Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The erection & removal of British colonial monuments in Ireland

Options
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    brianthebard wrote: »

    I can't agree with any of this tbh, hiding history from public eyes if we remove monuments? How much do people learn from monuments? What do people know of Daniel O'Connell from his monument?
    The Daniel O'Connell statue on O'Connell street is a good example.
    - Tourist comes to Dublin, Sees nice statue, Takes nice photo. Goes home and googles Daniel O'connell and gets a snapshot of Irish history.

    In another world the Daniel O'Connell statue has been removed because a hypothetical Unionist got it removed/ blew it up...
    - Tourist comes to Dublin, Sees no statue but there is a spire!, Takes nice photo. Goes home and googles Dublin Spire and cant believe how much it cost.

    Im not trying to be a smartass, I believe this situation would show a reason why both the Daniel O'Connell statue and before it Nelsons Pilar for similar reasons should never be removed.


  • Options
    #153
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    The Daniel O'Connell statue on O'Connell street is a good example.
    - Tourist comes to Dublin, Sees nice statue, Takes nice photo. Goes home and googles Daniel O'connell and gets a snapshot of Irish history.

    In another world the Daniel O'Connell statue has been removed because a hypothetical Unionist got it removed/ blew it up...
    - Tourist comes to Dublin, Sees no statue but there is a spire!, Takes nice photo. Goes home and googles Dublin Spire and cant believe how much it cost.

    Im not trying to be a smartass, I believe this situation would show a reason why both the Daniel O'Connell statue and before it Nelsons Pilar for similar reasons should never be removed.

    You're having a laugh - right?


  • Options
    #154
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I understand clearly your point, I just don't fully agree with it.

    Surely the significance of a statue is not supposed to be in teaching us about 'actual history'. Rather it can be a means of bringing a subject that a viewer may not be aware of into their consciousness. This is just a suggestion but if this was the case then a statue/ symbol that we may not feel any relationship with has more potential to educate us.

    I think my point above (in previous post) is missed so ill put it more bluntly. Removal of colonial monuments is a small step along the path of trying to make history palatable to the majority only.

    And I repeat - monuments aren't about historiography. But I'm not going to continue this senseless circle you want to stay in.


  • Options
    #155
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    And I repeat - monuments aren't about historiography.
    Repeating your opinion does not make it fact, particularly if you cannot convincingly back it up. Did I not post this-
    Surely the significance of a statue is not supposed to be in teaching us about 'actual history'.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    But I'm not going to continue this senseless circle you want to stay in.
    I do not believe that my argument is 'senseless', I won't however be engaging in a slagging match about the validity (or sense)of your opinion in this way nor breaking down my posts more simply I did in my previous post (no. 152 detailing 1 specific rather than all-encompassing example to back up the side I have put forward).


  • Options
    #156
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Repeating your opinion does not make it fact, particularly if you cannot convincingly back it up.

    OK one more time. Monuments and statues are NOT considered to be original source material for the study of history. That's not opinion, that's just stating the methodology of how history is studied.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    il gatto
    Registered Users Posts: 3,021 ✭✭✭il gatto


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Surely that means there is no harm in pulling down the monuments in question since history doesn't change?




    I can't agree with any of this tbh, hiding history from public eyes if we remove monuments? How much do people learn from monuments? What do people know of Daniel O'Connell from his monument?

    The harm lies in removing the reminders.

    Feel free to disagree. Daniel O'Connell's monument's value is that it reminds us of that part of our history and that it is part of what we are. These day's people are all too quick to forget. Such monuments are often the trigger for people to investigate something they otherwise wouldn't. It's not about people who take an interest in history but the wider public who otherwise would often be almost oblivious to it.


  • Options
    #158
    il gatto
    Registered Users Posts: 3,021 ✭✭✭il gatto


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I think you are misunderstand the purpose and place of symbols in any society. And the power and purpose of symbols to influence. And it is symbols that we are taking about here - not anything else. As pointed out at length previously in this thread - history does NOT depend on these symbols, or else we would never have a reliable record. The removal - or changing - of the symbols of everyday life does not impact in ANY way the historical record, nor is it intended to.

