NationStates Jolt Archive

Just the other day i read that some cities and towns in the Russian region of Siberia will put up again statues to Josef Stalin. Do you believe that this indicates something about the current state of mind of some sectors of Russian society? If you were a Russian citizen living in such places, would you oppose this action? Do you believe that it is perfectly fine for any nation to honour its past dictators? Do you believe that some day one will see statues of Hitler in cities of Germany? Or Pol-Pot´s name christening streets in Cambodja?

For all I care, they can hoist a statue of Ivan the Terrible. But I think that they are doing it more for nostalgia than anything. As bad as he was, Josef Stalin made tangible changes. He turned a backwards peasant society into a roaring industrial engine in just twenty years, faster than industrialization has ever happened. He forced millions off farms, forcibly settled nomads far and wide, and killed entire nations. But he made changes.
Of course, nothing changed after WWII. I think the Russians forget that part. They probably forget the murders, too. But in the state that Russia is in today, it's almost justifiable to see this nostalgia for the old ways.

Let's not forget that statues are expensive. The empty pedastal in the middle of the town square would have gotten to be an embarassment after a decade or so, and putting up a statue of, say, Groucho Marx would have been beyond the financial means of most Siberian towns. So, for purely aesthetic reasons, back up on his pedestal goes old Joe Stalin.

:p

Just the other day i read that some cities and towns in the Russian region of Siberia will put up again statues to Josef Stalin. Do you believe that this indicates something about the current state of mind of some sectors of Russian society? If you were a Russian citizen living in such places, would you oppose this action? Do you believe that it is perfectly fine for any nation to honour its past dictators? Do you believe that some day one will see statues of Hitler in cities of Germany? Or Pol-Pot´s name christening streets in Cambodja?Right. Don't try to compare Russia to Germany because A) Hitler lost the war and B) Stalin didn't. Putin is a former KGB agent, USSR nostalgic, and Stalin-wannabe. You won't find any people like that in power in Germany (except for in Bavaria).

Just the other day i read that some cities and towns in the Russian region of Siberia will put up again statues to Josef Stalin. Do you believe that this indicates something about the current state of mind of some sectors of Russian society? If you were a Russian citizen living in such places, would you oppose this action? Do you believe that it is perfectly fine for any nation to honour its past dictators? Do you believe that some day one will see statues of Hitler in cities of Germany? Or Pol-Pot´s name christening streets in Cambodja?
They are returning historical artwork to its original condition and placement … so?

They are returning historical artwork to its original condition and placement … so?
so it would be ok to return Hitler´s statueswhich were taken down from german pedestals back to their original places?

so it would be ok to return Hitler´s statueswhich were taken down from german pedestals back to their original places?
If thats what they wished ... I guess it is up to the people of germany to decide

I dont think it would be a smart choice but they have a right to display what they wish according to their morals and laws

so it would be ok to return Hitler´s statueswhich were taken down from german pedestals back to their original places?
Why not? It's just a statue.

When seeing people (who turned out to be hired thugs) "tear down" Saddam's statue, I couldn't help but feeling the whole thing was a joke. How lame can you get, to demolish history? It's no better than the Taliban blowing up Buddah statues in Afghanistan.

Why not? It's just a statue.

When seeing people (who turned out to be hired thugs) "tear down" Saddam's statue, I couldn't help but feeling the whole thing was a joke. How lame can you get, to demolish history? It's no better than the Taliban blowing up Buddah statues in Afghanistan.
Agreed … if they don’t want to display them they also have the right … but I would take a bit more care and remove them without damaging them for eternity

But is a statue just a statue? Isn´t is a symbol of public recognition of some historical figure´s work in favour of society?

But is a statue just a statue? Isn´t is a symbol of public recognition of some historical figure´s work in favour of society?
At the time it is created … sometimes

Now … maybe not it could just be town history.

But is a statue just a statue? Isn´t is a symbol of public recognition of some historical figure´s work in favour of society?
The symbol itself is not what is meaningful, it is what's behind the symbol that is. The person's life is, in your example. If I see a statue of Queen Elizabeth II towering overhead, I think of her, not it, unless I am only admiring the handiwork. She has more meaning for me than it. Simliarly, if I see a beautifully carved and ornamented Jesus in a church, it is the handiwork I admire; the symbol means little to me in terms of Christianity, although I understand it as a symbol of suffering and salvation.

But is a statue just a statue? Isn´t is a symbol of public recognition of some historical figure´s work in favour of society?

Not neccisarily. Don't they have George Bush statues? :p

The symbol itself is not what is meaningful, it is what's behind the symbol that is. The person's life is, in your example. If I see a statue of Queen Elizabeth II towering overhead, I think of her, not it, unless I am only admiring the handiwork. She has more meaning for me than it. Simliarly, if I see a beautifully carved and ornamented Jesus in a church, it is the handiwork I admire; the symbol means little to me in terms of Christianity, although I understand it as a symbol of suffering and salvation.
Yes, but what of statues of profoundly controversial figures? Should we allow public display of them because they are part of the nation´s hiosstory? Should a Russian or german citizen allow the display of Stalin or Hitler´s statues just because they are part of their counttries pasts?

Yes, but what of statues of profoundly controversial figures? Should we allow public display of them because they are part of the nation´s hiosstory? Should a Russian or german citizen allow the display of Stalin or Hitler´s statues just because they are part of their counttries pasts?
We should allow public display of anything that has significance for the people or community in which it is displayed. Some people may want to be reminded of the bad through a symbol, in a "lest we forget" sort of way (which is the meaning of the poppies distributed in Canada on Rememberance Day, in memorial of the horror of World War I and in honour of those who died there).

