuments!

Why not building monuments?

That is part of the question; what is monument? Were pyramids built to be monuments? Or ancient MidEast temples like Temple of Baal and Solomone's Temple?

Bridges are important symbols in Islam for example, some old bridges are monuments today. They were not monuments in their days, just infrastructure to allow people to travel safer and reach destination faster.

Red Fort in India i believe was created for defence, it was a fort. Today it is a monument. So what is the formula to 'detect' a monument?

Napísal Croat, 19.04.2016 at 19:15

Napísal Skanderbeg, 19.04.2016 at 13:53

My town (just as any other) have Statue of Lenin.

Voždovac doesn't have statue of Lenin

Hey Croat... i say we destroy them all... and build an even older and more beautiful ones xaxaxa

Napísal Goblin, 20.04.2016 at 05:57

Napísal Croat, 19.04.2016 at 19:15

Napísal Skanderbeg, 19.04.2016 at 13:53

My town (just as any other) have Statue of Lenin.

Voždovac doesn't have statue of Lenin

Hey Croat... i say we destroy them all... and build an even older and more beautiful ones xaxaxa

You're gonna destroy a monument and build an older one in it's place? Makes sense.

Napísal Zephyrusu, 20.04.2016 at 07:00

You're gonna destroy a monument and build an older one in it's place? Makes sense.

You would understand the joke if you were from balkan...

When Serbs were shelling Dubrovnik (kings Landing ) ...one Serb said "we gona build an even older and more beautiful one"