    The initial placement of these symbols was to act as gestures to the 'greatness' of Empire and to surround our everyday lives with these representations of events that we were expected to relate to. Religions do the same thing. The Reformation saw the destruction of many unwanted religious symbols. What Protestant church wants a large statue of the Virgin Mary? Do you think they should have been left there as a gesture to 'history'? - few would agree with you.

    Therefore the removal - or changing- of these symbols indicates a shift in the prism of how we want to view our world, and what we want to relate to.

    This is not unique in any way to Ireland - or to any time.

    Disagree with me by all means, but don't presume to tell me that I "misunderstand" something because you don't share my view of it.
    Destruction of religous statues during the Reformation may have been commonplace, but many feel it's a great pity they were destroyed. We shouldn't repeat the mistakes of the past, especially something as devisive and bloody as much of what happened during or because of the Reformation.

    It is not up to view history through whatever prism we want. That is to skew facts. History should be read impatially. Adjusting it to sit more comfortably with our modern day sensibilities is something to be avoided.


  • Options
    #159
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    il gatto wrote: »
    Disagree with me by all means, but don't presume to tell me that I "misunderstand" something because you don't share my view of it.
    Destruction of religous statues during the Reformation may have been commonplace, but many feel it's a great pity they were destroyed. We shouldn't repeat the mistakes of the past, especially something as devisive and bloody as much of what happened during or because of the Reformation.

    It is not up to view history through whatever prism we want. That is to skew facts. History should be read impatially. Adjusting it to sit more comfortably with our modern day sensibilities is something to be avoided.


    I can only repeat what I wrote above - these symbols have NOTHING to do with history or how we view history. I was NOT referring to history. I was trying to explain - hopeless as it seems - that these symbols represent something else, and NOT historic study.

    As I said - the study of history is not done by studying monuments. Monuments and symbols are not considered to be original source material to the study of historiography. This is fact - not opinion.

    Now, I'm done with this circle of a discussion in what is being treated as opinion - and not an understanding of the methodology of historical research.


  • Options
    #160
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »

    Now, I'm done with this circle of a discussion in what is being treated as opinion - and not an understanding of the methodology of historical research.

    'Its my ball and Im bringing it home with me'

    You are entitled to your opinion but, you are not entitled to call your opinion fact (Im reminded of papal infallibility!). I could mock, patronise, wind up, etc but would prefer to stick to the subject being discussed.
    these symbols have NOTHING to do with history or how we view history

    We are all talking about historic symbols here...
    Whether they represent a time that we were all subjects to an occupying force and were constructed against our will or otherwise, to say they have "NOTHING to do with history " is to deny reality.
    Seriously- are you saying that a statue built to commemorate a great historical figure like O'Connell (to use previous example) has nothing to do with history?


  • Options
    #161
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    'Its my ball and Im bringing it home with me'

    You are entitled to your opinion but, you are not entitled to call your opinion fact (Im reminded of papal infallibility!). I could mock, patronise, wind up, etc but would prefer to stick to the subject being discussed.



    We are all talking about historic symbols here...
    Whether they represent a time that we were all subjects to an occupying force and were constructed against our will or otherwise, to say they have "NOTHING to do with history " is to deny reality.
    Seriously- are you saying that a statue built to commemorate a great historical figure like O'Connell (to use previous example) has nothing to do with history?

    No need to get personal and offensive. If you read my posts you will see quite clearly that I am talking about the study of history and the methodology used for that - trying to win a point by twisting things around, is just that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    In Ireland, you are more than likely to have a grotto or cross than anything else.

    That is how it seems to me.


  • Options
    #163
    il gatto
    Registered Users Posts: 3,021 ✭✭✭il gatto


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I can only repeat what I wrote above - these symbols have NOTHING to do with history or how we view history. I was NOT referring to history. I was trying to explain - hopeless as it seems - that these symbols represent something else, and NOT historic study.

    As I said - the study of history is not done by studying monuments. Monuments and symbols are not considered to be original source material to the study of historiography. This is fact - not opinion.

    Now, I'm done with this circle of a discussion in what is being treated as opinion - and not an understanding of the methodology of historical research.