Why not? It's just a statue.

When seeing people (who turned out to be hired thugs) "tear down" Saddam's statue, I couldn't help but feeling the whole thing was a joke. How lame can you get, to demolish history? It's no better than the Taliban blowing up Buddah statues in Afghanistan.Are you comparing Buddha to Hitler or Stalin or Saddam? There's a difference between ripping down the statues of a hated leader and demolishing a historical landmark with artillery. And remember, Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam weren't history when they were being torn down. It happened during or shortly after their lifetimes.
Don't tell my you would want to keep the Wall up too, just for historical purposes. I was there and I was having FUN tearing the damn thing down, even though it was cold and I was only five.

But is a statue just a statue? Isn´t is a symbol of public recognition of some historical figure´s work in favour of society?

I agree. People get too upset about these symbols (like the Confederate flag in this country). A statue can't hurt you, nor can a flag. Let those who want to display them have the right to do so. And those who don't like them can laugh whenever a pigeon leaves his calling card on them. :p

Don't tell my you would want to keep the Wall up too, just for historical purposes. I was there and I was having FUN tearing the damn thing down, even though it was cold and I was only five.

Part of the Wall is on display in Portland, Maine. I thought it an interesting display, personally.

The symbol itself is not what is meaningful, it is what's behind the symbol that is.Isn't the fact that a symbol is meaningful what makes it a symbol and not an ordinary object? Would you think that they would have put up statues of giant pidgeons and still represent Stalin?
Symbols can be damn hurtful and don't necessarily have historical merit.

Are you comparing Buddha to Hitler or Stalin or Saddam?
No, I'm actually not. :)

When the Wall came down, pieces of it were sold all over the world, to collectors of history and people who wanted a solid reminder of what its demolition had stood for. In this case, the demolished thing was a more widely significant symbol than the erected thing.

History is not consigned to the past; it also unfolds in the present.

Part of the Wall is on display in Portland, Maine. I thought it an interesting display, personally.Exactly. Parts of it are on display here too, but there's only one short section that's still in the real place. We have some of it standing in the Allied Museum accross from the American Consulate in Berlin on the Clayallee. But most of it found it's ways into the basements of the "Wallpeckers". We have a line of metal plates and cobbles trace the original path, but that's it.
It would have the same meaning as if you broke the statue of a leader so that only the feet and pedestal remain.

Isn't the fact that a symbol is meaningful what makes it a symbol and not an ordinary object? Would you think that they would have put up statues of giant pidgeons and still represent Stalin?
Symbols can be damn hurtful and don't necessarily have historical merit.
I would say rather that the fact that a symbol represents (stands in place of) something meaningful is what separates it from an "ordinary object." The meaning of what it represents comes though the symbol, it is not the symbol itself.

They put up statues of doves to represent love and Christianity.

Symbols, like sticks and stones, can only hurt if you let them.

I agree. People get too upset about these symbols (like the Confederate flag in this country). A statue can't hurt you, nor can a flag. Let those who want to display them have the right to do so. And those who don't like them can laugh whenever a pigeon leaves his calling card on them. :pI don't know, do you think there are any statues of King George III in the US? :D

Symbols, like sticks and stones, can only hurt if you let them.If you've lived in or in a city surrounded by a dictatorship, you won't want any of those symbols around. Sticks or stones or not.
We have plenty of symbols of East German culture: the Trabbi (http://www.bics.be.schule.de/son/verkehr/augen/images/vtrabi01.jpg), Spreewaldgurken (http://www.ac-creteil.fr/allemand/goodbye/Lenin/gurke.jpg), the Sandmännchen (http://www.ard-infocenter.de/styles/container/image/hsb_style_images_default/0,1870,OID2140520,00.jpg), GDR T-shirts (http://www.shirt66.de/images/products/71308.jpg)...
What we don't need is any symbols of the jerks that brought us the Wall ("No one has the intention of building a wall." -W. Ulbricht, Secretary of the SED shortly before the building of the wall)

Yes, but what of statues of profoundly controversial figures? Should we allow public display of them because they are part of the nation´s hiosstory? Should a Russian or german citizen allow the display of Stalin or Hitler´s statues just because they are part of their counttries pasts?
Absolutely

Are people only allowed to express themselves in ways you find acceptable?

At least by my values but again like I said it all depends on their local laws regarding freedom of speech

Not neccisarily. Don't they have George Bush statues? :p
Not unless somebody made it themselves and put it in their yard or something. We don’t have a great many national monuments in this country, but the ones we so have are grandiose and representative of our greatest leaders and pioneers, such as the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, and Mt Rushmore.

Not unless somebody made it themselves and put it in their yard or something. We don’t have a great many national monuments in this country, but the ones we so have are grandiose and representative of our greatest leaders and pioneers, such as the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, and Mt Rushmore.
We have ALL kinds of city level statues though … they are monuments of sorts

We have ALL kinds of city level statues though … they are monuments of sorts
True, but none to George Bush, at least.

I don't know, do you think there are any statues of King George III in the US? :D

Not that I'm aware, but I certainly would have no objection should somebody care to erect one.

True, but none to George Bush, at least.

Not yet, anyway. ;)

Not that I'm aware, but I certainly would have no objection should somebody care to erect one.
Agreed … it is the citizens rights to decide what to display according to local and country laws

Not yet, anyway. ;)
*shudders*

Not that I'm aware, but I certainly would have no objection should somebody care to erect one.Think of it like putting up a statue of a rapist because he was a rapist and make sure his victims and any of his children have to walk by it. Then you'd come close to the emotional pressure of putting up a statue of Hitler or Stalin...