    Write it in capitals. That'll make your point. I never said a monument was original source material. But they are a link with our past. You have a view and expressed it. Others disagree and you start telling them they "misunderstand" and what is "fact- not opinion". Of course it's opinion. History is all about fact and philosophising about "viewing history" through a "prism" of our own construct, is pure opinion. History is merely what happened in the past. We study and interpret to understand. That's it. We use all sorts of material including maps, photos, diaries, newspapers, official documents, buildings etc. Monuments have their own history (construction, stonemason etc.) and are reminders of events and people of note in our unabridged history. Not a source, a reminder, a symbol. You have a problem with this? You have said they are symbols and therefore of no historical value. Do you feel somehow personally agrieved by symbols of British power?
    Your exasperation at trying to hammer home your view is misplaced as I feel you are unlikely to convince people of your point as they find it as fundamentally flawed as you do their's.


  • Options
    #164
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    In Ireland, you are more than likely to have a grotto or cross than anything else.

    That is how it seems to me.

    You have something here - don't forget the rag trees! Most of them date back to at least the 1980s. Great historic source they are!


  • Options
    #165
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I can only repeat what I wrote above - these symbols have NOTHING to do with history or how we view history. I was NOT referring to history. I was trying to explain - hopeless as it seems - that these symbols represent something else, and NOT historic study.

    As I said - the study of history is not done by studying monuments. Monuments and symbols are not considered to be original source material to the study of historiography. This is fact - not opinion.

    Now, I'm done with this circle of a discussion in what is being treated as opinion - and not an understanding of the methodology of historical research.

    Of course these symbols have everything to do with history ! They are all about aggrandising or denigrating a point of view. The fact that that point of view may well be historically inaccurate is not really the issue but that at that place and time that view was held, That is most definitely history.
    So both the erection and the removal are history and symbols of changing values.

    the point made about the statue of O'Connell being used as and entry to further I agree is completely valid. I found in Confererate states of America , every small town had a statue of their local hero ,( much more of them than WW1 or WW2 ) from the civil war and I found it endlessly interesting and followed up on loads of them, but maybe only history buffs do that.


  • Options
    #166
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    marienbad wrote: »

    the point made about the statue of O'Connell being used as and entry to further I agree is completely valid. I found in Confererate states of America , every small town had a statue of their local hero ,( much more of them than WW1 or WW2 ) from the civil war and I found it endlessly interesting and followed up on loads of them, but maybe only history buffs do that.

    Actually the point about the Confederate states is exactly pertinent to what is being discussed here. I lived in a number of Confederate states for years and the issue of the Confederate flag being used is highly contentious and is banned in a number of places - because of the high symbolism of it.

    Also the erection of certain statues is a carefully monitored experience. Abolitionists are fine - but a statue of some of the 'slavers' would not be tolerated. Statues to the local KKK would be absolutely forbidden - yet they were a vibrant part of the southern experience up until the late twentieth century. Membership was in the millions. Notwithstanding the issue of how 'interesting' they might be for visitors KKK memorabilia or statuary is not on public display. It's all about the symbolism.


  • Options
    #167
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Actually the point about the Confederate states is exactly pertinent to what is being discussed here. I lived in a number of Confederate states for years and the issue of the Confederate flag being used is highly contentious and is banned in a number of places - because of the high symbolism of it.

    Also the erection of certain statues is a carefully monitored experience. Abolitionists are fine - but a statue of some of the 'slavers' would not be tolerated. Statues to the local KKK would be absolutely forbidden - yet they were a vibrant part of the southern experience up until the late twentieth century. Membership was in the millions. Notwithstanding the issue of how 'interesting' they might be for visitors KKK memorabilia or statuary is not on public display. It's all about the symbolism.

    Completely agree with you there, something similar will happen in South Africa I expect with Africaner/Boer monuments. But in the first flush of victory there can be appalling vandalism and the baby is thrown etc, for example , the aftermath of the French Revolution or the destruction of the monasteries under Henry and to a lesser extend the destruction of the great houses here in Ireland.


  • Options
    #168
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    marienbad wrote: »
    Completely agree with you there, something similar will happen in South Africa I expect with Africaner/Boer monuments. But in the first flush of victory there can be appalling vandalism and the baby is thrown etc, for example , the aftermath of the French Revolution or the destruction of the monasteries under Henry and to a lesser extend the destruction of the great houses here in Ireland.

    I have no problem with what you say either. I have been at pains to point out in my posts that I am talking about statuary and memorials erected to glorify certain British imperial events. Not houses. That is my understanding of what the title of the thread is about.

    I wonder how many actually read the article posted by the OP? I did.


  • Options
    #169
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    No need to get personal and offensive. If you read my posts you will see quite clearly that I am talking about the study of history and the methodology used for that - trying to win a point by twisting things around, is just that.

    I am trying not to do so as I have stated on occasion.

    Back to your post:
    Are you saying that a statue built to commemorate a great historical figure like O'Connell (to use previous example) has nothing to do with history?


  • Options
    #170
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I have no problem with what you say either. I have been at pains to point out in my posts that I am talking about statuary and memorials erected to glorify certain British imperial events. Not houses. That is my understanding of what the title of the thread is about.

    I wonder how many actually read the article posted by the OP? I did.


    As did I, but it is not too much of a stretch to include the broader canvas that is alluded to in the original article.


  • Options
    #171
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    il gatto wrote: »
    Write it in capitals. That'll make your point.
    No need for that.
    [...]
    Your exasperation at trying to hammer home your view is misplaced as I feel you are unlikely to convince people of your point as they find it as fundamentally flawed as you do their's.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I am trying not to do so as I have stated on occasion.

    Back to your post:
    Are you saying that a statue built to commemorate a great historical figure like O'Connell (to use previous example) has nothing to do with history?


    Both of you have missed Marchdub (and my) point almost completely. Statues/monuments are a feature of history but they are not history. They may symbolise a great deal but they are not history.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    marienbad wrote: »
    As did I, but it is not too much of a stretch to include the broader canvas that is alluded to in the original article.

    slippery slopes are not good historical debate. A monument and a house are two different things and that's not going to change.


  • Options
    #173
    il gatto
    Registered Users Posts: 3,021 ✭✭✭il gatto


    brianthebard wrote: »
    No need for that.






    Both of you have missed Marchdub (and my) point almost completely. Statues/monuments are a feature of history but they are not history. They may symbolise a great deal but they are not history.

    And there's no need to write in capitals, the written shout, and certainly no need to tell people they "misunderstand" an issue simply because you disagree with their stance on it, or that one has not "an understanding of the methodology of historical research".
    And again, your point isn't missed but the thread is about the rights and wrongs of removal of monuments, not whether or not they are a original source material. The point is moot as it is not being contended. Being original source material is not the only attribute required by something to be allowed exist, surely?


  • Options
    #174
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    brianthebard wrote: »
    No need for that.

    Both of you have missed Marchdub (and my) point almost completely. Statues/monuments are a feature of history but they are not history. They may symbolise a great deal but they are not history.

    With respect, the point that both you and marchdub feel that others are missing is not very complicated. As I and il Gatto have pointed out several times at this stage we are not missing the point of your arguement, we just dont agree with your view. It is frustrating when I disagree with a point to be told that I must'nt understand what they are saying. Perhaps the clearest illustration I can make of this would be if I replied to your posts and Marchdubs posts in the same manner, i.e. you don't agree with me because you don't understand what I am saying. :D

    Back to the subject>
    Statues are of course a feature of history, I agree with this as you state above. They are not History, I agree, as you state above. However to say that they have nothing to do with history as per Marchdub post no. 159 is not true (not in my opinion anyway).
    I think Marienbads post no. 165 is an illustration of what I tried to explain in post 152.

    As I said already the removal of colonial monuments is a small step along the path of trying to make history palatable to the majority only.


  • Options
    #175
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    I am always greatly amused when I pass the O'Connell monument in O'Connell street.

    There is a perfectly round bullet hole on a bewb of one of figures at the base.Its fairly we centered.

    It captures a moment perfectly. I would protest if their were plans to repair it.


  • Options
    #176
    bernardo mac
    Registered Users Posts: 903 ✭✭✭bernardo mac


    Interesting discussion on monuments of our colonial past.At present our economy and that of many "sovereign" nations is subject to the. health,whims and self interest of multi-national corporations and banks


  • Options
    #177
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    brianthebard wrote: »
    No need for that.






    Both of you have missed Marchdub (and my) point almost completely. Statues/monuments are a feature of history but they are not history. They may symbolise a great deal but they are not history.

    They will just continue to miss the point. Because the point apparently is that they make another unrelated point and cannot or will not understand the methodology of historic study.


    I just hope that none of them is writing a history dissertation.:D


  • Options
    #178
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    bernardo mac wrote: »
    Interesting discussion on monuments of our colonial past.At present our economy and that of many "sovereign" nations is subject to the. health,whims and self interest of multi-national corporations and banks

    A lot of people misunderstand sovereignty within the context of a free market economy.

    If you replaced banks with peoples savings or pensioners pensions it is more to the poiint.

    There is a period of history around the Anglo-Irish Economic war and we were discussing the issues and how they evolved.

    A bigger dilution of sovereignty occured when we joined the Euro -than did with recent events.

    We now live in a country that depends on foreign investment and employment to survive which is very different to the agrarian economy of 1922.


    Anyway, back on topic -anyone remember the GPO repair controversy

    1916 row explodes as An Post claims 'there are no bullet holes in GPO wall'
    Sunday August 28 2005
    JEROME REILLY
    FOR nearly 100 years they have come from all over the world to stand and stare at the bullet holes that scar the GPO.

    And even yesterday tourists were trying to focus their digital cameras to photograph those potent symbols of the Irish nation's violent birth.

    But now it looks as though every tourist guide, history website and all those bar-stool republicans who pontificate about the 1916 Rising are wrong.

    Those perfectly round holes that pockmark the columns of the Rising Headquarters may not be bullet holes at all. It is the first time that doubt has been cast on the veracity of what has been accepted as solid fact for most of the last century.

    Every schoolchild was taught that the marks left by bullets fired by the hated British oppressor as they stamped out rebellion were still visible.

    Along with St Patrick driving out snakes, the bullet holes at the GPO was an irrefutable truth.

    But a simple enquiry sparked by recent scaffolding erected around the Francis Johnston designed building brought an astonishing claim.

    Asked if the "bullet holes" were going to be filled by workmen during restoration work the An Post spokeswoman said the holes were not caused by bullets.

    And An Post's Anna McHugh presented a convincing argument which has found support from one of Dublin's leading historians.

    Now the Office of Public Works (OPW), which controls the GPO, is promising further investigations.

    An Post confirmed that the work at the GPO being conducted by Public Works staff was merely a gentle cleaning.

    "Anyway, it has always been understood in An Post that they were not bullet holes. Remember, the GPO was effectively destroyed in 1916 and was then rebuilt - not re-opening until 1929.

    The cause of the holes may not be bullets


    "Since then there's been climate changes, acid rain, pollution damage and simple weather erosion. There has been substantial renovation and rebuilding work on a number of occasions since 1929. The biggest renovation took place in the Seventies.

    "During that renovation it was discovered that the three statues on top of the GPO, Hibernia, representing Ireland, Mercury (the Messenger) and Fidelity were very badly damaged indeed. In fact no discernible features were evident they were so badly eroded."

    Ms McHugh said there was bullet damage visible on those statues, but they had to be rebuilt and a mould taken from them before they were put back in place in the Seventies.

    During the 1916 Rising the GPO was just half its current size

    But what it represents is more important

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/1916-row-explodes-as-an-post-claims-there-are-no-bullet-holes-in-gpo-wall-471695.html


  • Options
    #179
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    il gatto wrote: »
    And there's no need to write in capitals, the written shout, and certainly no need to tell people they "misunderstand" an issue simply because you disagree with their stance on it, or that one has not "an understanding of the methodology of historical research".

    Well then either act the bigger man/woman or report a post you have a problem with.


    And again, your point isn't missed but the thread is about the rights and wrongs of removal of monuments, not whether or not they are a original source material. The point is moot as it is not being contended. Being original source material is not the only attribute required by something to be allowed exist, surely?

    but you have contended it several times, saying that removal of a statue amounts to revisionism. It cannot be revisionism because the statue is not part of the historiography and therefore as you have also said yourself its removal does not change history.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    With respect, the point that both you and marchdub feel that others are missing is not very complicated. As I and il Gatto have pointed out several times at this stage we are not missing the point of your arguement, we just dont agree with your view. It is frustrating when I disagree with a point to be told that I must'nt understand what they are saying. Perhaps the clearest illustration I can make of this would be if I replied to your posts and Marchdubs posts in the same manner, i.e. you don't agree with me because you don't understand what I am saying. :D

    I don't expect you to agree with my point, and I don't particularly mind that you disagree with it. But history is a codified discipline and it is so for (some) good reasons.
    Back to the subject>
    Statues are of course a feature of history, I agree with this as you state above. They are not History, I agree, as you state above. However to say that they have nothing to do with history as per Marchdub post no. 159 is not true (not in my opinion anyway).
    I think Marienbads post no. 165 is an illustration of what I tried to explain in post 152.

    Marchdub has acknowledged several times that they are part of history, ie that they happened and that they existed within a specific sphere of events. However they are not historical material, and you have consistently been conflating the two even though you claim here to know they are different. if they are different then they need to be treated differently. Now again how you proceed from that point I don't particularly mind and if you disagree with marchdub or me then I don't mind either, but you must at least acknowledge this point.
    As I said already the removal of colonial monuments is a small step along the path of trying to make history palatable to the majority only.

    When has history ever been an all inclusive entity? When has history not been intended to be palatable to the majority first? if you think the above is a valid argument for or against the removal of monuments then I earnestly suggest you start reading up on theories of history and historiography.


  • Options
    #180
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    brianthebard wrote: »
    slippery slopes are not good historical debate. A monument and a house are two different things and that's not going to change.


    Not really a slippery slope in a broader context. I accept what you are saying generally re history and historical sources , but forgive for saying so but are you not being just a little bit pedantic.

    The statue (or house or a flag I take it) are a feature of history and may symbolise history but are not history ? Is that not hair-splitting ?

    Saddam like some latter day Ozymandias shoving up statues all over the place was a symbol of his power I grant you that , but that he could do so was a historical fact. Its removal was one of the most potent symbols of the conflict but also illustrated the historical change of power and the manner of its removal was alot more than symbolic. Similiarly with communist statues in the former east bloc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    brianthebard wrote: »

    Marchdub has acknowledged several times that they are part of history, ie that they happened and that they existed within a specific sphere of events.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    ...these symbols have NOTHING to do with history or how we view history....
    <self-explanatory I think.


    brianthebard wrote: »
    I don't expect you to agree with my point, and I don't particularly mind that you disagree with it. But history is a codified discipline and it is so for (some) good reasons.

    Marchdub has acknowledged several times that they are part of history, ie that they happened and that they existed within a specific sphere of events. However they are not historical material, and you have consistently been conflating the two even though you claim here to know they are different. if they are different then they need to be treated differently. Now again how you proceed from that point I don't particularly mind and if you disagree with marchdub or me then I don't mind either, but you must at least acknowledge this point.
    .

    If this is what you think I don't 'get' then I am happy to acknowledge clearly the difference as I see it. A statue is clearly not actual historical material. Perhaps you are not understanding that the point I have consistently made is that if we remove statues we are removing the links to historical fact (not removing the historical fact).
    If we remove all links to historical facts do you not feel that we would end up actually with no knowledge of the fact in question?
    When has history ever been an all inclusive entity? When has history not been intended to be palatable to the majority first? if you think the above is a valid argument for or against the removal of monuments then I earnestly suggest you start reading up on theories of history and historiography.
    Your 'suggestion' is patronising. I think perhaps this may be the root of the problem that we are having here. Much of your post indicates that you have not actually read the posts you responded to. I hope I am wrong with that but can predict your response already, i.e. I don't understand etc, etc. Perhaps I am wrong and my requested acknowledgement as given above will clear up my opinion?


Advertisement